What a crazy week of news: a governor that skipped out on his state, staff, and family to go see his lover in Argentina; the US getting to its first FIFA finals and only losing by one goal to Brazil; the sudden, odd death of Michael Jackson; and now Billy "shouting about made for TV products" Mays found dead in his home. The only "normal" pieces of news were continuing protests in Iran and the House passing a watered-down cap-and-trade bill. I wonder what next week will bring.

question

Is it wrong to that I have SNL's Andy Sandberg's "I ran" music video stuck in my head ever since the protests started on June 12?

I wrote that this morning before we learned of Stanford's year long affair with an Argentine.

Stanford's whereabouts are answered...sort of. A reporter for SC's big paper, the State, cornered him getting off a plane from Argentina. So either he lied to his staff, or they lied to us about the whole hiking in the Appalachians thing. I think the former is worse.

When asked what the hell he was doing in Argentina for 5 days without telling his staff, the LG (or transferring power), let alone his wife and kids, Stanford said he walked along the coast. Only where he went (Buenos Aries) is along a river, not the ocean.

The story of where's Mark Sanford got stranger. The governor's staff settled on the story that we was "hiking on the Appalachian Trail," which is sure to become an internet euphemism. The story seems wrapped up. Except for that nagging tid bit about Sanford's cell phone's last whereabouts was in Atlanta, which is 80 miles from the trail.

The word surfaced that the SC star car Stanford took was at the Atlanta airport and a federal agent saw him boarding a plane there too. Where was he going?

Meanwhile, when asked if she had heard from her husband, Jenny Stanford said she was "busy being a mom" and no. Sounds like someone is pissed.

This story just get stranger all the time with more questions than answers. Stay tuned for the startling conclusion. I know I will.

priorities

Since last Thursday, South Carolina Governor (and Presidential aspirant) Mark Sanford has not been seen in public. That's odd, but odder still was this:

First lady Jenny Sanford told The Associated Press today her husband has been gone for several days and she doesn't know where he is.
...
Jenny Sanford said she was not concerned.

She said the governor said he needed time away from their children to write something.

Remember this weekend was Father's Day, an odd time to want to be away from your children.

So what did he write about while on sabbatical from his family and his job? From his Twitter account comes the following:

# SC's government structure fundamentally flawed http://www.postandcourier.c... #sctweets #gopabout 13 hours ago from web

#
stimulus discussion shows need for restructuring in SC - http://tinyurl.com/nr53wx #sctweets #tcot5:48 AM Jun 21st from web

What is he talking about?

Well the South Carolina Supreme Court unanimously ruled that Gov. Sanford had to stop posturing about the Stimulus Bill and take the money that the Legislature approved of taking (overriding Sanford's veto). Yes, the structure of South Carolina's government, with its popularly elected legislature overruling its popularly elected governor and having the appointed judiciary interpret the South Carolina Constitution and statutes, just like every other state in the country, is completely out of wack and needs restructuring.

Or maybe the Governor needs a vacation from his vacation. Maybe running away from your staff, security detail, your wife and children on Father's Day weekend and not telling anyone where you are so you can go off and tweet about how bummed you are that the other branches of state government think you are out to lunch isn't a great idea.


But hey, I am not a leading candidate for the GOP nomination for president in 2012, what do I know.

on the unfolding revolution in Iran

Sixteen days ago I was commenting on the twentieth anniversary of Tienanmen Square. I said that "[T]he world will change again, but when?"

Turns out, last Friday was the answer. The people of Iran were shocked that their government would so blatantly overturn their will for the election of president. If leaked results from the Interior Minitry are to believed, then

Mr Mousavi had won 19.1 million votes while Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had won only 5.7 million.

The two other candidates, reformist Mehdi Karoubi and hardliner Mohsen Rezai, won 13.4 million and 3.7 million respectively.

A far cry from the landslide 63-30 official results for Ahmadinejad over Mousavi. But the people of Iran, half of whom are my age (30) or younger knew that the official results were a sham.

They have organized using online tools, and have kept the world informed via Twitter, YouTube and listsrvs. The videos and pictures and tweets coming out of the "Islamic Republic" show a brave people facing down thuggish government directed goons who delight in beating to death men and women for merely protesting.

The world watches with its heart in its throat. We pray for the Iranians to have their voices heard, for the police forces to put their batons down, and for the election to be annulled. While we sit comfortably thousands of miles wishing we could help. But we are neither as brave or as able to lend a hand because the government would like nothing more than to claim this organic uprising to be the product of a Western plot.

Like Obama, Mousavi is a vessel that these young Iranians have poured their hopes and dreams into. Now they are going to have to fight for their dreams on the streets of Tehran and other Iranian cities, and on the internet. Mousavi and Obama are but men, but the ideas of the revolution of 2009 cannot be beaten away or tear gased out of existence. Governing through fear only lasts so long. The people of Iran overthrew a government 30 years ago, we just might be watching them do it again.

Jim, please decide

Jumping the gun, the Desert News ran with the headline "Utah Governor Gary Herbert questions whether climate change debate is 'over'." This might lead you believe that a) Gary Herbert is governor already not Lt. Gov. who is supposed to be governor any day now b) that Herbert sides with the thousands of scientific studies that confirm that our climate in rapidly changing and warming and that the cause is (at least to some degree) human activity. But you would be wrong on both counts.

"I've heard people argue on both sides of the issue, people I have a high regard for," Herbert said. "People says man's impact is minimal, if at all, so it appears to me the science is not necessarily conclusive."

This is GOP code for "I don't want to hear the bad news that hurts my friends in the polluting industries." Case in point comes a few sentences later in the article.

"What are we doing to bring people together? Is there a hidden agenda out there?" Herbert asked. "Help me understand the science."

He had stepped out of the discussion during a presentation by U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu on the latest research. "The indications are not only that the climate is changing but is changing more than what were thought to be doom and gloom predictions," Chu said, warning the future could be bleak.

Actually it is the governor-in-waiting, not the science, that is still out. Dr. Steven Chu is not just the Secretary of Energy but a Physicist and knows what he is talking about. Herbert, on the other hand is willfully ignorant.

The reason the Western Governor's Association is even talking about climate change while they are here in Utah is because of Govs. Huntsman and Schwarzenegger. Which brings me to the title of this post.

Jim Matheson has been toying with the idea of running for Senate because he might face some loony or AG Mark Shurtleff and not incumbent Bob Bennett. And even if he isn't, Harry Reid probably has been calling him repeatedly to convince him to run. He has probably also been thinking about running for governor since Herbert is become less and less of an incumbent with each passing day that Obama dithers with sending his nomination to the Senate. I am sure it is no fun to be a moderate Democrat when folks in the leadership is yelling at you to get out of the way and vote more liberally than you are inclined to, given your district.

Plus as governor, Matheson would actually get to do something. And instead of being 1 of 100 senators, you get to be 1 of 50 governors, and go toe to toe with those lovely folks up on Utah's Capitol Hill.

But really, Mr. Matheson, we Democrats need you to decide to have a fighting chance at any of the three offices you are considering. 2010 is not too far away and money needs to be raised. If you decide not to run for governor, then everyone focus on pushing SL Co. Mayor Peter Carroon to run rather than waiting to see what you do. And then people can go work for Sam Granato, knowing that you don't need their help. But if you do choose to run statewide, money and staffing will come out of the woodwork to help you. But please, the sooner the better.

VP Joe Biden (still sounds odd to me) toed up to the line about Iranian election fraud by saying he was "suspicious" ... The reformers need to do this themselves though (in order for the movement have credibility within Iran), with help from the outside world but not the US leading the charge. So it seems like Biden might have actually struck the right balance and not said to much...this new Joe Biden is going to take getting used to.

What were the old guard thinking by rigging the election results in Iran? People are rioting in the streets, the internet has been shut down and none of this is out of joy for Mr. A's "reelection". This regressive stunt will do more for reform than the inauguration of the actual winner would have.

buying a justice to buy justice

Two years ago, Justice Clarence Thomas visited my law school while I was in my Third Year and when asked what decision, if any, he regrets, he stated that Republican Party of Minnesota v. White was the case he said he regretted because he believes now that the elections of judges has gotten a bit unseemly.

Yet Justice Thomas voted with the other three extremely conservative justices that it was A-OK for a coal mine owner to spend $3 million to elect a new state supreme court judge (replacing another justice), who became the deciding vote in overturning a $51 million verdict against said coal mine company.

The other 5 members of the Court thought that this conflict of interest was grounds for mandatory recusal.

This marks the latest time that "umpire" Chief Justice Roberts has called a strike for the big corporation and a ball for the little guy (in this case, the owner of a smaller mining company had sued the bigger mining company for driving him out of business and won, so the big CEO drove a justice up for election out of business, calling him a child molester). In fact, Roberts so far has always voted in favor of the government or the big company. The worst was for Exxon Mobile.

And it also marks the latest time that Justice Thomas says one thing and rules crazy conservative another way. He is a nice man, but makes for a terrible justice.

It has been twenty years since the revolutions of 1989 ended in the brutal crackdown on peaceful protests in Tienamen Square. Sure, the Berlin Wall might have fallen a few months later, but the limits of the revolution were set. it is not unlike the pushback that happened after the tide of revolution that started in America reached the shores of Europe.

While the New World Order that George H. W. Bush promised in the wake of 1989 never happened, the world was indeed forever changed. But not how things were expected to change. The lack of the Soviet Union was a destabilizing force for two reasons: 1) countries imploded from Europe to Africa to Asia, allowing for civil wars, genocides, fundamentalism, tyrants, and terrorism; and 2) America's dominance turned to arrogance, culminating in George W. Bush's folly of opting to invade Iraq because he could.

The world will change again, but when?

I used to think the phrase "culture wars" was a phrase by the Pat Buchanan's of the world to rile up a portion of the American populous. But it appears that a smaller subset of that group took it literally and are at war with those they disagree with.

If you haven't heard, a doctor in Kansas who performed abortions despite being aggressively targeted by radical anti-abortion groups, the former attorney general and talking heads for decades was murdered on Sunday at his church.

The instigators, like Bill O'Reilly, refuse to apologize for demonizing the doctor and others like him. Is it really any surprise that one of their followers took it too far? Even if their conscience is clear, their hands remain dirty.

I love going to Starbucks in heavily Mormon areas (yes they do exist). They are so clean, new, fast, and uncrowded.

I have say for once the big papers have live up to their billing. The stories about the process of selecting Sotomayor have been very well researched and very interesting reading. The stories about what other attorneys think of heran and GOP oposition plans, however have been less than inspired.

I went to a target today that has crammed because of remodeling and it still felt better than a Wallmart. Those places sap my soul.

The tortured debate about torture has grown stale and tiresome. It is pretty obvious from the evidence that it does not work in the sense that you don't get reliable information from torturing people, just like it is obvious that there are US prisons that can handle the actual guilty people from Gitmo. Yet emotionally, it seems that torture is somehow justified and must work (just ask Jack Bauer)...and that it is scary to think of inviting Al Qeada onto American soil even if it is a supermax in the hinterland. Thanks to Dick Cheney, torture is now something like abortion, where you have an opinion and no one can seem to sway you and the other side must be not just wrong but immoral.

Californians, please redo your constitution rather than just take a bailout. CA's system has the Reaganesque fantasy revenue side, lead by prop 13 combined with the fantasy budgetary quotas on the spending side. Add to it non-competitive races, too short of term limits, and super majorities to pass budgets yet simple majorities for referenda to radically change finances, plus a recession and you get this ungovernable-multibillion-dollar-deficit mess of a state. I say time for a constitutional convention to change the all of aforemented parts of the structure that caused this disaster.

without Jim

The biggest environmental bill since the Clean Air Act passed the House Energy & Commerce Committee yesterday...with a nay from Utah's Rep. Jim Matheson (D-02). The vote was 35 to 25, with one Republican, Rep. Mary Bono of California, voting in favor of the cap-and-trade bill. Some Republicans on the committee thought that requiring the bill to be read aloud would be be a good way to stall--and thereby kill the bill. This prompted committee Democrats to hire someone like this guy to do the reading:

All fun aside, at least Jim had constructive criticisms, perhaps suggested changes that could make passage in the U.S. Senate more likely:

Matheson plans to propose an amendment that will help small refiners meet the new requirements. Small refiners, of which there are a handful in Utah, Wyoming and surrounding states, produces less than 205,000 barrels of oil a day.

"These are just some issues I'm really concerned about," he said.

But Matheson, considered by many to be a key swing vote, said he is not philosophically opposed to the ideas in the bill and believes with some changes he could support it.

"We've got to deal with our energy independence challenge and we've got to deal with our climate change challenge," he said.

To me, this bill is good and we can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good, but I think a lot more needs to be done.

Even if we humans were to stop putting CO2 up in the air tomorrow, rather than reducing the amount we put up, there still would be WAY more CO2 in the atmosphere than has been there in at least 650,000 years, as far back as we can measure. We need to figure out a way to dramatically absorb all of that CO2, something like limestone or bacteria, otherwise we are well on our way... Not to being America's Next Top Model, but to becoming Venus.

I don't get the whole Pelosi versus the CIA controversy. Congressional Democrats like her, Rep. Jane Harman, and Sen. Jay Rockafeller are all complicit in two big debacles: the Iraq war and torture. Their level of fault however, pales in comparison to those that orchestrated and relentlessly pushed for those two things. So in the end, Pelosi and her ilk are partially to blame for not raising holy hell at the time, especially those like Rockafeller who voted the same wrong way. But 90 % of the blame still lies with Cheney, Bush and their henchmen. Especially those who still think it is a good idea.

I can now post blogs via SMS. Since I opted for unlimited texting, you are in luck. Obama's speech was good, but broke no ground. His common ground on abortion concept was something Hillary Clinton had said prior to her reelection to US Senate, and while nice, gives the press another chance to talk about that poll that supposidly proves that America is suddenly pro-life after 35 straight years of being pro-choice and voting in a pro-choice president and 59 senators who inclined to allow, if not vote for pro-choice judges to get appointed. If you can't tell, I really doubt this poll is accurate.

Probably for most people though abortion rights one way or another aren't pressing priorities. They would rather have a good economy, get better healthcare for less, and reduce greenhouse gases. Oh and not getting attacked by terrorists anymore and ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan ASAP would be nice.

I forgot to add that one thing I will miss about Huntsman is that when walking my dog past the guv's mansion, his English Bulldog--Winston--would have a friendly exchange with my dog. What a great name for an English Bulldog.

a good pick

Hello faithful readers,

I am finally back from blogging oblivion, crazy ultra-high stakes rapid trial that is only partially complete. You can read about it here, here, here, here, here, here, and other places.

Anyway, what I really want to write about is the news that Gov. Huntsman will be our next ambassador to China. This was the first Republican I had voted for statewide...sorry Bob Springmeyer. You could tell from the moment he stepped into the governor's mansion on South Temple, he was angling to get back into an Administration, not run his own. He smartly chose McCain over Romney, the safe choice in Utah, but it was not a GOP year. He represented the future of the Republican party: moderate on issues like climate change and gay rights. Trouble was, he was LDS and from Utah, which was a liability in the Republican party, which is nationally dominated by evangelical primary voters who are suspicious of the Mormon religion to say the least. Just ask Romney how that Iowa Caucus and South Carolina primary went.

Gov. Huntsman actually speaks Mandarin fluently from his days as a missionary in Taiwan. He has experience as an ambassador for Singapore, and as assistant trade representative under Dubya. I think this is a great choice on Obama's part in terms of qualifications and "bipartisanship"...but bad for the state for the next year or so. Lt. Gov. Herbert said proudly that he understands rural Utah, which is great and all, but Utah is the most urbanized state in the country. Something like 75% of the population live in a city or suburb, and most of those along the Wasatch front.

This move opens up the governor's race in 2010, which will pit Herbert or Shurtleff (if he doesn't have another Twitter spasm) against a quality Democratic opponent. There's already a Facebook group for Peter Carroon, and I am sure Jim Matheson will give the race a serious look.

I have to go now back to my regularly scheduled life, but I enjoyed sharing my thoughts with you all after so many months.

on entering my third decade

I feel that it is mandatory to write some musing given the fact that I am reaching a milestone in my culture: the thirtieth birthday. You are still considered young, but now there are no more excuses for lack of achievement or accomplishment.

These last 6 months of practicing law has been a real whirlwind tour, with my mentors telling me I really should not be experiencing these level of cases this soon and not to get used to multibillion/multimillion dollar cases. The learning curve is steep, and very overwhelming at times. But we are having great fun, even if it means working nights and weekends for several months.

These last 7.5 months as a father is the same way: crazy, busy, exciting, fun, tiring, but I think I am getting the hang of it.

The never seems to be time to devote to keeping up with what is happening in the world or my state, and rarely do I get a chance these days to keep up with pop culture. Still, it makes me enjoy those moments of free time all the more.

I have missed my blog world, those whom I used to read religiously and those who I would enjoy comment battles with. After this storm passes, perhaps I will be able to engage in blogging on a more routine basis. Although the days of daily postings appears to be a distant memory.

Whatever wisdom I have gained over the years I owe my peers, mentors, family, friends, and even enemies. Whatever faults and bad habits are entirely of my own making, and part of what I have learned over the last few years is that some of them can be fixed, others must be worked around, and some I have to be extra vigilant to correct on the fly. Thank you to all that continue to check and read this woefully out of date blog. Have a joyous Easter, lovely Passover, or just have a nice weekend.

Raising a (half) glass to the Legislature

Well the hostage crisis legislative session is over, and now it is time to grade the folks on "temporarily" reside on Capitol Hill every winter.

In no particular order...

• Liquor reform: The nation's most popular governor finally got something he wanted, an update to our liquor laws to make them more like the rest of the country. Gone are "private clubs," which were really just bars that were required by law to charge a cover fee. Ditto to the silly stickers on booze which did nothing but give you cache that you bought your alcohol at the state stores rather than smuggled it in (and cost the state $1M/year in printing costs). Same goes for the so-called Zion Curtain that made places separate their bar from the rest of their resturant with a glass wall. In exchange, there are tougher penalties for repeat DUIs and scanning of IDs of people who look like they might be under 35 (aka possibly faking). If only the weak beer rule would go away, along with the "no bar hopping" zoning rules, we would be just like everywhere else. This will be good for tourism, which in turn is good for the state's economy.


• ethics reform: very minor improvements were made, and relucantly as well (I have to say I am dissipointed in Sen. Ross Romero (D-SLC) for putting his foot down at one year). The revolving door of legislators turned lobbyists is now delayed by 1 year...and it barely passed. Why does this matter? Former Speaker Greg Curtis is now a lobbyists for tabbacco interests, and "surprisingly" ciggarette taxes didn't happen this year, the only politically popular tax, along with a host of other anti-smoking bills.


• The Budget: no thanks to Reps. Bishop and Chaffetz (as well as Sens. Hatch and Bennett), a half a billion dollar plug was put into the state budget from the federal stimulus package, enabling previously draconian cuts to important items like education to became more limited and precise. Still, another half billion had to be cut, meaning some government workers lost their jobs in a recession, and some good programs were harmed with the bad ones that were cut. Still, it could of been worse.


• Tone: Sen. Bramble tried again to get back at teachers unions and the PTA for supporting the anti-voucher referendum. The anti-union bill (I think succeeded) but the PTA bill went down in flames. Sen. Buttars was an offensive moron again, but other than that, legislators got along much better and tried working with the other side in a constuctive fashion. I hear that everyone was much more relaxed and content going into the last day, and no stunts were pulled. They even ended "early," which always makes legislators less grumpy.

Overall, not as bad as it could have been, but it certainly could have been better. I still think the fiction of a part-time legislature should be ended so that the "saved by the bell" excuse will go away and people can honestly say why a bill was killed.

AG stands for Aspiring Senator

Two years ago, Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff visited my State and Local Government law class to discuss how he handled the Polygamous theocracy in Hildale, Utah and what powers the state and county officials had to reign in rouge city officials who obeyed Warren Jeffs over the law. It was an interesting talk, and I commend Shurtleff for the work he did regarding polygamists, especially when you contrast it with the heavy-handed and disastrous approach of his counterparts in Texas.

Shertleff's shtick is always "aw-chucks" country boy whose charm and false modesty is supposed to grow on you. The prior fall, he was very good at debating the other candidates for the AG position at my law school as well using that approach.

After his lecture to my seminar, there was time for questions, so I asked: "The old saying goes 'A.G. stands for Aspiring Governor'" He then chuckled, I continued, asking him if he had plans for future statewide office like Governor. He replied with some trope about finishing out this term as A.G. which would be his last and denying any ambitions for anything else.

Since he is a politician, and a pretty successful one at that, I didn't expect the truth, but I did want him on the record as pretending he didn't want to go higher than A.G.

Potential challengers from his own party have already started lining up for the 2010 race and none is bigger than Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff, who huddled with some D.C. fundraisers Wednesday, while in town for a meeting of the National Association of Attorneys General.

"I've always wanted to serve in the Senate," Shurtleff told The Salt Lake Tribune .

The attorney general isn't a candidate yet -- at least formally. He wants to run and believes he has the makings of a formidable challenger, but isn't ready to commit out of concern for his family.

"I've still got a 12-year-old, a 15-year-old and a 16-year-old. We are not going to move," he said. That means, if elected, he would have to commute back and forth each week. "Is this the right time for my family?"

He has sought advice from Utah Reps. Jim Matheson and Jason Chaffetz, who commute to D.C. during the week and fly back to their young children on the weekends.

That's right, the same Matheson that he falsely maligned back when it was politically convenient to do so. Yeah, Shurtleff is a real family man who isn't a hack, I get it.

Shurtleff said he has also done some "significant polling" and the results make him only more eager to run.

"He [Bennett]'s vulnerable. He knows it," he said.

A number of Republicans are thinking about challenging Sen. Bennett from the right, and the party's rules are kooky enough that one of them might force Bennett into a primary election. And Shurtleff would be one most capable of tacking back into the mainstream.

Beyond Shurtleff, Mike Lee, who was Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr.'former general counsel, and former Juab County Attorney David Leavitt, have expressed interest in running for Bennett's seat.

Originally, Shurtleff's political plan was to serve out his term and then take a shot at running for governor. But that changed last fall, when Congress passed the $700 billion Wall Street bailout, creating the Troubled Asset Relief Program. Bennett was one of the key Senate Republicans negotiating that plan.

"People are pretty upset with that bailout. Now that they know he had a role in it, they are not happy at all," Shurtleff said.

He said he also is unhappy with the way Senate Republicans operated under former President George W. Bush.

"They were just spending us into oblivion," he said.

After Shurtleff floated his name as a potential candidate, Bennett gave him a call and asked him to serve as the co-chairman of his re-election campaign.

Ah, so right-wing "populism" it is. Bennett, with his Appropriations Committee membership, has made it his job to bring home the bacon for Utah, while Hatch gets his celebrity "friends" out of jail.

While one state's bacon is another's pork, most states are want to part with their own Senator Pothole. Alaska didn't part with Ted Stevens until AFTER he had been convicted of seven felonies, and even then it was extremely close. It takes decades for senators to build up seniority on important committees like Approps. That's why Sen. Clinton is now Sec. Clinton, she wanted to be a player in the health care reform legislation but senate lions like Sen. Kennedy (class of 1960) told her hands off.

The point is, I doubt Bennett will lose. If he really was that vulnerable, you would hear talk that Jim Matheson was thinking about running. As it is Jim seems content to stay put, unless something opens up.

Will Bishop and Chaffetz stand against Utah's Fourth?

Most of you who have been following the quest for Utah to get that 4th seat that was so narrowly denied to it in 2000 are also aware that the bill in Congress that would give Utah its extra seat is a debatable constitutional issue.

Now that the Senate has passed a bill that gives Utah another seat, DC a seat, and forces DC to end its restrictive gun laws, passage of a DC-for-Utah bill seems inevitable and since Obama was a co-sponsor, it will become law in the next few months. All of this means a constitutional challenge will occur in the next few months as well, and the issue will go before the U.S. Supreme Court perhaps as soon as October, who will have to decide whether the part of the Constitution that basically allows the Congress to do whatever it wants with the District of Columbia trumps the part of the Constitution about the make-up of the House (that is, its members have to be from States).

But in the law, and especially in Chief Justice Roberts' jurisprudence, anyone challenging the facial constitutionality of a bill must have standing and the issue must be ripe. Now for those of you who didn't go to law school, that means there needs to be a real party in interest whose injury is real and would almost immediately harm the party seeking to overturn the challenged law. So a U.S. Senator does not have standing, nor your average voter in any state or protectorate other than D.C. and Utah (under Roberts' other case law, but who says you have to be consistent versus politically expedient?). No, it would have to be a member of the U.S House whose vote is being diluted by 2/437ths (I am not good with fractions) due to two more members being added to the House. And since everyone except me thinks it will be a wash partisan wise (i.e. 1 GOPer from Utah, 1 Dem from DC), the national political parties also don't have standing.

So that leaves U.S. House Republicans that voted against the bill. And strategically, it is best to have the lead Plaintiffs be not someone like Minority Leader John Boehner from Ohio, but Rob Bishop and Jason Chaffetz from Utah, so that it doesn't look like big states against Utah and DC. The question is, are these two men ready to be the poster boys of a cause to reduce the potential voting power of their state? Do they want to be the ones that will tell voters in Utah that Utahns really only need them and Jim Matheson to represent them in the House, and that they should just wait until 2012 like good children? Good luck on running statewide when a senate seat opens up or Huntsman steps down.

More on that box

So I am in line for security here at the airport and occured to me
that I didn't finish my thought on Buttars. It defies belief that GOP
senators thought that Buttars would refrain from making outrageously
homophobic comments (the kind that gets you national attention),
especially given the push for the Common Ground Initative.

They knew or should have known this blow up was going to occur, so it
leads me to believe Waddoups et al wanted it to happen. To distract
the public from massive cuts and payback to the teacher's union.

Otherwise, it makes no sense. And good for McCoy for calling their bluff.

Can't keep crazy in a box

OK, so I couldn't resist posting about Utah State Sen. Chris Buttars after I read the latest article by SL Tirbune Reporter Robert Gehrke. It explains why Sen. Buttars was babbling on and on about free speech:

Senate leaders disciplined Sen. Chris Buttars, R-West Jordan, not for anti-gay comments he made in a recent interview, but because he violated a deal with leadership that he not talk about gay issues, a senator said Saturday.

The irony here is Buttars didn't need to talk about "them gays," thus far, every single one of the Common Ground Initiative bills have gone down in flames, despite the fact that they are popular with Utahns and Utah's popular governor.

Perhaps Buttars is his own worst enemy, and one of these very reasonable and moderate proposals will have renewed life in the legislature. Although I think that sadly the most popular things to do in the legislature is a) whatever ex-Speaker Curtis likes b) cut budgets c) bash teh gay and d) give the gun lobby whatever it wants.

"It [Buttars being stripped of his chairmanship of the Judiciary Committee] happened, not because he said a lot of things wrong, but because he decided to be the spokesman [on gay issues] again," [Sen. Howard] Stephenson [(R-Draper)] said.
[...]
"I think the bulk of people in Utah agree with 90 percent of what he said," Sen. Dennis Stowell, R-Parowan, said on Stephenson's radio show.

That right there is the problem with this whole thing in a nutshell: they agree with Buttars, but he is a dristraction from their agenda. That and Sen. Stephenson has his own radio show. Gee, I wonder who has the advantage in that primary or general election.

Utahns [heart] TRAX/FrontRunner

Sometimes, it seems that forcing something on people that you know they will like really is a good idea.

A survey by the University of Utah's Center for Public Policy & Administration finds overwhelming public support for continued investment in rail transit projects. Among 1,002 residents polled statewide, 79 percent said continued funding for rail projects either is very important or somewhat important.

Among the 546 interviewed within the Utah Transit Authority's service area, that support spurted to 81 percent, said Jennifer Robinson, associate director for the U.'s center.

That is a huge level of support. And it reminds me of the astounded repeated mantra of a local news reporter on election night a few years back, who kept saying that Utah taxpayers had voted to increase their taxes for light rail. Clearly, he had either voted against it, or disbelieved the polling, or both.

People who live in the southern suburbs love the fact that they can take light rail to work, or a Jazz game, or to the U, to the SLC Temple, the Nutcraker, etc. People who live in the northern suburbs are starting to enjoy FrontRunner, and soon people from Provo to Draper will love it too. Out of towners will love taking TRAX from the airport to their hotel downtown.

Now I could dwell on the latest follies of the Utah Senate with their designated moron D. Chris Buttars, or the much-too-soon death of Utah Jazz owner/genius businessman Larry H. Miller, but on this sunny Saturday, I would rather focus on positive things.

next up, health care for all?

Now that the stimulus package was passed with Sens. Al Franken or Ted Kennedy being able to vote (that's right, thanks to court rulings there is virtually no way Coleman wins his election contest)...it is on to the next big challenge: affordable, quality health care for every American.

OK well, actually there is still a budget to pass...which is why the what's in or out of the stimulus package didn't give me much heartburn. And that doesn't need 60 votes, just 51.

And as messy and "bad process" as it is, the budget can be a vehicle to pass pieces of health care reform. Already, sCHIP was expanded and health care records have money to be digitized to reduce errors and save costs. Money can go towards giving every American company state, and individual the ability to buy into the federal employees' plan at a sliding scale. Or giving Medicare the ability to negotiate prescription drug prices like the VA does. Or fixing Medicare part D in other ways to get rid of the 50 gillion different plans that make no sense and eliminate the so-called donut hole of coverage.

And then we can rehash the Edwards-Clinton-Obama debate of how you get everyone covered: mandate or affordability first. Shockingly, Utahns agree with Clinton, but maybe because Romney supported it in Massachusetts (before he ran for president).

As you know from paying your bills, private insurance sucks. It fights you at at every turn to not have to pay whatever it is you need, it screws up when it bills, it sends you fake bills. I could go on and on, but every one has insurance horror stories because the system is disfunctional with reverse preverse incentives. The current system is crippling our competitiveness with other countries who do over universal coverage. Just ask GM.

Utah animus

"Its sheer breadth is so discontinuous with the reasons offered for it that the amendment seems inexplicable by anything but animus toward the class that it affects; it lacks a rational relationship to legitimate state interests." -- Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996)

While Justice Kennedy was talking about an amendment before Colorado voters, he might have well been talking about the rationale behind the shooting down of each piece of the Common Ground initiative that has come to a vote this year at the legislature.

Common Ground foes argue that extending rights to same-sex couples or recognizing sexual orientation as a protected class undermines Utah's constitutionally enshrined edict that marriage is only between a man and a woman. They warn that even seemingly benign gay-rights measures put Utah on a "slippery slope" toward a court ruling that would legalize same-sex marriage, like in California last year.

"I don't use this word lightly: That's false," says Clifford Rosky, a family law professor at the University of Utah's law school. "Utah courts can't ignore the Utah Constitution."

Even though they know there is no way that these bills effect the same-sex marriage ban in the constituation, they want to claim otherwise because these "traditional marriage supporters" really just think gays and lesbians are icky to some degree. Enough that they believe homosexuals shouldn't be able to visit their partner in the hospital when the partner is sick, or sue when their partern gets hit by drunk driver, or collect on insurance from their partner.

And the Sumpremes have said not liking a group of people is not good enough reason for denying them rights that other people have.

like 1993 all over again

Obama hasn't even been in the Oval Office a month, and I am beginning to see Bill Clinton's disasterous beginning repeated.

I read George Sephanopolis' book "All too human" this summer and was struck by how many early mistakes the Clinton Administration made and how that limited their ability to get their agenda through. Some was self-made stupidity like making an off-hand comment about gays in the military and letting it spin out of control during the transition, then handing the keys over to Colin Powell on the issue. But many were Republican made, like "nanny-gate" that did in many designates for cabinet posts.

16 years later, it was bad tax filings. Not that Republicans made these nominees file erroneous taxes or hire illegal aliens for nannies, but that in the overall picture, these issues are not that important to these candidates qualifications. And the true goal in both situations was not to get a better qualified nominee, but to make the new Democratic President look bad and weaken him.

Republicans remember 1994 and 2002, the lesson they learned was not to compromise with Democrats and the American voter will reward them.

Obama needs to learn the lesson of 2005, if you stand up and ask what the American people think, you can stop silliness like social security privitization. He has high approval ratings and a large majorit of people want this stimulous bill done NOW not in general, so press your case Mr. President.

sympathy for the lobbyists

The Salt Lake Tribune is doing a series of exposes critical stories puff-pieces on lobbyists.

Sure, lobbyists are people too and they should be able to talk to legislators and try to convince them by the power of her ideas. But they shouldn't have more access than citizens and they shouldn't be able to get access because they are related to a famous person, like Sen. Hatch.

the legislators are in the details

The public just got a sneak preview of the ethics bills that the leadership of the Utah House approve. And I have to say there are some genuinely good things in there, like a 1 year prohabition of lobbying by ex-members, ban on personal use of left over campaign cash, and gift ban on anything over $10 (excluding meals, but +$15 meals would have to be disclosed).

But as usual, there was no consultation with House Democrats, and it appears very little with rank-and-file Republicans either. But the best part was at the end of the article:

Representatives asked how the bill would affect legislators who are also registered lobbyists and Dee punted. "Perhaps the different body needs to address that," he said. Sen. Howard Stephenson, R-Draper, is also a registered lobbyist for the Utah Taxpayers Association.

Classic.

Utah Representatives against (increased) representation

In all of my blabbing about how stupid it was for Rep. Chaffetz to go against the DC/Utah seat bill, I forgot there was an inaugual member of the Utah Representatives against (increased) Representation: Rep. Bishop

New Rep. Jason Chaffetz says the bill is unconstitutional, and Rep. Rob Bishop, who voted present on the legislation last time, questions whether it would even help Utah since the state likely will get a fourth member anyway.

"The value for Utah is well past," Bishop said Tuesday. He said he wasn't sure whether he was against the bill, but ticked off reasons why he wasn't backing it.

Yeah I am sure he will either vote against it or do the brave thing a vote present. I would rather have a sure seat now than wait 4 years for a likely seat. Bishop is even lamer than Chaffetz, who at least is hiding behind a pluasable constitutional law argument.

So why do 20% of the Utah delegation not support a bill that would increase the power of their state? Is it because they don't want competition for running for Governor or Senate when Hatch or Bennett retire/die? Do they hate D.C. that much? Are they afraid that Jim Matheson will run in the redder district and another Democrat will win the bluer seat after redistricting? Someone please explain this to me.

the end is the beginning

s it bright where you are
And Have the people changed
Does it make you happy you're so strange
And in your darkest hour
Now all secrets fade
We can watch the world devoured in its pain

--The Beginning is the End is the Beginning, Smashing Pumpkins.

Remember this time of year eight years ago? Bill Clinton was doing his midnight regulations and pardons, his 11th-hour Middle East Peace attempt had failed, and Yasser Arafat had declared the Second Infidata, and what almost was a lasting peace broke out into all out war right when the U.S. was transitioning from Clinton to Bush.

That following summer, I was an intern for Rep. Jim Matheson, and us lowly House interns got ask Colin Powell some questions. Someone stood up and said, "what about Israel/Palistine?" The Secretary of State gave us the standard B.S. line about how it is a "top priority" of the Bush Administration. Sure was, that's why they never did anything but photo ops for years while the people living in the land of Caanan suffered and died at the hands of Hamas, random terrorist groups, or the IDF.

Hamas is using the people of the Gaza Strip as props in the political moves to gain more power. They approved of more rocket strikes into Israel. And Israel is equally political in this incursion which they admit will not remove Hamas or the rockets or anything else. But hey, an election is comming up for PM, and all of the potential candidates are trying to out Hawk each other, reality be damned.

Obama should dispatch Bill Clinton to get a temporary end to the fighting. I always find it embarressing when the French trump us diplomatically because the U.S. is too preoccupied to get seriously involved.

what a year

Can you believe it is the end of 2008 already? The year has gone by slowly and quickly at times, but I guess since I am getting older, time moves more quickly in relative terms. In the last few years, I have been countercyclical in the sense that I started to law school when George W. Bush got his second term, I got two great jobs as everyone else seemingly began to lose theirs. Part of me feels guilty for this fact, that I am somehow causing it. Like those sports fans who insist that if they don't watch a game just so, their team will lose.

There are so many good stories nationally and locally to follow but of late, I have dropped the ball given my new employment. Currently, I am in the eye of the storm and so I can peek out and say hello to whomever still reads my ramblings.

I am still bubbling with things to say about all of these topics de jour and maybe some day I will have time to spill them out on to this blog. Until then, enjoy celebrating an arbitrary ending to an arbitrary year where so much changed for better and for worse. Stay safe and let's hope and pray and work to make 2009 much better for those suffering from the effects of years past.

Happy Christmas Eve

I saw this snowman and his snowdog (complete with twine leash) while walking my own dog last night.

Drive carefully and best of luck on your travels.

backup quarterback

I know, I know tired old sports analogy, coming right up.

So have you noticed that Senate Republicans appear to be gearing up to get a scalp in January, namely Eric Holder, Obama's nominee for Attorney General? As much as I am sure the nation would love to watch a political "scandal" version of "I love the 90s," I think Obama has other plans.

Namely, his old Harvard Law School buddy Rep. Arthur Davis (D-AL) is waiting the wings to be his disignee instead of Holder. Why else would Obama have asked for the FBI to do a background check on Davis, and why else would Davis agree to do it? There isn't another appointment left open that Davis would be willing to trade a safe House seat for other than to be A.G.?

I think Obama's people are considering weather to cut Holder loose and go with Davis, and whether the risks of having a nasty confirmation fight outweigh the risk of changing nominees.

ever to true to Brown

Since my boss is stuck in Twin Falls or some place and the office shut down at 4, I decided to head home early and read the backlog of magazines.

I started to read about Thomas Tamm, one of the whistle blowers on the NSA's illegal wiretapping that eventually hit the New York Times and three things jumped out at me:

1. I have walked by the payphone Tamm used to call the Times many times, and I hope in the future it will become as famous as the Watergate landmarks of Washington, or the Hilton where Reagan was shot.


2. While the FBI may be terrible at stopping terrorist attacks, or finding the anthrax mailer, they are terrific at making your life miserable in hopes that you will confess and they can be done with it.



3. Tamm himself, after graduating from Brown University in 1974 and Georgetown Law three years later, chose a different path in law enforcement.

   I am proud to say I am a fellow alumnus.

Spiting his face

Can you believe that we are half way through December? It seems there is not enough time in the day to do all of the things I need to do, at work and at home. And the things I used to do, like post to this blog, have unfortunately fallen by the wayside. So while I haven't as much time as I would like to digest the day's news and commentary, one thing I read recently struck me:

Jason Chaffetz is determined to continue the legacy of Chris Cannon by being as overly partisan and embarrassing to his state and constituents as Cannon was. Case in point: Utah's mythical 4th seat.

[Caffetz] is breaking with the rest of the state's delegation by saying he opposes a plan that would give Utah a fourth seat in the House and add a seat for the District of Columbia.

Republican Jason Chaffetz says he's opposed to the bill because he believes giving Washington, D.C. full voting rights in the House is unconstitutional.

Jason cares more about continuing to disenfranchise overwhelmingly Democratic and not coincidentally overwhelmingly African-American D.C. than he cares about increasing his state's power in the House. Is he worried that Jim Matheson would take one seat and a Becker/Corroon-type would take the lean-Dem seat?

We all know the constitutionality argument is a smokescreen for something else. Jason's ideological peers are the same congress-critters that voted to intervene in a lawsuit between the husband and parents of a brain-dead woman, the same ones that voted for the Military Commissions Act (which stripped detainees of the writ of Habeas Corpus without a state of civil war or invasion), the same ones that looked the other way or promoted bills that would condone or allow the U.S. government to torture people (in clear violation of signed treaties, which have equal force as the constitution itself).

So why cut off another seat to spite your state? To me, no other explanation makes sense besides the partisan one: if D.C. gets a seat, that is one more liberal Democrat in the House. He probably figures that Utah will get that seat in 4 years anyway, so why give up a seat to D.C.? How about because now the Democrats can give D.C. its seat without giving Utah one? Or making D.C. a state, and therefore also creating 2 more Democratic senators?

The news out of Minnesota sounds like Al Franken has a pretty good chance of pulling out a narrow victory, making 59 members of the Democratic Caucus in the Senate (including Lieberman and Sanders). All you need therefore is one scared GOP senator to vote with you to overcome cloture and the Dems could pass it even with a filibuster threat.

And there are plenty of those. Specter looks like he will get serious challenges from the left and right, if he decides to stick around (he has stage 4 Hodgkins's Disease)...and Pennslyvannia has gone Democratic since 1992. There are numerous other senators in bluing states that could be picked off on an issue by issue basis.

Jason, in short, is a freshman GOP House member during worst time to be a conservative partisan-hack back bencher. But he seems determined to stay as clueless as Cannon.

all over but the constitutional amendments

Over half the states in the union (29) have articles in their state constitutions banning gay marriage, including, most recently, California. Arizona was the only state in which such an amendment actually failed any time it proposed, but then it passed this year. Only two states allow actual marriages (Connecticut and Massachusetts) and a handful more allow civil unions for same-sex couples. So why are gay rights advocates feeling positive? Time, in short, is on their side.

The GLAAD poll -- conducted the week after voters outlawed gay marriage in California, Arizona and Florida -- shows that majorities of U.S. adults support expanding hate-crime laws to include gay people (63 percent), offering some type of legal recognition to same-sex couples (75 percent) and extending rights to fair housing and employment to gay and transgender people (51 percent). Nearly 70 percent oppose laws -- Utah has one -- that prevent gay and lesbian couples from adopting children.
...
GLAAD's [poll also found] that 47 percent of U.S. adults back gay marriage -- with 49 percent opposed (within the poll's 2 percent margin of error).

So that means that people alive today are becoming more and more tolerant of gay rights in general, but gay marriage itself is still off on the horizon.

Results, drawn from the Big Ten Battleground Poll, indicate that support for gay marriage will get a notable boost if the state's high court rules in favor of it. And, a majority of Iowa voters under age 30 are already in favor of gay marriage, suggesting that support for it could grow as time goes on.

Battleground polls were conducted Oct. 19-22[, 2008] in Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Indiana, Wisconsin, Iowa, Illinois and Minnesota, home to the 11 universities in the Big Ten Conference. The margin of error is plus or minus 4 percent.

I remember seeing similar polling in Massachusetts in 2003 after Goodridge came down. The majority of younger voters supported gay marriage, their parents' generation was split, and their grandparents' generation was overwhelmingly opposed.

In sum, the culture wars are for all practical purposes over and those dirty hippies have won. While supporters of the mythical 1950s style Ozzie and Harriet family values might score victories now, their supporters are shrinking--both the number of evangelicals are shrinking as well as those left of the Greatest Generation. This is why supporters of such bans seek constitutional amendments and not legislation, not because they fear the courts (which they could pack via political victories in legislative and gubernatorial races), but because constitutional amendments are, in theory, more permanent and more difficult to undo.

But I fully expect that in coming years all this will rapidly change in favor of gay rights, including the right to marry. When this tipping point will occur, I cannot say, but anywhere from 5-20 years from now, I predict that gay people will be marrying everywhere...yes, even in Utah.

No shame

There's a joke I heard recently: two LDS missioniaries go in for a visit with a family. After a while, the hostess remarks that the
rumors aren't true, Mormons don't have horns. "No, we just saw them down," says Elder Smith. "Go ahead, feel," he says, leaning his head towards her. "I don't feel nothin'," she remarks. "Not even a little embarressed?" Asks Elder Smith.

OK that was a long windup to the point of this post: the shameless hipocrisy of ex-Rep. Enid Greene Waldholtz Mickelson. Enid came out of hiding to denounce Obama's AG designate Eric Holder as a "lawbreaking opportunist". This from a woman who violated FEC regulations by dumping over a million dollars of illegal funds to get elected, only to blame her husband and cry on national TV when she got caught (and prosecuted by Holder). "Ms. Kettle, may I introduce you to Mr. Pott? ... Oh I see you've met already."

"I think [Holder] has absolutely no moral or ethical integrity and shouldn't be attorney general," Enid told the Tribune's Ed board. She has to oblivious, right? No, she is anything but dumb, which is why the whole Joe-did-this-behind-my-back-he-tricked-me defense is remains laughable today. I mean, even Republican hack Hatch supports Holders nomination.

I had to share this

So I am taking a break from work (that's right, I have worked several hours EVERY DAY this week and I know that will also include tomorrow) to eat dinner and watch some TV. One of my favorite shows is Ace of Cakes and during the commercials I saw this gem:

(H/T Informerical-Hell.com)


Yes, you too can look like a Druid for just $19.95 plus shipping and handling. Do people really get deathly cold when they want to use the phone AND be under a blanket? Call me crazy, but to me, a "blanket with sleeves" is really just a robe that opens in the back like a nightgown. And seriously, what is up with commercials and the use of black and white as parade of horribles?

It has become so cliche now and I wonder why people think it is so effective. Aren't black and white TV shows and movies supposed to make you feel all warm and fuzzy? Then why are people always wrenching their backs, shaking their heads, and having trouble opening jars in black and white? Just asking.

The Word

"In the beginning there was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." --John 1:1

This is arguably the most famous opening lines ever, and for ranks above the lines for "A tale of two cities." Why?

For since its inception, humans have revered their most brilliant invention: writing. The written word is so powerful that Jesus used it to thwart the devil himself in his battle against Satan. The phrase "for it is written" is one of the most oft occurring phrase in the bible for a reason. The word is the basis of differentiation between us and other animals.

The U.S. was founded on the power of the written word. The Founders placed their new government in the hands of a piece of parchment they wrote on, not a royal family, or army as every person had before then. If you haven't yet, go visit the National Archives the next time you visit D.C. The Constitution, Declaration of Independence, and Bill of Rights are placed on a secular alter for all to worship and view behind protective "glass."

The rule of law is not just a concept but a possibility due to the written word. It is reason I have been able to learn from those who came a millennium before me and become an attorney. It is the reason I work so hard and conversely why I am able to provide for my family despite my inability to repair or build almost anything physical. I owe my life, livelihood, and this blog to the written word.

So while you might not see many new words on this blog in the foreseeable future, the Word remains with God and the Word is God. Have a blessed Thanksgiving everyone!

politcal capital at the capitol

I am not surprised that Chris Buttars and the NRA can sink anything in the legislature out of ignorant vindictiveness. But here's what surprises me: Gov. Jon Huntsman is very weak.

In case you forgot, two weeks ago Huntsman won by the biggest margin of any governor up for election this year. He should have clout with the legislature like President-elect Obama supposedly has with Congress. Then again, Obama is not spending any of it on things like punishing Joe Lieberman for disparaging him for two years (and campaigning against him and a number of other Senate Democrats). So did Huntsman let Hilder let his Court of Appeals nominee twist in the wind? Did he see the writing on the wall?

Attorneys of all ideological stripes supported Hilder because he is a good, ethical judge and not anti-gun or whatever crap his detractors claimed he was. I have had occasion to go before him, hear him at CLE events, and talk to him on a personal level and you could have added me to the list of supporters.

Hilder was a pawn in a political show of force by the intransigent legislature heck-bent (this is Utah after all) in stymieing the will of the people. This time it was the NRA, next time it could be the culture warriors or any other member of the parade of horribles that make up their the lobbyist and wingnut base of supporters.

Missing in action

So where have I been? I started my new job on Monday. And while
people are super nice, helpfull and patient with me, I feel totally
overwelmed and lost.

As for my thoughts on the day's news, the LDS Church is turning into
the fall guy for the blowback on the passage of prop 8. Yet this
won't earn them any respect with Evangelicals or conservative
Catholics.

And Obama's choices thus far as underwhelming as his pick of Biden.
Change will be gradual, it seems.

--
Sent from my mobile device

why lawyers should dominate the legislature

...and why they don't.

The Odgen Standard-Examiner published a letter to the editor that uses his irrational fear to write a letter that is out of touch with reality:

Most of us know that a one-party system is not in the best interests of the claimed democracy. But, we also know that one profession, Utah's legal profession, has played the dominate rule in two branches of our government. Article 5 of the Utah Constitution pays heed to the domination of two branches at the same time.

All judges are lawyers, all prosecutors are lawyers, all public defenders are lawyers.

If we start counting the lawyers in the Legislature, we will see another domination. Not a one-political party, but certainly a one-profession legislative and judicial system.

While the majority of the founders of the U.S. Constitution were lawyers, less than ten percent of legislators are attorneys. That's less than Democrats.

Time and time again, the legislature passes a bill that is so poorly written that the result is contrary to the intent. Folks like Sen. Chris Buttars, who expresses a clear disdain for judges that do anything against his personal interests (and not just his ideology). While there are staff attorneys and some attorneys in the legislature, it appears they are often ignored. I can't tell you how many times I would listen to a legislative history where someone like Sen. Scott McCoy is trying to warn his colleagues of the possible unintended consequences of what they are about to pass. Or where the legislature completely fails to discuss some ambgibous passage that might help those trying to interpret it.

Lawyers are not all ambulance chasers like Siegfried & Jensen. They are trained not to be hacks (contrary to popular belief) but to be capable of both seeing both sides of an issue and being able to persuade others that their suggestion is the better course of action. Shouldn't that be the description of a legislator?

still up to their old ways

I was hopeful that the loss of Speaker Curtis would be a wake up call to Utah Legislators, not only to pursue serious ethics reform in a state that is rated at the bottom of by watchdog groups, but also to change the overall bully mentality that the legislative branch has towards potential political rivals, not just the Rocky Andersons but also the Jon Huntsmans.

On the plus side,ethics reform seems like it will actually happen next February, but of course, the devil can sneak into the details. However I was disheartened to read this:

Some local government officials are alarmed over newly proposed legislation that would block or severely restrict agencies with appointed boards from raising property taxes.
Sam Dickson, manager with the Salt Lake City Mosquito Abatement District, said one version of the bill would essentially wipe out the district's ability to exist. That version would halt a non-elected board's ability to levy taxes for any new projects after 2010.
He also worried about an alternate version that would require a public vote for any tax increase.
"We're a forgotten entity in November," Dickson said. "If you have an election in July, it might help. But we don't have a lot of cheerleaders - we don't have the cute little animals the zoo can put out there."
The bill, unveiled Wednesday during a meeting of the Revenue and Taxation Interim Committee, is aimed at increasing transparency in property-tax issues and holding officials accountable, said panel chairman Sen. Wayne Niederhauser.
"I would like to see us craft something in legislation that would bring the accountability but yet not hurt the long-term issues that come with special districts," Niederhauser said.
Richard Bay, the general manager of the Jordan Valley Water Conservancy District, said that taxpayers could end up paying more for services such as water if special districts lose their ability to increase taxes.

While the buzzwords are there (transparency, accountability), the overall aim is to take power away from local governmental entities and concentrate power in the hands of the legislature so that they get to decide who wins and loses. Or in this case, who gets West Nile Virus or clean water. Frankly, I just don't trust anyone from the Utah County or Sandy machines to do the right thing in terms of looking at the bigger picture and looking out for more than just their friends.

Nor should all Utahns have to dole out their hard earned tax dollars for things better left to the decisionmaking process of local governments (cough RSL stadium cough cough). And sure, these taxing decisions should be made by elected officials who will have to face the music from voters if they go too far, but those officials should be those closest to the issue at hand, and not those insulated from the will of the voters ala the legislature.

this week's sign

One of my favorite bits by Sports Illustrated was the "This week's sign that the apocalypse is upon us" ... while generally it was an athlete doing/saying something mindbogglingly stupid, it was consistently a good read.

Anyway, that is what popped into my head (into my head and out into my blog dear readers) when I read this:

Billy Ray Cyrus and his daughter Miley, have made it clear that there is an open invitation to the girls [Sasha and Malia Obama] to appear as guests [on "Hannah Montana"] whenever they would like. The two Obama girls have expressed interest in entering showbiz one day, and Cyrus has said that they are "kind of like me before I started my own career. You are kind of put in it because [of] their dad and because of my dad."

Yes, because the Obama girls make hundreds of millions selling jammies at Target with their likenesses on them made by children in China. Thier dad becoming the first black president is just like your dad being a one hit wonder. And of course, Miley Cyrus has Secret Service protection because people want to kidnap her and hold her ransom, and other violent acts including kill her. ... OK well that last one might be true.


Michelle and Barack, please put your feet down on this one. I can't think of a single pre-teen girl that wouldn't want to do this, but if you want them to "keep it real" and for it all to "not go to their heads," I think shooting this one down tops the list.

trying to return the hype

Two commenters took issue with my contention in the previous post that a) Congressman Chaffetz thinks Obama is a socialist and b) that Chaffetz would be wrong to think so if he so believed.

Arc first states that there is a difference between declaring oneself to being a bulwark against socialist tendencies and believing the President-elect (or his party which controls congress) has socialist tendencies. But why would one feel the need to make such a declaration on election night if they weren't concerned about such tendencies (or believed that his constituents were so concerned)? Arc also gave me some sort of definition of socialism that seems more like the Social Democracies of Europe. But when McCain-Palin talked about "socialism," they also talked about "spreading the wealth" and "Marxism." Clearly, this means that they were talking about socialism in the sense of Marx-Engels, not Angela Merkel. Wikipedia defines socialism as "a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating state or collective ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and the creation of an egalitarian society."

To answer Trenton's comment as to why I don't think Obama is socialist, it is because there is no evidence in his proposals that he wants to collective own or administer anything the government doesn't already own/administer. Even arguably the most "socialist" policy proposal of Barack Obama, his health care plan is pretty minimal in terms of even social democracies. His proposed legislation (which won't be enacted into law because Congress will certainly change it significantly) would mandate health care for children, and give all adult Americans and their employers the ability to buy into the federal employee health care plan. There is also a bunch of stuff for reducing health care costs and ridding the insurance companies the power to exclude/deny coverage for folks with "pre-existing conditions."

It seems that George W. Bush and the 110th Congress are much more "socialist" when they passed a bill that went about buying stocks in financial companies under the $700 billion bailout package. And before that, when Bush had a Republican Congress to work with, Dubya expanded the government more any other president in history, yes even more that those great "socialist" presidents FDR and LBJ. You had prescription drug coverage, as well as a new federal agency that was corrupt and incompetent (the Department of Homeland Security). And like real communist countries from the 20th century, the Bush Administration featured jobs for incompetent party loyalists, torture, secret prisons, law enforcement agencies that were used political tools, and intelligence agencies used to spy on its own citizens.

The purpose of all governments is to use tax dollars and other revenues to make the lives better for people living in that jurisdiction. That means that some people will "get back" more spending towards things that help them than they gave to the government, but that is the price we pay for a civilized society that cares about those otherwise under-priviledged in their city/county/state/country. A rising tide should lift all boats, even if that means the yachts have to pull the dingies along. To quote that commie Adam Smith:

The subject of every State ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the State; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the State. The expense of government of a great nation is like the expense of management of to the joint tenants of a great estate, who are all obliged to contribute in proportion to their respective interests in the estate.

In short, if Obama is a socialist, then so is the father of capitalism.

buying the hype

Towards the end, even John McCain admitted he didn't think Obama was a Socialist. Apparently, our BYU kicker turned Congressman didn't get the memo.

"As he [Obama] tries to bring us closer to socialism," Chaffetz warned, "I will be a strong voice in opposition."

I guess my question "Chaffetz couldn't be any dumber than Chris Cannon, right?" has already been answered. Sad really. Either that or he thinks constituents are rubes.

A Thousand words

(Photo Credit: April Winchell. Final Obama rally in Manassas, VA, November 3, 2008)
[H/T Erza Klein]

We believed in change

And without Utah's help, Obama won by as much as 7 percent nationally (there are 3 million outstanding ballots in California alone, which could change the outcome in a congressional race and the gay marriage proposition) as well as an overwhelming majority of the electoral college.

My impressions of last night:

1. When Obama was projected as the winner, and we saw shot after shot of people partying in the streets, beaming faces, teary happy faces, to me it looked like New Year's Eve parties in Times Square, and not an election. The country is ready for a change and eager to have Obama start.


2. Every network rounded up their black correspondents and random black preachers, put them in front of the TV and asked them what Obama's victory meant for them and their family. Ironically, doing this was a wee bit racist ("You're black, right Frank? You must be proud!"). Some moments were moving though.


3. In the end, the 1999-2002 McCain showed up to give his concession speech. It was a classy way to end his campaign that was so un-classy (especially his supporters who booed when McCain mentioned Obama's name). He genuinely seemed to want to help Obama be as legitimate a leader as possible and it almost appeared that he was contemplating caucusing with the Dems. The McCain redemption tour started last night 11:00 Eastern


4. Joe Biden is damned lucky Obama picked him. Really, it wouldn't have mattered who Obama picked among the safe bets--AKA not a Sarah Palin equivalent--for his VP. Biden tried his hardest to screw it up for Obama by saying trademarked dumb things.


5. If you thought your election watching party was lame, George W. Bush holled himself up in the White House to watch. That must have been less fun than a funeral.

I am going to try to get some sleep one these days, but boy that was fun to watch for a change.

change begins with us

Mitt Romney said it about Republicans but think it applies to all Americans in all 50 states. Something like 80 percent of us think the country is on the wrong track. The promise of America and the idea of America have been sullied the last 8 years.

The reason millions of Americans are waiting in lines to vote today is because of that. This is the poem that popped into my head that really seems to fit the day:

Let America be America again.
Let it be the dream it used to be.
Let it be the pioneer on the plain
Seeking a home where he himself is free.

(America never was America to me.)

Let America be the dream the dreamers dreamed--
Let it be that great strong land of love
Where never kings connive nor tyrants scheme
That any man be crushed by one above.

(It never was America to me.)

O, let my land be a land where Liberty
Is crowned with no false patriotic wreath,
But opportunity is real, and life is free,
Equality is in the air we breathe.

(There's never been equality for me,
Nor freedom in this "homeland of the free.")

Say, who are you that mumbles in the dark?
And who are you that draws your veil across the stars?

I am the poor white, fooled and pushed apart,
I am the Negro bearing slavery's scars.
I am the red man driven from the land,
I am the immigrant clutching the hope I seek--
And finding only the same old stupid plan
Of dog eat dog, of mighty crush the weak.

I am the young man, full of strength and hope,
Tangled in that ancient endless chain
Of profit, power, gain, of grab the land!
Of grab the gold! Of grab the ways of satisfying need!
Of work the men! Of take the pay!
Of owning everything for one's own greed!

I am the farmer, bondsman to the soil.
I am the worker sold to the machine.
I am the Negro, servant to you all.
I am the people, humble, hungry, mean--
Hungry yet today despite the dream.
Beaten yet today--O, Pioneers!
I am the man who never got ahead,
The poorest worker bartered through the years.

Yet I'm the one who dreamt our basic dream
In the Old World while still a serf of kings,
Who dreamt a dream so strong, so brave, so true,
That even yet its mighty daring sings
In every brick and stone, in every furrow turned
That's made America the land it has become.
O, I'm the man who sailed those early seas
In search of what I meant to be my home--
For I'm the one who left dark Ireland's shore,
And Poland's plain, and England's grassy lea,
And torn from Black Africa's strand I came
To build a "homeland of the free."

The free?

Who said the free? Not me?
Surely not me? The millions on relief today?
The millions shot down when we strike?
The millions who have nothing for our pay?
For all the dreams we've dreamed
And all the songs we've sung
And all the hopes we've held
And all the flags we've hung,
The millions who have nothing for our pay--
Except the dream that's almost dead today.

O, let America be America again--
The land that never has been yet--
And yet must be--the land where every man is free.
The land that's mine--the poor man's, Indian's, Negro's, ME--
Who made America,
Whose sweat and blood, whose faith and pain,
Whose hand at the foundry, whose plow in the rain,
Must bring back our mighty dream again.

Sure, call me any ugly name you choose--
The steel of freedom does not stain.
From those who live like leeches on the people's lives,
We must take back our land again,
America!

O, yes,
I say it plain,
America never was America to me,
And yet I swear this oath--
America will be!

Out of the rack and ruin of our gangster death,
The rape and rot of graft, and stealth, and lies,
We, the people, must redeem
The land, the mines, the plants, the rivers.
The mountains and the endless plain--
All, all the stretch of these great green states--
And make America again!

--Langston Hughes

(Photo Credit: Jim Lo Scalzo for The New York Times)
"Voters lined up before dawn in Nottaway Park in Vienna, Va., to cast their ballots."

voting Dem will INCREASE Utah's clout

I know it sounds counter intuitive. One of the most Republican states in the union would be aided by Democrats gaining more votes in Congress (and the White House). But the scenario goes like this:

"The Democrats will be looking for a series of things they can do really quickly," says Ilir Zherka, executive director of DC Vote, the measure's biggest proponent. Party leaders will want to pass popular legislation that barely missed approval in the last Congress, he says.
"We've been trying to make the case that D.C. voting rights qualify across the board," says Zherka.
House leadership isn't ready to outline its agenda for the new Congress just yet, but House Leader Steny Hoyer's office says voting rights for the district are still a priority for Hoyer and he's in discussions on how best to proceed with the bill.
House passage seems a given since that body approved the legislation in 2007 by a large margin. The bill fell short on its way toward final passage by three votes in the Senate, but it is expected to gain supporters in the next session.
Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama is a co-sponsor of the Senate legislation on the DC Voting Rights Act and supported the bill in the Senate. Despite earlier indications of his support, Republican presidential candidate John McCain voted against the bill.

Most estimates are that Democrats will pick up 7-8 seats in the Senate (and 9 if Georgia goes into a runoff and somehow Jim Martin pulls it out in December with the help of a President-elect Obama), and somewhere between 25 and 30 seats in the House. And since Obama was a co-sponsor of the bill, whereas McCain (in one of the few votes he showed up for) voted against it, it seems safe to assume that Obama would sign such a bill into law, while McCain would veto it.

To refresh your memory, the bill would give Utah a 4th seat and DC a vote in the House. Come 2012, Utah would keep its seat (and maybe pick up another one depending on the demographic trends). The Utah legislature has already voted on a map that would unite West Valley with Park City to create as safe a Democratic seat as possible in Utah. If I was advising Jim Matheson, I would suggest he let an up and comer take that seat and go for the jugular and run against Chaffetz (or Bishop) in 2010. With 4 seats, especially if two are held by Democrats--the party that looks to be in control for the foreseeable future, Utah will have more power in DC to get things done that the state wants (light rail funding for instance) as it rapidly grows in the next decade.

Only one more day until the election. I voted early and did NOT vote straight ticket, voting for the first time in my life for candidates from another party. There were some candidates that did not earn my vote and so I either voted for the other candidate or chose to abstain from that race. No matter who you support or where you live, make your voice be heard and VOTE. Then make sure your friends and family vote. In 2004, a guy raced around town shuttling his mom and sister to the polls to vote in Ohio, just getting mom in before the polls closed. While it didn't effect the outcome of federal races, a local judge won because of one guy's efforts. Your vote does count. Don't let anyone tell you differently.

Change IS coming to Utah, part drei

Can you feel it in the air? No it is not the freakish, man-made-climate-changed weather that I am talking about, but rather change.

A recent Mason-Dixon poll commissioned by The Salt Lake Tribune shows that 66 percent of likely voters had concerns about ethics violations on Utah's Capitol Hill. The same percentage said they support outlawing abortion, except in cases of rape, incest or to protect the mother's life or bodily function.

That's right serious ethics reform is as popular as banning abortion in this pro-life state. This statistic is yet another data point in support of my thesis that incumbents will fall on Tuesday in Utah.

Now I can't or won't predict which one it will be (Speaker Curtis? Senator Walker? Senator Buttars? Rep. Hughes? Rep. Monsen?) But there sure are ones that won't be missed.

Rendell, who is challenging Sen. Chris Buttars, tried to beat back a whisper campaign he said suggested the husband of 25 years and father is a stooge of the gay-rights crowd and might be gay himself.
"That's what he says I'm saying," said Buttars, who insists it's not true. "I do believe he has the total support of the gay community."

Seriously, Buttars has so many paranoid delusions that it is hard to keep track. Now for the party hacks predictions (totally non-biased I am sure):

Todd Taylor, executive director of the Utah Democratic Party, is predicting an eight-seat pickup in the Utah Legislature this year - the Senate seats held by Buttars and Sen. Carlene Walker, and six or more in the House, including the seats held by House Speaker Greg Curtis and Rep. Greg Hughes, head of the Conservative Caucus.
"We think it's a good year, between what's going on nationally and the local issues that have popped up," Taylor said. "I think it has to do mostly with the nature of the Republicans who are representing those areas [who] are arrogant and out of touch with Utah voters."
Utah Republican Party Chairman Stan Lockhart says he's confident Republicans represent the values of Utah voters and the GOP will do well at the ballot box.

You remember Mr. Lockhart? He's the guy who broke party rules to get his daughter seated as a delegate\. Of course, those two ideas pedaled in the article are not mutually exclusive. Given the number of races, the Dems could pick up 8 seats and the GOP would still obviously still do very well overall.