Regime change

Sen. Barack Obama noticed early on in this cycle that this was a change election and was able to successfully harness that fact to propel him past Sen. Hillary Clinton and 6 other Democratic candidates. And the theme of CHANGE isn't just working in Democratic primaries, but also in a Republican primary in the most Republican state in one of the most Republican US House districts in the country.

"If we want different results we're going to have to elect different people," [3rd District primary challenger Jason] Chaffetz said. "If you like the status quo, vote for Chris Cannon."
"We agree entirely except the status quo. I am a change factor. I am making a difference in Washington, D.C.," Cannon retorted during the televised debate on KUTV's "Take Two" leading up to the June 24 Republican primary.

Ever notice how when a politican says "I am a change agent" or "the change factor," they usually are anything but? If you really think that Chris Cannon is a guy that has been challenging, rather than part of, the status quo in Washington over the last 12 years, please see here here here here and here.

If Jason manages to win, it will be a sign that voters, even Republican primary voters in Utah County, badly want change in Washington and maybe even on Utah's Capitol Hill. If Rep. Cannon goes down, I bet he isn't the only incumbent who loses that day as well. Although the state party tried its hardest to keep challengers off the primary ballot. So what exactly are "the issues" that Jason disagrees with Chris on?

Chaffetz criticized Cannon for voting in favor of the No Child Left Behind education bill, increased federal spending, the Medicare prescription drug benefit and allowing EnergySolutions to import radioactive waste from Italy - all issues Chaffetz said he opposes.
Cannon said the decision of whether to allow EnergySolutions to import about 20,000 tons of radioactive waste from Italy should be up to the state. About 1,600 tons of waste would ultimately be buried in Utah.
“The state has the right, the authority, the responsibility to govern that, and all I said is we should stay out of that and let the state control its own destiny in that regard,” Cannon said.

State's rights! That is a classic conservative ideology. Sounds reasonable enough...oh wait, the truth wants to say something:

Actually, the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission is considering whether to grant EnergySolutions a license to import the radioactive waste.

And guess who voted with EngerySolutions? I will give you a hint, it was everyone in the Utah delegation except Jim Matheson. Cannon, ever the ideological purest, said that if Chaffetz really believes in "changing Congress" he should run against Jim Matheson, even though Chris has been in Congress 4 more years than Jim. Oh that's right, Matheson is a Democrat, and Democrats have been in charge of Congress for two whole years already. And it must be the Democrats' fault that Cannon voted the way he did for the 10 years he was in the majority in the House.

The fight between the two Republicans has already gotten pretty testy. But it is nice to see that they actually are talking about substantive areas of disagreement, including immigration policy, rather than just change for the sake of change...although shaking things up does have its virtues. Just watch out for that shark.

detente?

Could things really be changing within the FLDS? First, they promise to stop underage marriages (but not plural marriages). Next, they voluntarily meet with "the anti-Christ":

In what may be a historic turning point, an FLDS church spokesman spent four hours Thursday with representatives of the Utah Attorney General's Office - a meeting both sides described as a small, first step toward more open communication.
[...]
It was the first formal conversation between a representative of the polygamous Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and the Attorney General's Office since Warren S. Jeffs took over as leader of the church in 2002.

So does this mean that Jeffs no longer has his hands on the reins? Are saner heads prevailing? Or is all of this a PR move to get law enforcement off their backs while the FLDS plot another strategy? Only time will tell.

Habeas

The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it.

--Article I, Section 9, clause 2

Last year, I said that the Military Commissions Act violated the U.S. Constitution. This morning, 5 United States Supreme Court Justices agreed with me. Justice Anthony Kennedy, the swing vote, wrote this:

The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times. Liberty and security can be reconciled; and in our system they are reconciled within the framework of the law. The Framers decided that habeas corpus, a right of first importance, must be a part of that framework, a part
of that law.

BOUMEDIENE v. BUSH, 553 U. S. ____ (2008) (Slip Op., at 70). [134 page PDF]

Showing that watches Faux News and listens to talk radio, Justice Scalia wrote in his dissent that

America is at war with radical Islamists. [citing all terrorist attacks against Americans from Lebanon in 1983 until, of course, September 11,2001] ... [Terrorism by radical Islamists] has threatened further attacks against our homeland; one need only walk about buttressed and barricaded Washington, or board a plane anywhere in the country, to know that the threat is a serious one. Our Armed Forces are now in the field against the enemy, in Afghanistan and Iraq. Last week, 13 of our countrymen in arms were killed.

The game of bait-and-switch that today’s opinion plays upon the Nation’s Commander in Chief will make the war harder on us. It will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed. That consequence would be tolerable if necessary to preserve a time-honored legal principle vital to our constitutional Republic. But it is this Court’s blatant abandonment of such a principle that produces the
decision today.

Scalia, J., dissenting (Slip Op. at 2).

The threat to America posed by these terrorists, I would counter, while serious, is nothing compared to the threats posed by the Soviet Union from 1945-1989. Literally thousands of nuclear missiles were pointed at us and could kill hundreds of millions within minutes of their launching. If left unchecked, the Axis powers during World War II could have invaded America. Many of those in GitMo are horrible criminals, but others are there simply because someone in Afghanistan or Iraq offered them up to the Americans get the reward money. And now, thanks to the Administration's attempts to keep us safer, they have turned these innocent individuals against America and hardened the hearts of many in the Arab world. In short, they have made us less safe.

No president is above the constitution, even if the Congress acquiesces out of fear. No one man or woman in our system of government to label a person an "enemy combatant," ship them off to a U.S. territory, and throw away the key. The Great Writ, which has been part of our law since before the founding, is a necessary tool to ensure that injustices can not fester forever.

Today is a truly great day for our Judiciary, our Constitution, and our Republic. "God Save the United States and this Honorable Court!"

delaying means denying

Today I want to write more about the brouhaha over the state treasurer race, not because it is another juicy example of Utah Republican infighting with claims of corruption, but because it is part of another pattern in American politics and policy-making. That is, LG Herbert's decision to postpone a ruling on challenger Ellis' complaint until after the June 24th primary is par for the course.

The New York Times sat on a Pulitzer prize winning story about Bush's violation of FISA for over a year because the editors didn't want to influence the 2004 presidential election. Thanks to Sen. Pat Roberts, the Senate Intelligence Committee sat on its Phase II report for nearly 4 years. Phase II of course, told us that the Bush Administration--including the President himself--knowlingly distorted evidence and knowingly relied on bad evidence to push for the Iraq War in Fall 2002-Spring '03. Why the delay? The purported need to take the politics out of the decision. The commission set up to investigate the intelligence regarding WMDs was delayed, you guessed it, until after the 2004 election. Bush stated at the time that politics needed to be taken out of the equation, so the delay was necessary to avoid a blame game. I could go on and on with examples.

But the point here is this: by delaying a decision on Ellis' complaint against state Rep. Walker, LG Herbert is in effect siding with Rep. Walker and more importantly, depriving the voters the ability to make their decision based upon important information. Here's a more elegant version by the Salt Lake Tribune Editorial Board:

Herbert says he has gathered information about the job-offer charge, but he has delayed making a decision to refer the matter to the attorney general until after the primary. Herbert issued a statement, saying, in part, "I am concerned that any action on my part at this time could influence participation in or the outcome of the June 24 primary election."
That may be so. But Herbert should not let that influence the timing of his passing information to the attorney general. Voters know what they know. Justice delayed is justice denied.
If Walker wins the primary despite the controversies, any delays of the investigation by Herbert simply leave his candidacy under a cloud longer. If he loses, the issue of his being a legal candidate becomes moot.
Herbert should do his duty and let the chips fall.

The claim that delaying an investigation or report helps remove political machinations is a farce. In fact, the opposite is true: political machinations cause the delaying of an investigation or report. The idea that ensuring that politically damaging information is released after its ability to cause political damage is sound public policy is simply laughable. Now if only more reporters would have the gall to point this out to elected officials who seek to delay.

11th hour conferences

Have you ever gone to meeting where people who will no longer be in charge of you organize the meeting and try to make big decisions that bind their successors? You would have if you had ever been involved in anything dealing with an executive branch, whether local, state, or federal.

Most of my readers I am sure have heard about the supposed negotiations between still-President Bush and Iraq PM Nori Al-Maliki to sign some sort of rent to own contract for hundreds of military bases in Iraq. If you dislike President Clinton's 11th hour roadless rule, his creation of Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument, or his pardons, you owe it to yourself to be upset at Bush's attempts to bind the hinds of President Obama or McCain with regards to the nature of US presence in Iraq.

But I bet you haven't heard of the million dollar meetin' at Snowbird on Federally owned lands, including National Parks and Forests with outgoing secretaries.

The national meeting, set for July 16-17 at Snowbird, will bring together more than 400 park superintendents and other top Park Service officials to hear from Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne, Park Service director Mary Bomar, Utah Republican Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. and others.
[...]
Park Service spokesman David Barna said, "It's really almost ridiculous that we don't do this more often." He noted that it's been 20 years since the last such gathering and said, "We're planning two days of meaningful work. This is not politics."

President Bush came into office pledging to eliminate a multibillion-dollar maintenance backlog in the park system, fixing decrepit buildings, roads, trails and sewer systems. He will leave office in January with a to-do list longer than the one he inherited.

At the same time, park operating budgets have been shaved, and some public services, including educational programs and visitors centers, remain curtailed. The administration has fought with conservationists over snowmobiles and other motorized vehicles, clean-air standards and firearms in parks.

"Their actions have fallen significantly short of their commitments," said Ron Tipton, vice president of the National Parks Conservation Association.

A May 29 posting on the Park Service's internal Web site for employees says the July meeting will focus on goals such as how to reconnect Americans with their park system, develop new leaders for the system and highlight plans for the system's 100th birthday in 2016.

Those plans include a controversial proposal to raise private money to undertake projects in parks, including building new facilities and launching new programs. The Bush administration says that will mean new resources for the parks, but opponents say it will invite increased commercialism.

So some say this is a propaganda tour, others that it is a chance to legitimize things the Administration would like to do anyway--like letting extractive industries into national parks and forests. And Adminstration spokespeople say it is just a necessary meetin'. Go on up to Snowbird Ski & Summer Resort in July and let us know which one, if any, it is.

[Rick] Perry's House [is in] Pa[in]

[Photo Credit: HotMovieSale.com]

No, I am not talking about the sitcom on TBS, but rather, the suspicious fire at the Texas Governor's mansion in Austin.

[Photo Credit: Harry Cabluck/Associated Press]

I am sure I am not the only one else wondering if this has something to do with the FLDS and Gov. Perry's handling of the raid (as well as his half-hearted admission that mistakes were made). That is, could the fire-starters have been zealots on either side of the raid of the polygamists' compound? I wouldn't be surprised, would you?

ironic website of the week

In a break from political news discussion, I wanted to share this with my readers. Today I attended a new lawyer ethics training session for the morning. Appearantly, you are not supposed to have intercourse with your clients. Who knew? Just kidding. Of course, since we are talking about attorneys, there are exceptions to this rule: if you have pre-existing relationship of that kind. Anyway, the session also included a talk about stress and how to handle your addictions, including helpful links to sites that will provide you with more information about addictions such as narcotics, alcohol, and internet. That's right, for people are addicted to checking their blogs and emails etc. (like yours truely)--they suggest you go on a website to read about it. It's called netaddition.com and even has a test to see if you are an addict. I haven't taken the test, but given that I read about 300+ posts a day, a feel deprived if I go for two days without going onto my Google Reader, I am pretty confident that I am hooked.

In any event, enjoy the website and have a great weeekend.

unaccountable?

Who can reign in the excesses of the Utah County Republican Party?

The Utah County attorney said no.
The attorney general said no.

The lieutenant governor said no.

If those three say they don't have any legal jurisdiction over the powerful leadership of the Utah County Republican Party, the question now is simple.

Does anyone?

Not really. [...]

Fast forward to the Utah County GOP convention in 2008, when a tremendously well-connected 17-year-old girl named Hannah Lockhart served as a delegate and voted to select the party nominees for state Legislature.

Was it legal for her to do so when Utah law states a voter is only eligible if he or she will be 18 on the day of an election?

The party interprets the law to refer to the general election, but a candidate who lost at the convention believed local GOP bosses at the very least bent the party's bylaws in favor of incumbent Sen. Curt Bramble. [...]

[...]

"If there's no one in control of the party, heaven help us," [Jacqueline De Gaston, the would be primary opponent to Sen. Bramble] said. "I don't know what the public can do. All the races in Utah County were settled in convention by the votes of the delegates, so thousands of Republicans have no say because they don't get to go to the polls for a primary."

In the sections I omitted, AG Mark Shurtleff and other officials correctly noted that the US Supreme Court's interpetation of the First Amendment forbids the government from getting involved in almost every aspect of a political parties nominating processees. This is why Florida and Michigan's suits against the DNC regarding their delegations were tossed (and now mooted).

However, the column hints at the lack of political will to take on the powerhouse of the state's dominant political party. Utah County is this sense is no different that parts of modern day Philly, Chicago, Providence, and New York back in the days of Tammny Hall. Remember our LG is from the Utah County machine, and Huntsman chose him to mullify any challege from the right during his 2004 nomination battle.

Will the voters of Utah County continue to hold their noses and vote for Republican incumbents, or might a primary challenger or Democrat finally break through? We will find out soon enough.

not gonna happen, part II

The alternate title for this post is "the dream [ticket] has died." Like most of you, I watched TV last night for the three speeches by Sens. McCain, Clinton, and Obama. And out of those speeches I came away with three very distinct impressions: 1) Obama's speech was pretty good, but the bar is so high for him now [thanks to his 'Yes we can' speech in NH and his 'a more perfect union' speech in philly] that it seemed middling...except when you compared it to the other two speeches last night.

2) If Hillary Clinton honestly wanted or was seeking the VP slot on Obama's ticket, after that speech, there is zero chance of Obama picking her now. This was her chance to thank her supporters, talk about her causes, and rally them behind Obama. Instead, she pretended she won the popular vote (for someone who says count every vote, but then excludes MI voters who cast ballots intending to support Obama, as well as Caucusgoers in states were they only have estimates of how many people showed up, it's pretty hypocritical), used the phrase "stay[] the course," a Bushism none too popular with Democrats, allowed her supporters to chant "Denver! Denver!" repeatedly without calming them down, a phony "tell me what you think" to justify staying in the race and taking people's money, implied the Obama only cared about health care to run for president ("I haven't been working on this for the past 16 months, I have been working on this for 35 years!"), and implied that Obama doesn't care about her "18 million" voters. This tactlessness and selfishness was all the more evident after Obama went on for several minutes praising her, while she said maybe two or three sentences about him. The Clinton bunker was a bizzaro world were she had won and he had lost. And it was painful to watch.

3) I honestly don't see how John McCain is going to be elected. Nor did the cable news commenters, including Fox News. Karl Rove et al were discussing how terrible he speech was before either Democratic Senator went on. First the optics of the speech. He spoke from a suburb of New Orleans, a city he helped destroy by celebrating his birthday with George Bush in Arizona and San Diego instead of telling Bush to get working on saving Katrina victims. Did he speak there to distance himself from Bush? Maybe, but Karl Rove thought the most likely reason was that McCain was in the area raising money. This shows disorganization and lack of message discipline. Moreover, I doubt the two fundaisers Rove mentioned raised even a million dollars net. Obama sent one email out just before he gave his speech, which I predict raised at least 3 Million.

Back to the messaging problem and optics. He stood behind a green background that was a harsh contrast from his suit colors. I couldn't tell if the green with gold writing was supposed to be an alusion to the military or to the environment. Commenters were similarly confused. The slogan behind him said "A Leader We Can Believe In" Obama's slogan for the entire campaign has been "Change We Can Believe in" when you enter in McCain's latest slogan into google and hit search, you get Obama campaign webpages.

The content of the speech was essentially defensive: I am not like Bush, stop calling me names. He used the word 'change' over 30 times, trying to say he was the agent of change and Obama represented the past. That's right a 71 year old white dude who has been in Congress for 3 decades from the same party as the sitting president is change, while a 40-something year old black guy who has been a senator for four years is the status quo. When you fight using the other guy's messaging, you are behind.

The delivery, as usual, was terrible. He stumbled along, clearly reading from a teleprompter and sounding like he barely believed any of it. His crowd was tiny and he got the biggest cheer when he defended Bush's policies. McCain's forte is the town hall meeting, and is much better off the cuff (although he has been prone to saying things like 100 years in Iraq "would be fine by me") than delivering some lines, but the trouble is, presidential candidates are mostly seen by voters when they give speeches (convention speeches, rally speeches, etc.), not town hall meetings.

So he didn't give a great speech so what? The very fact that he had to give his speech on the same day as Obama and Clinton's speeches shows he is being otherwise ignored. He has has had months all to himself to raise money, organize staff and field operations, organize the convention, etc. Instead, he has had to fly around to big dinners (eating up valuable time and money), had to fire half a dozen senior staff members for ties to lobbying for foreign governments (against his reform message), and fire his handpicked convention guy (again lobbyist for Myanmar's Junta)

More importantly, look at the electoral college map and what states will be hotly contested. Virginia, Missouri, Ohio, Florida, Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, two congressional districts in Nebraska, Iowa, New Hampshire. All but the last one went for Kerry in 2004. If McCain loses any of the first 4, he has lost the election. Obama can lose the first four and still win the White House, especially if he puts the Carolinas and Georgia in play [thanks Bob Barr].

Now McCain supporters will claim he has a shot at Pennslyvannia, Michigan, Oregon, and New Jersey. Democrats would love McCain to waste his time and money in New Jersey, just has Republicans would love Obama to spend millions and days in Texas. The other three have been close but gone Democratic the last four presidental elections. And the demographics aren't getting any more favorable to the GOP here. All have Democratic governors, 2 or 1 Democratic senators (PA and OR have 1, but Arlen Spector won't be running for reelection in 2010 and Gordon Smith is in for the fight of his ife this year), and after November majority Democratic House members, as well as legislatures controlled by Democrats. I just don't see those states flipping.

The voters are just as angry with Washington as they were in 2006, if not more so. They wanted change on the war, corruption, accountability, and Bush's policies. But Republicans in Congress--including John McCain--blocked most of those proposals. Poll after poll, recruitment after recruitment shows that Democrats will pick up large numbers of seats in both chambers of congress. Democrats will have, for the first time as far as I can tell, money advantages over Republicans in races for the House, Senate, and the White House. Obama's message of change is resonnating, and McCain can't plausibly sell his brand under Obama's label when the real deal is available.

not gonna happen

Yucca Mountain, the long proposed nuclear waste storage site in Nevada, is finally before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).

The [NRC] will have three years to review the application, although it could extend that an additional year if needed. The agency's primary responsibility is to determine if the design as proposed will protect public health, safety and the environment.

The Energy Department informed key members of Congress and the NRC of its plans on Monday. A truck is to deliver tens of thousands of pages of documents to the NRC offices in Rockville, Md., this morning to back up the application, which itself covers 17 volumes.

President Bush gave the go-ahead for the Yucca waste repository, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas, six years ago. It is being designed to hold 77,000 tons of waste, mostly used reactor fuel from nuclear power plants.

About $6 billion has been spent in research and engineering at the Nevada site to determine whether it can safely hold the highly radioactive waste for as long as a million years.

However, as long as Senators from Nevada get to place holds on any bill or nomination, Yucca Mtn. won't store nuclear waste. This is especially true if Harry Reid holds onto his position as Democratic Leader (he is up for reelection in 2010 I believe). These senators can make life difficult for the next president, Energy Secretary, and NRC head by holding hostage appointments, funding etc.

Moreover, as long as Utah's own Jim Matheson is on the House Energy and Commerce Committee (which writes those departments paychecks), the NRC/DOE will be very reluctant to approve the plan. Gov. Scott Matheson, Jim's dad, died of cancer, cancer that was caused by exposure to radiation from nuclear testing in Nevada. The federal government lied to the people of rural Nevada and Utah, claiming that no harm would come to them. Jim's mission in Congress has been to prevent all nuclear storage out West (whether by the feds or by Energy Solutions) and to prevent all nuclear testing, especially the new "tactical" nuclear weapons that the Bush Administration would just love to try out against the Iranians.

As Nevada and Utah grow in population, they will also get more seats in the U.S. House. Right now, both have three, but in 4 years, they will each have 1-2 more seats...right about the time the NRC will approve or deny the plan. Moreover, Nevada's population growth has meant that the state is purpling, and will be a swingable state for Obama in 2008 and will be contested in the next presidential elections as well. McCain has previously favored Yucca. Look for Obama to run ads in Nevada harping on that issue this fall. And if Obama's electoral college victory comes thanks to Nevada, he will owe it to the Silver State to deep six Yucca Mountain.

treasurer fight

I disagree with folks that say that general elections are nastier than primary elections. Karl Rove used John McCain's adoption of a Bangladeshi girl to insinuate that McCain had fathered a illegitimate child with a black woman. Does anything between Bush and Gore or Kerry come even close? On the Democratic side, Kerry and Gephardt aides ran an ad with bin Laden's face all over it saying that Iowa Democrats couldn't risk putting Howard Dean in the White House. [The only thing close to this in a general election is the Georgia Senate race between triple amuptee and Vietnam Vet Sen. Max Cleeland and now Sen. Saxby Chamblis]

Now here's Utah's latest nasty primary:

Rep. Mark Walker, R-Sandy, is accused of offering current chief deputy treasurer Richard Ellis a position if Walker were to win, with the implication that Ellis should drop out of the race. But Walker, who won the Republican nomination with 58 percent at the convention, said his meeting with Walker was to dispel rumors that he would fire Ellis and his office if elected.

Walker said he became aware of rumors that Ellis' staffers were worried they would lose their jobs if he were elected. Feeling that was unfair to everyone involved, he met with Ellis to dispel the rumor. He said he told Ellis that he respected the good work the office had done.

Ellis says unequivocally that Walker broke the law and requested on Friday that the Lieutenant Governor's Office investigate the issue. Statute prohibits a promise of employment, and Ellis said an intermediary told him that if he were not in the race he could be a deputy.

"I don't want it to be a 'he said, she said' situation. That's why I want it investigated," Ellis said.

To complicate the issue, it appears that a mutual acquaintance and vice president of public finance at Zions Bank relayed messages between the candidates. Walker stresses that even though he knew Ellis was a candidate, his intent in meeting with him was to dispel harmful rumors. Ellis insists that a job offer was made. But except for the single meeting, the communication between the two passed through the intermediary via e-mail.

So either this is a game of telephone where 'I won't fire you if I win' is misunderstood as 'I will get you hired if you drop out.' Or the subtly of the message was conveyed loud and clear, and this is another case of an unethical state legislator. But in either case, it just got to be a biter primary campaign.

headline of the week

The one and half inch headline on the front page of the Deseret News is the winner: "Texas can't hold'em" 'Em refers to the FLDS children, which Texas' Department of Family and Protective Services had taken away from their mothers (and fathers) because of one phone call from a woman in Colorado claiming she and her children had been abused by a man who was known to be out on warrants in Arizona. Oh and this woman was not only not FLDS, but she had previously been convicted for filing false reports with the police.

The 3rd Court of Appeals and the Texas Supreme Court ruled that Texas couldn't ferret away children as a group and put them in foster homes around the state without individual allegations of abuse by their parents (polygamist or not). To treat the children as endangered because they are raised in FLDS households in my view violates not only Due Process but the First Amendment.

If Texas has evidence that a particular man or woman in that community is abusing children or adults, get those victims out of that household and arrest the alleged abusers. But seizing the woman and children (and boxes of documents) while leaving the men makes absolutely no sense to me. Also, this victory on appeal for the FLDS makes it more likely that FLDS women and children will tell the truth about whatever abuse might be going on inside the YFZ Ranch. Trust in government authorities is necessary for the effective prosecution of crimes, whether it be in inner-city Detriot or miles outside of San Angelo, Texas.

running a city like a business

After all of the heat Sandy's mayor Tom Dolan, along with his staff and members of the City Council are getting, they decided to change things up a bit.

Sandy's leaders revised the bonus policy after revelations surfaced about the city's top-heavy incentive program.
Under the new caps, employees will be eligible for up to a 1 percent bonus until they max out in their salary ranges. Then, they could score up to a 5 percent payout each year based on performance.
That means Chief Administrative Officer Byron Jorgenson, who pocketed $12,500 in bonuses this year, could take home no more than a $7,550 check on his $151,000 salary. A police officer whose pay has peaked at $53,000 could earn up to a $2,650 reward.
All workers also will be eligible for an additional 1 percent in "spot awards" for exceptional achievements.
In addition to the new caps, Mayor Tom Dolan has decided to drop his annual 1 percent incentive.

How magnanimous of him and the Council. So why do Dolan and his cronies deserve semi-secret bonuses on from taxpayers? Don't ask me.

But the rationale I would expect would contain some version of the trite phrase "government should be run like business." The trouble is, Sandy Corporation has been run like Tyco, Worldcomm, Adelphia, and Bear Stearns. The top management lavished on themselves without regard to what the shareholders wanted, instead, they just sucked up to their sycophantic board of directors. Sandy Corporation's shareholders are those who pay property, 911, sales, and other taxes and fees towards the city. Dolan et al tried to hide their bonuses from those shareholders, and their board of director--the city council--let Dolan get away with it for a while. And much like I despise the salaries, bonuses, and side compensation that the management of KCPW recieved while tanking their station, I despise what Dolan et al has done.

DC bank bails out KCPW (and the Feulners)

While you were enjoying your new tote back at Wild Oats, KCPW execs were getting a loan to cover the millions of dollars they need to keep the station from going bankrupt and turning into a Christian radio station. And the loan is one that you should never get to buy a house.

The NCB financing is an interest-only loan. Sweeney said Wasatch Public Media will use $400,000 from the fundraising proceeds to pay down the loan. The group intends to repay the balance with proceeds from future fundraising campaigns during the loan's four-year duration.

I personally did not contribute a dime to KCPW, although I enjoy listening to public radio and their station in particular. Here are three reasons why:

1. [KCPW's Manager Brain] Feulner was paid $140,000 under the terms of the new contract and a bonus of $39,815 (payable under the terms of the old contract) which is why Mr.Feulner’s total compensation [...] was $179,815.




2. Blair and his wife, Susan, then the nonprofit station's co-manager and chief fundraiser, cleared $280,000 between them in 2003, the most recent tax records available.
   Susan ended her full-time employment a year ago and went on to collect $50,000 as a consultant to the station. Feulner remains as general manager and likely will make this year between $150,000 and $165,000, according to the president of KCPW's board, Tom Calder.
   But the spectacular reward for the Feulners' years of hard work came last year when the board sold a Coalville station license purchased for $18,800 thanks to Feulner's deal-making savvy. The license, purchased in the early 1990s, reaped $3.6 million.
   Susan and Blair Feulner's personal share of the windfall was $895,000. The amount was paid in cash, separate and apart from their salaries.




3. Under manager Blair Feulner, KCPW borrowed $2.5 million to buy an AM license to allow the station to compete with the UofU's KUER statewide. But the bold gambit flopped and KCPW was being pulled under by the loan payments.

The Feulners should have contributed a few thousand dollars towards keeping their station afloat since they were the ones that capsized it, due to their own bad decisions and gross over compensation. I have no patience for rewarding greedy, incompetent managers, whether they work for for-profits like Enron and Countrywide, or non-profits like KCPW.

And really, does KCPW need to compete with KUER? I thought public radio wasn't about competition, but providing news and other programming that for-profit radio neglects.

Mike Leavitt tried to screw Utah Hospitals

Here's a story that you might have missed this holiday weekend.

A federal judge ruled Friday that Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt failed to "outfox" Congress when he pushed through a Medicaid rule that would have wiped out more than $40 million in annual funding to Utah's teaching hospitals.

The Salt Lake Tribune notes that Leavitt's "rule would have deprived the University of Utah of $36 million in annual federal funding, and $3 million for Primary Children's Medical Center. Six rural hospitals, serving Monticello, Milford, Beaver, Gunnison, Kanab and Panguitch, also stood to lose $1.2 million."

So why stick to people in Salt Lake, Monticello, Milford, Beaver, Gunnison, Kanab, Panquich and lots of other places around the U.S.? To save a few bucks Medicaid, which provides health care for poor people.


Here's what happened. Leavitt proposed this rule that would make Medicaid reimbursement on a cost-to-provider basis. "It would have meant we couldn't use Medicaid dollars for anything other than providing care to Medicaid patients," said Kim Wirthlin, the U.'s vice president of government affairs. "Prior to that, we got additional [Medicaid] money that could be used to assist in funding medical education and [health care for] the uninsured." So Democrats in Congress slipped in language in a war funding bill that reversed this rule.

The same day passed, Leavitt rushed out a "'typo-ridden' final rule to the Office of the Federal Registrar for 'emergency display and publication,' thus making it final." Why the rush? Because President Bush had yet to sign the bill, which Leavitt knew he would. This way, Bush wouldn't have to veto another war funding bill, and he wouldn't have to try another one of those ridiculous signing statements to get what he wanted: the Iraq War to continue and to keep health care from going to the 47 million uninsured.

But a federal judge effectly said, "nice try"and vacated the rule as being violative of Congressional intent. So when you take the 1-year moritorium on such rule making that was in the war funding bill, combined with the 90-comment period, you get to the end of Bush's presidency.

"Then we'll have a new administration and we can look at this whole policy issue of whether or not Medicaid funds should be used to assist in supporting graduate medical education and care for the uninsured," Wirthlin said. "And that is an important policy debate that needs to happen."

And if Obama wins the election, that Leavitt rule will never see the light of day.

Bennett's growing power

Congrats to our Sen. Bennett. "President Bush" nominated a Bennett staffer to the FEC.

This is very important for a number of reasons.

1. In reality, Republican and Democratic leaders in Congress, and not the President, pick the nominees for the FEC (Federal Election Commission). The Democratic picks are pals/ex-staffers of Senators Reid and Schumer, the Democratic leader and the chairman of the DSCC (the Dems' senate campaign committee), respectively. This means Bennett is considered by his fellow Republican Senators to be one of the top leaders of their caucus.


2. Matthew Peterson replaces Hans von Spakovski, a vote suppressor and law breaker extraordinaire. The Hans, as I like to call him, was THE project I worked on this fall, as the Campaign Legal Center waged a war to keep him off the Commission (Bush appointed him when the Senate was out of session, so his term officially ended January 1, 2008).


3. The Hans was blocked by two Senators exercising holds...well three but I will get to that in a second. The two holders were Senators Russ Feingold and Barack Obama. Obama used this hold as a pitch to black voters in the dark days of last fall when he was splitting the black vote with Hillary Clinton.


4. The third Senator was none other than Mitch McConnell, the Republican Leader. He refused to allow any of the other nominees to be voted on separately and insisted on all of the nominees being voted on in a block. Since everyone knew the Hans didn't have 50 votes (let alone 60 if Obama or Feingold filibustered), and the Democrats didn't want their hand chosen nominees to also go down in flames, there were no votes


5. The FEC needs a quorum to do anything. And since January, they haven't had one. That means that presidential candidates couldn't get their matching funds. And more importantly, meant that John McCain couldn't withdraw his application for matching funds either. This resulted in a DNC suit against McCain for spending over the matching fund limits during his primary campaign (the lawsuit is still pending a quorum at the FEC). It also means that John McCain can't get his general election matching funds, something he desperately needs when Obama can raise a couple million by sending out an email while McCain has to spend a week at pricey fundraisers. Oh by the way, Obama raised $31M in April, McCain $18M...Obama has $9M in general election funds, McCain $0 [Hillary has more than either because she still relies on big donors to fund her campaign...thus the last majority of the funds she raised this month were general election funds, which are unusable until after the convention in Denver]

So to sum up, Bennett got his guy in there, not McConnell's guy or any other GOP senator's pick. John McCain really needs a functioning FEC more than Obama does, because Obama doesn't need matching funds for the general, whereas McCain needs those millions of dollars from the federal treasury to even keept close to Obama's fundraising, which has an army of about 3 million people.

In short, this means Bennett is becoming a pretty important guy in the Senate, and powerful senators like Mitch McConnell and John McCain will owe him one, even if he loses the election. And if McConnell loses this year (unlikely but possible), look for Bennett to be a front runner for Republican Leader.

tighter than a tube sock?

We all knew that Rep. Chris Cannon was liable to be primaried again this year due to the suprisingly strong challenge he got last cycle from a complete nutcase. But will this year's challenger be able to close the deal?

Cannon leads Chaffetz 39 percent to 37 percent among 3rd District voters who said they are "very likely" or "somewhat likely" to vote next month, according to a poll conducted by Dan Jones & Associates on May 13-19. Those results are within the poll's margin of error of plus or minus 7 percent. Nineteen percent were undecided.

However, when Jones culled out only Republican likely 3rd District voters, Cannon leads Chaffetz 49-34 percent. Among those who said they usually vote "strong Republican," Cannon leads 44-33, Jones found.

So Chafetz has to move some voters, and hope/work for a big turnout. But it is do able, after all, Obama did it in Iowa. But here's where things get interesting:

Unlike Matheson, Cannon has never been an overly popular incumbent. And the 2001 redistricting by the GOP-controlled Legislature — clearly aimed at harming Matheson — didn't help out Cannon much either.

Cannon got more Salt Lake County voters in the redistricting, with GOP lawmakers even cutting out the northeastern part of Utah County and giving it to Matheson's 2nd District. Chaffetz actually lives in that small 2nd District slice of Utah County. But a U.S. House member only needs to live in his home state, he does not have to live in his district.

Cannon leads Chaffetz 39-37 percent in Utah County, but Chaffetz leads Cannon 40-36 percent among Salt Lake County registered voters who live in the 3rd District. There are more registered voters in the west-side Salt Lake County area of the 3rd District than there are 3rd District voters in Utah County — a shift that has not meant a great deal in previous elections. But in this primary it may be critical, the poll indicates.

If Caffetz can parlay his work for Gov. Huntsman and being a winning kicker for BYU into votes on the westside, this could be an upset special.

Oh and in case you were wondering, Matheson is crushing Dew 67-20 (Dew gets only 36 percent of the GOP vote, which will surely increase some) while Rob Bishop is soundly beating Morgan Bowen 58-19.

Utah's purpling?

The Deseret News and Dan Jones have done another poll on Utah's presidential preferences, and it seems that Utahns are warming to the idea of John McCain. If a state that gave Romney 90 percent of the vote (and McCain 5%) in the GOP primary can reconcile with McCain, doesn't it stand to reason that the vast majority of Clinton supporters will vote for Obama in the fall? Anyway, on to the results.

McCain, the GOP's presumptive nominee, was the choice of [...] 62 percent when matched up against Obama. That's a big change from February, when McCain mustered support from only 30 percent of Utahns surveyed.

The poll was conducted by Dan Jones & Associates of 604 registered voters statewide May 13-19 and has a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percent.

I omitted the results of the Clinton/McCain match up because A) she isn't going to win the nomination and B) the results are statistically insignificant (she does 3 points worse, well within the margin of error). Believe it or not, if 62 percent holds up through the fall, that will really help Utah Democrats. That's because George W. Bush did 10 points better than that in 2004.

To help down ticket Democrats, Obama doesn't have to win states, he just has to not hurt them. And Obama is much better at the top of the ticket in the West than Clinton would have been on that score. Sure, she might have been better in places like Ohio and Florida, but she really would be a drag on so many U.S. House and Senate races in places like Alaska, Colorado, Idaho, Oregon, North Carolina, and yes even Georgia and Mississippi, where black turnout will be through the roof thanks to Obama. And the main goal of the party is not just to elect a president, but to win races from county council to president.

And for future reference, there are what I call teaser states--ones that are always close nationally but of late consistently go Red or Blue--and truly swingable states--ones which either party has a legitimate shot at winning. In my mind, OR, WA, WI, MI, MN, PA, WV, and FL are all teasers. They are close, but they have gone Blue (in the case of the first 6 states) or Red (in the case of the last 2) in the last two-to-three presidential elections. The swing able states are VA (due to demographic changes that has resulted in going from all GOP governors and two GOP senators to 2 Democratic governors in a row and as of this fall, two Democratic senators), MO (Kerry really should have tried harder here, and with a likely winner Democratic gubernatorial candidate--and no gay marriage amendment on the ballot and major black turnout in St. Louis--it should be a possible squeaker), OH (the economy, combined with the fact that Dems swept in every statewide office last year, should help Obama, despite his Appalachia problem), NH (again, demographic trends and strong down ticket candidates helps Obama), IA (Gore barely won it in 2000, Kerry lost it in 2004, Obama is loved in Iowa), NM (Gore barely won it in 2000, Kerry barely lost it in 2004, if Richardson is on the ticket, it could be sewn up), CO (another demography and strong statewide candidates aid to Obama--Kerry contested this mildly in 2004), NC (demographic trends and strong black turnout).

I really don't see PA or FL changing "colors" any time soon. But if you disagree with any of this analysis, please comment and explain why you think I am wrong.

State Elections Office=Ministry of Truth?

Yesterday, the Deseret News picked up on a report that gave Utah an F on campaign finance disclosure (we ranked 45th out of 50).

Here are a few of the easy to fix problems:

"You have no disclosure of occupation and employer for contributors, no last-minute reporting of contributions," says Bob Stern, president of the Center for Governmental Studies.

And it is not wonder we got such a rating when such things are not disclosed. Even worse, politicans can delete information that looks bad are errors on their own, without having to file a corrected disclosure form.

The state's 8-year-old electronic campaign finance reporting system is getting an overhaul, but for now, candidates can change or delete entries to their online documents without explanation or a visible trail.
A donation or expense that shows up today could be gone tomorrow.
That ease of use is justified, said Joe Demma, chief of staff to Lt. Gov. Gary Herbert.
"If someone submits a report and makes a mistake, they should have an opportunity to correct that mistake," Demma said.
State Attorney General Mark Shurtleff recently had two such vanishing entries.
In early May, the Deseret News reported an April 18 donation of $2,300 from Shurtleff's campaign to John McCain's presidential campaign, which some questioned as a possible violation of Federal Election Commission regulations.

But who checks to make sure it is a mistake Joe? Do we just take them at their word and let them edit it without a trace or affidavit? We don't even let people edit their own Wikipedia entries with so little oversight. Demma says that they will have new software up and running soon (supposidely before June 24th) that will track when such corrections were made.

But the article says nothing about any requirements on proof or oath as to why the changes are necessary...now or in the future.

online financial facts are subject to change at the whim of the candidate. And elections officials don't question why.
"I generally don't think people would think less of an elected official if a data entry error occurred," Demma said.

I might not think less of an elected official, but I sure do think less of state elections officials.

Greg "conflicts of interest" Curtis

Our state House Speaker.

Curtis, an attorney, has had great success in battling opponents of his clients' development plans in [Sandy] City Hall and some wonder if it's due to his negotiating skills, the merits of his causes or who he is and the powerful position he holds as speaker of the House of Representatives.

I don't wonder, do you? It's because he gets to create development deals (like approve state money to build a road near a piece of property owned by a client, or contributor, or buy/sell land via the state or the county for inflated profits to his patrons) via his power on Utah' Capitol Hill. He gets to set out the limits of municipal powers as well, something people working in city halls in Utah care about. Rolly gives us some details...

Now, I've learned Curtis got his way with the all-Republican Salt Lake County Commission eight years ago, just before the county changed its government to a mayor-council form. That was before he was speaker, but he was a member of the Legislature who shortly thereafter would become chief counsel to then-County Mayor Nancy Workman.
In that case, his family members had applied for a zoning variance to build a duplex on the 1600 East block of Creek Road in Sandy. The Little Cottonwood Community Council obtained signatures on a petition opposing the variance and the Planning and Zoning Commission denied it, ruling the size of the lot was not conducive to a duplex. The matter was appealed to the County Commission and the lot was approved.

That's right, he was Nacy Workman's "chief counsel." He got to draw two salaries (one from the County, one from the State) and he really did a great job of looking out for County tax payers, making sure County employees didn't buy lots of unnecessary SUVs and fill them (and their personal cars) up with abandon...oh wait.

Nancy Workman was tossed out of office (she did not seek another term out of pressure from GOP leaders that knew she could not win) for presiding over a corrupt County government, and Curtis was her right hand man, her partner in crime.

In short, Speaker Curtis is the poster boy for what is wrong with the state legislature. He exemplifies the lack of transparancy, the lack of concern about ...conflicts of intrest, and un-righeous indignation by legislators that accompanies any complaint about the first two things. Voting Curtis out of office won't solve all our problems, but it will rid us of a big one, and send a message to those smaller-time crooks that they will be held accountable by the voters.

code language

Here's the number one story in today's Salt Lake Tribune--A-1, top of the fold all that--"Utah Dems hunt for GOP converts" and features pictures of "moderate" Republicans targeted by the state Democratic Party. Notice the word "converts?" They could have used the word "switch," but instead a religiously loaded term was chosen.

It not so subtly implies

1. Democrats aren't LDS
2. Republicans are LDS
3. These targets are potentially corruptable souls
4. It is your job, dear reader, to keep those Democrats from bribing these Republicans from switching sides

And this article isn't in the Deseret News, whose Editor-in-Chief is the former GOP state party chair. Anyone who calls the local media liberal just isn't paying attention.

gay marriage ruling, the sequal?

So you probably have read that the California Supreme Court has ruled that gay marriage is a protected right under the California state constitution. Since I worked at for a Massachusetts legislator when the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court made a similar ruling and helped my boss when there was Constitutional Convention regarding the issue, I wanted to clear up some confusions people might have.

1. Like the SJC, the California supremes based their ruling on their state constitution. This means that even if all nine U.S. Supreme Court justices think it was a terrible opinion and disagree, they can't do anything about it. State courts are the final arbiters of their own state constitutions, and while the U.S. Supreme Court can declare a state constitutional provision to be in violation of the Federal constitution, if a state constitution grants the people more rights than the federal constitution (for example, many states have a constitutional right to quality education), that's that state's business. It's called federalism.


2. And since the ruling is based solely on state case law and the state constitution, it will have zero effect on other states or the federal government. Now, I am sure this case will have some persuasive effect on other liberal states' justices, just as Goodridge had on the California justices. But DOMA is still the law of the land until some gay couple from California or Massachusetts moves to another state and seeks recognition of their marriage under the Full Faith and Credit Clause. [I doubt anyone will challenge DOMA until the ideological makeup of the U.S. Supreme Court becomes at least 5-4 liberal]


3. Unlike federal judges and Massachusetts' justices, California's are popularly elected. If Californians don't like how these justices rule, they can vote against those justices who ruled in favor of gay marriage when their terms are up. And they might even be able to recall them like they did to Gov. Gray Davis.


4. Also unlike Massachusetts, the California legislature twice passed bills granting Californians same-sex marriages. Gov. Schwarzenegger vetoed the bills twice, in 2005 and 2007. In Massachusetts, the legislature essentially sat on its hands during the years that the SJC considered Goodridge. Arguably, had MA legislators passed a civil union bill, Goodridge might have turned out differently.


5. In Massachusetts, in order to amend the state constitution, the legislature must meet in Constitutional Convention (state House and Senate together) and vote for the same amendment in two successive sessions. That still is yet to happen since Goodridge came down. California, by contrast, allows any yahoo who collects enough signatures (and these days has a lot of money to get said signatures)to get a state constitutional amendment on the ballot. In fact, there is already a initiative in the works to overturn the CA Supreme Court's decision, an initiative that Schwarzenegger supports. So does John McCain


6. In California, the court overturned a proposition that enacted a state law banning gay marriage. In Utah, the people voted for a state constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. This means that even if the Utah Supreme Court agreed with the reasoning of California's supremes, they couldn't strike down Amendment 3.
7. Barrack Obama's support of civil unions and support of the California court's decision are not inconsistent. Although the court said that civil unions would subject same-sex couples to "second class citizenship," Obama is supporting the rights of states to decide the gay marriage issue for themselves. Obama's federalist argument is something Bob Barr, author of DOMA and now presumptive Libertarian Party candidate, agrees with even though he himself is opposed to even civil unions.


8. This will not help the GOP in November. Bush already milked gay marriage for all it was worth to conservatives in in 2004, especially in swing states like Ohio and Missouri. Those states can't have another constitutional amendment on the ballot this year to say the same thing. And California won't be in play for Republicans any time soon, no matter how much John McCain wishes it so.


9. Vermont, Connecticut, and New Jersey allow for civil unions for same sex couples (Hawaii used to as well); only Massachusetts and California (as well as Canada, Great Britian, South Africa, and few other countries) have legalized gay marriage.


10. After San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom tried to marry same sex couples in early 2004, the California Supreme Court struck him down, but now they reversed course. Why? Well, George W. Bush appointed the California version of Clarence Thomas--Janice Rogers Brown--to the D.C. Circuit (which is considered the stepping stone court for those judges to become U.S. Supreme Court justices). I can't imagine getting an arch conservative off the CA court wouldn't change the vibe, let alone the ideological make up. Just look what happened after Chief Justice Warren came on board, Brown v. Board became a unanimous reversal (when before it was narrow affirmance). So arguably, if you wanted to blame anyone for this decision, the fault would lie with Bush and Senate Republicans, who went to the mat for this nomination despite repeated filibuster.

I hope that clears things up. Any questions?

adding insult to injury

As you probably have heard, there were two major natural disasters in Southeast Asia this week: the massive earthquake in China and the massive cyclone in Myanmar. While China's oppressive government has won praise for its handling of the earthquake--immediately sending thousands of aid workers, tons of equipment, and the Premier himself to the epicenter (apparantly learning from George W. Bush's mistakes)--Burma's military junta has not. Perhaps one can understand their reluctance to allow U.S. military aircraft to drop things over their country, but the world is hard pressed to understand junta's prevention of NGOs from being able to distribute their own aid as they see fit. But now comes the icing on the proverbial cake.

Myanmar announced Thursday that a constitution won massive support in a referendum -- a claim slammed by a leading rights group as an insult to the country's people.

The document, which critics say will cement nearly four decades of military rule, was approved by 92.4 percent of the 22 million eligible voters last Saturday, said Aung Toe, head of the Referendum Holding Committee on state radio. He put voter turnout at more than 99 percent.

While the junta is content to have hundreds of thousands of people to die needlessly because of their paranoia, they hold a sham election (reporters saw military "officials telling voters outside polling places, 'Don't forget to put the tick, the right mark,'" on their ballots....and "[v]oting officials also would sometimes pull aside the curtains protecting the privacy of the voting booths.") to justify their iron grip on the country. And while we are at it, let's look at the particulars of this "popularly enacted" constitution.

The constitution would bar Nobel Peace Prize laureate Aung San Suu Kyi, the detained leader of the country's pro-democracy movement, from public office. The military refused to honor the results of the 1990 general election won by her National League for Democracy party.

These people really have no sense of shame whatsoever. And obviously they aren't Buddists, because Karma really is a b!tch.

crackdown at the speakeasy

According to the Salt Lake Tribune, the Utah Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (DABC) is punishing liquor serving establishments harder than during the Olympics, where there was a rash of drunk driving deaths and violent crime...oh wait, never mind about that last part.

So, how are they getting so many citations? Trickery and entrapment say critics.

State undercover liquor-control agents made lewd propositions to a waitress, then waved a $5 bill at a boisterous woman in a Clearfield club, daring her to expose herself in what they later explained were tactics to fit in with the crowd.
At an American Fork restaurant, agents badgered a waiter into bringing them a round of beers, then ticketed the eatery for serving alcohol without a required meal.
And in a Salt Lake City pub, three agents ordered shots, two purposefully left the table, then they cited the server for delivering too many drinks.
[...]
Sam Granato is a Salt Lake restaurateur who also is board chairman of the DABC, whose staff prosecutes liquor violations uncovered in stings. He calls the tactics described above as "devious," but says he has no control over them because the agents are under the supervision of the Department of Public Safety.
It seems he is not alone in feeling powerless. For the past several years, state undercover agents have had uneven oversight and little training.
Only two agents on the 15-member team have been on the liquor squad for more than a year. And although the state of Utah generally sends agents to annual liquor-control workshops conducted nationally, no team members have received that training because of the high rate of turnover.

This seems to be an easy fix if there is anything suspect going on: give DABC control of their investigative agents, hold those agents accountable, and train them.

As for some of the tactics used by agents, Scott Duncan, commissioner of the Department of Public Safety, said changes are in store.
"Something went terribly wrong," said Duncan, who is Michaud's top boss and has been in the job since July 2006. "There are rogue cops out there, but I've been around long enough to know that [agents] do what their supervisors expect them to do."

But it isn't just bar owners fighting back against the perceived underhanded tactics of DABC agents.

But citing "ticky tacky" prosecutions, Rep. Curtis Oda, R-Clearfield, recently sponsored a bill that would have transferred prosecution powers from the DABC to the Utah Attorney General's Office. Oda withdrew the bill after DABC board Chairman Granato pledged more cooperation with businesses.
In April, for the first time in memory, board members agreed (4-to-1) to impose a fine of $1,200 as penalty for serving alcohol to underage decoys. In the past, such violations brought a five-day suspension. Granato said because servers already are being criminally charged for providing alcohol to minors, he doesn't favor closing down establishments and taking away the livelihood of all employees.

irony or poetic justice?

It seems the radical presidency of George W. Bush has had some drastic effects that he would regret:

National membership in the [ACLU], which fights for freedom of speech and religion, equal protection, due process and privacy, has doubled since Bush took office in 2001 - an extraordinary spurt of growth for the 88-year-old institution. [...]
The ACLU counted about 250,000 members in the final year of Bill Clinton's presidency. Today, the organization has about 500,000 card-carriers, 2,500 of them in Utah.
Fundraising has increased in kind. According the IRS, the nonprofit had about $44 million in annual revenues in the 2000 fiscal year. In the fiscal year ending in March of 2007, it collected more than $80 million.

By the end of Clinton's second term, Utah's ACLU chapter had only 1,300 members.

To its credit, the ACLU has stayed extremely ideological but definately not partisan. Both parties have found its positions annoying and objectionable. It is considering helping the polygamists in Texas, is against voter ID laws but for eliminating campaign finance regulation (save disclosure laws), against the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegence, against the public displays of the Ten Commandments, against torture, against warrantless wiretapping, against "extrodinary rendition," for same sex marriage, and for Rep. William "$90,000 in his House office freezer" Jefferson (D-LA) [he declined their offer of help]. Its members include likely Libertarian Party presidential nominee ex-Rep. Bob Barr (R-GA), who lead the impeachment battle against Bill Clinton .

Their role as Gadfly and legal harrasser of the Bush Administration will ensure that future Administrations will think twice before attempting to expand their powers, let alone exercise those claimed by Bush during his 8 years....especially with all of those new members and new donors.

fun with scripture

Trust me, this will be a good quote, but I have to lay some background first. So yesterday was Pentecost, the day were the apostles were able, thanks to the Holy Spirit, to speak the native languages of all of the Jews assembled in First Century Jerusalem, telling the listeners about all of the cool stuff God had done. Some witnesses believed this "speaking in tongues" to be a miracle, others, that the speakers were merely inebriated.

So it was up to (Simon) Peter to set the doubters straight: "You are wrong to think that these people are drunk. After all, it is only nine o'clock in the morning.">(Acts 2:15)

They can't be drunk because it is too early in the morning? We all should try lame arguments out like that on people. Of course, Peter went on to talk about how this all was prophesized in the book of Joel. But when I heard this reading yesterday at church, I had a hard time not laughing out loud.

the second wave?

In 2006, voters' dissatisfaction with Bush, and the economy, the war, etc. lead to the Democrats regaining control in both chambers of Congress after a dozen years in exile (notwithstanding the brief period that Dems pretended to have control in the Jeffords 50-49-1 Senate). It was a wave of discontentment that swept incumbent Republicans out of office (and nearly cost a dozen more their jobs) all over the country...except in Utah. That wave seems to have lapped up against the Wasatch Mountains, the Green and Colorado Rivers and western desert.

Amazingly, things look even worse for the Republican Party this year nationally. At best, they will only lose 3 more Senate seats and two dozen House seats. At worst, Democrats could have a filibuster-proof majority in the US Senate. Even more incredibly, Utah Republicans are getting concerned about their prospects.

Perhaps worried that President Bush's poor approval ratings and a dragging economy could harm GOP candidates in November, the Utah Republican Party is starting a public campaign showing what is right about Republicanism and how GOP officeholders have brought prosperity, freedom and well-managed government to Utahns.
The new program comes as Republicans meet in their state convention Saturday in Orem. There, thousands of state delegates will talk about immigration and other political issues, as well as cast ballots for intra-party contests in the 2nd and 3rd Congressional Districts.
[...]
Meanwhile, state party bosses want to remind Utahns why they've voted Republican for years.

Party leaders have faced criticism this election season as a number of GOP candidates and their supporters claim the party bosses favored incumbent Republicans, especially in a number of intra-party legislative races.
[...]
GOP state party chairman Stan Lockhart will submit a resolution before state delegates Saturday that outlines "what Republicans believe." It echoes what he told the Salt Lake County GOP convention last Saturday, that "it is not by accident" that Utah is one of the best managed states in the nation and that a number of Utah communities are rated as fine places to live and raise a family.

"We are going to get out our message — we have the best economy in the nation, we are the best managed state, most livable, best for the family, best place to start a business. Republicans helped create this atmosphere."

So what is the Utah Republican party's quasi-platform?

It quotes passages from the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution. But it also makes statements of principles that are not found in those documents, as well. Among the principles:

• A belief in God and a government based on "moral foundation with honesty, integrity, morality and accountability."


• "Individual religious expression, including prayer, in public and private."


• Individuals, families and charities should help the needy, but "support a government safety net if all else fails."


• There should be public, private and homeschooling education, with competitive excellence in education.


• Simplified tax code with elimination of the estate tax and a broad-based tax rate.


• Environment, air, water and land are the heart of existence and must be protected "through balanced management."


• Oppose abortion except to "preserve the life of the mother or in cases of rape or incest."


• Traditional family is the fundamental unit of society, with parents responsible for bringing up their children.

I wonder what the party's leadership expects to achieve with this document and what they plan to do to tout it? Or will they simply try to contrast it with the Utah Democratic Party's platform?

The phrase "competitive excellence in education" will likely be construed by Democrats (and perhaps Republican challengers) as official party support for vouchers, which the voters resoundingly rejected last fall all over the state.

Similarly, "honesty, integrity, morality and accountability" can be used as a bludgeon to compare certain incumbents ethical lapses, and more importantly the lack of ethics enforcement by the legislature's own or by the Attorney General.

Does this mean I think that the GOP in Utah will lose control of the legislature or any statewide offices? Extremely doubtful. But I do think that in this political climate, (additional) incumbents will fall in November.

superD's in Utah

The local papers today discuss what's the hold up with superdelegates, in particular why haven't Utah's decided whom they'll vote for. In particular, they go after Utah's lone Democratic Congressman, Jim Matheson, who last cycle didn't even attend the convention in Boston. But I would rather focus on the other supers, because it is more interesting.

Both candidates have support among Utah's superdelegates. Utah Democratic Chairman Wayne Holland and former U.S. Rep. Bill Orton have endorsed Obama, citing his big win in the state primary and his ability to energize new voters. Obama will also have the support of an as-yet-unnamed superdelegate that Holland will select at the state convention on Saturday.
Clinton has the backing of Utah Democratic Committeewoman Helen Langan and former state Sen. Karen Hale, although they have said they are giving Obama's campaign a second look after his victory in the state primary in early February. Langan said Wednesday that she is remaining a Clinton supporter.
"If I say anything different, it will be after the primaries," Langan said.

Local readers know that Misty Fowler is probably going to be the "as-yet-unnamed [Obama supporting] superdelegate that Holland will select" a pledged delegate for Obama because Sen. Obama asked for her to be nammed his superdelegate. A well deserved trip to Denver for Misty, who worked her butt off (and represents the hundreds of others from Utah who also toiled for Obama) for over a year to get the Beehive State to go for Obama. (I hope Bob gets it as well)

So next we have Bill Orton, the former congressman from Odgen who ran for governor in 2000. My State Senator, Scott McCoy (who I am proud to has read this blog) is mounting a campaign to kick Orton off. And Orton's fighting back:

McCoy sent an email to hundreds of state delegates, informing them that [...] "Because Bill Orton endorsed my Republican opponent in my [2006] Senate race, I don't think he deserves to be our Democratic National Committeeman any longer. On this, I hope you will agree too," McCoy wrote in his e-mail.
[...]
Orton said Jarvis is a longtime family friend and volunteered on his gubernatorial campaign in 2000.
"My endorsement of my friend . . . didn't cost Scott McCoy any votes. But if I had abandoned my friend after he had asked me to help him out, I very well could have lost a close friend," Orton said.
[...]
"I'm very proud of that record I have in helping the party and helping Democrats," Orton said.
Orton also points out that McCoy backed a member of the gay Log Cabin Republicans in a Salt Lake City Council race. The council races are officially non-partisan.

Now that's interesting and I will be curious to see what happens.

But let's get back to our two Hillary supporting superdelegates: Helen Langan and Karen Hale. Both now work for Ralph Becker. And Becker is backing Obama. Obviously, Hale and Langan are entitled to their own opinions, and Becker isn't the kind of guy that would demand that they vote in lock-step with him. But Hale's waivering statement, combined with Langan's "call me in June" statement seem to mean that they too will vote for Obama in August.

So where does that leave Jim Matheson? Well, maybe Obama himself cornered Jim just off the House floor after the presumptive nominee made a surprise visit to the House today. The House is a treasure trove of superdelegates (235, more than were at stake on Tueday), 66 of whom are "undecided," with lots more that could flip Obama's way. There are many districts which Obama carried where the Member hasn't voiced their opinion. And many others, especially in the leadership (cough Pelosi cough) who are all-but-in-name for Obama.

Who knows what Obama's negatives will be like in late August, but I doubt they will be a bad as they were for John Kerry in 2004 and Denver is certainly not Boston in terms of optics. If I were to bet, I would expect Jim to show up to Denver and cast his vote for Obama along with the rest of the Utah delegation (save those Hillary pledged delegates).

why the nomination battle is now over

Jason The and Chris Bowers (along with many others) have rightfully wondered why in the world last night's results in Indiana and North Carolina were somehow definitive even though nothing fundamentally changed. I offer you this theory: TV pundits are wedded to polling.

Right before New Hampshire, polls showed Obama winning by double digits, as did the exit polls. But Clinton pulled out a narrow popular vote victory (the two ended up with the same number of delegates from the Granite State). This shocked and rocked the media's world. It enabled her to further "shock the world" in Nevada (with a nine-point popular vote win but tie in delegates) and in turn be shocked by Obama's giant win in South Carolina, where it was his turn to vastly out perform the polling. Obama didn't get a bounce out of Super Tuesday, because lots of polls had him barely winning or more narrowly losing states like California, even though he netted about 100 more delegates than Clinton did due to his small state strategy.

After Obama's 11-state romp (which also surprised the media to a degree), he promptly lost Texas and Ohio by more than expected from the polls. Ditto in Pennsylvania. This, coupled with Rev. Wright's sad exploitation of his 15-minutes of fame led to a media narrative that Obama was in serious trouble.

But then, Obama's victory in North Carolina was akin to those during his late February winning streak (and more importantly, bigger than the polling projected by about 6 points). The real mind melter, however, was the fact that Obama only lost Indiana by about 22,000, despite being projected to lose it by about 5-10%.

Obama has in particular the mayor of Gary and Lake County party officials to thank for delaying reporting their results so that Obama could dramatically "come from behind" when all the votes had been cast hours beforehand.

So to sum up, it is the psychosis of the punditry that was masterfully manipulated by Obama and his supporters that made this end. And it was the masterful manipulation by the Clintons and their supporters (and a function of the calendar) that enabled this race to last two more months past its mathematical conclusion.

And since media narratives drive the polling questions, and in turn, their perception of the public, look for national polls (which are irrelevant because over 95 of those polled will have had their chance to vote already) to show Obama with a big lead over Clinton and McCain (which is also irrelevant because Obama and the Dems haven't even begun to lay into Mccain--or McCain and the GOP into Obama) now.

[Oh and FYI: 1.25M+ Hoosiers voted yesterday for Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. In 2004, John Kerry received 969,000 the state of Indiana...in the general election. Meanwhile, John McCain only mustered 77% of the vote in Indiana]

FLDS keeping tabs on their polygs

As the legal battle between the erstwhile Republic of Texas and the FLDS begins, there was an interesting disclosure by the prosecution:

A review of the "Father's Family Information" sheets shows a handful of 16-year-old wives, 13 young monogamous couples and 24 men with multiple wives - including one man with 21 wives and 36 children.
[...]
The pages were recently released by the court. Sgt. Danny Crawford said the sheets were found April 5 in an office at the ranch, home to members of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Texas authorities raided the ranch on April 3 after receiving reports of an abused 16-year-old, calls now being investigated as a possible hoax.
Authorities have said, however, they found evidence of a polygamous lifestyle and underage marriage practices at the ranch that supported removing 464 children.
The bishop's record sheets helped them make that case.
The sheets were filled out between March and August of 2007 and list names of husbands, wife or wives, children and current residence.
Most are shown as living at the Yearning for Zion Ranch, but some are listed as being in Short Creek - the historic name of the twin towns now known as Hildale, Utah, and Colorado City, Ariz. Others are described as living in Idaho, "elsewhere" or in the "house of hiding." Among the documents is a sheet showing who was living at each home, duplex and trailer at the ranch.

It is one thing to give your address out to your religion so you can get the church bulletin, it is quite another for them to know that you are in a "house of hiding."

The state's case seems to be focused on child "marriages" and sexual contact with minors. The trouble is, Texas only recently (2005) raised the age of marriage from 14 to 16. Yet they are looking into marriages all the way back to 1993.

But is also interesting to see that not all of the members of the FLDS compound were practicing "plural marriage," in fact there was a decent number (13 out of 37) of monogamous couples. The picture appears to be much more complex than first impression. However, when the results of the DNA testing comes back, we will finally know who fathered/mothered whom. I wonder if they will ever be able to tell the age of some of these women.

fun with frontrunner

(Photo Credit: KUTV

On Saturday, my wife and I rode Utah's newest commuter rail up to Clearfield and back. It was a fantastic experience and I highly recommend those of you who have to commute from the northern suburbs to SLC to take it or Rapid Bus Transit. We started out our trip by eating brunch at Hong Kong Tea House, which had a high-quality Dim Sum. We prefer Dim Sum via carts, because we know lots of dishes by sight rather than by name (either English translation or Chinese), and because it makes it more fun. But has you might have guessed, the place has pretty good tea. And it is a stone's thrown away from one of the new TRAX stops and about half way between the Gateway and the Intermodal hub.

The hub building is very nice and clean and much larger than a similar building in Providence that I am all too familiar with. I particularly enjoyed the (LEED certified) architecture, and tablets explaining Salt Lake's former ethnic neighborhoods. You get the feeling that the neighborhood between the Gateway and the Hub are going to explode with development, but those "towns" (Greek, Japan, etc.) are not coming back.

The commuter trains themselves are clean and quiet, both inside and out. The ceilings inside are about 6'5" as it felt a bit tight to me and I am 6'3" 1/2. There are two levels on the cars, the top deck features small card tables perfect for laptops and, of course, card games. We saw lots of young families and groups of friends young and old and actual ethnic diversity (for Utah). At $5, it is about as much or less than the amount of gas you would spend driving and takes about the same time on a Saturday (on a weekday at rush hour, I bet it is much faster). Plus, you get to enjoy the scenery, play with your children, talk to your friend/spouse.

The onboard WiFi was acting up for us--we were "connected" but not able to send or receive--but assuming those kinks get worked out, then you can even get some work/play done on your way to and from work. If I was a parent traveling with young children (which I will be in a few months), I would much prefer the train to driving. It is safer than having to look back to see why the baby is crying, what your kids are fighting about, etc. And troubles are likely to be quelled much sooner if you sitting right next to them without having to worry about driving. Everyone on the train was remarking about how this will "save gas," but I also think it will reduce stress, which will only help quality of life, marriages etc.

Soon, TRAX will go to the airport, to Draper, and to "the Jordans." A trolley line will go up east along 21st South from 3rd West up to Sugarhouse. Frontrunner itself will go all the way North to Brigham City and about the same time South to Provo. By about 2025, Utah will have more commuter rail lines than anywhere but places like New York City. How cool is that?

How did this all come to pass? First, our local Congressmen (Jim Matheson and Republicans before him, as well as our GOP Senators) secured 80-20 federal funding for mass transit using the Olympics as a hook. Next, once taxpayers saw how great TRAX was, they voted repeatedly to increase their own taxes to pay for expansions. Now communities like Bringham City and South Jordan are voting to raise tax revenues to pay for TRAX/FrontRunner to come to their neighborhoods. Third, environmentalists sued to block the Legacy Highway. I know that sounds counter intuitive, but here's how it went:

The suit first stalled the highway from being build for years. Then, instead of settling for a moved highway, the attorneys representing the environmentalist worked into the settlement "funding the environmental review of light rail and bus plans." The studies showed what the environmentalists had been claiming for years--that we can't build enough roads to fix our traffic troubles, and that our air quality will only get worse if we take that route. As a result, Bus Rapid Transit lines and FrontRunner were built. The U and LDS Church helped a lot by getting their employees to use mass transit and to promote mass transit in commercials. Everyone who rides the trains to Jazz games and the like also deserve credit and praise.