thursday round-up

Nothing especially was enough to get a post, so you all get mini-posts within one...enjoy.

• The best summation I have heard of the legal arguments for and against the DC-Utah bill: "Make no mistake: We are on uncharted territory," Patricia Wald, former chief judge of the U. S. Court Appeals for the District of Columbia, said in testimony submitted to the committee. Still, she added, "In such a landscape, Congress is justified in concluding the balance tilts in favor of recognizing for D.C. residents the most basic right of all democratic societies, the right to vote for one's leaders."


• More posturing on vouchers:

  Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. said Thursday he and legislative leaders are putting together a letter pledging to honor whatever decision voters make about private school vouchers at the polls in November — even if Utahns reject the funding program.
  The letter, which Huntsman said may also be signed by Attorney General Mark Shurtleff, "will essentially state that whatever the vote is in November will be respected as a vote up or down on vouchers."
  [...]The governor said there wasn't the "political will" to deal with the issue in a special session.

  Last time I checked, Huntsman, you were the one of the most popular governors in the US. Why don't you use some of your political capital to hold a special session and deal with it like a man? Does this mean that if the voters vote vouchers down that BOTH bills will be scrapped? Or will the AG's opinion rule? Or will you just let the courts decide?


• speaking of which,
  

  A pro-voucher group will announce legal action this afternoon regarding the two voucher laws on Utah's books. Parents for Choice in Education has scheduled a press conference for 1:45 p.m. today in the lobby of Salt Lake City's Matheson Court House.

  The legislature created this mess by voting for this stupid bill that had no real native grassroots support and now want to have their cake and eat it too. I hope all who voted for it lose their seats in the Legislature.


• Is there anything that Romney does that the local papers won't cover in a positive light?

Start with the obvious

Once again, the local press plays dumb:

Republican members of the House Judiciary Committee seemed to have agreed on a single script: defending the former administration official and denouncing the Democratic-led inquiry.

Have you ever watched any cable news? Compared your interview with a national Republican or local Republican on a national topic with another interview of a Republican on the same topic? I am assuming the answer is no, otherwise, why the "seems"?

At least the reporter remember to include the latest edition of "How has Chris Cannon embarrassed his state today?" in the headline.

Rep. Chris Cannon, R-Utah, was so peeved by the proceedings that he asked no questions during his first five-minute round. Instead, he read a Los Angeles Times editorial berating Democrats on an unrelated matter involving ethics and spending earmarks.

It is well worth pointing out as a law student, that normally Goodling would have never been hired by any prosecutor's office, let alone be the DOJ's White House Liaison. Why, because Regent University College of Law sucks. "Regent Law was ranked in Tier 4 by U.S. News, the lowest ranking and essentially a tie for 136th place out of 170 schools surveyed." "According to statewide and national statistics, Regent's four-year average Virginia bar pass rate is 51.5%, which is 21.5% below the statewide average of 73%, and the lowest in the Commonwealth of Virginia." The school used to be named after Pat Robertson's cable channel: CBN [Christian Broadcasting Network] University. Yet Bush's White House hired 150 Regent grads.

For the record, the SJ Quinney College of Law has crept into the second tier but I fully expect it to be back in the top tier soon. Our bar passage rate is high and about average for state averages (but there are only 2 law school in Utah and the bar passage rate is higher than other states).

Slam of the week

McCain on Romney May 21, 2007:
"In the case of Governor Romney, you know, maybe I should wait a couple of weeks and see if it changes, because it's changed in less than a year from his position before. And maybe his solution will be to get out his small-varmint gun and drive those Guatemalans off his lawn. I don't know."

I have to say, the first line was the most effective, the second, a bit obscure and racist and angry. The whole thing to me says that McCain is thinking: "I am losing to this guy?!" And indeed he is in the low double digits with Giuliani in Iowa, either fighting for second without Fred Thompson, McCain's friend, or for third with Thompson included in the polls.

McCain has been running for President for something like 10 years and finds himself in bad shape in the first and most important state. But if he wants to turn it around, he is going to have to tear down Romney and Giuliani and then F. Thompson.

Romney's biggest weakness is his lust to pander so much that he makes switch grass seem constantly still. Giuliani's is that he is corrupt and has liberal social positions. F. Thompson's is that he is a lazy man who never did anything in the Senate. McCain's is his anger, his support of campaign finance reform, and his support of immigration reform...two giant pet issues with the GOP base that are as big as Iraq and Health Care on the Democratic side.

compare and contrast

Or a tale of two bad articles

Here's Thomas Burr's article about the Utah's lone Democrat in Congress, Jim Matheson, on May 19:

Rep. Jim Matheson, a Utah Democrat and self-described fiscal conservative, spent the largest percentage of his office allowance compared with his congressional colleagues in 2005, a new report shows.
Matheson used 99.97 percent of his congressional office budget that year, leaving only $375 unspent, according to the National Taxpayers Union, which compiled office budget data from published House reports.

Now for today's article by the same reporter, this time on brother of the rival daily newspaper, Rep. Chris Cannon:

Rep. Chris Cannon voted against reauthorizing a federal program to put more cops on the street, saying it's a local responsibility.
[...]
Cannon pointed to a recent report in USA Today of an internal audit showing that 3 percent of the COPS grants reviewed found some $277 million was misspent. Additionally, the report says, tens of thousands of jobs funded by the grants were never filled or weren't filled for long.

Now Burr allowed Matheson to explain why he used all but $375 of his budget--his Alabama-size district--but the lede of the article was I repeat "Matheson, a Utah Democrat and self-described fiscal conservative." The Cannon article does not say he is a Republican or call him a "self-described as pro-police."

The article lets others, namely a New York City Democrat (and it does point him out that way), to claim that COPS is a very successful program, but it burries the fact that local municipalities support it and would have more officers if the funding was most assured. And the article fails to mention studies that prove that Bush's defunding of COPS (because it is a Clinton program) has resulted in higher crime rates across the country, TIME magazine did a story on this, using Milwaukee, WI as the example.

JM Bell points out that Cannon's vote happened on May 14th, yet Burr didn't cover Cannon's slap in the face to Utahns until today. "Tommy Burr is one of the best reporters in the country so, what the hell happened? I have a hard time believing that Burr just waited to write it." I think he didn't want to write it until he found his Matheson story to "balance" it with.

Truth over Balance. Progress over ideology.

the house of cards

Republicans believe, since the days of Kennedy's 1960 election by the narrowest of margins, that Democrats use massive voter fraud to win elections. Conversely, Democrats believe that Republicans attempt to intimidate racial and ethnic minorities from voting and that if only more of such groups would vote, Democrats would win.

Both are urban legends, with some truth but mostly falsehood. While some dead people might have voted for Kennedy in Cook County and similar things might still happen today, the margin of such errors is not enough to swing elections. More importantly, it is not based on some plot hatched by liberals in some lair.

Democrats need to turn out more single women of all colors to win elections, not just minorities who might be scared or confused into not voting. Again, no vast conspiracy here there either.

But don't put away your tinfoil hat just yet. It seems that bloggers have stumbled onto a pretty vast conspiracy: the US attorney purge. The purge is indelibly linked to the aforementioned voter fraud myth. Karl Rove and many others believed that in places in swing states like New Mexico, Milwaukee, and St. Louis, massive voter fraud was taking place. And what do you know, they pressured the local US Attorneys in those locals to bring indictments against Democrats for voter fraud. Because there was little to no evidence, the US Attorneys either refused and were sacked, or followed orders only to see their indictments tossed out. In fact, only a tiny percentage of all the voter fraud cases brought by the Bush Justice Department have been successful, despite Rove's push for prosecutions.

Now that the Congress is in Democratic hands and has started asking pesky questions and requesting damaging documents, not only have lots of Justice Department officials resigned, but their outside counterparts have vanished into thin air.

the American Center for Voting Rights, a group that has literally just disappeared as an organization, and for which it seems no replacement group will rise up. With no notice and little comment, ACVR—the only prominent nongovernmental organization claiming that voter fraud is a major problem, a problem warranting strict rules such as voter-ID laws—simply stopped appearing at government panels and conferences. Its Web domain name has suddenly expired, its reports are all gone (except where they have been preserved by its opponents), and its general counsel, Mark "Thor" Hearne, has cleansed his résumé of affiliation with the group. Hearne won't speak to the press about ACVR's demise. No other group has taken up the "voter fraud" mantra.

So who was ACVR? And doesn't it remind you of that scene from "1984" where Winston, working at the Ministry of Truth incinerates photos of handshakes between Eurasia and Oceania "We have always been at war with Eastasia..."?

the group was founded just days before its representatives testified before a congressional committee hearing on election-administration issues chaired by then-Rep. (and now federal inmate) Bob Ney. The group was headed by Hearne, national election counsel to Bush-Cheney '04, and staffed with other Republican operatives, including Jim Dyke, a former RNC communications director.

Consisting of little more than a post-office box and some staffers who wrote reports and gave helpful quotes about the pervasive problems of voter fraud to the press, the group identified Democratic cities as hot spots for voter fraud, then pushed the line that "election integrity" required making it harder for people to vote. The group issued reports (PDF) on areas in the country of special concern, areas that coincidentally tended to be presidential battleground states. In many of these places, it now appears the White House was pressuring U.S. attorneys to bring more voter-fraud prosecutions.

What a coincidence! And their reports ended up as fodder in the WSJ? What are the chances? Let's overlook for a moment that arguing by anecdote is faulty, or that polling-place fraud is way more trouble than it is worth if you are trying to steal an election. The fact that this group is trying to pretend it never existed just as Democrats in Congress start to shine a bright light on the voter-fraud motivated firings of US Attorneys raises eyebrows, to say the least.

Personally, I think these party hacks saw the house of cards begin to fall on the use of the DOJ as political arm of the White House and left like rats fleeing a sinking ship. The name Department of Justice was slowly but surely being turned Orwellian into Winston's employer, the Ministry of Truth.

signs of the times

Today I decided to finally evaluate the many lawn signs that SLC mayoral candidates have sticking in the yards of my neighbors. What follows is not to be viewed as an endorsement of any particular candidate. Rather, the idea is to give them all some advice on graphics and visuals. In no particular order...

Ralph Becker
Having learned from earlier black writing on forest green background lawn signs in earlier state house races, Becker opts for bright contrasting colors. The black silhouette of the city and county building is excellent, especially when one notes that he had the same motif with the state capitol last fall. GRADE: A-

Jenny Wilson

Jenny's sign uses the same schema that her father used when running for Mayor. Jim Matheson used the same color and slogan as his father's for his 2000 congressional race, but it didn't seem dated. Jenny's seems very 1992. Maybe it is the gray star, I don't know. But good for her for having the word "Democrat" on there. GRADE: B-

Dave Buhler
[I will have to take a photo]
Buhler's sign is a enlarged campaign button, round in shape. The top half is white, the bottom is red. The top says "I like Dave," the bottom says "mayor" First off, the shape looks stupid. Secondly, who cares if you like Dave Buhler, it doesn't mean you will vote for him or even support him. "I like Ike" works because the name rhymes and well, Eisenhower was a darned popular ex-general, having saved the world from Hitler etc. "I like Dave" is just lame. GRADE: F [Plus, his website is still not up, really pathetic.]

Keith Christensen

Not bad. I cannot recognize this as the SLC skyline, but then again our skyline is not all that memorable. Maybe it is supposed to say I will be the mayor of downtown and where you live. That's nice too. The colors aren't the greatest and the whole thing is a bit cartoon-y. GRADE: B.

I won't even bother with the rest because either they don't have websites or they have no chance. I saw Nancy Sexton's the other day for the first time and they are pretty lame too. The cursive "Nancy" reminds me of Nancy Reagan, not exactly something you want to evoke in the Democratic strong hold in a super-GOP state. Maybe I will take a photo of that too to show you what I am talking about, since those signs will be even harder to see in person.

silly establishmentarians

Charlie Cook is an astute non-partisan poll reader whose judgment is without reproach inside the beltway. Not because he is right all the time, but because he has a reputation for being right. Official Washington trusts him.

But why? Especially when he gives out such drivel as a successful Bloomberg-Hagel independent ticket (independent is DC for two moderate Republicans that could never win their party's primary nationally, and maybe even in their own state).

Here's his DC "bipartisan" wet dream:

Most believe it would be exceedingly unlikely that the House would elect an independent president. That being the case, an independent would most likely need to win from 38 percent to 40 percent in a three-way race to reach the tipping point, winning a sufficiently large number of states by small margins.

[...]

Initial polling suggests that Bloomberg could make a respectable run as an independent and pull evenly from the two major parties. But getting from respectable to upwards of 40 percent would require cutting into the marrow of at least one, if not both, parties.

This would mean that his candidacy would likely be contingent upon each party nominating either badly flawed or damaged candidates. After all, with his money, Bloomberg wouldn't need to decide until late February, after the nominations are likely to be determined.

The most interesting scenario would be if Bloomberg were to win a plurality of the electoral votes and siphon off enough votes from the left to push the Democratic nominee into third place. Could a Democratic House really pick a third-place finisher to be president, or might they opt for a politically compatible independent who finished first?

Um let's look at those "respectable showing" polls:

Rasmussen Survey of 800 Likely Voters April 2-3, 2007
["If you had a choice between Republican Rudy Giuliani, Democrat Hillary Clinton, and Independent Michael Bloomberg, for whom would vote?"] Rudy Giuliani: 37%; Hillary Clinton: 46%; Michael Bloomberg: 9%.

["If you had a choice between Republican John McCain, Democrat Hillary Clinton, and Independent Michael Bloomberg, for whom would vote?"]
John McCain: 37%; Hillary Clinton: 46%; Michael Bloomberg: 9%

Nine percent is not respectable, although better than Bill Richardson is doing in the Democratic primary. Nine percent is "I don't know" plus or minus a few people upset with their choices of Hillary or Giuliani or McCain. And nine percent also will not get you the top stop going into the theoretical House election of the president, rather the third place. A Democratically controlled House would have no problem voting for a number one finishing Democrat as would happen in this poll.

More importantly, the last time an election went to the House was 1800...208 years ago and before the 12th amendment tried to avoid that from ever happening again.

There is not a chance that the 2008 presidential election will go down to the House, nor if Romney is nominated, that Republicans will win the presidency. The 3-poll average gap is: Clinton +14.0%, Obama +23.0%, Edwards +27.3%.

song of the day

heck, it is one of my favorite songs of all time.

But seriously, ex-Sen./ex-AG John Ashcroft may have been a terrible senator and terrible Attorney General, but at least he can sing:

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.