Pete Ashdown Campaign Collaboration Wiki - User contributions [en]

Talk:Drugs

2006-07-23T20:02:15Z

Dilvie:

How about your stance on medical marijuana? Someone mentioned it in IRC. [[User:Andrevan|Andrevan]] 15:30, 5 May 2006 (MDT)
:Pete, I'm curious about this, too. I recently made a blog post on this topic. You can find it [http://www.dilvie.com/reality/2006/07/its-time-for-utah-to-take-stand-on.html here]. [[User:Dilvie|Dilvie]] 14:02, 23 July 2006 (MDT)

== Fast-track for mirror-image pseudoephedrine approval ... ==
I don't understand the last paragraph. I'm not even sure how to parse the sentence. Is "mirror-image pseudophedrine approval" the object? If so, what does it mean? (I'm sure I could look this up, but then I would still want it clarified in the article, and probably wouldn't feel comfortable doing that for you.) --[[User:Wthrower|Wthrower]] 20:12, 18 July 2006 (MDT)
:I've rephrased the last sentence. Let me know how that works.--[[User:Pashdown|pashdown]] 09:34, 19 July 2006 (MDT)
::Yes, that definitely eliminates the ambiguity that I found confusing. Thanks. --[[User:Wthrower|Wthrower]] 15:14, 19 July 2006 (MDT)

Talk:Energy

2006-03-29T23:52:13Z

Dilvie: /* General Policy Questions */

Utah is already producing clean electricity with wind power for less money than other states are spending on Nuclear power.

Biodiesel fuel can be produced quickly with fast-growing algae (some of which is more than 50% oil), fed by waste water -- cleaning the environment as it grows to replace our fossil fuel dependencies, using a tiny fraction of the land that would be required from soybean oil production.

Diesel-electric hybrids running on biodiesel could take advantage of much of our current fossil fuel infrastructure, provide increased fuel efficiency (100% or more increase over traditional vehicles), and we won't have to wait for bleeding edge technologies to be adopted. Biodiesel fuel doesn't require special engines -- traditional diesel engines can burn biodiesel fuel.

We have viable solutions to our energy crisis. All we need are some champions to get behind them and encourage their adoption.

[[User:Dilvie|Dilvie]] 21:38, 14 September 2005 (MDT)

A comprehensive energy policy needs to address multiple issues, which may not share the same solution.

== Nuclear Energy ==

Nuclear energy addresses, at least in part, the need for a long-term approach to renewable energy. That will be a very important component in a good energy policy. A comprehensive policy also needs to address some shorter-term needs: --[[User:garyt|garyt]]
:Nuclear energy is a bit too political. The proposed storage site for nuclear waste is still (mostly) collecting dust, 25 years into the debate. It's also more expensive than wind energy. Again, wind in Utah is producing energy more affordably than nuclear in other states. -- [[User:Dilvie|Dilvie]] 18:03, 20 September 2005 (MDT)
::The problem with wind, and many other "green" sources, is that they don't produce enough power. A complete solution to our energy problems will require multiple sources. You are certainly correct that nuclear power is very political, but that's exactly why we need to start seriously discussing it now, because we will need it as part of a total enery solution package, and it is going to take a long time to obtain any sort of consensus.--[[User:Swillden|Swillden]] 08:31, 4 January 2006 (MST)
:::They don't produce much power primarily because we have invested too little in them. Green energy is abundantly available, and there are a lot of very smart people working out better ways for us to harness it. We need to pay more attention to them. You're right that no single source is going to replace our reliance on fossil fuels, but we don't have to rely on any single source. There are several very promising options to choose from, and we need to invest in them more heavily. Utah is commited to a nuclear-free policy, and, thus far, it appears to be working for us. [[User:Dilvie|Dilvie]] 05:18, 7 January 2006 (MST)
:Nuclear energy is something that has been demonised by association with the atomic bombs of WWII and Chernobyl. To me, having summed up the record of nuclear power production in the West, it appears safe, clean and economically far more viable than renewable energy at present. --[[User:Beachy|Beachy]] 08:43, 4 January 2006 (MST)
::This seems to be the popular consensus, in some circles, but I haven't seen enough evidence to convince me. Most of the people making these arguments seem to be unaware of recent advancements in renewable energy. Please cite recent studies that make mention of some of the recent applications of renewable energy, for comparison. Utah has a pretty good wind program going that is doing fairly well, producing clean energy for less than other states spend on nuclear. Right now, we're still producing less expensive energy using other means (coal and hydroelectric), but progress is being made, and there are plans to expand the wind program more. Many Utah residents voluntarily pay a little bit more for energy produced from wind power. Similar initiatives might help renewable energy catch on in other states. [[User:Dilvie|Dilvie]] 05:13, 7 January 2006 (MST)

==BioDiesel==

Immediate dependence on oil for transportation. This needs to be addressed much sooner than ten years, and it's possible to do, at least in part, immediately and using existing infrastructure and vehicles. Biodiesel can be used as a direct replacement for petroleum diesel fuel in existing, unmodified engines. Ethanol can also be used in many gas engines, though there may be limitations either due to engine design or due to conditions in specific locations and climates. --[[User:garyt|garyt]]
:Biodiesel, although good for agriculture, worries me because I've heard that it takes more energy to produce than what it offers. Also, biodiesel plants are supposedly terrible polluters. This is ''unconfirmed'' by me and I'd be interested in information showing otherwise.--[[User:Pashdown|pashdown]] 16:26, September 19, 2005 (MDT)
::One of the better papers I've seen on the subject is at [http://www.agecon.uga.edu/~caed/biodieselrpt.pdf http://www.agecon.uga.edu/~caed/biodieselrpt.pdf]. There's also some good data at the EPA web site on biodiesel emissions, which in most categories are lower than petroleum diesel: [http://www.epa.gov/otaq/models/biodsl.htm http://www.epa.gov/otaq/models/biodsl.htm]. I haven't seen any reports on pollution from biodiesel plants, though. --[[User:garyt|garyt]] 10:55, September 20, 2005 (MDT)
::According to the University of New Hampshire <[http://www.unh.edu/p2/biodiesel/article_alge.html http://www.unh.edu/p2/biodiesel/article_alge.html]>, algae biodiesel has a 5:1 - 10:1 efficiency ratio. There is controversial research that shows soybean biodiesel efficiency at 3:1. Soybean is far less efficient in terms of required expense and landmass. -- [[User:Dilvie|Dilvie]] 18:03, 20 September 2005 (MDT)
::Another technology that looks interesting is waste-to-oil. There is a bit of information at [http://tinyurl.com/dzmej http://tinyurl.com/dzmej] and [http://www.res-energy.com/ http://www.res-energy.com/], and apparently there's a running plant in Missouri. The information is pretty sparse at the moment, though. --[[User:garyt|garyt]] 15:22 September 21, 2005 (MDT)
:::Speaking of waste-to-oil, I found this text on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biodiesel#endnote_www.greenfuelonline.com.816 Wikipedia's biodiesel article] "...independent results have shown that [http://www.greenfuelonline.com/emissions_to_biofuels.htm GreenFuel Technologies], a Cambridge, MA company founded by Isaac Berzin, has been successful in producing biodiesel growing algae on flue gas emissions from power plant smokestacks. Using a patented algae bioreactor, GreenFuel utilizes microalgae and a process of photomodulation to reduce emissions: 40 percent less carbon dioxide and 86 percent less nitrous oxide. This oil-rich algae can then be extracted from the system and processed into biodiesel, and the dried remainder further reprocessed to create ethanol. The company is testing their method at the MIT cogeneration facility and at an undisclosed 1000-megawatt power facility in the southwestern U.S." [[User:Dilvie|Dilvie]] 21:17, 28 March 2006 (MST)
:::That UNH algae study is stunning. Especially the cost of doing it domestically vs. the cost of importing oil (not to mention the foreign policy issues).--[[User:Pashdown|pashdown]] 15:47, September 21, 2005 (MDT)
::::Please, if you do anything in running for office at least GET THIS PAPER PUBLICIZED - it's been making the circuits in geek circles since it was publishd, but noone on high seems to have noticed it, and continue to dismiss agricultural biodiesel. As of now, biodiesel has been approached either as a limited-scale geek conservation plaything(waste vegetable oil), or as impossibly low yield pork (soybeans). It isn't as easy as the cost estimates in the paper say it is (they use the Salton Sea, a doomed temporary body of water in SoCal), but it's entirely doable, on less than the budget we spend to blow up brown people on the other side of the world for economic or personal political reasons. The energy shortage associated with peak oil is going to hit sometime in the next 30-40 years (some are saying right now), and it's going to hit HARD - the prices you see now are just competition because we can't drill/refine it as fast as we can burn it.
::Another study at Argonne National Labs [http://www.ncga.com/public_policy/PDF/03_28_05ArgonneNatlLabEthanolStudy.pdf (PDF)] finds that ethanol production is energy positive, on the order of 35% (not counting, of course, the free solar energy absorbed by the plants). USDA numbers from 2004 (mentioned in [http://tinyurl.com/dkbby this article]) suggest up to 67%. --[[User:garyt|garyt]] 15:07 September 22, 2005 (MDT)

== Fusion ==
==== ITER in France ====
Your position on fusion is a smart one. Lots of smart people think ITER is going to work. We could have had it in the U.S. if we'd been willing to invest in it. Of course, Bush wasn't even trying to bring it here, he wanted to send it to Japan, a country with a long history of "ripping off" the more pure research done in the U.S. [[User:Nyarlathotep|Nyarlathotep]] 18:48, 1 December 2005 (MST)

== Oil Shale ==

Great editorial in the Denver Post on the viability of oil shale.[http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_3313756]

:Pete, I take it that you think that oil shale is not a viable option. Personally, I don't know enough about the subject to make a comment. However, the editorial made me hungry when Randy Udall and Steve Andrews mentioned Captain Crunch cereal (yummy). Back to the point, not only doesn't the oil shale option seem viable, do we really want the environmental interference of extracting the oil from shale here in Utah? We already have nuclear waste that we don't use.--[[User:Anhhung18901|Anhhung18901]] 22:11, 19 December 2005 (MST)

== Renewable ==

is the Enviromission concept of Solar Towers. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_Tower]

These could be built anywhere with open area, and can be used as greenhouses as well as power generators.

[[User:Chadlupkes|Chadlupkes]] 17:55, 19 December 2005 (MST)

= Conservation =

Conservation, at least in the sense of improving fuel efficiency in vehicles, is an important medium-range goal. In the longer term, we would probably prefer vehicles that don't depend on internal combustion technology at all, but until such vehicles are ready for market, there is certainly room for improvement in existing technologies. --[[User:garyt|garyt]]
:Room for improvement definitely. However, I don't see why fuel-cell technology is "wait and see" at this point. [http://world.honda.com/news/2005/4050629.html Honda has a car that is in use right now.] Local business, [http://www.ceramatec.com/techareas/techa_fuel.php Ceramatec] not only develops fuel-cell technology, but high-temperature electrolysis gear too. I want a fuel-cell on everything from my cell-phone to my car. What is holding us back?--[[User:Pashdown|pashdown]] 16:26, September 19, 2005 (MDT)
::The concerns I hear most often about fuel cells are safe hydrogen storage, energy cost of producing the hydrogen, and lack of refueling infrastructure. Even if we had good answers to all of those things, though, I'd still guess that it would take ten years before the majority of cars on the road were using fuel cells: there are people who replace their cars every three years, but there's a huge segment of the population that is still driving cars from the late 80's and early 90's today, because they're paid for, and they're expensive to replace. --[[User:garyt|garyt]] 10:55, September 20, 2005 (MDT)
:::Cheap electricity translates to cheap hydrogen. Electrolysis is only expensive because the electricity to produce it is. If we have methods for producing cheap electricity, then the refueling infrastructure can be implemented anywhere. [http://www.llnl.gov/str/June03/Aceves.html Lawrence Livermore has a storage system] which by appearances is safer than a gasoline tank. We need to stop thinking of hydrogen as a fuel but rather as energy storage. A fuel cell lasts longer and is more efficient than a battery. Making our energy distribution as mainly electric rather than mainly tanker truck/ship will lower prices. It will also enable remote areas like the Goshute Reservation to go into energy production rather than waste storage.--[[User:Pashdown|pashdown]] 11:30, September 20, 2005 (MDT)
::The UNH page about biodiesel gives a few of the downsides. At this point hydrogen cars are comparable in inferior in performance, mileage/bulk, etc to electric cars. The heavy, somewhat dangerous wet cell is replaced by heavy and bulky somewhat dangerous pressure tanks. While things like carbon fiber can help somewhat with the weight, hydrogen itself just isn't terribly energy-dense - and compression always wastes tons of energy as heat. The catalysts are impossibly expensive, hydrogen leaks out of just about EVERYTHING - including welded steel, distribution isn't in place, performance characteristics are... lacking. And most important of all, the actual thing we're lacking, ENERGY, is not in place. That's the shortage - not fuel oil.
:::The UNH page is about biodiesel, but you go on to talk about hydrogen. They are two very different things. [[User:Dilvie|Dilvie]] 11:20, 17 March 2006 (MST)

:Conservation also remains important in the long term. Replacing incandescent bulbs with more efficient technologies is a good example. I'd love to see something like LED-based lighting become affordable enough to be an economically viable replacement.

= General Policy Questions =

''Moved from [[Talk:Economy]]''

Some baseline questions:

* Are you familiar with columnist Thomas Friedman's views on [http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2005/04/07/friedman/index_np.html making America energy-independent]? Which parts of his proposal do you like and which do you dislike?

* Given the choice between running the economy on oil and running it on nuclear power, which would you prefer?

* Would you support legislation that would increase the cost of gasoline by $.50/gallon, with that money going toward financing alternative energy research?

* A big honkin' ($12.3 billion) energy bill just made it through Congress. What do you see as its' most noticeable features, and do you think it was good legislation?

* Should we raise fuel economy standards?

* Are there ways to harness the powers of the Almighty Internet to help save energy? If so, does the government have a role in promoting such technology?

* Why does every discussion about energy policy assume that an automobile culture is an inevitable and necessary part of human existance?
::Perhaps because it would be very expensive, difficult, and time consuming to make much progress on this front. [[User:Dilvie|Dilvie]] 16:52, 29 March 2006 (MST)

2005-12-28T10:59:13Z

Dilvie: /* NC may have been 1000th but Utah was first. */

This is not a popular position in this state.--[[User:Jdjonsson|Jdjonsson]] 20:14, 1 December 2005 (MST)

== NC may have been 1000th but Utah was first. ==

I agree that this is not a popular position in Utah, but we should ask ourselves what the death penalty is giving us. I submit that it is a natural tendency to want to extract vengence, but our system is not fool proof. If the standard for guilt is beyond a reasonable doubt, then put someone away. The problem is when reasonable doubt leads to a future test showing that person was innocent. Of all the people on death row, how many are innocent of the crime? WHo gets to make that call with absolute certainty.

I submit that it is far cheaper to keep people locked up than put them to death. In my mind, we have other issues such as the revolving door that is parole. My theory is that the term of your sentence assumes good behavior. If you screw up inside, then time starts getting added to your sentence. There should be no such thing as early release (nor mandatory minimum sentences). I suspect if people realized they would have to serve no less than their sentence, that would serve as more of a deterrent for crime. Then again, for the number of prisions we would have to build, I hope no one minds paying more taxes for it.

:If we work on drug policy reform, we can reduce the harm that drug abuse causes, and reduce prison use at the same time, so swelling prisons doesn't have to be a deterrant to death penalty reform. [[User:Dilvie|Dilvie]] 03:59, 28 December 2005 (MST)

Talk:Abortion

2005-12-28T10:49:06Z

Dilvie: /* Abortion in Utah */

The foster care system in this country is completely out of whack. Children go from orphanages, or abusive families into awful foster care situations. Ending abortion isn't a matter of making it illegal, it is a matter of creating a world where no little girl ever need feel lost. It's easy for us to blame the people involved in the abortion but the responsibility is on the shoulders of us all. Generally the people most vocal about abortion issues are Christians, but if Christians were living up to the message they are preaching, they would be doing everything they could to make this world a better place. It's not for the government to solve all of our problems or answer every moral question, it is for us as members of a responsible society to create safety nets outside of the government that help all the lost little girls in the world, preferrably before they end up in the arms of someone who won't take care of their baby with them. We don't need to return to a world of coat hangers and back alley abortions.

== Abortion in Utah ==

I wrote this position statement during my last house campaign. It is a pragmatic perspective, which discusses measures to reduce abortion that have a real chance of working, without getting into morality or prohibition:
----
Abortion and unplanned pregnancy

Teen pregnancy in Utah is a relatively small problem when you compare our numbers to other states, and, according to Family Planning Perspectives, Volume 29, No. 3, May/June 1997, Utah has the lowest abortion rate in the US (at least, we did in 1992). Despite these facts, abortion is an especially heated topic in Utah, and nobody is immune to the social problems caused by unplanned pregnancies, especially amongst teenagers.
Some facts about abortion in Utah

* Teenagers are more than twice as likely to abort a pregnancy than women between the ages of 20 and 44.
* Data indicates that "one of the strongest predictors for early sexual initiation is school failure," according to the Report on Adolescent Pregnancy in Utah, students failing in junior high or middle school are at risk.
* Teen pregnancy rates are also higher in lower income and minority groups.
* Under current state law, unmarried teens (under 18 years of age) must have permission in writing before receiving information about, or services from, a state-funded family planning agency. A change in this law might yield a drop in teen pregnancy rates (along with abortions) in Utah.
* Despite the law, Utah teens are more likely to use family planning services than in the past. The rate of teen pregnancy has declined 35% between 1980 and 1997.
* Nationwide, 71% of unintended pregnancies in 1987 occurred among teens who were not using contraceptives.
* Contrary to popular belief, abortion was a significant problem prior to Roe vs. Wade. Abortion did not spring suddenly out of thin air when state laws banning abortion were over-turned. In fact, abortion related maternity deaths declined after the ruling.

Pregnant teens are more likely to:

* Have maternity expenses paid for by your tax dollars.
* Drop out of school.
* Earn lower incomes.
* Rely on social services later in life.

While I am morally opposed to abortion, it is my policy to take a long hard look at what works and what doesn't in order to solve social problems.

It seems clear to me that teens are going to continue to have sex outside of marriage, regardless of the laws.

I believe that the heart of the matter is that if there were fewer unplanned pregnancies, there would be fewer abortions.

According to the reports, abortion rates are highly correlated to income levels, performance in school, the availability of family planning services, and a variety of other factors that we can address. A plan to reduce abortion rates should not concentrate exclusively on banning abortion. A comprehensive, bipartisan plan to fight unplanned pregnancy can work, and should be pursued.

* [http://www.agi-usa.org/pubs/journals/2911597.html Teenage Abortion and Pregnancy Statistics by State], 1992, Family Planning Perspectives, Volume 29, No. 3, May/June 1997
* [http://health.utah.gov/rhp/pdf/1997report.pdf Report on Adolescent Pregnancy in Utah], Utah Department of Health
* [http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,595068263,00.html Overhaul new abortion law] - Deseret News, illustrating some of the problems associated with legislation.

[[User:Dilvie|Dilvie]] 03:49, 28 December 2005 (MST)

Talk:Abortion

2005-12-28T10:48:44Z

Dilvie:

Talk:Main Page

2005-12-28T10:35:34Z

Dilvie: Removed spam.

Talk:To Do List

2005-12-24T00:38:29Z

Dilvie:

"Compile precinct information for all Utah cities (including NCEC data ESPECIALLY)"

What is NCEC data?
----------------------------------
http://www.ncec.org/
National Committee for an Effective Congress

== What sort of maps do you need? ==

I have experience with mapping, GIS, and spatial data. I haven't done much work with political data before, but I am interested in volunteering in any way I can. If somebody could let me know some specific maps/data that you need, I'll see what I can get for you.

[[User:Giggity|Giggity]] 13:21, 10 November 2005 (MST)
:Political maps with precinct boundries and precinct affiliation. We want to know where canvassing will make the most impact.--[[User:Pashdown|pashdown]] 14:03, 20 November 2005 (MST)

== Collect us a list of all Utah residential phone numbers minus "do not call" ==

The "Do not call" registry does not apply to political organizations.
[http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/alerts/dncalrt.htm#Exceptions FTC Do Not Call Registry Exceptions]

I know phone registries on CD can be purchased from Qwest, for $100-$150 per area. [http://directorysource.dexonline.com/SplashPagePrices.PDF QWest Price List (search for Utah)]

Does anyone know where we could get a less expensive list? (Besides a stack of phone books!)

--[[User:Jenica|Jenica]] 08:11, 20 November 2005 (MST)
:After I posted this request, I debated whether a list like this should be used or not. I rank all unsolicited phone calls in the same group as spam and junk mail. Using a recorded call has been advocated to me, but is absolutely out of the question. So short of calling everyone in Utah, what are other ways we can get the word out?--[[User:Pashdown|pashdown]] 14:01, 20 November 2005 (MST)

::Maybe google ads? Door to door flyers? Maybe door hangars that give them some openers and direct people to the website. --[[User:Jenica|Jenica]] 20:03, 20 November 2005 (MST)

::Setting up a grassroots phone tree might be a good option. Examples: party leaders to the precinct level for regional contact plans, and organization leaders to specific grassroots activists on the issue based campaign outreach plan. [[User:161.181.53.10|161.181.53.10]] 11:18, 14 December 2005 (MST)

== Property Owners ==

I'm down; where's the signup list? [[User:Dilvie|Dilvie]] 17:38, 23 December 2005 (MST)

Talk:Main Page

2005-12-24T00:33:04Z

Dilvie:

Some interesting information and a good link showed up at Phil Windley's site this morning:
http://www.windley.com/archives/2005/11/rasiej_campaign.shtml
http://micah.sifry.com/archives/2005_11.html

How does this relate to what you're doing here?
--[[User:12.160.33.128|12.160.33.128]] 15:35, 2 November 2005 (MST)
:I think the Rasiej campaign indicates a number of issues to be addressed in my campaign. Number one is the fact that right now the Internet is a poor driver for political action in itself. Unless you have the "hand-up" of organizations with large membership or some good national press attention, the Internet alone will not win elections. In my opinion, it is a tool that can be utilized for better organizing and also for the collection of ideas, but not the end-all-be-all in political action.--[[User:Pashdown|pashdown]] 16:57, 7 November 2005 (MST)
::I agree absolutely, and I think that's true of any type of marketing campaign. You don't want to be in just one place, you want to be everywhere you can be. [[User:Dilvie|Dilvie]] 17:33, 23 December 2005 (MST)

== Spammers ==

Thanks to all who helped revert the wikispam. I've added a [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/SpamBlacklist_extension SpamBlacklist extension] which I hope will help alleviate the problem.

More spam this morning. I've made additional modifications to the blacklist and the Wikimedia software itself. If anyone sees a problem, please [mailto:pashdown@xmission.com email me].--[[User:Pashdown|pashdown]] 11:03, 14 December 2005 (MST)

== suggested issues ==

* [[Veterans]]
* [[Seniors]]
* Gay & Lesbian
* [[Emergency Contraception]]
* [[Government Corruption]]
* [[Land managment]] (related to Water, but includes grazing rights & other rural issues)

== Policy Issues and Themes ==

Ok, I will add it here.

Laundry lists of progressive issues are common to campaigns. And they are needed. But while canvassing, I have found that they leave little with the voter that is memorable.

So, I would suggest developing a few memorable themes. Such as:

Strong Families
*[[Abortion]]
*[[Seniors]]
*[[Veterans]]
*[[Health Care]]
*[[Sexual Orientation]]

Strong Communities
*[[Water Issues]]
*[[Education]]
*[[Guns]]
*[[Prison Reform]], [[Capital Punishment]]

Strong Nation
*[[Economy]], [[Energy]], [[Taxation]], [[Transportation]]
*[[Technology]], [[Stem Cell Research]], [[Patriot Act]]
*[[Campaign Finance]], [[Ethics and Corruption]], [[Lobbyists]]
*[[National Security]], [[Iraq]], [[Torture]]
*[[Immigration]], [[Trade]]

Then tie your laundry list of positions on individual issues to these three themes. Beat the opposition about the head and shoulders with these three themes. Show how their policies hurt these three themes. Show how your policies advance these three themes.

Dave Fischer
(drdave@dataimages.com)

I tried to arange things into your categories, with some sub-theming by line.. might have missed some.. and some should be moved out of nation. It would also be a nice idea to have pages clearly delineating where you differ from the classical democratic stance, as this can be used to help define the message you give to conservatives.

== Information technology ==

I'm not seeing a special section on this, which is odd. Am I missing something?.

The RIAA's [http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20051130-5650.html lawsuits] are quite despicable and threaten many families all over the nation. As such lawsuits vaguely resemble a SLAPP, one can possibly talk about them in parallel with talking about other SLAPPS that Utahns might have to fear. But I don't know enought about the legal tensions around water & land use in Utah to make any specific suggestions. [[User:80.5.160.19|80.5.160.19]] 20:31, 1 December 2005 (MST)

== Great idea ==
Let me be one of the first to congratulate you on your innovative idea of using a wiki. You are ahead of our times - but that's what I'd expect from people running for such an important position. Good luck with your campaign! --[[User:Piotrus|Piotrus]] 19:48, 8 December 2005 (MST)

== Spam ==

Wow, we're getting a LOT of spam from various and random IP addresses. It almost looks like someone has a bot going to put this stuff on the site, and it's hitting other mediawiki sites as well. Let's hope it's a phase, but if you see any of this on our pages, please just delete it, or let us know. [[User:Chadlupkes|Chadlupkes]] 09:31, 14 December 2005 (MST)
:Spammers use bots to attack wikis, blogs, and forums all the time. It's difficult to create an interactive website without becoming a target of spam. The best countermeasures are technological, but if I see any spam, I'll be sure to revert it. [[User:Dilvie|Dilvie]] 17:33, 23 December 2005 (MST)

User talk:Brett

2005-12-23T13:09:12Z

Dilvie:

Hi Brett,

What are the responsibilities of the field directors?

[[User:Dilvie|Dilvie]] 06:09, 23 December 2005 (MST)

Advertising

2005-12-23T13:05:41Z

2005-10-13T18:42:33Z

Talk:Taxation

2005-09-15T04:12:04Z

Dilvie: /* Merging state with federal */

A flat tax is regressive -- progressive taxation (taxation based on one's ability to pay) is the idea that gave birth to democracy in ancient Athens. A flat tax system ignores ability to pay, hurts the poor and middle class and favors the rich. That is why rich people are constantly pushing this crappy idea. Hatch and most GOPers would love your horrible postion on taxes.

== Progressive versus flat ==

Ask your standard GOP flat-taxer about eliminating deductions and exemptions with the flat tax and their argument will fall apart. None of them want to do that. That is why their "flat tax" favors the rich. It isn't really flat. The "true" flat tax hits dividends and corporate income regardless on how much they can spend on tax attorneys to fight it. If the rich paid their fair share, the rest of the population would pay a lot less. Frankly, simplification to the point I've described is the only way I can see of doing it.

Right now the progressive tax isn't progressive at all. As I stated in my position, exemptions and loopholes enable many to get away with no taxes at all. Is that good for the poor?

== Merging state with federal ==

I removed this addition that someone added:

''"In addition to the simplification outlined above; significant tax savings could be realized as there could be a consolidation of federal and state tax collection agencies."''

From a simplification standpoint, this sounds great, but I really doubt it would ever happen. It stomps all over states' rights. I'm not sure if it flies in the face of the constitution either.

:People in different states have different ideas about what their money should be used for. Those ideas should be respected, and state-level taxes are the only fair way to handle it. I might be in favor of all taxes being collected by the state, if we could be assured that local corruption wouldn't come into play. [[User:Dilvie|Dilvie]] 22:12, 14 September 2005 (MDT)

Talk:Politics

2005-09-15T04:07:37Z

Dilvie:

Talk:National Security

2005-09-15T03:56:26Z

Dilvie:

"Clean water wells and mosquito-net programs are small, inexpensive ways to help developing countries. Paint an American flag on both of them and children will grow up revering the United States rather than fearing it."

:Agreed. Our national defense should be centered on making friends, rather than initiating war with our enemies. [[User:Dilvie|Dilvie]] 21:56, 14 September 2005 (MDT)

Talk:Iraq

2005-09-15T03:53:55Z

Dilvie:

So your position on Iraq concerning what we do now is virtually identical to Hatch's?

:I don't think that's "virtually identical". As far as I know, Hatch supported the president's choice to go to war, and still does. [[User:Dilvie|Dilvie]] 21:53, 14 September 2005 (MDT)

== Hatch's position ==

Do you have a reference to that? I didn't realize that Hatch doesn't agree with the justifications and rationalizations for the war.

== Pete's position ==

I agree with your position on the war. The way we got into it sickens me, but now that we're there, we need to clean up the mess, and we need to supply Iraq with the tools they need to make that happen.

[[User:Dilvie|Dilvie]] 21:53, 14 September 2005 (MDT)

Talk:Immigration

2005-09-15T03:49:43Z

Dilvie:

== Tracking ==

I'm not convinced that tracking immigrants is so important, and I believe that the problem with immigration is not so much that people are immigrating, but the rate at which our society is able to absorb them. Rather than spending so much time, money, and energy trying to keep them out, shouldn't we focus on helping them find quality living situations and jobs?

Shouldn't we be doing everything we can to encourage quality living in their homelands, rather than hunt them down like dogs in the desert, only to send them back through the dangerous revolving door?

How much money would tracking cost? Don't you think that could be better spent on programs that have a real chance at solving some of the tough challenges that immigration presents?

The fact is, most immigrants are not terrorists and criminals. They're just people trying to find quality of life and feed their hungry families. Treating them like criminals is not a quality solution. [[User:Dilvie|Dilvie]] 21:49, 14 September 2005 (MDT)

Talk:Health Care

2005-09-15T03:42:33Z

Dilvie: /* Single Payer */

Talk:Energy

2005-09-15T03:38:20Z

Dilvie:

Talk:Education

2005-09-15T03:25:47Z

Dilvie:

== Input ==

I would like to see input from teachers, administrators, school board members, etc. -- people who currently deal with the problems of which you speak day in and day out. Input from recent highschool graduates or university students would be helpful too. Teachers know what they need, and I'm sure have some pretty good ideas of what would work. Also, I have heard you talking about making smaller, specialized schools -- similar to the way Europeans divide kids into different tracks in highschool?

:That would be great, but we would need to get the word out about the blog. Contact some tech-savvy educators and see if they'd be interested in contributing to the discussion. [[User:Dilvie|Dilvie]] 21:25, 14 September 2005 (MDT)

== The role of free learning resources ==

One way we could reduce the cost of education in America is through free access to textbooks and course materials. This could also relieve some of the disparity between affluent, and poverty-stricken Americans. Here are some interesting links on the topic:

*[http://ocw.mit.edu/index.html MIT OpenCourseware]
*[http://cnx.rice.edu/content/ Rice University Connexions]
*[http://www.publiclibraryofscience.com/ The Public Library of Science]
[[User:Dilvie|Dilvie]] 21:25, 14 September 2005 (MDT)

Talk:Economy

2005-09-15T03:11:58Z

Dilvie:

== Lacking solutions ==

This page isn't merely lacking solutions, it's lacking good coverage of the issues surrounding our economic problems. The links provided talk about energy solutions that other countries are adopting. That's a great start, but the energy crisis is only one aspect of our economy, and itself is so complex, that it really deserves its own "issue" treatment.

Here are some questions to get the creative juices flowing:

* Where do you stand on welfare?
* How can we improve the unemployment ratio?
* How can we best deal with economic disparities -- particularly in ghettos, and racially divided areas like the south?

[[User:Dilvie|Dilvie]] 21:11, 14 September 2005 (MDT)