back in town

Thank you to the two outstanding local bloggers that offered to keep this ship afloat while I study for the Bar. Unfortunately, I only have one of your email addresses (because it was publicly available) so only one of you has been invited to guest blog so far.

I had a great trip and I was amazed I handled my internet withdrawal as well as I did. I would put up pictures but we accidentally left the camera in my parents car when they picked us up from the airport.

Anyway, I wanted to write today about my motto and AW's problems with it. "Truth over balance" is in reference to the fact that many times, in fact most times these days, reporters seek to "balance" their story by giving equal play to two sides, when they instead could easily find an objective reality. Now it is true that the truth is complicated, and some times relative but I would rather delve into that then listen to spin, be it from the left or right. And further, some times there is more than just a left and a right way to view something.

The truth used to come out via balance, but reporters have been slow to adapt to a new no-holds-bar environment that started when Bill Clinton came to the swamp. DC pols became so caught up in winning that they really couldn't care less about lying or distorting facts. In fact, more bold the spin, the better the press secretary was perceived by pols and reporters. Rather than create a era of civility [by "changing the tone in Washington"], the Bush Presidency brought the spin to a high art and new low. Dick Cheney goes on TV and while not literally lying, he creates such a distorted view of reality that you wonder what all those heart medications are doing to him.

Other adversarial system are able to get at the truth much better than the journalistic "balance" story. In a court of law, for example, the rules of evidence don't allow for a simple "he-said-she-said" unless that is all that is there. Perjury, slander, etc. are prosecuted; victim's and defendant's have rights to avoid topics that will bias the jury unfairly; prosecutors and defense attorneys cannot say whatever they want in their opening and closings; and all witnesses are subject to cross examination that they have to answer, not softballs or evasive answers.

Conventional journalism has not adapted to the last 20 years of evolving tactics of public relations. Bloggers like myself have attempted to fill in this void, not by seeking balance, but by seeking the truth. Who leaked Valerie Plame's name to the press? Why? Who is responsible for the WMD's lie? Who is responsible for firing 8-10 US Attorneys? Why were they fired? Why is the government illegally wiretapping our phone calls without a FISA warrant? Why did we go to war with Iraq? Why are we trying to go to war with Iran? Why are we torturing people? Who exactly is in GitMo? Why are we ignoring Afghanistan and Pakistan and Somalia and Sudan and Israel and Palestine? Why are people trying to teach creationism in school? Why are people trying to teach children that America is a Christian nation and that the Bible is as much of a constitutional source as the Federalist Papers?

These are the questions that bloggers have sought to ask and answer. Other bloggers have critiqued articles and stories and headlines of media bias, for and against conservatives. But to say that the current MSM system is working is to ignore objective reality. It took years before the media stopped being afraid of Bush to actually critically examine his policies. It took blogger prodding to get Scooter Libby convicted, and for the US Attorney purge to get investigated by Congress.

I wish I could just go back to dreaming up good policies, debating with people, supporting candidates, and studying law, but the media have gotten too cozy with those in power and as a citizen, I can't stand by and watch the US piss away its prestige and power for the glory and profit of the few. I have to speak up.

hiatas

Dear Readers,

Tomorrow I graduate from law school, and my grandmothers, two aunts, and an uncle will be on hand, so I will very busy with family events. Saturday I will be on my way to St. Thomas for a week, thanks to a free hotel stay from my mortgage broker and free airfare thanks to my copious use of my AmEx. This means that in all likelihood, this will be my last post until the 21st.

I will miss you while I try to unplug from the world for a week. When I get back to Utah, BarBri (a Bar Exam prep course) will start up and I will be fairly busy studying for the two-day test until the end of July.

Accordingly, I am accepting applications for guest blogger. By "application" I mean you post a comment saying you are interested. Consider yourself invited to "apply."

foreseen yet again

(Credit: Mythical blog)
At the beginning the year, I said Cannon will face a stiffer primary challenge in 2008 than in 2006, pointing to A) his chilly reception at the Utah state Legislature B) the amount of support that a cook like Jacob could get. Once Republicans saw how soft Cannon's support was, they decided to pounce. With his brother out of the chairman's seat, it just got that much easier to be congresman.

Five months later, the Salt Lake Tribune reports:

...just five months into his new term the opposition for his next race is already forming.
At least four other Republicans are considering running against Cannon.
They are former Juab County prosecutor David Leavitt, who is also former Gov. Mike Leavitt's brother; Jason Chaffetz, a former chief of staff to Gov. Jon Huntsman; John Jacob, who Cannon beat last year in the Republican primary and Merrill Cook, who came in third in that primary.

I don't know who among these guys is the least bad, but I think Jacob is probably the worst choice.

The failings of Mr. Cannon are so evident, obviously there is going to be a number of challengers," Chaffetz said. "All I can do is put my best foot forward and see if I'm the right messenger with the right message."
Each believes Cannon is vulnerable at the Republican convention with delegates who are more conservative than Republican primary voters.
Last year, Jacob actually beat Cannon at the GOP convention, 52 percent to 48 percent. The result forced a primary, which Cannon won, 56 percent to 44 percent.
Chaffetz decided Cannon must be replaced after observing him as Huntsman's liaison to Utah's congressional delegation.
"He has not instituted good conservative practices," Chaffetz said, pointing to fiscal discipline, limited government and ethics and personal responsibility.
Cannon defended his conservative credentials. He has the highest rating among Utah members of Congress from the American Conservative Union and the highest rating in Utah from Americans for Tax Reform.
The biggest issue in the 3rd District remains immigration. Challengers old and new paint Cannon as soft on illegal immigration and in favor of amnesty, a charge Cannon vigorously denies.
[...]
Leavitt returned to private practice after losing his 2002 re-election campaign for Juab County attorney by 22 votes. With his wife, he started the Leavitt Institute for International Development.
"Now that the Democrats have taken control of Congress, I believe we need a congressman that has a skill set that is able to work with a different political landscape than we've had the last 12 or 14 years," Leavitt said. "It's time for a re-evaluation of who we send to Congress."

Leavitt lost his job in Juab after successfully prosecuting infamous polygamist Jeff Green. It would be interesting to see how the polygamist vote goes in the primary.

they still don't get it

In today's edition of me bashing the local-DC press corps, I start off with a willfully blind headline: "As presidency nears end, Bush reaches out to Democrats"

Let's get things straight. Bush is reaching out to conservative Democrats like Jim Matheson, not because he is interested in compromising his position, but because he is hoping Matheson and others continue to compromise theirs. Bush's idea of compromise is to pretend like he is giving something up, but issue a signing statement saying he is pocket vetoing that provision. Or giving up something rhetorically, but not actually. The man thinks compromise is caving in.

So example, Bush vetoed the last Iraq supplemental, which included withdrawal time tables (which he supported in 1999 for Kosovo) and presidential sign offs on impossible things like a new oil law. After failing to override the veto, Democratic leaders drafted a "short leash" bill that purportedly drops the time tables, but keeps the sign offs, and requires multiple votes to keep the funding going.

In response, Bush said he would veto that too. And then someone leaked this:

Military officials now say it will be several more months before they can determine whether the "surge" in troops authorized by Bush is helping quell sectarian and other violence. In announcing new troop deployments, top commanders said the increased troop levels may need to last until next spring -- a timetable that could clash with congressional sentiment in favor of a quicker troop withdrawal.

Prominent bloggers have all pointed out this is definitive proof that September won't be the magic pony month we all wish it would be. That is, Republicans won't join the Democratic plan to end the war in droves. Maybe a few will peal off, but not the 70+ needed to override the President's veto in the House or 17+ needed in the Senate.

I tend to believe that two (or three?) things are at play: Bush is desperate to keep the helicopters leaving the Baghdad embassy image on another president's watch and Congressional Republicans don't want Iraq to be an issue in 2008 like it was in 2006, but don't want to be too disloyal to the man that got them there.

I like the idea of the short leash because it forces repeated votes by "moderate" Republicans in favor of an unending war. But I don't know a practical solution to how we end the war before 2008. What happens after the Congress approves the short leash, and Bush vetos it?

Some time in the fall, the Pentagon's money is going to run out. Assuming no funding bill gets passed by Congress that Bush likes, that means the Pentagon will have to start trimming some things and shifting money around. Some think that will force the troops to come home. I think it will just make things worse, more cuts in armor and health care while more troops get sent over there for more time.

Democratic leaders understand Bush much better than Blue Dogs do apparently. There is no compromising with this man.

four's a crowd

(Credit VCU center for psychological services and development)

After Enid was shoved out the door, it looks like there will be a shoving match to see who gets the UT GOP chairmanship. I say -manship because it will be a white man for sure.

Steve Harmsen, former GOP Salt Lake County councilman, and Stan Lockhart, former Utah County GOP chairman and current IM Flash public affairs official, have both filed for the open chairman seat, state party officials said Tuesday.
Also filing for the office are Aaron Bludworth and Bill Conley, GOP staffers said. Any registered Republican can run for party posts, the deadline being Thursday at 5 p.m. Chairman, vice chairman, secretary, treasurer and national committee members will be picked by state GOP delegates in convention June. 9.

If this is what I had to choose from, I would choose Harmsen. At least he was elected county-wide before, even if Jenny Wilson beat him in 2004. But I hope they choose Lockhart:

Lockhart is the husband of Rep. Becky Lockhart, R-Provo. Like Harmsen, Stan Lockhart also has been active in GOP politics. He is currently one of the better-known lobbyists on Utah's Capitol Hill, routinely spending thousands of dollars yearly entertaining lawmakers.
[...]
Current U.S. House Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah, was a lobbyist while GOP chairman, often seen on the Hill lobbying for gun rights advocates. And former GOP party chairs Frank Suitter and Joe Cannon (now Deseret Morning News editor) both were state registered lobbyists during part of their chairmanship tenures — although neither man was often seen on Utah's Capitol Hill.
"We have a tradition in this party" of chairmen being registered lobbyists, said Lockhart. And that is a good thing, he added, because respected lobbyists have the "unique ability to blend (together) party officeholders (like legislators), donors and the party's grassroots." Forming strong coalitions is what party-building is all about, he said.

Ah yes, what a grand tradition, to be a corporate shill. To be fair, "Salt Lake County Councilman Randy Horiuchi served as Democratic Party chairman in the 1980s while a lobbyist." Since then however, no lobbyists have been Democratic state party chairmen.

I don't know about you, but I going to get some popcorn ready and watch the fur fly.

Tuesday round-up

Due to the utter amazingness of the Jazz-Warriors game last night (Dee Brown was my game 1 MVP), I could not sleep and thus will be only good for paragraphs of coherent thoughts. Ergo, a round up.

• Elections have real consequences on the lives of people, even if it takes 3 years for the effects to be felt. Here, women in Utah in need of a particular medical procedure soon will no longer be able to utilize it thanks to 5 catholic old white men picked by 3 white old men who were Republican presidents
  

  Utah has filed to have an injunction lifted so a state law banning partial birth abortions can go into effect immediately.
  The Legislature passed a bill banning such abortions in 2004. But the Utah Women's Clinic and the Planned Parenthood Association of Utah sued the state over the law.
  A federal judge imposed an injunction putting the bill on hold pending a review by the U.S. Supreme Court.
  Last month, the Supreme Court ruled bans on partial birth abortions do not violate a woman's constitutional right to an abortion.
  In light of that ruling, the Utah Attorney General's office has filed a federal petition asking the injunction on Utah's law be lifted.
  Unless the Women's Clinic and Planned Parenthood fight the lifting of the injunction, the law could take effect immediately.



• Hatch and Matheson have big warchests. Matheson's isn't surprising: he finally won by a big margin, and his party is in power. Plus, he is on a big committee. People are tripping over themselves to give to Matheson since he will actually need it more than any other Democrat on the Energy and Commerce Committee (save Charlie Melancon, LA, John Barrow, GA, and Baron P. Hill, IN). But why does Hatch have $2.4M?
  

  For example, the senator is keeping his campaign manager — Dave Hansen — on salary at $10,000 a month for the "indefinite future," as Hansen puts it. That's $120,000 a year managing a Hatch campaign six years away. Hansen is an experienced fund-raiser and strategist who once was the political director of the National Republican Senatorial Committee.
  Hatch also continues to pay "Mr. Mac" Christensen, of local clothier fame, and longtime GOP activist Stan Parrish $6,000 a month ($72,000 a year) for "fund raising and other items," Hansen said.
  Hatch's campaign cuts a check to C&C Advisors — which is a firm run by Christensen and Parrish — who served as Hatch's chief of staff in the early 1980s. And how those two men split up the money from there is up to them, said Hansen.
  [...]
  Those accounts have given $81,400 so far this year to other politicians and local arms of the GOP. That includes donating to eight incumbent U.S. senators and presidential candidate Mitt Romney.
  Hansen notes, "He also wants to support good causes, like local (nonprofit) organizations."
  Hatch donations along that line included $250 to the Utah Humanities Council, $500 to the Utah Division of Veterans Affairs and $160 to the NAACP. He also gave $1,000 to the widow of a soldier killed in Iraq. Hatch "knew she needed some help, and he wanted to help," said Hansen.

  
  How about giving $1,000 to every widow(er) of a US solider killed in Iraq thanks to your vote and vociferous continued support of Bush's escalation policy? Instead of to Mr. Mac? That would only cost you $3,378,000...and counting.


• Lots of people watched (and blogged about) the Hannity-Rocky "Debate." Personally, I didn't because I thought the whole thing was a waste of time. No one in that hall or watching changed their minds on Bush or Hannity, or Rocky. At least, that is true with me: I still respect but dislike Rocky. I still have no respect for Hannity. I still think Bush is a misguided train wreck of a president and person.


• Rep. Chris Cannon, who did exactly nothing to get the Utah-DC bill passed, now is going to claim credit if it gets through the Senate.
  

  Rep. Chris Cannon says there may yet be a glimmer of light for a plan to give Utah a fourth House seat, based on a discussion the congressman had with Vice President Cheney during his recent flight to Utah.
  Cannon raised the issue of the legislation...when he was aboard Air Force 2 with Cheney as the vice president traveled to deliver a commencement speech at Brigham Young University.
  Cheney characterized the concerns as something at the staff level, but said there are some key senior-level staff who support the legislation, Cannon said.
  "I can't imagine that the president would veto a bill like this," Cannon said in an interview. "I think when push comes to shove, the president will sign it."

  
  Here's why the President should sign the bill: "A presidential veto on this would consign the Republican Party in perpetuity to 8 to 10 percent of the black vote."-Jack Kemp, 1996 GOP VP candidate.

'The Mormons' beat the Jazz

I know this is fairly old news. But I just finished watching the 4 hour documentary the other day.

...more Utahns tuned into KUED Channel 7 and KBYU Channel 11 for the first episode of "The Mormons" Monday night than watched KJZZ Channel 14 and cable's TNT simulcast of game 5 of the Utah Jazz playoffs.
"It's the highest [ratings] we've ever had," said KUED General Manager Larry Smith. "This is very phenomenal and very unusual." He said KUED likely will re-run the series in mid-summer.
According to Nielsen Media Research, Monday's episode on the history of the LDS Church drew a 17.9 rating and Tuesday's segment earned a 17.7. Normally, KUED's weekly nighttime ratings are between 1.8 and 2.
[...]
Nationally, the series was also was a relative hit. At a 3 rating, the documentary captured nearly double the viewers of a normal PBS weeknight, said KBYU spokesman Jim Bell.

I wonder what would have happened if 'the Mormons' was on the same night as game 7.

The show was really well done I thought and gave sound voice to LDS skeptics and faithful alike. It also explained the various portions of LDS dogma that so many non-LDS folks find so unusual and confusing. And it explained polygamy well, which is the number one thing people "know" about Mormons.

When I met people in college, I would say that I was from Utah. The next thing out of my mouth would be "but I am not Mormon." and then the part after that would be "only a handful of crazies are polygamists still, the Church hasn't been polygamous for over hundred years."

Consider this yet another thread where I can be educated on LDS theology, and people's views on the documentary (especially if there were errors or offensive material).

foreseen again

It looks like it is time for another edition of "I called it" ala Stephen Colbert. Nearly a year ago, I said that because of the way he handled the RSL stadium deal, SL County Mayor Peter Carroon could run for statewide office and have a legitimate shot at winning.

I think Peter has a decent chance to run for Governor or Senate one day. If I were him, I wouldn't go for the House. First though, get reelected by a big margin in 2008. Still, Utah Democrats now have a real bench. And if a decent Democrat gets elected mayor of Salt Lake City, then we might have another seat open up on the bench...behind the squeeky clean County Mayor.

Flash forward to today's Salt Lake Tribune:

The more Real Salt Lake's reputation slips, the more Salt Lake County Mayor Peter Corroon's rises - so much so that pundits say this once-obscure Democrat, who killed a stadium-funding package only to see the governor resurrect it, could become a viable contender for statewide office.
Does this mean a Gov. Corroon or a Sen. Corroon could emerge?
Probably not, at least for now. But "I can't think of any Democrat that would have a better chance than he would," said political pollster Dan Jones, president of Dan Jones & Associates.

please don't tell me the news

a funny thing is happening these days: newspapers in general are losing circulation. That is, large national ones that cover the important news of the day, like Bush's signing statements, "extraordinary rendition," CIA "black sites," the Pat Tilman/Jessica Lynch fabrication, etc.

But local papers, especially the ones that focus on local news, are actually going up. Please like to hear about local sports, deaths, marriages, events, etc. When the world seems to be spiraling down the drain, maybe the local stories are easier to focus on. Moreover it is particularly easier for the papers to do as well, not because it isn't easier to put in wire stories that they didn't write, but because it is their solemn duty.

"I'm so frustrated with seeing local stories on the front page! Particularly 'special interest' ones that could be printed anytime (i.e. international adoptions). They don't belong there, they really don't, and every editor in the world knows that. Local news shouldn't be on the front page unless the news is so huge, it is of national importance."
[...]
Almost all those medium-circulation dailies (we are one) put local news on the front page because readers buy local newspapers to get local news. People can get world and national news 24-7 now on broadcast TV and cable news networks. News that reflects what goes on in Utah, what trends are hot here, what's funny, what's unusual and what will cause tax bills to jump belongs on the front page so that readers can find the local news they want - whether they buy the paper from the rack or have it delivered to their homes.

So there, don't tell me how to do our jobs, silly people who pay my salary. Oh the arrogance never leaves the newspaper business.

Is Utah's referendum law constitutional?

"Utah Const. art. VI, § 1. Article VI, section 1 is not merely a grant of the right to directly legislate, but reserves and guarantees the initiative power to the people." Gallivan v. Walker, 2002 UT 89, p23, 54 P.3d 1069 (citations omitted). "The power of the legislature and the power of the people to legislate through initiative and referenda are coequal, coextensive, and concurrent and share 'equal dignity.' " Id. (citations omitted).

Brad Swedlund, who lead the anti-RSL stadium referendum signature gathering effort, said the law doesn't match up to Gallivan's rhetoric, "The way the requirements are currently written, the Utah Legislature is more interested in 'absolute power' for themselves than empowering the people to occasionally challenge decisions made."

Gallivan overturned a version of the statute that mandated the 10 percent threshold in 20 of Utah's 25 counties. The current version is 15 counties. It is still too high. Why are rural voter's signatures worth many times more than urban voter's signatures? Isn't that what Reynold v. Sims was about?

In theory, rural voters should be madder about the RSL giveaway more than urban voters, since people along the Wasatch front could actually attend a RSL game in the new stadium, while people from Bullfrog, UT probably won't be able to.

"Although state legislators passed the bill, the issue is certainly not a statewide issue," Swedlund wrote. "That, in fact, was one of the reasons we initiated the referendum process. We believe a county's decisions about its tax base should be left to the county, unless it specifically conflicts with state or federal legislation."

Requiring 15 counties means rising the cost of getting something on the ballot only to pre-existing, well-funded interest groups and not spur of the moment grassroots efforts like Get Real Utah.

This is bad for democracy. While I want to see some level of support for referenda before they make our ballots as long as California's, I think the 15 county method is a disingenuous means to achieve that goal.

like shooting fish in a barrell

I just couldn't resist pointing out the latest embarressing quote from Rep. Chris Cannon. (H/T TPM Muckraker)

Cannon said, that after "thousands and thousands of documents" have been turned over to Congress and "over more than half a dozen interviews" has been shown to be "a fairly thoughtful, competent process." So what's all the hullabaloo about? Cannon just wants us to "get beyond this."

Should I even bother with the facts that pretty much everyone besides George W. Bush, his Press Secretary, and Senator Hatch think the US Attorney purge was handled horrifically badly? Or that several conservative Republican Senators have called for Gonzales' resignation? Or maybe just objective reality? Nah. I will just let Rep. Cannon hang himself with his own noose.

getting serious about climate change

all the Democratic candidates for president, and John McCain (who will be virtually out of the race if he can't raise some serious--$20M--money by the second quarter, talk about climate change and ways they will go green. They all talk about some vague "Appolo Project" type effort to reduce our dependance on foreign oil.

Here are some ideas on how to get there for real, and not just take little feel good steps. These are things the next President and next Congress can do that are feasible, not overregulatory, and as market-based as possible.

1. Adopt a solar energy bill that will pay Americans who produce such energy a garunteed set rate of a long period of time above the current market rate for electricity in their area. Within this bill, add in massive R&D funding into battery technology (to store the excess daytime energy), and solar panels itself.
   Germany adopted something like this a while back and not only are they well on their way to making solar power a third of their total electricity portfollio, but also they have created thousands of jobs designing, producing, and installing solar panels. If you give folks a set profit, they can go to banks and get loans to put up solar panels on their rooves and vacant property. Creating your own solar panel is concrete step towards true energy independence and gives people a realistic thing they can do that is in their immediate interest.


2. Adopt high (45-50 MPG) CAFE standard for vehicles, and give consumers (including businesses) tax credits for every MPG over the CAFE standard their entire fleet is. This will give car makers the push to build more effecient vehicles, and car buyers incentives to scrap older vehicles for newer, more effecient ones.
   The Federal government can lead by example. As every car in the federal fleet expires, it would be replaced by a plug-in hydrid. The purchasing power of the federal government will also bring down the costs of such vehicles and further help create a market for them. (The later idea is Sen. Boxer's)


3. Currently, the US is third in wind energy production, Germany and the Netherlands, which are tiny by comparision, generate more. We should be far and away the biggest producer of wind energy. Again, inventivize consumers (via tax credits) and producers (by giving them interest free loans to build the turbines) to beef up the wind energy market.


4. Give up on Ethanol. I know the caucus goers in Iowa will be upset, but politicans have to stop sucking up to them by trying to make corn into fuel. It isn't effecient, and the air quality is worse than conventional gasoline.


5. Move trucks from desiel to biodesiel to plug in hybrids as much as possible, and try to make rail shipping more affordable than trucks.


6. shut down previously grand fathered in dirty coal plants in places like Texas and California. Replace them at least with new CCT (clean coal technology) plants at least. Better yet, try to supplant them with solar and wind.


7. At least try a cap and trade carbon emission system. Matt Stoller says it hasn't worked in the EU, but if our market and theirs were merged, things might change. A carbon tax is a last resort. Try to incentivize, rather than regulate people into finding ways to reduce their carbon output and sequestering the carbon they have to produce.

Some candidates talk about some of these items, but I have yet to hear any of them push for Germany's solar laws. The whole package would make a huge impact, at least, a lot more than just switching out one light bulb for a CFL. I have put in 3 for this year's Earth Day, and my wife hates them so much--because of the dimness and light quality--I may find them all switched back when I am not looking.

a gentleman's agreement gone awry

Yesterday I pointed out that lame-duck UT GOP chair Enid "Joe tricked me" Greene was shoved out the door unceremoniously the other day because a "gentlemen's agreement."

The best part is, today news came that in one of her last acts of power, Enid canned the guy who was quoted as saying the "gentleman's agreement" line--Executive Director Jeff Hartley. Watch the fur fly:

"Jeff went substantially further into debt than I would feel comfortable with," Greene said. "That is the source with my disagreement."
Hartley doesn't buy it.
"This isn't about the debt," he said. "This is just personal, petty and vindictive."
[...]
Greene said she wanted to fire Hartley a few months ago. She held off because the governor's office asked her to. The governor and the state's two U.S. senators routinely take turns backing a candidate for party chairman. This year is Huntsman's turn. He wanted Fred Lampropoulos to lead the state party and Lampropoulos wanted Hartley to stay on as executive director.
But in the past week, Lampropoulos has backed out of the race, removing Hartley's protection.
"I was not going to have on my conscience passing someone along whom I don't think is right for the job," Greene said.

Ouch! Of course, we all know Enid is lying, she has a reputation for flibbing from the last time she got caught and blamed criminal activities on her ex-husband and campaign treasurer Joe Waldholtz.

Still, it is fun to see two horrible people beating each other up. It is the only time you can really get pleasure out of such a thing without feeling the slighest bit guilty.

Tuesday round-up

• Congrats to voucher opponents and supporters of direct democracy (and accountability) everywhere "For the first time in more than 30 years, Utah residents will get to decide whether to repeal a new law." And for those who argued that this was just big city teacher's unions gone wild, check this out: "Support for the voucher referendum was weakest in San Juan, Summit, Washington and Weber counties. Juab, Kane, Millard, Rich, Sevier and Wayne counties showed the strongest support, with petitioners collecting more than twice as many signatures as needed. Beaver County boasted nearly three times the number of required signatures."


• Sadly, the stadium decision was apparently not nearly as unpopular as the voucher one. "Of the 91,966 signatures needed, only 12,343 were certified. In addition, only one county — Daggett County — submitted enough petitions to meet one of the state requirements." This was an organic no-budget attempt to hold the legislature, the governor, and Sandy's mayor accountable.


• Two members of Utah's delegation to DC won't vote for a bill that would give Utah a fourth seat--and they are both republicans.
  

  The bill passed the House last month — without the support of Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah — but still faces constitutional concerns from some lawmakers and a potential veto threat from the White House.
  Bishop supports Utah getting a fourth seat but did not like the way the bill has changed since it was first introduced. Sen. Bob Bennett, R-Utah, also supports a fourth seat for Utah but will study the Senate bill once it's introduced, according to his office.

  "Study" is code for vote against.

unsurprising news

As I predicted, Enid Greene announced she would not run for a full term as UT GOP chair after Joe Cannon gave her the post so he could turn the Deseret News into the Washington Times of Salt Lake.

Greene — divorced from convicted felon Joe Waldholtz for more than a decade — is planning to remarry this summer. And she said she wants to give her time to personal pursuits.
"We're selling houses and building a house and blending families and I have much to do," said Greene. She's not closing the door to any future political campaign, just this one. "I want to see the party in good hands. There's a bit of a vacuum in leadership. I believe we will find a good chairman; it just won't be me."

Remember Enid, when you sell a house, you can't funnel it into a political committee, no matter what "your ex-husband told you." But the best quote of all is this unintentially revealing comment "It was never a backroom kind of an agreement," said Jeff Hartley, state GOP executive director. "It was a gentleman's agreement so we wouldn't get into the position of the governor backing one (chairman) candidate, and the two U.S. senators backing others and so on." That's right all the gentlemen agreed, so Enid had to go get remarried and have babies. After all, politics are for men, right Utah GOP?

The losing winning argument

I have been thinking about this whole debate over the "War on Terror" and whether it can be "won" or "lost" for quite some time now, but I guess it worth addressing now that the GOP-spoon-fed-media are attacking Sen. Reid for saying that the war in Iraq is lost.

There were clearly two main phases of this war, which really are two separate wars. The first was the initial invasion, which America obviously won. Saddam's government was quickly overthrown, his military destroyed, his son's killed, and Saddam himself going into hiding and all with very little burning of oil fields and other environmental self-destructions. Great work by the military, even if it was fighting a weaker opponent than they did in 1991. After all, it had a much bigger task, and with far less troops--thanks to Rumsfeld--to do it.

The second phase was the occupation, which everyone who looks at reality knows was lost. Not in the sense of military retreat, but in the sense that the Iraqi people quickly became distrustful and disliking of the "coalition." And the Iraqis had good cause because college Republicans who were put in charge of Iraq--like the 24 year old real estate major who was in charge of the Iraqi stock exchange--messed everything up horribly. We couldn't even execute Saddam properly. Massive weapons stock piles went unguarded, giving groups plenty of raw material for IEDs... You know the litany as well as I do.

The point is, Americans are not seen as liberators but as occupiers who just want Iraqi oil and don't really care about democracy. Meanwhile, our military was unable to provide security and stability in important areas of the country, like the capitol were most people live. This is because they were not trained to be diplomats and police officers, but to conquer. Republicans used to critique Clinton's aggressive internationalism as being a "policeman to the world" well now our military is Baghdad PD.

The resulting instability and lack of security enabled tribalism to prevail. Ethnicity-based gangs offered neighborhoods protection in exchange for payments, these gangs infiltrated the state security apparatus, not only enabling the Baghdad Iraqi police force to become a tool of ethnic cleansing but also body guards to members of parliament themselves. Imagine if the IDF didn't exist and it was just groups like Hamas, Hezbollah, and Jewish extremists warring in the streets of Jerusalem...that is what happening.

Militarily, US forces cannot "win" Iraq back at this point. Maybe in 2003 or 2004, a surge and competent multinational leadership (with Muslim troops and leaders) could have made a difference. Politically, no side wants to renegotiate because they all believe they can achieve control of the country via genocide. There is nothing for these groups to gain by talking to the US or US-backed Iraqis.

Maybe the US forces are slowing the rate of such a genocide, as conservatives argue, but I don't think the US has any credibility left with the Iraqis to stay in a humanitarian capacity. If we give up our bases, let the Iraqi government invite in NATO or the Arab League (plus Iran) or the UN, we could be a part of that contingent. But the "coalition" has no power to serve as a power broker.

Republicans like to get into this rhetorical battle over "losing" and "defeat" on "the War on Terror," even though you can never defeat a tactic on the battlefield. What the U.S. and its allies are really fighting against around the globe is religious extremism that wants to dissolve church-state boundaries to oppress women and to eliminate all religious dissenters through violence. These groups use terror because they don't have the multi-billion dollar military budget of the US, and because it is pretty cost effective.

That war has not been lost. However, Bush's policies have strengthened the enemy. Iraq has wasted our resources (money, equipment, troop moral, public support, and troops themselves) on a side project that created more trained radicals willing and able to kill us. So now we have no troops to send to Afghanistan, where the Taliban is regaining control, no covert ops to send to Indonesia or deep into Pakistan. And the American people no longer trust President Bush, so he has no leeway in fighting this true war. Moreover, the world has long stopped trusting President Bush, so he will get no help from any country without bribes.

As many others have said, instead of using the events of 9/11 to rally the world behind the threat of religious extremism and eliminating it, Bush chose to go to war against someone who tried to kill his Dad, and to finish the job his Dad started. He chose to use the war as a club to beat his political opponents with, leveraging it into victories in 2002 and 2004. Meanwhile, he made the real war that started on 9/11 harder to win for him and his successor. That's why Cheney and his enablers in the Media are trying to tear down Harry Reid over the win/loose argument. They know that Al Qeada and ideologically allied groups are stronger than they were on 9/10.

copy and paste journalism

Now many of you know that I am a big fan of Rep. Jim Matheson (D-UT), and that I proudly served as intern in his office one summer. And what I am about to say is no slam on Jim, although I wish he would have voted for the Iraq Accountability Act.

What this post is about is lazy journalism. It seems once someone reports for the D.C. bureau or works on a national paper, they have to turn off their brain and parrot talking points and the Beltway's always wrong CW. Just look at David Broder's embarrassing foray into going after Maj. Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev) as incompetent as AG Alberto Gonzales even though he managed to corral 50 Democrats and Joe Lieberman into passing lots of great legislation already (oh and can remember stuff he did a few months ago).

Anyway past to the meat of my post. This article "written" by Robert Gehrke, is clearly a Jim Matheson/Blue Dog press release with little or no edits. Politicians draft their press release in the following formula: snappy positive headline with pol's name in it, brief one sentence pro-politician spin on the event, a quote from the politician, an explainer paragraph, and then one more quote from the same politician or a bigger name.

This article follows the formula to a tea. In fact, it is very similar to a 2 year old Blue Dog Press release...one that came up as the number three hit on Google when I copy and pasted Gehrke's headline into the search engine (number one when you remove the phrase "moderate Dems").

Now I agree with this Blue Dog legislation, and applaud Allyson Heyrand and the rest of Matheson's press staff for getting this article in the Tribune, but couldn't Mr. Gehrke actually write the article next time? Is that really too much to ask? After all, when politicians copy and paste legislation that lobbyists give them, the public cries foul. Shouldn't someone watch the media and cry foul when they do the same thing?

wednesday round-up

Well, I finished my last final exam....[probably] EVER. That feels good, even if the test was long taxing. Oh elaborate fact pattern, how I dislike thee. After reclaiming my freedom temporarily (I have a 25 page paper to write on Wisconsin Right to Life's as-applied challenge to McCain-Finegold, and then the dreaded Bar awaits), I decided to skim through my google reader and found a few stories that I wanted to share with my readers.

• "Brigham Young University will bestow on Vice President Dick Cheney an honorary degree Thursday when he speaks at the university's commencement exercises" according to the Utah Republican Party Morning News. One question why? What has he done other than get GWB elected twice? Made a lot of money off questionable oil deals with Iraq and Iran? Steering no-bid contracts to his former company? Leading us into a war that has been disasterous on so many levels? Lying openly and repeatedly? Pushing a theory of executive power equal to Nixon's wrong interpretation of the constitution? Advocating torture? Where are the things that Cheney stands for that BYU finds in keeping with the LDS faith? Answer that, and you deserve an honorary degree.


• I am glad the media finally picked up Gov. Huntsman's flip flop on vouchers: "Huntsman [] said earlier this spring he would stand by the public should voters reject school vouchers, this week he said it would be up to the Legislature to respond to the vote." Here's the exact quote from a news conference in February (not exactly spring, but I guess it makes it sound more dramatic): "If the people vote (the voucher law) down, obviously that's the answer, I mean the people have spoken ... and I would obviously respect that." Actually, it is obvious that he has no respect for the voters. I guess that he why he supports McCain, who doesn't care what the people think on Iraq, and his Dad supports Romney, who cares so much what the people think that he is willing to pretend he agrees with them whomever he is talking to.

Monday round-up

OK I just couldn't resist writing another post about these next two items (someone diagnosed with ADD shouldn't have caffeine in the system):

Sean Hannity is a coward, a chicken, and a bully. Everyone knows it, and others in the Utah blogosphere have said it before, but it bears repeating.

Suddenly, the debate planned for May 4 between the liberal Salt Lake City mayor and the conservative Fox News commentator appears off. Hannity objected to the presence of a documentary film crew, which had planned to record the Kingsbury Hall smackdown.
According to Anderson's office, Hannity is blaming the mayor for backing out on contract terms. But Patrick Thronson, Anderson's spokesman, says the reverse is true. Thronson says the ban on documentary filmmakers "came out of nowhere."

Why are you so afraid of Rocky, Sean? Are you too used to beating up on people on your radio and TV shows by cutting them off? What is so wrong with a documentary crew (my guess--this divided state, part II)? Are they going to show you in a bad light to liberal audiences? Oh no, that never happens. Plus, if they really use editing to distort the debate against you, as you would claim, you can always go back to the raw footage/transcript to prove it.

The headline "Cheney will call on LDS leaders while in Utah" disgusts me. It can be read as either, A) Cheney kissing their rings, or B) LDS leaders signaling that this is our guy. Either way is distasteful in my book. Moreover, the article says it is A) but then only mentions George and Laura Bush's visits with LDS leaders, subtlying sayin B) is the real answer. I know for a fact that Clinton met with LDS leaders in 1992, and charmed them. They really liked Bill, at least for a few moments.

exam week

Amazingly enough, on the first day of exams I am already half way through finals. (I turned in a paper after my test) But I still have one more exam Wednesday and then a 25 page paper by the end of next week.

So just warning you that posting may be light the next week or two. But here is something for you to chew on in the mean time:

Career politicians these days are getting too comfortable with Washington. Too risk-adverse, and get sucked into the allure of K street. Exhibit no. 1,243: ex-Sen. John Breaux (D-LA).

He took one look at the $5M US Rep. "Bobby" Jindal (R-LA) raised [he is a Brown Alum and Rhodes Scholar by the way], another look at his Maryland mansion and high paying lobbyist job, and wanted no part in helping his state get out of the post-Katrina mess.

Selfishly, Breaux, probably the most popular politician in the state, didn't want to lose an election, and certainly didn't want to lose his new found opulent lifestyle. So he asked the AG to rule either that he wasn't a resident or couldn't tell if he was a resident, so that Breaux could blame the AG's opinion letter for why he wouldn't run.

Same on you Breaux. Louisiana needs you, now more than ever.

making themselves unaccountable

Instead of calling a special session of the Utah Legislature if the Voucher bill goes forward (like he promised), Gov. Jon Huntsman will simply make the people vote on the referenum (assuming there are enough valid signatures). But instead of having an election relatively soon, as the law currently requires, or during a general election when people are used to voting, Huntsman wants it to be during the presidential primary next February.

House Republicans batted around scenarios during a caucus meeting earlier this week. Logan GOP Rep. Scott Wyatt, who voted for the voucher law, argued against a June 2007 vote.
"I just don't want to see it this summer," he said. "The summer elections bring in such a low number of voters."
With no money allocated, House Majority Leader David Clark, who also supported the bill, said he thinks a June vote "is not physically a possibility."
And Senate President John Valentine isn't inclined to provide any extra money for a special election. He calls a June vote "not acceptable," but would be fine with a referendum election in February, June or November of 2008, during elections that are already funded.
This November's municipal elections are not fully funded because some counties don't have seats up for a vote and others would need to upgrade to electronic machines for a statewide election, said Joe Demma, lieutenant governor's chief of staff.

If you recall, I argued that having our primary on Super Duper Tuesday will mean that no presidential candidate will ever stop by the state (except the big three GOPers, but only to raise money, they know that Mitt has this state wrapped up). More importantly, no one will come to vote in February.

While I agree with Min. Leader Clark that June would be a bad time too, why not 11/07 or 11/08? If you actually care what people have to say about things, you would place it on a date when people can and will vote on it. But we all know what the real agenda is, to save their own butts so that folks like Speaker Curtis don't get voted out of office over the voucher bill and the RSL stadium.

Hatch: I picked the wrong week to quit sniffing glue

[as an aside, "Airplane!" is one of the few movies I own on DVD because it is still funny after watching it for the 20th time]

While Alberto "I do not recall that, Senator" Gonzales was embarrassed himself [by being caught lying multiple times] for 5 straight hours under questioning from Senate Judiciary Committee members, ranging in ideology from Feingold and Leahy to Coburn and Graham, two Senators tried to give the embattled hack Attorney General a mini vacation. Three guesses who one of them was, and the first two don't count:

Sen. Orrin Hatch had a burning question: "How many employees do you have at the Department of Justice?"
Not to worry. Hatch, who has been on the Senate Judiciary Committee for 30 years and counting, had a follow-up. "What are the main core functions of the Department of Justice?" he asked. "You overview the FBI?"
Maybe it's because the senator still is recovering from shoulder surgery, but for several minutes Thursday, he lobbed softballs. Not just typical softballs, but questions so wispy a gentle breeze in the committee room would have sent Hatch's inquiries drifting into the ether.

Boy those sure are hard probing questions. Ones that any idiot with an org chart and access to an "about us" web page could answer.

"If you had had more hands on, on this, maybe we wouldn't be in this position today," Hatch said. "On the other hand, with 100,000-plus employees, it's easy to see why something sometimes slips by."

If it is so tough to do the job and forget something like a) offering a secret amendment to a key piece of legislation for the DOJ b) multiple meetings on said amendment and its new powers c) signing off on firing 8 US Attorneys...THEN RESIGN. And if Hatch thinks this is such a tough job where one can forget things, then he seems unqualified for the job either.

Poor Orin was one of the few cheerleaders left for a morally bankrupt national party. Not one, but two of his House colleagues had their homes/businesses raided by the FBI for investigations into corruption this week. Both men blamed the raid on their wife/in-laws, classy. World Bank President Paul Wolfowitz not only demanded that the State Department give his paramour a higher paying job than Condi Rice, but he personally urged that said girlfriend got a no-bid contract for Iraq in 2003 from the DoD where he worked at the time.

Once leading Presidential candidate Sen. John McCain "joked" about his would-be foreign policy to the Persians: singing "Bomb Iran" to the tune of "Barbara Ann" by the Beach Boys. And former HHS secretary and ex-gov. Tommy Thompson "praised" Jews in an audience for their "tradition" of raising money...his state newspaper called on him to drop out of the race.

I could go on, but I won't. I looks like Sen. Hatch picked the wrong week...

He Who Makes the Rules, Rules the Game

If you ever find yourself elected to a legislative body, and are in the majority party, try to get yourself on the Rules Committee. And you are a staffer, and are also ruthless and creative, Rules is the place for you to be.

The Salt Lake Tribune provides a great example why:

Republicans who used gun rights to derail a plan to give the District of Columbia its first full-voting House member and a fourth congressional seat for Utah won't be able to repeat their tactic today when the bill returns to the floor.
[...]
Several Republicans in late March tried to attach language that would have eliminated the district's long-standing handgun ban. Democrats, fearing many of their pro-gun rights members would side with the GOP, pulled the measure from consideration.
The legislation, mainly designed to give the nearly 600,000 residents of the district representation in Congress, will be brought up separately from a provision to pay for the new Utah seat, a move aimed at keeping Republicans from hindering passage with parliamentary procedures.
A spokeswoman for Rep. LaMar Smith, R-Texas, who pushed the handgun ban removal says the GOP won't be able to try the same move again because the Democrats are putting procedural roadblocks in the way of such an attempt.
"That is not going to be germane, so right now we're still weighing our options," said Beth McGinn, a spokeswoman for Smith, the ranking Republican on the House Judiciary Committee.

The article also mentions that given the massacre at Virginia Tech earlier in the week, Rep. Smith's amendment might not seem as attractive as it once was. It might even be a liability to vote for such an amendment so soon after the mass killings. In a weird way, Democratic leadership might be doing pro-gun folks a favor.

As for the Utah-DC bill itself, DC Vote predicts it will pass with 20 Republicans voting in favor.

Even if that happens, the bill still faces hurdles. Many senators fear it could lead to the district pressing for a Senate seat as well. And several members have expressed concerns about the bill's constitutionality.
White House advisers have also said they could counsel President Bush to veto the bill should it pass Congress.
Republicans will attempt another approach today that is not expected to get much support: giving back most of the District of Columbia to Maryland, making residents there part of that state. The Capitol, National Mall, White House and other federal buildings would remain part of the district but the first family would be the only residents.

That too is a fall back poison pill amendment. Maryland does not want to deal with DC, those Marylanders living along the Chesapeake, or in the western regions, don't want Maryland's power base to shift to Washington and the burbs. Aside from the political problems, there is also the issue of DC's crime, prisons, drinking water, schools, city maintenance, that makes Maryland weary of taking ownership of the city.

Getting the bill past the House is the easy part (thanks to the new rule), but the Senate doesn't have the ability to make such rules since pretty much anything is germane in the world of senate amendments. Unanimous consent agreements also make closed rules difficult to get through.

So ends today's parliamentary lesson.

one last post on this, I promise

Bob and I have been blogging the back and forthin a polite yet spirited debate about BYU's new and improved honor code.

He also makes a good point: "Yes, the Bible contains no references by Jesus to homosexuality. However, Mormons don't rely on the Bible as our only source of scripture [they rely on inter alia the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, Pearl of Great Price and the Articles of Faith]"

True enough, but my point was that BYU claimed that the honor code is necessary for members of the BYU community (faculty, staff, and students) "to live the 'moral virtues encompassed in the gospel of Jesus Christ.'" Now again, correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding is that the gospel of Jesus Christ is limited to the gospels according to Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John. Does the BoM contain any more stories of what Jesus said and taught? My understanding is that the BoM is about the time prior to Jesus and other attesting to/forseeing the Son of Man.

Ergo, if the gospel of Jesus is limited to the Bible, and in said Bible Jesus himself makes no mention of homosexuality [or as Bob suggested, the Mormon additions to the Bible also leave little mention of homosexuality], then BYU has no basis for its discriminatory honor code.

I don't get how Bob's referenced citations have anything to do with a) Jesus' teachings or b) homosexuality as being inherantly sinful. The only thing I can think of is that there is a loophole for future prophets to learn from God that homosexuality is a sin. But again, since it didn't come from Jesus during his ministry, such revelation has no bearing on BYU's purported justification for despirate treatmnet of same-sex couples.

Bob also makes the good point that while Jesus hung out with sinners, he admonished them to sin no longer. But my point is, is it a center for academic learning's place to say what is a sin and punish accordingly?

OK moving on...my correction of the day goes to the Utah Republican Party Morning News: " The U.S. Constitution was signed in 1787. An incorrect year was listed in Tuesday's Education section." Oh the irony!

I am no theologian but...

I am so glad that great bloggers like Bob read my posts and take time to critique them, but I thought I would do some response.

As my friend and BYU alumnae Alisa pointed out in the comment section to the original post, not-married heterosexual couples who hold hands and kiss on BYU campus are not targeted by this "hate the sin, love the sinner" honor code, whereas homosexual couples that did the same thing would fall under its purview.

I didn't say that Jesus never talked about sin, only that he did not say that homosexuality was a sin. He talked about adultery, and divorce, and other stuff, but his main gist about sin was forgiveness. He ate with prostitutes and tax collectors, in BYU they only would talk to the later. Again, his followers might have said that premarital sex was wrong, like Paul, but Jesus never mentions it as far as I can tell.

Now I am not asking to get into a chapter and verse war, and I am happily educated on the subject. But from what I remember from Sunday School and Confirmation classes (as well as Sunday sermons) I don't recall Jesus really talking about sexual sins.

Most of the sins he talked were sinning against our neighbors by not loving them as ourselves. And most of the times, like when he found the adulterous woman he admonished but forgave. "Sin no more" and "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." And my all time personal favorite: "Judge not lest ye be judged."

My point is that the vast majority of sexual sins conservative churches tend to focus on were not really directly mentioned by Jesus himself, let alone the focus of his ministry. It seems conservative churches are happy to focus on the Old Testament that went around smiting people and destroying cities like Sodom and Gomorrah but really work at ignoring the beatitudes, especially in the lead up to the Iraq War, this one: "Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God." And for the subject at hand, sexual morality and those who are marginalize and persecuted for their sexuality: "Blessed are they that hunger and thirst after justice: for they shall have their fill."

Scholars say that this speech by Jesus is the one thing they are pretty sure he said. The rest, there is debate whether the Son of Man said them, or if they are summaries/parables of general Christian messages.

Now it is true that I don't have to go to BYU (and I won't, I am pretty sure I am done with schooling) and don't have to follow their honor code, so why should I care? Well because when I see disparate treatment and discrimination, I feel discriminated against. To me, when people suffer unjustly, I suffer. This solidarity I feel with my fellow humans is part of the reason why I identify with the Democratic Party, as I don't feel that same level of empathy and passion on the other side of the isle.

It gets me upset that Bob can't wear his beard around campus as well, but I don't think it is as unjust as gay BYU students who can't hold hands around campus. Afterall, Bob can shave off his beard, the gay students cannot shave off their sexual orientation.

dis-honor code

BYU just changed its honor code.

The changes, which condemn behavior rather than sexual orientation, "remove a lot of the Gestapo atmosphere from the campus," said Brett Condron, a BYU freshman.
The new section of the honor code application reads, in part: "Brigham Young University will respond to homosexual behavior rather than to feelings or orientation and welcomes as full members of the university community all whose behavior meets university standards. . . . One's stated sexual orientation is not an Honor Code issue. However, the Honor Code requires all members of the university community to manifest a strict commitment to the law of chastity."
The honor code is a set of rules students and staff at the school owned by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are expected to follow in order to live the "moral virtues encompassed in the gospel of Jesus Christ." The honor code's applications clarify the short set of rules. Students who disregard the code can be put on probation and, in rare situations, suspended.
Prior to the honor code application change, the section on homosexual behavior or advocacy read, in part:
"Brigham Young University will respond to student behavior rather than to feelings or orientation. . . . Advocacy of a homosexual lifestyle (whether implied or explicit) or any behaviors that indicate homosexual conduct, including those not sexual in nature, are inappropriate and violate the Honor Code."

While agree it is an improvement, I still disapprove of the singling out of homosexuals, especially on the basis that "Jesus said it was cool."

Jesus said a whole lot of great stuff, but he never said anything about homosexuality. Most religious anti-gay people point to Leviticus, AKA a book in the Old Testament AKA not something in Jesus' teachings, to say that God believes homosexuality is a sin. The Son of Man certainly talked disapprovingly of divorce, something unfortunately quite frequent in the LDS Church.

But the bulk of his gospel was about social justice: poverty, social castes, the sick, the weak, etc. To blame Jesus for the school's anti-gay policies is dishonoring his legacy and his teachings.

"As more and more members of the LDS Church are coming to know individuals who are gay and finding out that they're human, that these are people just like them, that they're good people, it becomes difficult for them to demonize homosexuality the way the church positions do," said Nick Literski, a former BYU student. "Literski, a gay man who has withdrawn his membership from the church, said his daughter will attend the school this fall." I guess there is hope in us all.

using tragedies and crimes

By now you have heard about the mass murder at Virginia Tech. I don't really have much to add to the words of condolence, sadness, and anger about what happened.

But what does get my ire are op-eds (and pundits) making arguments like the Salt Lake Tribune's:

But we do know that the terrible events in Blacksburg, Va., the most deadly rampage shooting in U.S. history, will reignite the debate over the ready availability of guns in this nation and the price we pay in death for that policy.
There you have it. We said it. A nation awash in guns cannot protect itself from or prevent tragedies like the ones at Trolley Square or Virginia Tech or Columbine. That's the simple truth.
Gun-rights advocates will argue ...
That's an argument that should not be easily dismissed. But on a day like this one, it is not persuasive.
We note, too, that Virginia Tech has a policy that forbids students, faculty and staff from carrying guns on campus, even if they have a concealed-carry permit. That is similar to the policy the University of Utah and other public colleges in this state had until recently, before the Legislature struck it down.
[...] But we can be sure that the arguments from both sides will gain fresh emphasis in the days ahead.
And they should. Because this is a debate that must continue so long as horrors like the one Monday occur.

I don't know about you, but I am sick and tired of people using events like this as props for their arguments.

Arguments about the proper limitations to the right to bear arms has its place in the United States, but I think that such a debate should be put on hold until at least the bodies of the victims are buried. Standing knee deep in their blood and screaming into the camera to score political points is beyond tasteless.

Personally, I think now is a time to reflect on their lives and then later why this keeps on happening in the US. I don't think it is because of our gun laws or lack thereof, I think it is a cultural issue. So when the dust has settled, I recommend watching Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine, to me his second best movie and most provocative. It raises lots of questions, and whether you agree with him about his conclusions or not, it is worth thinking about. Later.

WWBD?

What Would Brigham Do? The city named in its honor is wasting its money on millioniares:

Millions of dollars in taxes and fees collected from airline passengers have paid the bill for improvements at northern Utah's Brigham City airport, which caters to business jets and sees no commercial traffic.
But airport officials say the improvements were long overdue, and the airport was encouraged to apply for the funding by the Federal Aviation Administration.
A review by The Associated Press found the airport in Brigham City, about 50 miles north of Salt Lake City, received $6.2 million in 2005 and $8 million in 2006 from the federal Airport Improvement Program — several times more than any other airport in the state.

Is this a boondoggle that Rep. Bishop got for his friends? Maybe the airport was all run down, but when it is as privatized as this one is, to me it makes no sense that federal tax payers will be paying for it.

In other dumb ideas this week, Lee Benson's tax plan:

If elected I will eliminate the income tax side of the IRS entirely, except for a couple of guys to open the mail and deposit the checks.
My plan is to scrap the current rich people-favoring, receipt-saving, complicated-as-calculus income tax system and replace it with a voluntary flat tax.

Who would willingly pay the 20 percent Benson proposes? Not the rich, who currently spend lots of money on tax attorneys to avoid paying such rates.

There will be no penalty for not paying, for paying late or for paying less than you're supposed to.
But if you don't pay your share you will know about it and have to live with that every time you drive on a highway or call the police or use a fire hydrant or enjoy a city park or watch fireworks on the Fourth of July or send your kids to public school.
That will be your penalty. Knowing you are freeloading off your neighbor.

Good luck with that. By defunding government to this extent, we would have no highways, etc. A flat tax will never work, because it is a poor tax and the poor have less money than the middle class and wealthy.

Just look at the lottery, another voluntary flat tax with a random (microscopic) chance of rebate. The poorer less educated play the lottery, and the middle and upper class folks don't throw their money way.

the nose in the camel's tent

Overstock.com CEO Patrick Byrne, a major GOP donor and pusher of the unconstitutional trademark law in Utah, is also the biggest in state donor to the voucher effort. Here's why he wants voucher's to succeed:

"This is the camel's nose under the tent," said Patrick Byrne, who...gave $70,000 to the local pro-voucher group Parents for Choice in Education. "If it takes hold here and proceeds here it will have a demonstrative effect that no other states can afford to ignore."

By afford to ignore, I think he means politicians will have to support it because big moneyed donors from out of state will get pro-public school politicians out of office.

Nearly half the money the group spent on legislative campaigns came from a political action committee called All Children Matter based out of Alexandria, Va., that has its headquarters in Grand Rapids, Mich. All Children Matter donated $240,000 to Parents for Choice in Education in 2006 and about $250,000 during the 2004 campaign cycle, finance reports in Utah show.
Utah was one of 10 states that All Children Matter has targeted to affect state elections, spending about $8 million nationwide in the 2003-04 election cycle. It is an organization dedicated to supporting candidates who favor charter schools and voucher programs.
It's largely financed by heirs to the Wal-Mart fortune and the founders of Amway, according to finance reports in Virginia.
In 2004, Jim Walton and John Walton, children of Wal-Mart founder Sam Walton, each donated more than $3 million to All Children Matter, the reports showed.
In 2006, the estate of John Walton donated another $4.1 million, the reports showed.

Each one of these groups are right-wing organizations that are more anti-union than pro-education, especially the Walton family.

I don't blindly support whatever teacher's unions, or other unions want, but I fail to see how unionization is the cause of Utah's educational struggles. It has far more to do with class size & per pupil spending. More, highly-trained teachers and better facilities (and better student loans) will go a long way towards Utah's education problems, vouchers will not.

But if the anti-union out-of-state corporatists have their way, our public school system will suffer and then die.

A non-partisan bipartisan agenda

Listening to the Becker-Buhler debate (I am about half-way through it), you get the distinct impression that being a Democrat in this Utah race, for once, is a distinct advantage.

Over and over again, Buhler went out of his way to pretend he was not a Republican or a partisan Republican...except when it would help him, touting his period in the UT Senate leadership for "I can get pork for the City" argument. You don't get to be in the leadership in the legislature unless you toe the partisan line and make nice with those already in leadership. So how he can be "bipartisan" in a "non-partisan" election is beyond me.

Lucky for both men, the debate got front page, front fold coverage by the Tribune of course, the article focuses on the new downtown mall's skybridge, the boringist controversial issue I have seen in this state, and the mormon/non-mormon debate, wherein no one wins.

But Ralph was the debate winner for related reason, the article's second and third paragraphs:

"I wouldn't [trot around the globe as an activist for a cause]," said Buhler, a city councilman and former state senator. Buhler, a Republican, argued the mayor instead should focus on being chief executive - to manage all city departments while working with other city captains and state lawmakers.
Becker, a Democrat, pledged to work with residents, steer clear of anti-war rallies - Anderson has participated in several at home and in Washington, D.C. - and resist hopscotching across the globe. But the professional city planner and House minority leader maintained the mayor should give voice to issues such as air quality.

In talking with Ralph's people during the blogger meeting, they told me that if they got the debate to be about parties they were halfway home. Later in the article...

The candidates placed a lopsided emphasis on party affiliation - despite the fact the mayor's race is officially nonpartisan. Buhler downplayed his Republican pedigree, saying city issues are nonpartisan. But Becker celebrated his Democratic status.
"In a city that is progressive like Salt Lake City," Becker said, "it is important that those values are reflected and represented."

Ralph, a city planner, talked about making SLC more like Portland, with green spaces, public transportation, walkable neighborhoods, and bike trails. Buhler talked about "experience" and his ability to "get things done" because he was "bipartisan" even though his key getting things done ability comes from his Republican credentials.

Rocky Anderson didn't win two terms because of "experience" or because he was "bipartisan" or because he could "get things done." In fact, he was elected and reelected despite of his lack of those qualities. Salt Lake residents liked having a jerk for a mayor because he was an articulate, passionate guy who talked back to legislators instead of cooing in their ears. They liked his activism, to a degree. And they liked pissing off conservatives from neighboring cities and towns, even if it meant less state money for their city and capitol.

The Utah Republican Party Morning News had a different, no-shockingly pro-Buhler spin on the debate, focusing on "experience." Yet they still played into Becker's plans:

Ralph Becker and Dave Buhler have both represented Salt Lake City on Capitol Hill. [...]
The two mayoral candidates tout their experience as key to helping them lead [...]
Becker is a Democrat and current House minority leader. Buhler is a Republican [...]
According to recent polls and the city's political history, Buhler's party affiliation may pose challenges in the mayoral race, and Becker may struggle for never having served in an elected city position.
"While some people want to put people in a box and label people, it's really about working with people," Buhler said.
The mayor's office is officially nonpartisan, but Salt Lake City residents have not elected a Republican mayor since the early 1970s.

Real family values

"The Republicans talk a lot about family values. It's time they started valuing families." --Wes Clark.

If you really believe the LaVar Christensen/John Swallow "family values" rhetoric is not just code for anti-gays and anti-abortion, then why is our pro-family state allowing this to happen?

The number of Utah's uninsured children, up to and including the age of 18, rose by 18,200 from 71,300 in 2005 to 89,500 in 2006. Meanwhile, the number of adults, ages 19 to 64, who lacked health insurance declined from 221,600 to 220,100.
"The increase is almost exclusively among children," said Norman Thurston, health economist for the state agency. "Most of that increase is among kids under 200 percent of the federal poverty level."

You can believe in Social Darwinism (which is a load of crock by the way) and still support universal health care for children. It is not the fault of children that their parents are too poor to afford health care for them.

The Legislature this year appropriated $4 million to allow an additional 12,000 children to be insured through CHIP starting July 2, he said.
Enrollment in CHIP, for which children living under 200 percent of the poverty level — roughly $40,000 for a family of four — are eligible, has been closed since last September because of a lack of funding, he said. CHIP currently provides insurance for an average of 35,000 children.
"It's definitely not good news for kids," Karen Crompton, executive director for Voices for Utah Children, said of the report. "It does highlight the fact of what happens when you have CHIP closed."
While the Legislature's CHIP appropriation is a good start, she said, more needs to be done to make sure all eligible children can access the publicly funded health insurance program.
"Kids need coverage 365 days a year," she said. "It's about immunizing on time, about well-baby check-ups, about getting glasses kids need if they can't see the blackboard."

Karen Crompton ran for SL County Mayor against Nancy Workman the first time around. Al Gore proposed universal health care for children by 2004 when he ran in 2000. Every Democrat running for president has supported expanding CHIP programs, so why can't American children get health insurance?

To me, family values are helping families stay together strongly. That means sick leave, maternity/paternity leave, flex time, virtual commuting, clean air, clean water, quality education, safe neighborhoods, health care for working families and all children, tax reform for working families, and living wages. It seems when Republicans talk about family values, what they are really saying it "Dobson's agenda," which has very little to do with actually making life better for families.

And one would think that here in Utah, with the highest percentage of the population under 18, we would truly put children first. And not behind big business, anti-arbortion, anti-gay zealotry.

unconstitutional special interest driven legislation 101

Wherein two Republican Utah State Legislators write a bill for 1-800-Contacts, Unspam technologies [who wrote another unconstitutional bill] and Overstock.com that regulates interstate commerce. "Utah's innocently named Trademark Protection Act is set to take effect June 30." The Act would ban keyword advertising, basically destroying Google's--and every other internet business's--business model.

[Law Professor Eric Goldman] said the bill's history shows that Utah lawmakers are "easily captured by industry interests" and eager to serve up bad Internet experiments.
The law is deeply flawed, said Corynne McSherry, an attorney for the San Francisco-based public-interest group Electronic Frontier Foundation.
"Consumers also have an interest here. This isn't just harmful to Google. It's harmful to consumers who benefit from comparative advertising," she said.

In response, one of the co-sponsors showed he knows as much about the internet as US Sen. Ted "series of tubes" Stevens (R-AK):

House Majority Leader David Clark, R-Santa Clara, Utah, likened the deed to diverting a shopper who enters a particular department store to buy a dress shirt.
"You get right to the front door and somebody whisks you away to a different store," said Clark....
[Senate Majority Whip Dan] Eastman [(R-Bountiful)] and Clark said they didn't come up with the idea but believe in the cause. They said they understood they were doing the bidding of a select group of Utah companies. [...]
Representatives at both companies acknowledged they have a problem with rivals stealing their customers but insist they weren't involved in drafting the Internet trademark law.

Unspam Chief Executive Matthew Prince, who claims "We wear different hats," in an email, has a pretty cosy relationship with Senate Republicans:

Prince is identified only as an adjunct professor at Chicago's John Marshall Law School on the Utah Senate [Republican]'s blog site, where he wrote a defense of the Trademark Protection Act. The blog makes no mention of Prince's business interests.

I guess if you don't believe in conflicts of interests among legislators, you don't believe it among lobbyists either.

I wish I was surprised, but I still can be dissipointed. Shame on you Republican legislative leaders. Why do you have to be such a cheep date?

© 2006 Jeffrey D. Allred, Deseret Morning News
The caption: "IHC lobbyist Elaina White talks to Rep. Brad Dee, R-Washington Terrace, during the House GOP's $100-per-person 'speed dating' event at the Hard Rock Cafe on Thursday [January 5, 2006]."

ex-Bush administration official reclaiming reality

Welcome back to the reality based community former EPA chief and ex-NJ Governor Christine Todd Whitman!

This ruling [Massachusetts v. EPA] should herald the beginning of a carbon-constrained U.S. economy.
[...]
For guidance on which to base a policy [on how to regulate greenhouse gas tailpipe emissions], we can look to the results from the last time the Clean Air Act was amended, in 1990. Those amendments required substantial reductions in the emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO2), the primary component of acid rain. There was broad agreement that acid rain was seriously damaging our environment. There was less unanimity about the method to be used to achieve the reduction in emissions - a market-based cap-and-trade system.

Cap-and-trade works for free marketeers and pro-regulation environmentalists, and actually creates incentives to reduce pollutants. Everyone wins, especially companies who innovate.

There will be a renewed push in Congress to create such a program to force the EPA's plan. McCain and Lieberman have a bill that would do just that, not just for car tailpipes, but all carbon dioxide emissions (like coal-fire electric power plants, oil refineries, etc.) With Democrats now in control, I would assume that a version of this bill will come out of EPW committee in the Senate and the House's select committee on Global Warming or Energy and Commerce committee.

Moderate Republicans, ex-Democrats (Joe Lieberman) and Democrats can form a working majority and pass this bill.

putting your political career on the dotted line

If only more politicians had as much cajoles as SL County Mayor Peter Carroon:

Get Real Utah might fall short - by thousands of signatures - in its petition drive to put public funding for a Sandy soccer stadium to a public vote, but the grass-roots campaign did secure at least one high-profile voter.
Salt Lake County Mayor Peter Corroon, who refused to steer county hotel taxes to the stadium project, signed the petition last month.
The Legislature, led by Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr., trumped Corroon's decision and passed a bill that funnels $35 million of county hotel taxes to land, parking and infrastructure for Real Salt Lake's $110 million stadium, slated for 9256 S. State St.
"We didn't think [the stadium] was a sound investment," Corroon said Monday. "The state has a higher risk tolerance than Salt Lake County does. That was their priority. It's a little disconcerting that they used Salt Lake County hotel taxes to pay for a state priority."

I can think of few politician who would risk their career on a potentially losing effort against big political powers for something they believe in.

Petition sponsor Brad Swedlund acknowledges the referendum is a "long shot," but said Monday that signature booklets were being turned into county clerks across the state. He doesn't have a count of how many signatures have been gathered.
Organizer Gary Forbush said Monday, if the petition drive fails, it's not because of a lack of public will - opinion polls consistently have shown most Utahns oppose public funding for the stadium - but because the referendum process is too cumbersome.
Forbush, who ran a surprisingly strong race against incumbent Tom Dolan in the Sandy mayoral race in 2005, handed in 6,000 signatures at the Salt Lake County Clerk Office Monday morning. Forbush argues the effort should have had to gather signatures only in that county because the bill deals exclusively with Salt Lake County revenue.
And he said low-budget, grass-roots groups like his - the campaign spent about $2,000 total - could have a chance if voters were allowed to sign the petition online or by phone.
"The referendum process is broken," Forbush said. "To have to do pen on paper in this day when we can e-file our taxes . . . it's just archaic. If we don't end up making it with the number of signatures, I hope we can maybe have a more thoughtful conversation about referendum reform."

I couldn't agree more. And so do others "Salt Lake City mayoral candidates Jenny Wilson, Ralph Becker and Nancy Saxton also signed the referendum petition."

SLC mayoral race shakes up

Meg Holbrook, is out! She is ex-chair of the Utah Democratic Party, and wife of a beloved professor of alternative dispute resolution at my law school.

But why did she decide to drop out well before summer? A guaranteed job with Gov. Huntsman's administration.

Instead, she will accept Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr.'s request that she serve on the state Transportation Commission.
"I can't do everything," she said. "I've thought it over a long time, and I've decided this is the best way to serve the state and Salt Lake City."
That leaves eight candidates in a field that once had 10 contenders.
The governor also nominated former state Rep. Stewart Adams, R-Layton, to serve on the commission. Their nominations now must be approved by the state Senate.

Plus, she is nice enough to not run while holding an office that gets federal funding, creating Hatch Act problems.

For me, there are two questions that need to be answered. First, why did Huntsman pick her? Because she is a good person and qualified candidate, or because he feared she might win? Second, what does a top tier candidate's drop out say about the race?

The article helps answer number two:

Holbrook's former role as head of the state's Democrats had given her some name recognition in the mayor's race, but many of the other candidates are widely known through their political and business history in the city, and Holbrook had not been a front-runner.
A Dan Jones & Associates poll conducted last week for the Deseret Morning News and KSL-TV showed Holbrook as the favorite candidate of only 2 percent of respondents. That put her in sixth place, although fully 44 percent of respondents remained undecided in this early stage of the campaign.
In the first round of campaign fund-raising disclosures, filed Feb. 15, Holbrook ranked seventh in the amount of money raised. She had raised $18,470, compared with the top fund-raiser, former City Councilman Keith Christensen, who had $257,176, and City Councilman Dave Buhler, who was second, with $123,026.

Right now, few people know who is running "Dan Jones and Associates put the list before Salt lake voters last week and only two get double-digit recognition right now: City Councilman Dave Buhler with 12 percent and County Councilwoman Jenny Wilson has 20 percent." More interestingly, this is a Democrats race to lose if they can get the Donkey out there. "Twenty-one percent said it has a great deal of impact, 33 percent said some and 44 percent said party affiliation in this race has little effect."

It seems that maybe Ms. Holbrook saw that Jenny Wilson was sucking away voters from her big time. To me, it looks like Wilson, Becker, Christensen, and Buhler are all in the running for the top two spots. At this point, it looks like Wilson will take the poll position, but if she is paired with Becker, thing will get interesting. If she is paired with a Republican, I can call it today.

Other than that, the race is still wide open.

the people will be heard

Despite what our state legislature wanted, and what out-of-state monied interests demand, Utahns will be able to decide if they want to privatize their schools and if taxpayer money should go towards building an unnecessary soccer stadium.

Now I don't want to turn Utah into California, where the legislature and governor are powerless to make any real changes and only monied interest groups can get big issues on a 1 inch thick ballot booklet. However, Utah's petition rules are draconian and anti-democratic, requiring (usually) lots of money to fund ballot issues.

However, despite scary TV ads by the out-of-state voucher groups, it looks like those who want to keep our public schools public and keep the state out of private schools have more than enough signatures to get the issue on the ballot in November. I still think the whole law can be overturned as unconstitutional under the State's constitution as well, regardless of what SCOTUS wrote about it.

Meanwhile, folks are gathering signatures against the Dolan-Huntsman-Curtis Stadium, brought to you by ego.

In general, when the people really want something or don't like something, and the constitutional rights of a minority group would not be infringed, I don't see why the issue should not be reconsidered and voted upon.

progressive taxation

House Democrats have a big idea--permanently fix the Alternative Minimum Tax ("AMT"). The AMT, for those of you who aren't aware, is something set up in 1969 to prevent millionaires from hiring clever tax attorneys to avoid paying taxes. But stupidly, lawmakers then never indexed the AMT to inflation. As a result, over the years more and more middle class have been sucked into its powers.

Under it, affected taxpayers have to do a second tax calculation without claiming popular deductions like those for state and local taxes that they have come to rely on. It is akin to a flat tax of 26 to 28 percent.

But the tax is expanding at a rapid pace, partly because it is not adjusted for inflation. It can hit people with incomes as low as $50,000 and if left unchecked is expected to affect 23 million households during the 2007 tax year — up from 3.4 million last year.

Bush sold his tax cuts by counting on this increasingly regressive tax's revenue to make is tax cuts seem smaller. Foolish Republicans (and some Democrats) bought into this scheme, shifting America's tax burden from the wealthy to the middle class.

But now there is hope for change:

Between now and the end of May, House Democratic leaders hope to draft a permanent overhaul of the tax that would effectively exclude anyone who earns less than about $200,000 a year — about 97 percent of taxpayers.

The details are still being worked out as to how to make up the missing income. Some ideas are to jack up the rates for those who make over $500K, and then those over $1M. Others hope to cut wasteful spending (might I suggest Star Wars II and all those no-bid contracts for Iraq) to make up the gap, or a combination of the two and the new PAYGO budget rules.

This was the last paragraph of this New York Times article, but a good one:

After his re-election in 2004, Mr. Bush vowed to overhaul the income tax and abolish the alternative minimum tax as part of the process. But even though he received recommendations from a handpicked advisory panel, Mr. Bush ignored the proposals and never came out with a plan of his own.

Catch that last one? He had a handpicked "tax reform" panel, but doesn't really care about reforming taxes, so he never came out with a plan. Just like Iraq. Senate Democrats forced the Iraq Study Group on Bush, with its handpicked wise old men (and Sandra Day O'Connor) of Washington, and its plan was also ignored by Bush. But wait you say, Bush adopted a new strategy. Actually, no, he just did John McCain and Joe Lieberman's strategy if you want to call throwing thousands of more troops off a cliff a strategy.

I will say it again: Joe Lieberman is dead wrong on everything he touches. He has the midas touch when it comes to policy and politics. Whatever you do Democrats, don't listen to him. And Republicans, please listen to Joe, Democrats would like to control Congress for another 35 years.