Somehow my post came to his attention and Rep. Bishop felt that he was being unfairly maligned as his staff could find no record of my questions getting to their office. At some point (I suspect recently) Rep. Bishop discovered that they had received my questions and considered them important (or unique) enough to warrant an individual response instead of a stock answer. The questions were given to the congressman himself and then somehow they slipped through the cracks and been buried. When he discovered his mistake Rep. Bishop took it upon himself to track down my phone number (and it’s not an easy task to sort through the many David Miller’s out there) and offer his apologies and a personal response to my questions.

I was quite surprised when I received his call Wednesday evening and I appreciated very much the time he took to speak with me. His was not some simple two minute call to appologize and share his position on earmarks in answer to my questions. I stead he took the time to listen to my thoughts and enegage in a full conversation until I was satisfied that I was being heard. He did not even attempt to change my opinion on those points where we do not share a common perspective but I finished the phone call confident that we share the same overall goal on the subject of earmarks and that he understands the reasons I think earmarks should become a thing of the past.

Thank you Rep. Bishop. You deserve as public an acknowledgement as the criticism I offered before.

Now is the time to more actively campaign among my neighbors and let them get to know more about my political interests than could be displayed within the limitations of a caucus meeting. In addition to sharing reminders about the caucus meeting that would inform people about my intent to seek a state delegate position, I’m thinking about holding a small pre-caucus meeting where people in the neighborhood could come talk together about issues.

Anyone have any thoughts about such an idea?

I think this is especially disappointing to find such a lack of contribution in the middle of the legislative session—I could have at least commented on some bills such as the rainwater bill (which I favored) and the administrative subpoenas bill (which I opposed).

While I know that I am not able to maintain the daily posing schedule that I had previously expected I also know that my very thinking begins to atrophy if I give up posting altogether.

I have yet to find the proper balance but I am working on it and hope that I. will still have people interested in reading and responding to what I write by the time I find the proper balance.

I sincerely hope that I can offer thoughts that others will find valuable even as I scale back the time and energy available for that purpose. At the least, those who are paying close enough attention to wonder at my relative silence will have an explanation – and may know what to expect going forward.

Nearly three years ago I publicly wondered where I fit politically. Since then I have solidly concluded that the Republican party is the best fit for me, but now I have found a term for my general political view – I’m a Whole Foods Republican who Michael Petrilli describes as:

independent-minded voters who embrace a progressive lifestyle but not progressive politics. These highly-educated individuals appreciate diversity and would never tell racist or homophobic jokes; they like living in walkable urban environments; they believe in environmental stewardship, community service and a spirit of inclusion. And yes, many shop at Whole Foods . . .

What makes these voters potential Republicans is that, lifestyle choices aside, they view big government with great suspicion. There’s no law that someone who enjoys organic food, rides his bike to work, or wants a diverse school for his kids must also believe that the federal government should take over the health-care system or waste money on thousands of social programs with no evidence of effectiveness. Nor do highly educated people have to agree that a strong national defense is harmful to the cause of peace and international cooperation.

I appreciate diversity and would never tell racist or homophobic jokes (at least I hope not). I would love to live in a walkable community so long as I didn’t have to move from my current neighborhood (if I had to move for some reason I would look for a walkable community). I believe in environmental stewardship even if I oppose the overt political power grabbing of the environmental lobby. I believe in community service and in the need to be inclusive but I could not even identify the nearest Whole Foods location (at least, until I looked it up).

These are some of the very issues that caused me to ask that question and my positions have not changed even if I have found that I can make my political home within the Republican party (which is really what I was questioning back then).

The key is not simply that the Republican party needs to embrace the educated, somewhat progressive, Whole Foods Republicans – people who understand that a “progressive lifestyle” can be achieved without the ill-conceived ideas that are promoted as progressive politics – these Whole Foods Republicans, like myself, must embrace the Republican party and make it their political home because those who embrace the party are the ones who have the chance to shape the party.

If they show that they stand for what the party espouses the Whole Foods Republicans can rid the party of the military adventurism influence and the residual image of homophobia that hamper the implementation of the solid core values that have been a strength to this nation for centuries.

I will be interested to read what steps you believe one can take to insure personal independence in the event of an economic collapse.

Today I will attempt to specifically describe what we can and must do to ensure that we are not utterly dependent on society. As I said before, I am not advocating that people should become hermits or dissociate themselves from society – in fact I advocate the cultivation of connections within society. On the other hand, when push comes to shove I am ultimately responsible to provide the necessities of life for me and my family and it is up to me to make sure that I do not fail due to a failure by someone else.

Since feeling the challenge of accurately addressing Charles’ question I ran into a reference to the book How to Sew a Button: And Other Nifty Things Your Grandmother Knew. I think the title alone is descriptive of what I had in mind – being able to do for yourself or do without in as many things as possible. Basically, you should go through the following flowchart for everything you use and find a way to end up on the right side of the chart.

This gets down to some very basic things, like electricity and the foods you eat. If you are dependent on electricity you should be figuring out how much you need and looking for ways to produce it. For food production you need to have the skills and the resources necessary to produce a minimum supply for your needs

Thankfully you don’t have to be entirely alone. One of the things that you can do is cultivate a community of people you know who are willing to pool their skills and resources to produce their combined needs. For the most basic things you should find ways to produce, or actively contribute to the production of the things you are dependent on. For other things that you could live without but would prefer not to, it might be acceptable to be dependent on a member of your personal community to produce that particular thing, but you must be prepared to offer something of value in return for their production.

Because of the recent discussion here about Mike Lee’s stance on the Constitution and his call for a couple of amendments I thought it would be appropriate to share Mike’s post – Why I Focus on the Constitution. I figure it’s always best to let people speak for themselves so here is what I see as the heart of what he wrote:

We must analyze the country’s current challenges and Congress’s proposed solutions through the lens of the Constitution. With such a view, we can accurately determine if the proposed solution incorporates and supports the proper role of government. We must also hold our elected officials accountable to the solemn oaths they have taken to support and defend this document. . . With truly committed constitutional leaders at the helm, we can shift away from a perpetually growing government and the corresponding loss of personal liberty, and instead preserve our freedoms and enjoy the prosperity our great nation affords.

I recommend that anyone who wants to understand Mike and his position in more detail should go read his whole post before trying to engage me in the topic because I don’t claim to know any more about Mike’s position than what he wrote.

more often than not it seems the only choice we have in our candidates is a choice between horrible and horrible.

I wrote back saying:

That means that you need to get in earlier in the process – before there are only two candidates left – because I agree that neither hanging nor the firing squad sound very appealing. Of course it’s possible to have more than two candidates and still have nobody who does not look like either a gallows, a firing squad, or a lethal injection chamber. . . In such cases we have to work as voters to encourage better candidates to get in the race. Long term we even have the option to plan ahead and run for office ourselves if we consistently cannot get decent choices. (emphasis added)

My goal in politics is to help illuminate current issues with timeless principles so that I and other will be able to recognize and support (and become when necessary) the kind of high quality candidates that are required to put this country back on the solid footing that it once enjoyed.

As my wife can attest, I am absolutely serious about that last part. Having seen many candidates for important office that I felt were unable to act as the kind of legislator that I am looking for, I have had many discussions publicly and privately about running for various offices. Last night I was talking to my wife about this and I finally was able to state my political goals succinctly – my goal generally is to put myself in a position where I can run for any office where there is no acceptable candidate and my goal for any given race is to find a good candidate that I can support – using myself as the candidate of last resort.

I would consider myself extremely successful politically if I always found solid candidates to support and never felt the need to run myself – especially if the candidates I supported won in most cases. Despite that definition of success I am preparing so that if I ever find myself unable to identify a quality candidate I can and will step in and run an effective campaign with a better than average chance of winning. (Evidence of my preparing is that I already own a campaign domain that I can use anytime I find it necessary to run and as I have time available I am working on developing that site in advance so that all I have to do is develop some graphics and campaign/office specific material in order to launch an effective campaign.)

Overall it was a good parade except for the fact that the first entry was a band which was followed by the many fire engines blaring their horns. The parade organizers really should not place a band in front or behind the fire engines – save those slots for floats that are not displaying their musical skill.

Later in the evening as we were watching fireworks I got talking to my wife and mentioned that I found it somewhat ironic that many people celebrate their liberty and living in a free land by breaking the law – buying fireworks that are clearly illegal in our state. I know the arguments that some people will make that the state should not be regulating our fireworks as much as they do. I stand against the nanny-state as much as anyone else, but I believe in obeying the law even when you are actively trying to change it (so long as its possible to do both). Laura commented that in some ways it might be fitting that people wuld celebrate their freedom by exercising it in defiance of laws they don’t care for – I can see the logic of what she says.

First, some background. The race for chairman was between the incumbent, Wayne Holland, and Jeff Bell. Wayne’s website essentially advertised this message – “I’m the incumbent” – while Jeff’s advertised a message of “this is the direction the party needs to go and here is how I will make it happen.” The result:

the party delegates elected Holland with 87 percent of the vote.

When I saw the 87% figure I started to wonder – considering how much the state Republican party has been accused of being an insiders game – if the state Democratic party might be even more of an insiders game.

It’s something to ponder.

P.S. I’m going out of town for a week long road-trip of rest and relaxation, in case anyone would have wondered why I don’t post for the remainder of the week. I expect to be back to my regular schedule next week.