Election Hangover: A Few Thoughts

The first few days after an election are my favorite. Polls and predictions step aside to make way for analysis. We finally have results to work with. In light of those results, here are some thoughts:

1. Nate Silver is not a genius. (Via Daniel Engber for Slate)

Nate Silver didn't nail it; the pollsters did. The vaunted Silver "picks"—the ones that scored a perfect record on Election Day—were derived from averaged state-wide data. According to the final tallies from FiveThirtyEight, Obama led by 1.3 points in Virginia, 3.6 in Ohio, 3.6 in Nevada, and 1.9 in Colorado. He won all those states, just like he won every other state in which he'd led in averaged, state-wide polls. That doesn't mean that Silver's magic model works. It means that polling works, assuming that its methodology is sound, and that it's done repeatedly. 

. . . So picking winners state by state was the easy part. Anyone who glossed the numbers would have made the same projections. But Silver's model promised more than that: He offered assessments of his confidence in each state's results. The fact that Obama led in Ohio polls made it obvious that he should be the favorite, but what if those Ohio polls were wrong? How much risk was there in trusting state-wide averages? This was Silver's nifty contribution: He assigned that risk a probability, by looking at some other factors, such as polling trends and local demographics. Take the example of Virginia, where Obama led by 1.3 percentage points. Picking him to win the state was a no-brainer since he was leading in the polls, but Silver used his secret sauce to calculate the chances that those polls were wrong. According to his calculations, the risk was 21 percent, meaning that Obama's odds to win the state were roughly 4-to-1. 

What do the day's returns tell us about the accuracy of Silver's model? Nothing. The fact that Obama won Virginia looks good for averaged polling—indeed, his margin appears to be a couple points, not far off from what was predicted—but we'll never know about that other part. Did Obama really have a 79 percent chance of winning? To get a sense of that, we'd need to run yesterday's election like a lab experiment, doing it 10,000 times to see how often Obama wins. Since that can't happen, we're left to scratch our heads. 

Silver lovers aren't waiting for these comparisons. They're riding high on victory, and giving credit to the bearer of good news. In doing so, they’ve made the same mistake that Silver's critics made last week: They've confused his projected odds with hard-and-fast predictions, and underestimated the accuracy of polling. The fact that Obama won doesn't make Nate Silver right, any more than a Romney win would have made him wrong.

2. The electoral college is not the devil.

Funny how no Republicans were saying this in 2000. Via Tara Ross for the Heritage Foundation:

The Electoral College was considered to fit perfectly within this republican, federalist government that had been created. The system would allow majorities to rule, but only while they were reasonable, broad-based, and not tyrannical. The election process was seen as a clever solution to the seemingly unsolvable problem facing the Convention -- finding a fair method of selecting the Executive for a nation composed of both large and small states that have ceded some, but not all, of their sovereignty to a central government. "`[T]he genius of the present [Electoral College] system,'" a 1970 Senate report concluded, "`is the genius of a popular democracy organized on the federal principle.'"

3. This is why the GOP lost.

In light of last night's electoral outcome, allow me to briefly summarize parts of Mike Lofgren's The Party is Over.

1. Tactics: War Minus the Shooting

"The Republican Party has used objection, obstruction, and filibustering not only to block the necessary processes of government but also in order to make ordinary Americans deeply cynical about Washington. Republicans perpetually run against government and come out on top. But, in the process, they are undermining the foundations of self-rule in a representative democracy."

2. All Wrapped Up in the Constitution

"Like biblical literalists, Republicans assert that the Constitution is divinely inspired and inerrant. But also like biblical literalists, they are strangely selective about those portions of their favorite document that they care to heed , and they favor rewriting it when it stands in the way of their political agenda."

3. Taxes and the Rich

"The GOP cares, over and above every other item on its political agenda, about the rich contributors who keep them in office. This is why tax increases on the wealthy have become and absolute Republican taboo."

4. Worshipping at the Altar of Mars

"The GOP loves war more than it supposedly hates deficits." 

5. Media Complicity (related)

"Despite the widely believed myth of its liberalism, over the last thirty years the media landscape has become increasingly wired to favor Republicans. The press's current combination of fake objectivity and campaign fetishization has been carefully exploited by Republican strategists for political advantage."

6. Give Me That Old-Time Religion

"The religious right provides the foot soldiers for the GOP. This fact has profound implications for the rest of the Republicans' ideological agenda."

7. No Eggheads Wanted

"Consistent both with its strong base of support among fundamentalists and with its authoritarian belief structure, the GOP is increasingly anti-intellectual and anti-science.

Early Morning Thoughts On Nate Silver

I've been up since 4:45AM this morning. My dog got into a bag of Oreos the other day and is battling some Bridesmaids à la Melissa McCarthy bowel movements. The bad news? The whole 4:45AM thing. The good news? I'm pretty sure I was the twelfth person to read this.

Mr. Silver puts Pres. Obama's chances of re-election at 92%, up from 86% yesterday--a move that's sure to stoke the fire of those who insist on his liberal hackery.

But is it hackery? No. Is it mathematical MAGIC?! No. Mr. Silver is simply reading the writing on the wall, and in nothing doth man offend fellow man, or against none is his wrath kindled, save those who confess not media bias in all things, and obey not his partisan leanings.

Yet the attention/wrath/adoration that Silver has elicited this election cycle points to a worrisome trend in political science, while I'll detail later.

Allow me to "pull a Silver" and aggregate some news opinions leading to my own personal analysis. First, from fellow wonk Ezra Klein:

Come to think of it, a lot of the odder critiques of Silver have been coming out of Politico. But that makes a kind of sense. Silver’s work poses a threat to more traditional — and, in particular, to more excitable — forms of political punditry and horse-race journalism. 

If you had to distill the work of a political pundit down to a single question, you’d have to pick the perennial “who will win the election?” During election years, that’s the question at the base of most careers in punditry, almost all cable news appearances, and most A1 news articles. Traditionally, we’ve answered that question by drawing on some combination of experience, intuition, reporting and polls. Now Silver — and Silver’s imitators and political scientists — are taking that question away from us. It would be shocking if the profession didn’t try and defend itself.

More recently, we in the media — and particularly we in the media at Politico — have tried to grab an edge in the race for Web traffic by hyping our election stories far beyond their actual importance. The latest gaffe is always a possible turning point, the momentum is always swinging wildly, the race is endlessly up in the air. It thus presents a bit of a problem for us if our readers then turn to sites like Silver’s and find that none of this actually appears to be true and a clear-eyed look at the data shows a fairly stable race over long periods of time. 

My guess is Silver and his successors will win this one, if only because, for all the very real shortcomings of models, election forecasters have better incentives than homepage editors. For instance, note that all these attacks on Silver take, as their starting point, Silver’s continuously updated prediction for the presidential election, which includes point estimates for the popular vote and electoral college, and his predictions for the Senate races. Those predictions let readers check Silver’s track record and they force Silver, if he wants to keep his readers’ trust, to make his model as accurate as he can. That’s a good incentive structure — certainly a better one than much of the rest of the media has — and my guess is his results, over time, will prove it.

And a right-leaning op-ed in yesterday's Washington Post via Michael Gerson:

The current mania for measurement is a pale reflection of modern political science. Crack open most political science journals and you’ll find a profusion of numbers and formulas more suited to the study of physics. In my old field of speechwriting, political scientists sometimes do content analysis by counting the recurrence of certain words — as though leadership could be decoded by totaling the number of times Franklin Roosevelt said “feah” or George W. Bush said “freedom.” 

This trend in social science, according to Yuval Levin of National Affairs, is “driven by a deep yearning — fed by a kind of envy of modern natural science and its power — for the precision of mathematics in a field of study whose subject can yield no such certainty.” The modern belief that only science yields truth results in the application of scientific methods beyond their proper bounds, and the dismissal of other types of knowledge, including ethical knowledge. Political science seems particularly susceptible to precision envy. 

Politics can be studied by methods informed by science. But it remains a division of the humanities. It is mainly the realm of ethics — the study of justice, human nature, moral philosophy and the common good. Those who emphasize “objective” political facts at the expense of “subjective” values have strained out the soul and significance of politics. It is an approach, in the words of G.K. Chesterton, “that stores the sand and lets the gold go free.” 

Over the past decade, there has been a revolt among political scientists against a mathematical methodology that excludes substantive political debates about justice and equality. A similar revolution is increasingly needed in political commentary. The problem with the current fashion for polls and statistics is that it changes what it purports to study. Instead of making political analysis more “objective,” it has driven the entire political class — pundits, reporters, campaigns, the public — toward an obsessive emphasis on data and technique. Quantification has also resulted in miniaturization. In politics, unlike physics, you can only measure what matters least. 

And so, at the election’s close, we talk of Silver’s statistical model and the likely turnout in Cuyahoga County, Ohio, and relatively little about poverty, social mobility or unsustainable debt. The nearer this campaign has come to its end, the more devoid of substance it has become. This is not the advance of scientific rigor. It is a sad and sterile emptiness at the heart of a noble enterprise.

***

Polls are an utter waste of time. I'm inclined to like Nate Silver for the sheer fact that he aggregates and condenses dozens of them into one coherent, detailed analysis--a useful heuristic that saves me time, energy, and hair-pulling.

Yet I also side with Gerson in his frustrations with modern political science methodology. It's not just a matter of there being black swans that we can't predict. It's a matter of trying to quantify the unquantifiable--human behavior--and having that distract from issues far more relevant. Quantification has indeed resulted in miniaturization. "In politics, unlike physics, you can only measure what matters least."

Back to Klein:

If Silver’s model is systematically biased, there’s a market opportunity for anyone who wants to build a better model. That person would stand to gain hugely if they outpredicted punditry’s reigning forecaster (not to mention all the betting markets and all the other forecasters). The math behind what Silver is doing isn’t that complicated and the polls are easily available.

Incapable or unwilling to do this, Gerson seeks instead to trivialize Silver's work. It's a cheap trick, but Gerson makes good points in the process.

Anyway. In only a few short hours this will all be over (ALHAMDULILLAH) and every additional word I write here will be no more relevant than the one that preceded it (that is to say: not at all). In closing, here is my prediction for the electoral map. I suspect I'll be wrong on New Hampshire, and Florida is a complete toss-up. Wouldn't be surprised if we saw a recount there, but I think Pres. Obama will win by more than 30+ points in the electoral college, so this won't be a 2000 repeat by any means.

Postscript

Additional thoughts on Gerson. Not like you care. But for what it's worth, this came up during a FB conversation with Ryan Decker. I think he makes an important point about Gerson's argument.

I think Gerson's real complaint is that he wants political science to limit itself to political philosophy (after all, that would make it easier for innumerate pundits like him to compete). Philosophy has its place, of course, but there are a lot of highly policy-relevant questions that are best answered with good quantitative analysis. What matters is choosing the right tool for each job, then using it correctly. Demanding that the discipline limit itself to tasks for which quantitative tools are inappropriate is demanding that the discipline severely limit its relevance. 

What I think Gerson is missing is that the move towards quantitative analysis in poli sci is not driven by illusions of hard science. I've known a few political scientists (and quite a few other social scientists), and none of them have ever indicated that they think they're a hard science or that running a regression will make them one. The urge to use quantitative tools is driven by the simple fact that a lot of questions are best answered by them, and poli sci people saw that if they didn't tool up someone else would get to pursue those questions. 

What I'm saying is that Gerson is preaching to the choir. He built a straw man about social scientists thinking they are physicists, then he knocked it down--all as a way of feeling better about his innumeracy

In my experience with political scientists, what Decker says is true. They aren't striving to turn a non-science into a science, they don't seek legitimacy in numbers.

Unfortunately, that very claim is at the heart of Gerson's argument, which is why the rest of it doesn't really hold water. There are snippets of tangentially related truth, like I alluded to above in the "yet" paragraph, but after my conversation with Ryan I felt the need to  qualify them. Honestly, I should probably qualify the "yet" paragraph even more, but the heart of this post is about Nate Silver, not political science methodologies. I'll have to save that discussion for a future post!

Try to contain your excitement.

Sakura

I remember playing this song on the piano when I was young. I would play it over and over (mostly because it was easy), thinking about what sakura--cherry blossoms--must look like. If someone took the time to write a song about them, they must be exquisite.

And that they are. Brock and I took the Bolt Bus down to DC this weekend to catch the last of the cherry blossoms. After navigating our way through an atheist rally (proper name: the "Reason Rally"), we meandered our way down with the masses toward the Tidal Basin (where we also saw the new Martin Luther King Jr. Monument--very cool!). It was the 100th anniversary of Japan's gift of 3,000 cherry trees to the United States, one hundred of which are still standing today.

There is something about cherry blossoms that makes you wax poetic; how delicate they are, how soft, how gracefully they hang from their branches, like ballerinas on a barre; how a small breeze is all it takes to wisk them away in flurry of fluttering pink snow. The life of a cherry blossom is rapturous--it isn't every day that millions flock to see anything, let alone a small pink flower--and, ultimately, tragic. How can something so timeless vanish so quickly? How can something so majestic be so fragile?

The cherry blossoms (or, as I like to call them, BL-AWESOMES!) weren't the only thing waiting for us in DC. Our dear friends Ryan and Tiffany were kind enough to let us crash at their place and we had such a fun time catching up with them. We ate way too much at Good Stuff Eatery (our beloved toasted marshmallow shake--how we've missed it!), moseyed around Eastern Market, poked around our favorite bookstore with our favorite crotchety old bookkeeper, enjoyed delicious sandwiches from Potbelly, had a fun movie night with All The President's Men,  gorged on Reubens at a Jewish deli, and sat around talking for hours (I'm pretty sure that's how you know you have good friends).

One of the highlights of the trip was a visit to the DC 3rd Ward on Sunday--where we went to church when we loved there. I can't even tell you how happy I was to see old friends there. It really felt like home. Halfway during Sacrament Meeting, Brock looked over at me and saw me crying. "I know why you're sad," he said, "because I feel the same way, too. You don't want to leave here, do you?" I was so choked up that all I could do was shake my head back and forth. I looked out the window and watched the wind carry cherry blossoms off the tree outside.

Once per month, Mormons fast on Sunday and donate the money they would  have spent on meals to the needy. It's a time for self-reflection and spiritual rejuvenation. On Fast Sunday, Sacrament Meeting takes a special form where--for most of the meeting--anyone  in the congregation is welcome to step up to the pulpit and bear their testimony of the gospel.

There is nothing like Fast and Testimony Meeting at the DC 3rd Ward. So many of the members come from storied pasts--many of them are new converts who come from immigrant families (many from West Africa) or have battled addictions to various substances. Having grown up in other churches, many of the nuances of Mormon culture are lost on them. And I love it! There is such a soulful, Southern evangelical feel to the DC 3rd Ward. Everybody who gets up to the pulpit greets the congregation with "Good Afternoon!" and everybody replies "Good Afternoon!" in return. Instead of the standard "I would like to bear my testimony..." opening that most members give, many say things like "Dear Lord, I would like to thank You for a beautiful day and for the beautiful opportunity to share my testimony with You."

You can always count on Sister Mack to be the first one up to bear her testimony every month. She's an old, short black woman with no teeth who always wears a hat to church. And she always says the same thing when she bears her testimony: I'm gon sing my testimony in a song, but I ain't very good at singin' and so you all need to sing along. And every month, we all sing the same song with Sister Mack:

You got to stand your test in judgement

You got to stand it for yourself

Ain't nobody else can stand it for you

You go to stand if for yourself

The testimonies you'll hear in that ward are simple, pure . . . filled with love and faith so strong you can feel their souls on fire. The speakers, many of them poorly educated, are not eloquent; their thoughts are jumbled and at times incoherent. Despite this, rarely am I not moved to tears by their words. Let me share one story that a sister in the ward recounted to us last Sunday. For context, know that this sister has overcome hard addiction in the past and has a very difficult time keeping her head above water financially.

Every week, I make tuna fish sandwiches for the homeless. But this past month was tight, so I couldn't buy the sandwich spread that I normally put on them. (She holds up a jar of Kraft Sandwich Spread and starts to get teary-eyed.) So I prayed to God that he would help me. Help me find money to buy the things I needed to make these sandwiches. Well, I go to church the next Sunday, and there's a family with a trunk full of that exact same sandwich spread. I couldn't believe it! And they were just giving it away, they had too much. I didn't want to be greedy, so I only took four. Each jar costs $2.65, so I figured I saved about $10 right there. So I used that $10 I saved to go buy five loaves of bread and some more tuna. From all of that, I was able to make about 25 sandwiches. And I just KNOW God is lookin' out for us because He helped me find a way to make those tuna fish sandwiches!

Can you see why I want to move back? :)

Brock left Sunday night so he could make it to work the next morning, but I decided to leave Monday afternoon so I could have time to visit old friends in Congressman Chaffetz' office! 

Early Monday morning, I bid adieu to Ryan and Tiffany and headed for the Tidal Basin again. I wanted more pictures of them since Saturday was overcast and rainy. When I got there, I couldn't believe how bare the trees were! Only a few blossoms left! I was happy have have them all to myself.

As it turns out, Monday also marked the opening debates of the Affordable Care Act at the Supreme Court!  I got in line about an hour before everything was set to start, hoping to get a front-row seat to the action. It was fun to be there and watch/listen to all the demonstrations outside--democracy is so freaking rad. I even got interviewed by NPR! Don't know that I made it on air, but it was still cool (and nerve-wracking!) to talk about my opinions with a major news source.

The time came to hand out red tickets--those going to the people in line who got a seat inside for the full 90-minute argument. There were 120 red tickets. I was the 121st person in line. Suuuuuuuck!!!!!!! I couldn't believe it! Such a bummer! If only I'd caught that one metro that pulled away from me at the last second . . . maybe I could've gotten there three minutes earlier and been #119. ARRRRGHHH. Oh, well. That's life.

As much of a drag as that was, it meant that I was the first person in line for a yellow ticket, which entitles you to a sit in on the case for 3-5 minutes. So I did get in! What an amazing mental picture I'll have for the rest of my life: All nine Supreme Court justices sitting on the bench, listening to the Solicitor General Donald Verrilli's opening statements. Amazing! There was even a funny moment when Justice Kagan asked Verrilli what exactly was being challenged: The constitutionality of the individual mandate or the sanction? To which he responded, "Well, I will not argue that this statute is a perfect model of clarity." The courtroom hummed with chuckles! 

After sitting in on history, I stepped back into my past: 1032 Longworth! I spent about fifteen minutes catching up with everyone there: Tanner, Troy, John, Fred, Justin . . . all the women in the office had left for motherhood! Things in the office had changed a lot, but personalities were the same. Just like old times, it wasn't long before conversation devolved into base humor :) Hey, it's not my fault that I happened to be holding giant rubber band balls and that someone in the office made a comment about it. (It is  my fault, however, that I couldn't refrain from a slew of raunchy innuendos thereafter.) MAN, I miss those guys! 

Not a bad weekend. Not bad at all.

Why Kony2012 Is A Good Thing

Meet Kiana.

Kiana is my 15-year old sister. Sometimes I forget that there's nearly a decade between us, because in a lot of ways, Kiana is not a regular teenage girl. She is unselfish, compassionate, and I've never heard her say a mean thing about anybody.

Yet in a lot of other ways, Kiana is a regular teenage girl. She's obsessed with The Vampire Diaries, wears extensions, loves manicures and shopping, and can play a mean game of Temple Runner on her iPad (which, by the way, she bought with her own money). On March 6th, all she talked about was one thing:

"Have you heard of Kony?"

***

The next morning, I watched the Kony2012 and couldn't help but feel moved. I shared the link on Facebook and Twitter, changed my profile picture, and donated to Invisible Children.

Is this "slacktivism?" Absolutely. Is there much else I'm capable of doing to help the situation? Not really. Hate on slacktivism all you want, but sometimes it's the all people have to offer. I think it's wrong and mean-spirited to berate people for trying to use what little philanthropic power they have.

One of the biggest charges against Invisible Children is its paternalistic approach to international development. Paternalism encompasses the idea of privileged Westerners thinking "Aw, look at all these poor people in ____. I'm going to save them." Rather than helping others help themselves, Westerners often approach development with a messianic view of their stewardship (see also: the White Man's Burden). This often worsens problems rather than fixing them. Take, for example, TOMS. Buy a pair of shoes, give a pair to a person in need. What could be so bad about that? Well, nothing, if it didn't run local shoemakers out of business. It's good marketing, but bad aid.

The Kony2012 campaign by Invisible Children is much of the same. Cute little blonde-haired boy is sad because Kony is a "bad guy." Pictures of Ugandan children as child soldiers. It's poverty porn at its finest. People complain that the video was simplistic--watering down an extremely complicated regional issue into viral clickbait.

The list of grievances goes on: From solutions that Invisible Children is advocating for (like military intervention and allocating resources to the Ugandan Army), to its intellectual shallowness, on and on and on.

You know what's crazy? I agree with all of this criticism. You know what's crazier? I still love the campaign.

Because I am talking about it right. now.

Yeah, we've got some bad advocacy going on with the Invisible Children campaign. But look at the discussion it's spurred! We're not just talking about the LRA and Joseph Kony, but development and aid in general. What is good aid? What is bad aid? How do we satisfy our desire to be altruistic without being paternalistic? What should you know about an organization before you donate to it?  What do we need to know about Uganda and the area around it before coming up with solutions? What would a good solution achieve? Who needs to be involved and how do we involve them? In the era of "development 2.0", these are critical questions.

***

My 15-year old sister can do something today that she couldn't do three days ago: Albeit however simply, she can articulate an issue of crimes against humanity that is happening half a world away from her. She is feeling a sense of responsibility--an awakened conscience telling her that being a member of this planet means looking out for our global family.

When I asked Kiana some nuanced questions about the Ugandan situation, all she could say was "You just have to watch the video." And who cares if that's all she could say? She's freaking fifteen. Hate on awareness campaigns all you want, but if you want teenagers to grow up into people who make a difference, awareness is the first step.

Brock asked a question that was really telling:

"Kiana, if your friends had the option of reading a short article about the LRA or watching a half-hour video, what do you think they'd choose?"

"Um, they'd probably watch the video because they don't want to read."

That's life, people. These are teenagers. And now, a word for Kiana.

Kiana, I love the fire I've seen in you the past few days. It's a good thing, and don't you dare let people try to make you feel stupid or naive for it. But if you're truly passionate about the situation in Uganda--and I believe you are--I hope you won't let the Kony2012 video be the extent of your knowledge. Read. Start with Wikipedia and work your way up. And don't think you'll only need to learn about Uganda. You'll need to study the theory and history of development assistance in Africa, the International Criminal Court, the history of crimes against humanity, Ugandan politics, African geography, colonialism, etc.

Reading will open up a web of learning where you'll encounter questions that you didn't even know you had. The more you know, the more you know you don't know. It seems daunting, yes, but guess what? Knowledge is the best weapon.

Jordanian Politics

Before I proceed to blog the last month of living in Jordan, I want toshare with you some insights into the its political system I may do the same for Israeli politics, because Israeli politics are cray-cray. If you don't understand the political system of Israel, it really is impossible to fully understand the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

The political system in Jordan is a faux democracy. Everybody says they love King Abdullah II and his wife Queen Rania, but in reality people don't talk smack because they're afraid al-mukhabarat might be within earshot--secret police that'll nab you for talking badly about the royal family. Brock remembers talking to one of his friends and asking "Do you think you have free speech here?" His friend responded "Yes, absolutely!"

"Oh, so you can say whatever you want about the King or government?"

"What?! No! But other than that, we have free speech."

For a general overview, here are snippets of the Wikipedia article on the basic outline of the Jordanian government. I'll insert bolded commentary along the way.
________________________________________________________________________________

Executive Branch

Executive authority is vested in the king and his cabinet. The king signs, executes, and vetoes all laws. The king may also suspend or dissolve parliament, and shorten or lengthen the term of session. Get that? He can dissolve parliament. If you think our government is inept, can you imagine how completely ineffective it would be if President Obama could just get rid of Congress as he saw necessary?! Usually what happens in Jordan is that whenever parliament makes a decision that appears populist or, y'know, actually democratic, the King dissolves parliament. This has happened three times in the past two years (nine times in King Abdullah II's twelve-year rule!). It actually happened while Brock and I lived there. In October 2011, the King dissolved parliament and replaced the prime minister in response to widespread public dissatisfaction with government performance (which the King promised to improve in a major televised speech in June, in the midst of the Arab Spring uprisings) and escalating criticism of the premier because of public concerns over his reported involvement in corruption. A veto by the king may be overridden by a two-thirds vote of both houses of parliament at his discretion, most recently in November 2009.

He appoints and may dismiss all judges by decree, approves amendments to the constitution, declares war, and commands the armed forces. Can you see how unilateral his power is? Absolutely no checks or balances. Cabinet decisions, court judgments, and the national currency are issued in his name. The Cabinet, led by a prime minister, was formerly appointed by the king, but following the 2011 Jordanian protests, King Abdullah agreed to an elected cabinet. Oh, how nice of him. The prime minister is responsible for choosing all the other ministers in the cabinet (with the King's approval). You would not believe how many ministries there are. There has to be plenty of room for nepotism and playing favorites in Jordan's government, so the more ministries the better! The cabinet is responsible to the Chamber of Deputies on matters of general policy and can be forced to resign by a two-thirds vote of "no confidence" by that body.

There was a fantastic opinion piece in the New York Times last month titled "Jordan's Club of Has-Beens." I highly recommend it. Here's a pull-quote:

In political terms they are, quite literally, the quick and the dead. They are the rapidly expanding club of former ministers of King Abdullah II — several hundred, by some estimates — who came to the well, drank as best they could and were then sent home to think about what they’d done wrong. 

They sign on for a limited season, aware that they are scapegoats in suits, cloned to take the rap whenever another palace policy bites the dust and the public demands fresh blood. 

“You appoint governments and then you change them like knickers,” says a once important official. “A new team arrives and spends a few months blaming its predecessors and then the same thing happens all over again. There’s no policy, no vision. It’s just a way to buy time.” 

So there are currently few incentives for climbing Jordan’s political tree. The average career expectancy of a prime minister has fallen to around eight months — hardly long enough to give birth to a cogent thought, let alone an innovative policy. 

Imagine the hapless head of government, all but dead on arrival in his office, staring disconsolately day after day at his telephone, wondering only when someone will be instructed to call him a cab.

Legislative Branch

Legislative power rests in the bicameral National Assembly. The National Assembly (Majlis al-Umma) has two chambers. The Chamber of Deputies (Majlis al-Nuwaab) has 120 members, elected for a four-year terms in single-seat constituencies with 12 seats reserved for women by a special electoral college. This is the Jordanian equivalent of the House of Representatives. I think its 120-member composition may be based off the Knesset in Israel, which also has 120 members. For Israel, there's special meaning in this number: 120 members is symbolic of 12 tribes of Israel. Also, considering that women in Saudi Arabia just barely got the right to vote, Jordan is pretty forward-thinking in terms of women in politics. In addition 9 seats are reserved for Christians and 3 for Chechens/Circassians. While the Chamber of Deputies is elected by the people, its main legislative abilities are limited to approving, rejecting, or amending legislation with little power to initiate laws. "Little power to initiate laws?!" That's the point of our House of Representatives! Also, can you imagine what our House might look like if there were quotas to meet regarding its composition like there is in Jordan? The Assembly of Senators (Majlis al-Aayan) has 60 members appointed by the King for a four-year term. These guys are basically all the King's buddies. The Assembly of Senators is responsible to the Chamber of Deputies and can be removed by a "vote of no confidence".

Judicial Branch

The judiciary is completely independent from the other two branches of the government. The constitution provides for three categories of courts--civil (in this case meaning 'regular'), religious, and special. Regular courts consist of both civil and criminal varieties at the first level – First Instance or Conciliation Courts, second level – Appelette or Appeals Courts – and the Cassation Court which is the highest judicial authority in the kingdom. There are two types of religious courts: Sharia courts which enforce the provisions of Islamic law and civil status, and tribunals of other religious communities officially recognized in Jordan. The court system is interesting because it rarely interferes with tribal matters in Jordan. Tribal culture is definitely still strong in the country, which adds a complex dynamic to the government. I'll write more on this later.

Political Conditions

King Hussein ruled Jordan from 1953 to 1999, surviving a number of challenges to his rule, drawing on the loyalty of his military, and serving as a symbol of unity and stability for both the East Bank and Palestinian communities in Jordan. One of the main reasons Jordanians espouse love for King Abdullah II (the current King of Jordan) is because they ADORED his father. He made sure to not only please the West Bankers (who primarily live in Amman), but the East Bankers who are thinly spread throughout rural regions of the country. King Hussein ended martial law in 1991 and legalized political parties in 1992. In 1989 and 1993, Jordan held free and fair parliamentary elections. Controversial changes in the election law led Islamist parties to boycott the 1997 elections.

King Abdullah II succeeded his father Hussein following the latter's death in February 1999. Abdullah moved quickly to reaffirm Jordan's peace treaty with Israel and its relations with the United States. Abdullah, during the first year in power, refocused the government's agenda on economic reform.

Jordan's continuing structural economic difficulties, burgeoning population, and more open political environment led to the emergence of a variety of political parties. Moving toward greater independence, Jordan's parliament has investigated corruption charges against several regime figures and has become the major forum in which differing political views, including those of political Islamists, are expressed.

On February 1st 2011, it was announced that King Abdullah had dismissed his government. This has been interpreted as a pre-emptive move in the context of the Tunisian Jasmine Revolution and unfolding events in nearby Egypt.

Decentralization

King Abdullah II and the Jordanian Government began the process of decentralization, with the Madaba governate as the pilot project, on the regional level dividing the nation into three regions: North, Central, and South. The Greater Amman Municipality will be excluded from the plan but it will set up a similar decentralization process. Each region will have an elected council that will handle the political, social, legal, and economic affairs of its area. This decentralization process is part of Jordan's Democratization Program. Sounds interesting. We'll see how this ends up working...

Corruption

According to Transparency International, Jordan is one of the least corrupt countries in the Middle East. Woo hoo! What a badge of honor! Jordan ranked 47th out of 180 nations in the Corruption Perceptions Index. The Constitution of Jordan states that no member of Parliament can have any financial or business dealings with the government and no member of the royal family can be in the government. However, corruption remains a problem in Jordan despite progress. Corruption cases are examined by the Anti-Corruption Commission which is likely corrupt itself... and then referred to the judiciary for legal action. Corruption takes the form of nepotism, favoritism, and bribery.
________________________________________________________________________________

Whew! Wasn't that fun? :) Jordan is in a precarious position for several reasons. One of them has to do with its reputation as a peaceful Middle Eastern country--it has friendly relationships with both the United States and Israel. Jordan feels intense pressure to keep up that image as it is heavily reliant on foreign aid. This is something that its citizens are all too aware of. That's not to say, however, that Jordanians are mindless robots who keep opinions to themselves. I was so impressed with a recent Facebook posting of one of my Jordanian friends:




The first incident to which my friend refers has to do with a Jordanian man's self-immolation this past Monday--something that has never happened before in the country. From the linked article:

Ahmad Humoud al-Matarna reportedly torched himself on Monday after he failed to find a solution to pressing financial difficulties. According to Jordanian media, the man, who was also a father, had been unable to pay moutning bills, especially after he was made redundant and had a limited retirement income.

The second incident refers to a young man's burning a picture of the King yesterday in Madaba just yesterday. Here is the AP story:

AMMAN, Jordan — A military prosecutor says a young Jordanian activist has been charged with harming the king’s dignity for burning a street portrait of the monarch. 

The prosecutor says Odai Abu-Issa, 18, has been detained for two weeks for interrogation. He faces up to three years in jail.

The prosecution says Abu-Issa burned a portrait of Jordan's King Abduallh II in front of a government office in the western city of Madaba on Wednesday.

He belongs to a small group of young Jordanians who have taken to the streets to demand that the king's powers be curbed. Abdullah is an absolute ruler who has the final say on all matters.

The prosecutor spoke Thursday on condition of anonymity because he is not allowed to make public statements.

Free speech, indeed. But intelligent Jordanians are becoming less and less afraid to speak out, as demonstrated by my friend's gutsy Facebook post above (also, notice how 10 people "liked" it). Sadly, however, there will always be idiots who have no sense of morality:



I'm so proud of my friend for not putting up with this bullcrap. And you know what? He's not the only one. I met many young, hyperintelligent Jordanians while living in Amman. They work hard at their studies, speak amazing English ("You sordid microbe"--gotta learn how to say that in Arabic!), think progressively, and often study complex subjects in English-speaking universities. Can you imagine majoring in computer science or biology in your non-native language? Unreal.

Unfortunately, most of these people want to leave Jordan.

Anyway, I doubt anybody is still reading at this point, so I'll quit blathering on. I'll close by saying that it was so eye-opening to learn about and live in a foreign government. It gave me an appreciation for the functionality of my own country's political system (hate it all you want--it works) and for the fact that I enjoy real freedoms instead of quasi ones. It'll be interesting to see what the future of Jordan holds, and I pray for its well-being.

I Don't Know What This Means

Email from my Washington Seminar professor:

For Friday's class: We will role play thrashing out the debt crises. We can have some fun with this. So I need nominees to play the roles listed below. The rest of you will be randomly assigned to advise one of the main roles, so you will need to keep up on what is going on.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell
Speaker Boehner
House Majority Whip Eric Cantor
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (a.k.a. Kristi Boyce)
President Obama
Senator Mike Lee or Orrin Hatch

WHY am I the only person assigned a name and WHY is that name NANCY PELOSI?????

And WHY DO I KIND OF LIKE THIS????

DC's got me drunk on power and I'm not even in office yet.

A Civil Exchange

Indiscriminate yelling

"Okay, ma'am. I'll relay that to the Congressman."

"OH I'M NOT DONE TALKING TO YOU, MISSY."

More indiscriminate yelling. The funny thing is that she and the Congressman actually AGREE on the issue she's upset over, but she doesn't even know it. I try telling her this.

"Ma'am?"

Yelling.

"Ma'am?"

More yelling.

"Ma'am?"

"STOP INTERRUPTING ME, YOU RUDE GIRL!!"

At this point in the "conversation," I hang up abruptly. Probably shouldn't've, but I am a human being and nobody talks to me like that. She calls back thirty seconds later and speaks with my supervisor.

Supervisor: "Hey Kristi, it was that woman again. She recorded your conversation and is submitting it to MSNBC and the Huffington Post. She said to--quote-- 'get ready to be famous.'"

***

It's been a week since then. Why hasn't anybody called?????? :( :( :( :(

Cool Hand Barack

CHIP REID (chief White House correspondent for CBS News):

Thank you, Mr. President. You said that everybody in the room is willing to do what they have to do, wants to get something done by August 2nd. But isn’t the problem the people who aren’t in the room, and in particular Republican presidential candidates and Republican Tea Partiers on the Hill, and the American public? The latest CBS News poll showed that only 24 percent of Americans said you should raise the debt limit to avoid an economic catastrophe. There are still 69 percent who oppose raising the debt limit. So isn’t the problem that you and others have failed to convince the American people that we have a crisis here, and how are you going to change that?

THE PRESIDENT:

Well, let me distinguish between professional politicians and the public at large. The public is not paying close attention to the ins and outs of how a Treasury option goes. They shouldn’t. They're worrying about their family; they're worrying about their jobs; they're worrying about their neighborhood. They've got a lot of other things on their plate. We're paid to worry about it. 

I think, depending on how you phrase the question, if you said to the American people, is it a good idea for the United States not to pay its bills and potentially create another recession that could throw millions of more people out of work, I feel pretty confident I can get a majority on my side on that one. 

***

Excellent points, Mr. President. But you never answered the question.

What we got here is failure to communicate. Jay Carney is great and everything, but sorry--your average American doesn't know who he is, let alone listens to him. Rarely do you hear Jay Carney's sound bites in the mainstream news. You know whose sound bites they play? Yours. Why aren't you coming out and explaining directly to the American people what the debt ceiling is? You could even have a little chalkboard like Glenn Beck. It'd be cute.

I know you're not the Educator in Chief, but this is serious stuff. The American public needs to be informed on it and--if the CBS poll is any sort of a reliable indicator--that's obviously not happening. I think you could stand to take a page out of FDR's playbook and start some fireside chats of your own.

Don't be afraid to interrupt our "Modern Family" reruns. Give a twenty-minute primetime speech and lay everything out there. Then, if we're still ignorant, it's own own damn fault. I love the idea of you giving answers instead of taking questions. The American public needs them right now. Not just for the information--they need to feel connected to you. They want you to talk to them--not to journalists.

Anyway, I'm no James Carville. This is just an idea. It pains me to see you have to slog through this muck of ignorance when you have the power to clear it away. Only 24% of Americans want the debt limit raised? Is this a joke?? Sadly, it's not. So let's start talking.

That Intern Life

Hello.

I HEARD THE CONGRESSMAN IS SUPPORTING MITT ROMNEY.

Yes, ma'am.

IS HE STUPID?!?

No, ma'am.

WELL ALL US TEA PARTIERS ARE REALLY MAD.

Mmm hmmm.

YEAH MITT ROMNEY HE'S JUST ANOTHER RINO A JOHN MCCAIN A GEORGE BUSH. HE'S FOR UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE JUST LIKE OBAMA AND HE WANTS STRICTER GUN CONTROL AND THINKS GLOBAL WARMING IS REAL AND HE SAID UNIONS ARE GOOD.

Public- or private-sector unions?

I DON'T KNOW.

Well haven't unions been good in the past? Maybe that's what he was talking about.

NO THEY'VE NEVER BEEN GOOD!!!

Okay.

THE CONGRESSMAN NEEDS TO SUPPORT SOMEBODY WHO STANDS FOR PRINCIPLES. I THOUGHT HE WAS DIFFERENT, BUT HE'S TURNING INTO JUST ANOTHER CORRUPT WASHINGTON POLITICIAN.

Who would you have him support?

THE CONSTITUTION!!!!

The Constitution isn't running for president.

RON PAUL!!!!

Ron Paul won't win.

YES HE WILL.

No, he won't. The congressman's main objective is to see a different person in the White House in 2012. By the look of things now, Mitt Romney has the best chance of winning a general election.

OBAMA HAS NO CHANCE OF WINNING!!!

He has billions of dollars in funding.

THAT DOESN'T MATTER.

Yes, it does.

US TEA PARTIERS ARE GOING TO VOTE HIM OUT!!!!

You're a very small group.

NO, WE'RE NOT!!!

Okay.

WELL, I DON'T SUPPORT THE CONGRESSMAN ANYMORE BECAUSE HE LIKES ROMNEY.

Have you looked as his record? It's extremely conservative. Is this one difference of opinion really enough for you to want to sever ties with him completely?

ABSOLUTELY!!! HE NEEDS TO SUPPORT THE CONSTITUTION LIKE OUR FOUNDING FATHERS AND RONALD REAGAN!!!!

Okay, ma'am. I'll be sure that pass that on. Thanks for calling in.

***

And . . . scene.

On the Metro

Today I answered a phone call from a man who was very distraught over anything and everything having to do with Muslims. Throughout the course of our ten-minute conversation (does it still count as a conversation if I only get in three sentences edgewise?) he compared Islam to Nazism, the Qur'an to Mein Kampf, the Arab Spring to the rise of Communism,  and regaled me with tales of how Sharia law is taking over our courts. (Naturally, he proudly told me where I could find out the truth for myself: Glenn Beck's website, radio show, and TV show.)

If only he could have sat with me on the metro tonight as I came home. If he heard the laughter of eight Algerian Muslim men and women as they joked together. If he saw their eyes light up when they realized I spoke Arabic shwaya. And their smiles when I told them I knew where Algeria was, and their shock when I named its capital. They were friendly, smart, funny, and good. 

If I could have sat with me on the metro, I wonder if he would have called in.

Annoyingly Long Blog Post

SORRY.

I totally meant to finish this last week, but forgot. Forgiveness, people.

ZOOM ZOOM RECAP ZOOM ZOOM

Sunday: Mother's Day! We had an awesome church meeting where a bunch of mothers in the ward got up and spoke about their experiences raising families. There was a baptism and a Munch and Mingle after church ended, and we got caught up talking to an Afghan man in our ward. He speaks like eight languages, one of which is Arabic. I chatted to him briefly, and he said my Arabic sounds good because it comes from deep in the throat (high praise for any student of the language!).

Monday: All the interns from Utah were invited by Senator Hatch's office to attend a briefing given by Justice Scalia. Yes, the Justice Scalia. You have no idea how excited I was for this, and I was not disappointed. I love him even more now than I did before.

I sat this close to him!!!

Me standing under a bust of Oliver Ellsworth: drafter of the Constitution, key figure in fomenting the Great Compromise, third Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and my ANCESTOR!

After Scalia's words, we were given a tour of the Supreme Court chamber, which was stunning.Did you know there's actually a basketball court above that room? It's literally "the highest court in the land." (Nerdy political science joke...) Also, the justices don't really play much.

They just sit on the bench.

Tuesday: Normal day.

Wednesday: My co-worker, John, invited Brock and I to play some volleyball in Crystal City after work. There's some sand pits not too far away from the metro stop there, and he'd helped coordinate a group of about ten people to get together and play. It was way fun! We played until it was too dark outside to see the ball.

Also: Brock got an internship ! And not just any internship. An internship with one of the most prestigious law firms in the DC! . . . Which happens to be located ONE BLOCK from where we live.

When we got home from volleyball, Brock received an email from one of the lawyers at this firm asking him to come in for an interview--at 10pm! (The lawyer had been on a conference call with someone in Afghanistan, so it was a late night for him in the office.) He told Brock not to worry about dressing up or even showering, so Brock just threw on some jeans and ran over. They chatted for almost two hours, and Brock came home ecstatic. There are so many great, substantive projects for him to work on.

The best part? This firm has offices in the Middle East. Meaning: There's a possibility that Brock could work in either Doha (Qatar) or Abu Dhabi (UAE) while I'm studying in Amman. But that's getting way ahead of ourselves. We'll see how everything goes . . .

Bottom line: The Lord is truly looking out for us.

Thursday: Brock had another internship interview today at Brookings. And whaddaya know! He snagged that one, too. He'll be working in Brookings' communications department, and will be able to split his time 50/50 between both internships. That kid is ridiculous.

Thursday evening we went to a networking event put on by the BYU Political Affairs Society. The keynote speaker was Congressman Jeff Flake of Arizona. He told a lot of funny anecdotes and seemed like a really nice man (he's well-known in Congress for his staunch opposition to earmarks).

Our friend Alex was in town for the networking event, so we went out to dinner with him at Good Stuff Eatery. Soooo good. Their toasted marshmallow shake is a gift from the gods.

Friday: Started the morning out with a lecture at the Capitol Visitor's Center from Senator Reid. I really wanted to like him--but I left that lecture extremely disappointed. I really feel as though years of petty politics have gotten the best of him, which is sad. (Congressional term limits are so needed...)

After Senator Reid's remarks, we got together with a group organized by BYUPAS and headed to the National Defense University to listen to another speaker. The families of top military generals have nice houses right on base at the NDU, and it was cool to literally drive by a line of houses belonging to the most respected men in the country.

The best part of the day was our visit to the National Reconnaissance Office--the intelligence organization responsible for US spy satellites. We even got to talk to Bruce Carlson for 30 minutes--the director of the NRO! Talk about beyond cool. For this guy to take thirty minutes out of his day to come talk to anybody--let alone a group of liberal arts majors who have literallynothing to offer his organization--was just incredible. (In case you didn't know, he's also in the Second Quorum of the Seventy, as if he wasn't enough of a baller already...)

Everybody who works at the NRO has a top-secret security clearance, so we had to wear these bright red badges on our chest so people knew not to talk about sensitive information when we were around. We learned a ton about all the different types of orbits and the various spy satellites that operate in each. The declassified satellite photos shown to us were insanely detailed--and those were the dumbed-down versions of originals! To think that these photos were taken from 18,000 miles away is just mind-boggling. No other country's space reconnaissance program even comes close to ours.

America is the freaking SHIZ.

Saturday: Brock and I headed into Georgetown on a mission: to buy him a couple of new suits. We got some good deals on a nice tan one and another that's a light navy blue (sort of retro-looking, I love it). People, my husband can fill out a suit like it's nobody's bidness. Seriously. We dropped them off for tailoring at Ms. Lee's (a hilarious Vietnamese seamstress who owned a shop right across the street), and then headed off to the Capitol, where I led a tour for a group of really nice guys who were in DC on business. It was only the second tour I've given, so I made a few mistakes--including saying that the Statue of Freedom on top of the Capitol weighs 9 million pounds. Yeah, that statistic definitely raised a few eyebrows. In reality, it weighs only a little less (15,000 lbs...hehe). To my credit, the entire dome itself weights 9 million tons, so it was just a little numbers mix-up! I knew 9 million somethings was a statistic somewhere. Luckily, the group was understanding and we all had some good laughs!

After the tour, we met up with Alex again and headed for the Museum of American History. We saw the huge American flag that the Star-Spangled Banner was written about! In the War of 1812, Britain launched an aggressive attack on Baltimore harbor. This flag (and the city) survived the attack, and an amateur poet named Francis Scott Key was so stirred by the sight of it flying that he wrote our nation's anthem.

The other exhibit we saw was called "The Price of Freedom"--which basically takes you on a journey throughout all the wars America has fought. I'm one of those annoying museum people who likes to read every placard--after an hour, I hadn't even gotten to the Civil War! Brock and I will definitely be heading back to that museum to finish that exhibit and go to others.

Sunday: After Church ended, a bunch of us couples living at the Barlow Center were invited to a ward member's apartment for waffles! We had such a great time visiting and getting to know each other better.

. . . If you're still reading, that probably classifies you as my grandma. Hi, grandma.

Rot In Hell

"I suppose I should be expressing some ambivalence about the targeted killing of another human being. And yet - uhhhh, no!" - Jon Stewart

"Bin Laden was not a Muslim leader; he was a mass murderer of Muslims. Indeed, Al-Qaeda has slaughtered scores of Muslims in many countries, including our own. So his demise should be welcomed by all who believe in peace and human dignity." -- President Obama

Photo Source

I've been thinking a lot about this man's death, and whether its okay to celebrate it. Some have even gone so far to say that doing so is "a violation of human dignity."

Really?

There truly are some people who the human race is better without. From a Christian standpoint, that's not to say they're not worth anything (D&C 18:10), but let's get real: Just because a person is worth something doesn't mean they're working toward the betterment of mankind. 

One of the important distinctions that I believe was overlooked by the press was that people weren't so much celebrating the death of OBL as they were celebrating what that death represented. The same could be said for terrorists who cheered with the Twin Towers fell. For them, it wasn't necessarily the deaths of innocent thousands that made them happy, but the triumph of their disgustingly perverted interpretation of "Islam" that 9/11 represented.

For those who cheered at Ground Zero and at the White House, it wasn't necessarily the death of Bin Laden that was cause for joy, but the symbolic achievement wrought by nearly a decade's worth of sacrifice from courageous American soldiers.

On both 9/11 and 5/1, cheers erupted for a cause  that was advanced, rather than for deaths that were incurred along the way. The difference being that those who died on 9/11 were innocent. 

So you know what? Now that I think of it: Yeah. I am a little happy that Bin Laden is dead. I guess I do celebrate the death of some  people. And if you think that's sick and twisted or not very Christian of me or a violation of human dignity or not something that Martin Luther King Jr. would approve of (by the way, that quote wasn't real) then so be it. If you think it's stupid of me to express those sentiments publicly because it will only galvanize terrorists, guess what? We killed Osama bin Laden. Those sons of bitches are going to be galvanized no matter how we react.

The world is better off because Osama bin Laden is dead.

You live in this world. So be happy about it.

Allahu Akbar

الله أكبر

God is great.

I have thought so much about freedom during the past 18 days, and watching what has been happening in Egypt--I can't even describe how it's changed me. It makes me very emotional. I feel grateful, I feel empowered, and I feel hope.

Because God is great.

American Sleaze

After ample time at BYU, Brock and I have determined that:

1. Brock wants to be a lawyer on Wall Street, and possibly run for public office later in life.

2. I want to work on Capitol Hill or in intelligence, and possibly run for public office later in life.

Law. Wall Street. Politics. Congress. CIA. How is it that after so much education, we are seemingly wanting to be involved with everything that's wrong in America?

(I'm pretty sure Michael Moore would have an aneurysm knowing that such a couple exists.)

Le Weekend

Aren't Sundays amazing? Brock is upstairs dozing, I'm sitting at the kitchen table eating chocolate chip cookie dough, and Mojo is sprawled out on top of the couch (right where the sun rays stream through the blinds). In an hour or so we'll head over to Grandma Thomas' house for a yummy Sunday dinner, guitar picking, a card game or two and an episode of "The Amazing Race."

This weekend has been lazy and wonderful. Yesterday we woke up late, cleaned the house, prepared our talks for Sacrament Meeting, and I gave Brock a much-needed haircut. Later that evening, we dropped by the reception of Rachael Rylander--one of the girls Brock grew up with back in HB. Her reception was darling! Honestly, the cutest one I've ever been too. It was held at the Market Street Grill in Park City, and was decorated all in pastel blues, purples, pinks, etc. When you walked in, there was a photo booth for you to take pictures of yourself in, and then it printed out a strip of your photos for the guest book! Speaking of the guest book, all you did was type your name on a piece of parchment using using a baby-blue typewriter! So cute. It was funny seeing all us 21st century folks trying to figure out how to use it (you have to press the buttons HARD!).

In the dining room they had old, classic Louis Armstrong jazz playing, and Rachael's dress--which she designed herself--was a total throwback to the jazz age (yet still looked so modern and chic!). It was absolutely stunning. If I could do my wedding over again, I would copy every single thing Rachael did!

We then zipped up to Salt Lake to hear Mitt Romney speak! We both got signed, first edition copies of his new book, No Apology, as part of the $25 admission price. Pretty awesome...especially if he becomes President!! At the end of his speech they opened it up for Q&A. And let me tell ya, there were some stupid Qs! One guy said something like "Obama promised all this stuff on the campaign trail, like how the healthcare debates would be televised, but that hasn't happened. Are you going to lie, too?" Really? I wanted to ask him why he was wasting everybody's time with that question! Do you honestly think any politician would answer "Yep! I fully plan on lying!" Psch. Dumbzo.

The best question of the night was the last one, from a 12-year boy from Utah. He just asked Mitt Romney straight up if he was going to run for president in 2012! So rad!! It takes a 12-year old with no inhibition to ask that question :) Mitt said that after he's campaigned for people throughout these next November elections, he will sit down with his family at Christmas and talk about it.
Today has been blissful as well. We gave talks in Sacrament Meeting--our first once ever since we moved into the ward three years ago! I spoke about the history of General Conference, and Brock spoke about how we can prepare for it. At 10:45am, right before church, we tried to print out our talks...only to discover that our printer was out of ink! So we frantically called a member of the bishopric, who said to email it to him so he could print it off at the church. Well, guess what? For the first time in ages, our internet decided to go on the fritz! No email!

By this time, I was freaking out. My talk was seven pages of dates and facts about General Conference...there was no way I could have remembered it all off the top of my head. Brock dropped me off at church and ran home to put our talks on a flashdrive...which he then printed off at the church. Finally, after was seemed like ages, he walked into Sacrament Meeting ten minutes late with our talks in hand. Phew!

Both our talks went well. We were worried about not taking up enough time because we were the only two speakers, but we ended up running over! Brock's talk was especially good. He always uses so many scriptures in any talk/lesson he gives, and today was no different. There's no "this is the gospel according to Brock" spiel (we've all heard those talks before....) Instead, it's always like THIS IS THE GOSPEL. LET'S READ IT. LET'S APPLY IT. BAM. I love it! :) Not a lot of people teach like that...it's so refreshing. Tons of people came up to him afterward and were like "Wow! I've never thought of it that way before! What was that scripture again?"

Anyway, we're off to Grandma's for dinner :) I know this was kind of a random, out-of-nowhere blog post (since I hardly ever do it anymore!) but I decided to take advantage of my precious free time and give an update.