BTW, we trust the #EPICENTERville #quake won't dissuade anyone from visiting for the 4th of July. We guarantee no earthquakes that day!
— Douglas @JeepCruzer (@JeepCruzer) June 12, 2014
via Twitter http://ift.tt/16WSGs8
Showing posts with label OpEd. Show all posts
Showing posts with label OpEd. Show all posts
Thursday, June 12, 2014
June 12, 2014 at 09:30AM
via Twitter http://ift.tt/16WSGs8
June 12, 2014 at 09:26AM
Detailed wrap-up on the #EPICENTERville #quake from The Survey - complete with science words! http://t.co/5TrDctQAim
— Douglas @JeepCruzer (@JeepCruzer) June 12, 2014
via Twitter http://ift.tt/16WSGs8
Wednesday, June 11, 2014
June 11, 2014 at 11:54PM
RT @UtahEmergency: OK, good night, all. Let the gently rocking earth soothe you to sleep. #utquake #Centervilleearthquake #epicenterville
— Douglas @JeepCruzer (@JeepCruzer) June 12, 2014
via Twitter http://ift.tt/16WSGs8
June 11, 2014 at 11:27PM
RT @cpdutah: No damages observed so far by officers. See related story; http://t.co/eUyeSeP58p
— Douglas @JeepCruzer (@JeepCruzer) June 12, 2014
via Twitter http://ift.tt/16WSGs8
June 11, 2014 at 11:13PM
RT @cpdutah: CPD officers are conducting a "rapid damage assessment" of city for precautionary purposes.
— Douglas @JeepCruzer (@JeepCruzer) June 12, 2014
via Twitter http://ift.tt/16WSGs8
June 11, 2014 at 10:56PM
RT @cpdutah: According to the USGS we just had a 3.3 earthquake centered very near Centerville. No reports of damage
— Douglas @JeepCruzer (@JeepCruzer) June 12, 2014
via Twitter http://ift.tt/16WSGs8
Wednesday, June 04, 2014
June 04, 2014 at 10:52AM
...we also won't leave anyone behind. [3 of 3]
— Douglas @JeepCruzer (@JeepCruzer) June 4, 2014
via Twitter http://ift.tt/16WSGs8
June 04, 2014 at 10:52AM
...contact customer service to voice your concerns and find a resolution. We don't want anyone inconvenienced, but... [2 of 3]
— Douglas @JeepCruzer (@JeepCruzer) June 4, 2014
via Twitter http://ift.tt/16WSGs8
Wednesday, May 21, 2014
Wednesday, May 07, 2014
Giving Lyft A Lift
I'm a commercial driver. I went through training and licensing to be able to transport people. I think that anyone who makes a commercial enterprise of transporting people
should be subject that licensing. That said, I route for companies like Lyft and Uber who innovate new ways to provide services that people want.In Salt Lake City, +Lyft is just taking root and it's also taking heat just as it, and other ride share programs, have taken in other cities. My opinion, in summary, is this: If the establishment is upset by your arrival, your probably on the right track. Taxi companies should be nervous about new competition and need to be dynamic in a 21st century market place. New companies, however, need to play by the rules. If there are ordinances about transporting people, you need to be in compliance. Complying with the regulations is good for your image and your bottom line. If you're operating as a pirate, your image will constantly be under scrutiny. You'll always be the outsider operating in the shadows and capturing the necessary mind share to put your business on top will not happen.
Sunday, December 08, 2013
Why not wear pants every week?
If you wanna wear pants to church, wear pants. What you wear at church matters not if you are giving your attention to Christ. When you "organize an event" in order to "draw attention" to an issue, you are fundamentally opposed to the purpose of attending worship services. Why not wear pants every week? Wear whatever you feel demonstrates to God your devotion to him.
I have learned that changing perceptions, prejudices or opinions is seldom accomplished by demonstrations and events, but by years of living an example of your standards. If your standards are worthy, the populace will change with you.
http://pantstochurch.com/
I have learned that changing perceptions, prejudices or opinions is seldom accomplished by demonstrations and events, but by years of living an example of your standards. If your standards are worthy, the populace will change with you.
http://pantstochurch.com/
Sunday, January 06, 2013
Even If You Don't Ride It, You Use It.
[Updated 1/8/13]
I have been a supporter of passenger rail in Utah for many years. I have been a passive supporter of public transit in general for just as long, but now, as an employee of UTA (Utah Transit Authority) I am a BIG supporter. For a few days now I have been thinking in depth about a tweet I saw from a friend who was commenting on someone else's twitter post:
The core of my feeling about public transit in general is that there is value in it, even if you, yourself, do not use it. I also feel that it is not a travel solution for everyone. I do not believe we should expect everyone to ride it and vice versa. Nor do I feel that the purpose of public transits existence is to be the sole travel solution for everyone.
There are those for whom rail is not more time consuming or more expensive. We could go back to using buses and express routes as we did before commuter rail existed, but we did not move a fraction of the passengers we move with rail. I do not know the cost of trains or of passenger cars, but I do know that the Gillig buses we see most commonly on the city streets cost roughly $0.4 million and $0.5 million each and burn fuel at around 4 MPG. The concept of rial travel in general is that it is more fuel efficient to move more people at once in one vehicle than to move many smaller vehicles. Also, we need to consider that transit, while utilizing public funds, is still a business. How many people (especially in the culture of the Wasatch Front) never considered using buses but quickly adopted the appeal of riding the train?
Each taxpayer contributes to public transit whether we ride it or not. But we each benefit from it's existence and sustenance on taxes regardless of weather we ride it. If you run a business, your employees may ride transit. As a business operator, you may not want your staff to commute in cars and therefore deal with the logistics of employee vehicles. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints encourages it's employees to take transit downtown to alleviate traffic and parking issues. The Church is one of the biggest contributors to ridership. SkyWest provides similar options to its staff. The company (at one point anyway) would allow team members working downtown to chose between a parking pass or a transit pass. How many of us benefit from not having those vehicles in rush hour traffic or clogging up downtown streets? The same is true for the University of Utah, Westminster and Salt Lake Community colleges. Students, faculty and support staff in around their campuses are encouraged to take transit. We may be paying part of the cost for those people to ride transit, but remember, those people (or their employers) are also contributing to the cost and we all benefit from the use of public transit.
Can we find ways to reduce the public's contribution to transit? I think so. And I think we should. It is my understanding we already pay fewer taxes to public transit that almost anywhere and have a model system (that municipalities across the country come to study.) Even so, I want to keep as much of my own money as I can. The less I give to governments at all levels, the more I have to effect my community. That said, there are indeed worthy and necessary expenditures in transportation and infrastructure and public transit is one.
[UPDATE 1/8/13]
Ben Horsley clarified his views about rail and public transit in two twitter posts earlier this week:
I have been a supporter of passenger rail in Utah for many years. I have been a passive supporter of public transit in general for just as long, but now, as an employee of UTA (Utah Transit Authority) I am a BIG supporter. For a few days now I have been thinking in depth about a tweet I saw from a friend who was commenting on someone else's twitter post:
83% subsidized for operating costs MT @mwbowler: I just rode FrontRunner to Salt Lake & back. What an obscene waste of taxpayer $$. #utpolThe original tweet:
— Ben Horsley (@BenBHorsley) December 29, 2012
I just rode FrontRunner to Salt Lake & back. What an obscene waste of taxpayer money. Cost 50% more and 2x longer than driving. #boondoggleThat night I sent a quick response with my feelings to see what the authors thought. My initial reaction was that yes, taxpayers subsidize public transit, specifically in this case, commuter rail, but that subsidizing rail doesn't necessarily mean waste:
— mwbowler (@mwbowler) December 29, 2012
We would pay taxes to increase road capacity & infrastructure w/o rail.Not perfect, but obscene waste? @mwbowler @benbhorsley #frontrunnerThe original author stood fast to his opinion in his response to me:
— Douglas T (@JeepCruzer) December 29, 2012
@jeepcruzer @benbhorsley Or buy more buses. No additional infrastructure needed. 3 train cars every hour ain't changing anything.I was enjoying the exchange of thoughts and I wanted to respond with my counter argument, but the futility of trying to compress my thoughts into twitter posts made me give up on that idea. So I decided to try to flesh out my opinions in long form here on the blog.
— mwbowler (@mwbowler) December 30, 2012
The core of my feeling about public transit in general is that there is value in it, even if you, yourself, do not use it. I also feel that it is not a travel solution for everyone. I do not believe we should expect everyone to ride it and vice versa. Nor do I feel that the purpose of public transits existence is to be the sole travel solution for everyone.
There are those for whom rail is not more time consuming or more expensive. We could go back to using buses and express routes as we did before commuter rail existed, but we did not move a fraction of the passengers we move with rail. I do not know the cost of trains or of passenger cars, but I do know that the Gillig buses we see most commonly on the city streets cost roughly $0.4 million and $0.5 million each and burn fuel at around 4 MPG. The concept of rial travel in general is that it is more fuel efficient to move more people at once in one vehicle than to move many smaller vehicles. Also, we need to consider that transit, while utilizing public funds, is still a business. How many people (especially in the culture of the Wasatch Front) never considered using buses but quickly adopted the appeal of riding the train?
Each taxpayer contributes to public transit whether we ride it or not. But we each benefit from it's existence and sustenance on taxes regardless of weather we ride it. If you run a business, your employees may ride transit. As a business operator, you may not want your staff to commute in cars and therefore deal with the logistics of employee vehicles. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints encourages it's employees to take transit downtown to alleviate traffic and parking issues. The Church is one of the biggest contributors to ridership. SkyWest provides similar options to its staff. The company (at one point anyway) would allow team members working downtown to chose between a parking pass or a transit pass. How many of us benefit from not having those vehicles in rush hour traffic or clogging up downtown streets? The same is true for the University of Utah, Westminster and Salt Lake Community colleges. Students, faculty and support staff in around their campuses are encouraged to take transit. We may be paying part of the cost for those people to ride transit, but remember, those people (or their employers) are also contributing to the cost and we all benefit from the use of public transit.
Can we find ways to reduce the public's contribution to transit? I think so. And I think we should. It is my understanding we already pay fewer taxes to public transit that almost anywhere and have a model system (that municipalities across the country come to study.) Even so, I want to keep as much of my own money as I can. The less I give to governments at all levels, the more I have to effect my community. That said, there are indeed worthy and necessary expenditures in transportation and infrastructure and public transit is one.
[UPDATE 1/8/13]
Ben Horsley clarified his views about rail and public transit in two twitter posts earlier this week:
@jeepcruzer @mwbowler for the record… I support more public transit in the form of cost efficient buses.
— Ben Horsley (@BenBHorsley) January 7, 2013
@jeepcruzer @mwbowler and if it is already subsidized that much, mine as well make it free so it get used even more.
— Ben Horsley (@BenBHorsley) January 7, 2013
Friday, October 12, 2012
Charity VS Redistribution
By my observation, The difference between Conservatives and Progressives can be seen perhaps most clearly by observing the way those schools of thought work with people in need.
The progressive mind set seems to be that the government should be the entity that cares for the needy. The government becomes an organization that is essentially "hired" by the citizens to manage care for the homeless, disabled, hungry, etc. The People "pay" this organization with their tax dollars. Essentially this creates a paradigm where each person is forced to donate to charity, regardless of weather they agree with the dictates of that charity (or cause.) Citizens must pay taxes, and can not choose directly which causes their hired organization (the government) should support. The money of the American People is being taken redistributed.
Those in need are increasingly bound to return to the government to satisfy their needs. As such, those in office who give out tax payer money are in a position of incredible power and incumbency becomes job security in an election. "Why would I vote out the person who gives me taxpayer money for shelter and food?"
The conservative path revolves around an individuals moral duty to support the downtrodden. So much of our income is taken in taxes. Suppose you could keep, even 5% of those taxes and use it to help others. Consider using that money to help someone too proud to ask for help, or apply for public welfare. Imagine how motivated they might be to make good use of the charitable gift to assure they didn't need that help again.
Although I advocate being able to keep and control as much of my money as possible, my mind races with the possibilities of even being able to direct to a charity a portion of my taxes rather than giving the money to the government for them to condescendingly decide who should get my money. If I could send part of my taxes to various charities, I could see many worthy organizations doing amazing things with funds they struggle for so much. And that is a ghost of what could be accomplished if each citizen could keep their taxes and serve their neighbors directly.
My point is illustrated by evaluating the charitable giving (as reported in tax filings) by presidential and Vice Presidential candidates:
The progressive mind set seems to be that the government should be the entity that cares for the needy. The government becomes an organization that is essentially "hired" by the citizens to manage care for the homeless, disabled, hungry, etc. The People "pay" this organization with their tax dollars. Essentially this creates a paradigm where each person is forced to donate to charity, regardless of weather they agree with the dictates of that charity (or cause.) Citizens must pay taxes, and can not choose directly which causes their hired organization (the government) should support. The money of the American People is being taken redistributed.
Those in need are increasingly bound to return to the government to satisfy their needs. As such, those in office who give out tax payer money are in a position of incredible power and incumbency becomes job security in an election. "Why would I vote out the person who gives me taxpayer money for shelter and food?"
The conservative path revolves around an individuals moral duty to support the downtrodden. So much of our income is taken in taxes. Suppose you could keep, even 5% of those taxes and use it to help others. Consider using that money to help someone too proud to ask for help, or apply for public welfare. Imagine how motivated they might be to make good use of the charitable gift to assure they didn't need that help again.
Although I advocate being able to keep and control as much of my money as possible, my mind races with the possibilities of even being able to direct to a charity a portion of my taxes rather than giving the money to the government for them to condescendingly decide who should get my money. If I could send part of my taxes to various charities, I could see many worthy organizations doing amazing things with funds they struggle for so much. And that is a ghost of what could be accomplished if each citizen could keep their taxes and serve their neighbors directly.
My point is illustrated by evaluating the charitable giving (as reported in tax filings) by presidential and Vice Presidential candidates:
In 2011 Mitt Romney gave over $4 million to charity, almost 19% of his income. For comparison, Obama gave 1% and Joe Biden gave $300 or ..0013%.So many conservatives devote much of their income to charitable giving despite the fact that great amounts of their income is being taken in taxes and redistributed. I believe Americans - by and large - are incredibly charitable individuals by nature. The path to truly serving the needy in United States is to let America's already charitable citizens keep more of their money and allow them to give even more. Directly, locally, compassionately.
Sunday, July 22, 2012
RT @zpower: in the cake and cookie worlds, I believe that red velvet consistently oversells and underdelivers.
6:49 PM July 22nd via TweetDeck
-----------------------------------------------------------
RT @eEditor: People ask why I follow liberals on Twitter. The amount of hate, insecurity and intolerance most of them spew solidifies my ...
6:48 PM July 22nd via TweetDeck
-----------------------------------------------------------
# of wildfires started by homeowner fireworks displays = 0 RT @fox13now Fireworks sales down this year: http://t.co/4iaBIOEs
6:42 PM July 22nd via TweetDeck
-----------------------------------------------------------
I tweeted about this earlier but: Aurora victim @JessicaRedfield's mother... is asking everyone to tweet #ripjessica so her name can trend
12:34 AM July 22nd via TweetDeck
-----------------------------------------------------------
RT @stacyreeves: I never cease to be amazed at how quickly opportunistic people can turn a tragedy into a political agenda. @Deanofcomedy
12:28 AM July 22nd via TweetDeck
6:49 PM July 22nd via TweetDeck
-----------------------------------------------------------
RT @eEditor: People ask why I follow liberals on Twitter. The amount of hate, insecurity and intolerance most of them spew solidifies my ...
6:48 PM July 22nd via TweetDeck
-----------------------------------------------------------
# of wildfires started by homeowner fireworks displays = 0 RT @fox13now Fireworks sales down this year: http://t.co/4iaBIOEs
6:42 PM July 22nd via TweetDeck
-----------------------------------------------------------
I tweeted about this earlier but: Aurora victim @JessicaRedfield's mother... is asking everyone to tweet #ripjessica so her name can trend
12:34 AM July 22nd via TweetDeck
-----------------------------------------------------------
RT @stacyreeves: I never cease to be amazed at how quickly opportunistic people can turn a tragedy into a political agenda. @Deanofcomedy
12:28 AM July 22nd via TweetDeck
Monday, May 07, 2012
RT @gopTODD: Reading Hatch's 1995 editorial on term limits wherein he states that he will be 78 years old in 2012 and NOT running for re ...
10:17 PM May 7th via TweetDeck
-----------------------------------------------------------
RT @michaelkreagan 'Avengers' blows out all-time B.O. record with $200 million opening. Variety http://t.co/VMqRqHoO
12:53 PM May 7th via TweetDeck
-----------------------------------------------------------
RT @CameronMVM: Another great letter to the editor: Hatch supported term limits http://t.co/DrdHWvvs #utpol #ItsTime
12:31 PM May 7th via web
-----------------------------------------------------------
Last chance for @orrinhatch to save face and debate. @danforutah @deseretnews A Question You Should Say Yes To http://t.co/h67H4mtB
12:09 PM May 7th via bitly
-----------------------------------------------------------
Why can't someone make one with bluetooth sync, or better, WiFi? RT @verge Turn your iPhone into a glucose meter. http://t.co/ALgIkY1O
8:08 AM May 7th via TweetDeck
A Question You Should Say Yes To
This looks like Orrin Hatch's (@orrinhatch) last chance to gracefully agree on a debate with challenger Dan Liljenquist (@DanForUtah.) It seems to me the editorial staff at the Deseret News (@deseretnews) is going easy on the incumbent considering they easily could have criticized Hatch for avoiding the debate, not only on grounds of transparency and ethics, but over his double standard. (Hatch criticized President Obama for not engaging in enough debates against John McCain in 2008.)
Liljenquist has accepted a Deseret News/KSL TV invitation to a debate and I think that unless Hatch want's to either a) loose face for refusing a debate or b) loose face over finally capitulating to a debate, he should accept this offer and let his campaign work on setting terms rather than letting Liljenquist continue to call him out.
I really need to stop giving suggestions to the opposing candidate.
Sources
Thursday, May 03, 2012
My Case For A New Senator
Dan Liljenquist's campaign made a website outlining some points from Orrin Hatch's record that I have considered when deciding that Utah needed a new senator. Dan honestly wasn't my first choice for his replacement, but I am convinced he is the better man for the position.
In my mind Orrin Hatch may be the quintessential Republican insider. I think there have been instances where Hatch has hidden behind the party rather than take a stand for my values. I feel like he has used his position to assert himself in private industry, attend soirees and mingle with hip hop artists rather than actually tackling issues such as repairing the Social Security infrastructure, (which now pays out more money than it takes in) paying similar attention to medicare and tackling entitlement programs. I feel that in almost 36 years a senator ought to be able to point to some accomplishments in those arenas rather than promise that he will, this time, fix them if his is AGAIN elected.
Hatch's argument that clout carries enough weight to negate any other issue in the balance is manipulative. Being "In line" for the senate finance committee chair means very little to me when I see his influence as a committee member has yielded so little. We still have an omnibus bill, a "shovel ready" stimulus package, "cash for clunkers" and no effect on de-funding obamacare. Liljenquist made an excellent point in his convention speech regarding the "clout" issue:
Liljenquist attacked Hatch on his campaign pitch that if re-elected he would become chairman of the Finance Committee. Hatch, he said, made the same arguments in 2000 and 2006.At the core of my argument for a change in the senate is my belief that senators should have term limits. I can't think of an elected office that should not come with term limits as a matter of fact. I'm not working under any illusions that Dan Liljenquist is going to be magically impervious to the "beltway" syndrome. I hope he holds out longer than most. It does seem clear to me that frequent change would give at lest new life to senate offices and reduce the "re-election" mindset that prevents politicians from standing on principal rather than angle for popularity.
Sen. Mike Crapo, R-Idaho, can get that position if Hatch isn't reelected, Liljenquist said, noting Crapo is a BYU graduate and true conservative.
Liljenquist called Hatch's claim that Hill would close without him offensive.
"No one senator is too big to fail. No one senator is too big to lose," he said.
http://www.ksl.com/?sid=20087870&nid=960
Even if Mr. Liljenquist is an ideal senator, I will still be among those asking for a change in the future. Maybe not in six years, but certainly in twelve.
http://www.bringhatchhome.com/
http://www.danforutah.com/
Monday, April 09, 2012
Zoopraxiscope
Monday, March 05, 2012
RT @zpower: do I trust the FCC to have a closed-door meeting with verizon then make a decision on spectrum allocation that's in the publ ...
6:10 PM March 5th via TweetDeck
-----------------------------------------------------------
Why is @OrrinHatch using his ads to tell us how he WILL fix budget, repeal obama care instead of trumping what he HAS done? #retirehatch
10:32 AM March 5th via TweetDeck
6:10 PM March 5th via TweetDeck
-----------------------------------------------------------
Why is @OrrinHatch using his ads to tell us how he WILL fix budget, repeal obama care instead of trumping what he HAS done? #retirehatch
10:32 AM March 5th via TweetDeck
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)