Are Utah's juries too white?

Defense Attorney Michael Esplin thinks so, and is suing the 4th district court (Utah County/Happy Valley) on grounds that Hispanics are underrepresented in jury pools. The Deseret Morning News explains the current system:

In compiling a statewide jury pool, state agencies gather information from driver's license and voter-registration forms, Esplin said. However, providing information about ethnicity on such forms is voluntary.
Jury questionnaires from 4th District Court ask about jury availability and previous felony convictions — but not race.

Are Hispanics being underrepresented because they don't have driver's licenses or aren't registered to vote? Illegal aliens don't have the right to sit on juries, that's a pretty firm rule of law. But there is precedent for challenging a jury's lack of ethnic, racial, or gender diversity prior to empanelling the jury (swearing them in etc.) So are Hispanics underrepresented because of their illegal friends and relatives, or are they being underrepresented more than the number of illegals?

Vincent Fu, a professor of sociology at the University of Utah, testified that census data show Utah's Hispanic population of adults 20 years and older is nearly 8 percent of the population.
But Utah's master jury list — the pool of potential jurors — shows the Hispanic population at 4 percent.

There could be some major impacts in the short term with Esplin's case:

If Davis opts to rule in Esplin's favor, it could prevent any jury trial in the state until the system is fixed. It could also open the door for appeals of old jury trials — within an appropriate window of time.

Let's hope that we can get the system right without delaying justice unnecessarily.

The Destiny Press Conference

Man, are the press idiots or what? "I know you can't comment on this, because you have said 20 times that you cannot say anything outside the Information, but..."

Bob Stott rocked the house and really showed why he is the press guy for the D.A.'s office. He had the press under control kept them chuckling. I can't wait to see him in court. Here's the press release.

What we learned that was in the Information: Gregerson talked to Destiny, convinced her to come over to his house, she screamed, he smothered her, she suffocated and died. Then he performed a sex act with her dead body. Oh and some time later, he put her inside a plastic container in the basement. After that, he joined the citizen's search for Destiny and allowed the police to search his home. It was unclear whether he limited the search (no basement, don't open closed containers etc.) or he sufficiently hid the container amongst all his other crap in the basement that the police didn't see her body at the time.

Later the FBI interviewed him, because law enforcement still had him on their list, and somehow he confessed. Polygraphs were conducted on suspects, it is unclear, however, whether he was among those tested. Gregerson confessed to the FBI; based off the information provided in the confession, the police obtained a search warrant, and found Destiny's desecrated body.

Stott is charging Gregerson with Aggravated Murder, a First Degree Felony that carries with it the possibility of a Death Sentence (because it was committed during the commission of a Kidnapping and because he desecrated her dead body), and Kidnapping, also a First Degree Felony but carries a lesser sentence.

We also learned that the Press has no clue about the law, especially the basic part about not biasing the outcome by disclosing stuff prior to trial. They kept asking questions they knew or should have known Stott or the police chief couldn't answer. I guess they were trying to get their pet theories out: that Gregerson meant to silence her, not suffocate her, that Gregerson wanted to do his necrophilia needs the whole time, etc.

If the press had any brains, they would have talked to the other prosecutor, who was in the room with the file...and that file had the police report etc. But of course, they shouldn't have and she wouldn't have talked to the press.

Also, I want to take back any insinuation that I might have thought the police did a bad job investigating this. I didn't know the facts that I know now, and given what I have learned (which is the same as the informed public), the police did everything properly and the whole thing only lasted a couple days because of the interaction with SLCPD and the FBI.

UPDATE: here's the summary story.

Gregerson's rap sheet

Linda Thomson of the Deseret News did some digging into the court filings, and found lots of violence in the past of Destiny Norton's alleged killer, Craig Roger Gregerson.

Here are the low lights:

1. "Gregerson, 20, pleaded no contest in Sandy Municipal Justice Court to a Dec. 23, 2004, incident in which he shoved his mother-in-law against a wall with his hand around her throat and punched her twice in the face with his fist while her 17-year-old son was present." He entered a plea in abeyance to Class B Misdemeanor, which was conditioned him taking anger management classes


2. "A "notice of completion" report of the domestic violence therapy from Valley Mental Health is on file with the Sandy court bearing a March 10, 2006, date — only three days after a 3rd District Court judge dismissed a protective order that Gregerson had sought against his wife, Catherine, 22." Lucky break for him, otherwise, he would have had to go to jail on the 2004 charge.


3. 'Respondent (Catherine Gregerson) is a battered wife who has put up with it because she loved the petitioner and felt a need for his love,' attorney Delano S. Findlay said in documents filed in 3rd District Court on March 3." Sounds like a keeper to me.


4. In the same complaint, Catherine's attorney claimed "Gregerson had abused his wife repeatedly in the past, including several episodes of hitting her, punching her in the stomach when she was pregnant and possibly triggering a miscarriage, shoving his fingers into her nostrils and punching her in the head with his fists while she was holding their baby.
   Findlay also described a time when Gregerson threw the baby across the couple's queen-size bed because the child had tipped over some food he was eating. ...'He grabbed (Catherine) by the neck and strangled her until she could hardly breathe before she was able to get away from him. At the same time, he told (Catherine) that he didn't care if he killed her, that it would be better to be in jail than living with her,' ...Findlay also refers to an incident in which Gregerson accused Catherine Gregerson of choking him. The police subsequently charged her with assault. Findlay wrote that Catherine didn't remember doing that but 'was convinced' by her husband that she had and, upon the advice of a lawyer, pleaded guilty and is on probation. 'Looking back, (Catherine) now believes those allegations were fabricated'" These are signs of an abuser.

Then again Catherine has quite a rap sheet of her own...

1. Catherine "was charged with third-degree felony attempted aggravated assault, which was amended to a class A misdemeanor. She also was charged with assault on a health-care provider, a class A misdemeanor."


2. The charges stem from an December 18, 2004 incident wherein"Catherine Gregerson decided to choke her husband with a piece of string and when it broke, she used a necklace-style ID badge holder, stopping when she felt he was going to pass out. ...while she was being taken to the hospital for psychiatric evaluation, she bit a Sandy firefighter."


3. Jail time was suspended and like her husband, was placed on probation that required her to get a mental health evaluation.


4. "[A] pending case against a Catherine Gregerson, again same birthdate and address of residence for the woman married to Craig, of domestic violence in the presence of a child and criminal mischief, both class A misdemeanors, that allegedly occurred June 14 [, 2006].

Destiny's [alleged killer's] date with the DA

For those of you who are hoping that my clerking for the District Attorney will provide you with the inside scoop on what is happening in the Destiny investigation, sorry.

Unlike last time when I spilled the beans during Massachusetts' Constitutional Convention surrounding Gay Marriage, I have a ethical and legal duty not to divulge attorney work product and attorney-client privledged information. I might have severely worsened my relationship with my Boss since I was not supposed to tell the internets the strategy of the pro-gay marriage folks. For that I appologize. But now I have the Multistate Professional Responsibility Exam (MPRE) to take next Friday as part of the Bar. So I can't pretend I don't know.

I don't want to prevent from ever getting hired before I even graduate. Plus, I don't know anything more than you do right now other than Dep. DA Bob Stott is personally screening the case. Screening is the process by which the District Attorney's office decides whether to prosecute a given suspect whose sitting in jail on police charges. If the case looks weak, or the charges seem exaggerated, the DA has the power/discretion to drop the case or to reduce what the police want charged and what ends up getting charged. Since Utah is an "Information" state rather than an indictment state, we don't both with the whole grand jury thing.

So assuming Stott, who is a great crafty guy and great attorney, decides to go forward with the case, he would then write up a Probable Cause statement, which would end up in an Information and the then-Defendant would have the right to a preliminary trial to determine whether there is probable cause to bind him over for trial. From what I have read in the news, I would bet all of these steps would be pretty straight forward. After all, her body was found in his basement.

Next, there would either be some discovery/investigation prior to the trial, or a plea. My bet is that Salt Lake Legal Defenders (or whomever gets the case) will take a very aggressive approach to the defense since this is high profile.

I will be happy to explain the legal process to readers as it unfolds, but keep in mind I will just be going off publicly available documents and what I know about Criminal Procedure. My opinions are not those of my employer and are not intended for jurors or the media.

Destiny and the 4th Amendment

Rarely have a seen a shocking a headline as "Bill of Rights puts limits on searches" byy the Deseret Morning News--shocking as in dumbfounded that people are so dumb. On the local Fox affiliate this morning, they acted as if the Deseret News had a breaking, innovative angle on the whole mess. I was assuming there would be more factual details about the police's attempts to search the home of the alledged killer.

Instead, it was Criminal Procedure/Constitutional Law 101. I should have expected as much from the morning show crew at Fox News. Prof. Luna, whom I did some pro bono work for, was explaining to the paper that the police can't ransack through everyone's home just because. The only thing we learned is that the alledged kidnapper /agravated murder didn't give police permission to search his house. Of course, you can't use the lack of permission to get a warrant. The only thing Luna said that made this case a close case is that there might be a "exigent circumstances" exception to the Fourth Amendment. Of course, the court hasn't decided if a search for missing child is exigent enough to exempt Fourth Amendment requirements. "Luna estimated that had police argued for a warrant citing the exigent circumstance of a missing child, the warrant would have likely gone to the Utah Supreme Court — taking weeks if not years." Not very exigent any more if it takes years to resolve. This is probabbly why the Court has not yet ruled on the issue.

Apocolapse Soon

Prominant members of the Republican party apperatus, former elected and appointed officials are calling the Israeli-Hesbolah-Lebannon part of "World War III" and talking about Iraq, as the Secretary of State did as suffering through the "birth pangs" of democracy. It is no accident that these lines of rhetoric match up with lines from the Holy Bible, especially the Revelations of St. John.

Condi Rice didn't show up to the Southern Baptist Convention's annual meeting recently just for fun, but to send a coded message to Bush's most ardent supporters: we are entering the End-Times, don't worry about the implications of our foreign for the middle east or world peace, because Jesus is on his way.

This morning on the Today show, it was Reagan's anti-Education Secretary Bill "Slot Machine" Bennett who repeated the Apocolaptic talk. The world is indeed going to Hell in a Handbasket, but it is not because the world is coming to an end and Jesus is about to return, it is because George W. Bush has made the world, and especially Americans, less safe, less peaceful, and less prosporous.

The idea that we can steer the ship of state off a waterfall because Jesus will return any minute now is disasterously wrong both morally and policy-wise. Whenever the second coming is, whether it be when we each die or some time next week, we shall all be judged by our deeds, what we have done, and what we have left undone. Whether we have loved our neighbors as ourselves. Whether we have forgiven those who have trespassed (as in sinned) against us. How we have handled temptation. How we have treated the poorest, weakest, and most vulnerable amounst us. How we as stewards of God's Earth (and Universe) have tended the garden while he was away.

Given that prominant Republican leaders, including the President and his Cabinet, have started a war out of vengence, lust for oil and power, ignored genocide, disease, and famine, formented hatred towards our neighbor to the South, succumed to greed by defrauding stockholders and taxpayers, created more crime and poverty and made live more difficult for the poorest weakest and most vulnerable, as well as pillaged the Earth for its resources with reckless disregard for the Earth, I would have to guess that Jesus would give them a big thumbs down on Judgment Day.

People of faith need to reject this fundamentally selfish and shortsighted view of the world, even if it is encoded in biblical language. The modern Republican Party is the party of Me. How do I get richer, how do I keep healthy, how do I protect my family?

The Democratic Party, by contrast, is the party of We. How do we combat poverty, disease, homelessness, hopelessness, corruption, war, hatred, and fear? We are all in this together. Whether we like it or not, this world is so interconnected and interdependent that we cannot go it alone and lookout only for ourselves. Because selfish actions only come back to bite you twice as hard as socially-conscienious decision would. That doesn't mean you let others walk all over you, but you approach matters in a way that looks out for everyone's interest such that we all benefit.

Was it Destiny or incompetence?

SLCPD is taking heat for its handling of the Destiny Norton missing person-cum-murder investigation. From the Salt Lake Tribune:

A few hundred people gathered outside the home of Destiny as well as that of Craig Gregerson, where the girl's body was found, on 500 East near 700 South.
Many were shouting profanities at the police who stood on the other side of yellow tape ensuring no one tampered with what was still considered a crime scene.
...
About midnight, the crowd was enough that police closed traffic on the block.
Salt Lake City Police Chief Chris Burbank arrived to try and quell the crowd and take some questions from reporters and residents.

There is something wierd about this case, something that hasn't been told or isn't yet known. While hundreds of people were out searching for her, Destiny was either dead or dying in the basement of her neighbor's house.

Jeannie Hill, who acted as a spokeswoman for the Nortons during the search, ... levied her own criticism of the investigation. In an interview, she accused the Salt Lake City Police Department of not taking Destiny's disappearance seriously. The first night Destiny went missing, Hill said, police told the family to go home; that police would go out and search.
Hill said the lack of seriousness was in part because of the previous dealings the Nortons and their extended family had with police.
Hill described the group as people who used to "sit on the street and beg for beer money" and who used to "smoke pot in the park."
"We've always known they've had a bit of a vendetta against us," Hill said.
The police and the FBI also focused too much on the possibility someone in the extended family took Destiny, Hill said. The Nortons claim kinship with a large group of people whom they will call by familiar titles though there is no blood relation.
...
Some people in the crowd accused police of not applying themselves toward finding Destiny because of her low socioeconomic status.
Chellie Ehrhart, who said she is a friend of the Nortons from Riverton, claimed police didn't apply the same amount of resources that were used to find Elizabeth Smart.

So this might be the piece that is missing...her "family" and that law enforcement were certain that one of these folks did it, just like they focused on that handyman of the Smart family. Maybe they zeroed in on this hunch and failed to look into the obvious next-door neighbor. The neighbor even went on searches for Destiny, just to throw the police off his trail.

The socioeconomic complaint feels valid. I recall that the same time Elizabeth Smart went missing, a black girl from the South Side of Chicago went missing, but the story vanished because the family didn't live in a McMansion or have a spokesman, or make the talk show circuit.

Oh, Pioneers!

CREDIT: "Re-enactment of Mormon pioneers arriving in Salt Lake Valley, Pioneer Day 1997." Photo by Jeffrey D. Allred, courtesy of the Deseret News, for "Utah Pioneers," a Utah Local Legacies project
Happy Pioneer Day!

For those of you who don't know, Utah's one state holiday is Pioneer Day, the day [in 1847] Brigham Young and several wagons full of LDS religious devotees first glimpsed the Salt Lake Valley via Emigration Canyon, where the Donner Party had decades before lost critical time on their ill-fated way to California. Brigham, who was sick at the time (folks feared he might die soon, but that was far from the case), declared from his stretcher, "This is the Place."

Ever since then, our ancestors have celebrated the day as the day of effectively the state's founding (even though it did not become a state until 1896). I saw "our ancestors" becuase my fore bearers were in the second set of wagons that came after Brigham's set of elites.

Utahns celebrate this day as if it was the other July holiday-- July 4th. At every LDS Meeting House (or "Ward"), U.S. flag line the walkways. Utahns can buy fireworks for the whole month of July basically for either Independence Day or Pioneer Day.

I wish Brigham had planned it out better. The 24th of July is a terrible time to have a holiday. It is far to hot (today it is 97, about average) and dry (with a chance of thundershowers, which is rare, it is up to 25% hummidity) for sitting outside, wearing pioneer costumes, watching parade, and dangerous to allow fireworks in such a tinderbox environment.

Oh well, at least we Utahns get a day off for our troubles. Too bad my wife works for a national company that doesn't respect this holiday. Maybe they don't like the whole Church-State melding, or maybe they just want to make more money.

So far I did some yardwork before the sun crested over our hedges, and have been cleaning up the house for the Mrs. Our kitchen remodeling is finally done and I still think it was worth the pain, cost, and time.

Anyway, raise your non-alcoholic glass to the Pioneers, whose brave trek from Missouri to Utah created this fine state.

Leavitt takes a page from Abramoff

Jack Abramoff, Ralph Reed, and Grover Norquist would approve of ex-Utah Gov. Mike Leavitt's (current Bush secretary of HHS) sham charity. After all, its what they used to funnel money to their favorite cause: themselves.

The Leavitts used nearly $9 million of their assets to set up the foundation in 2000 under an obscure provision of the federal tax code. In 2002, 2003 and 2004, the Leavitt organization donated less than 1 percent of its assets.
...
While Mike Leavitt alone has claimed about $1.2 million in tax write-offs since 2000, the foundation gave away only $49,000 in 2002 and $52,000 the next year, according to tax returns and other documents filed by the foundation. Meanwhile, the foundation's assets have been used for a $332,000 loan to Leavitt Land and Investment Inc., in which the secretary owns a significant stake, and other secured loans for insurance and real estate deals, said Alan Jones, a trustee of the organization.
Leavitt Land and Investment, in turn, extended an interest-free loan to Leavitt in 2002 valued at more than $250,001, according to a recent financial disclosure.

Oh millioniare's and their tax loopholes. This is why I can never be a tax attorney. You have to figure out ways to make the rich even more rich while knowning that what you are doing directly hurts the poorest of the poor who get health care and other vital services from the government.

As glad as I am that this partisan hack millioniare is no longer my governor, it is too bad that we have a partisan hack billioniare as our current governor. I am sure even if Scott M. Matheson, Jr. had this kind of money, which he doesn't, he wouldn't do this kind of thing. Nor would Scott push for a tax cut for the rich and push the tax burden onto the middle class of Utah. Because that's the kind of guy he is.

photo of the day

Courtesy of BAG News Notes

This in a nutshell, or bombshell, is the war in the land of Canaan/Phoenica. Look at the propraganization of the youth by Israel, and then compare it to the school books in surrounding Arab countries, and you will see that the powers that be don't want this mutual hatred ever end. They are prepping the next generation to join in the conflict whether by being members of the Israeli army or that of Jahadi's.

This image is so emotionally charged that it would make Karl Rove and Goebels blush. But it just makes me sick. Our photo of the day.

Utah still in the race to the bottom

Governor and billioniare John Huntsman Jr. is reviving his "tax reform" proposal that creates a "flater tax" designed to appeal to the uber-Rich, to entice them to move to Utah. That is why the rule against perpetuities has been basically abolished (estates can keep divvying up the dead man's money 1,000 years after he's gone by will).

Utah's Republican leadership still believe in the economic fallisy that if you give away enough to the rich and/or corporations, they will want to move here and spend their money/create jobs in this state. This is what I call joining the race to the bottom. Because other cities and states are playing the same game, all trying to out bid another by stripping out their tax revenue, giving away land, giving favorable loans, etc. The result is that all of these states lose. The best way to create economic growth that will aid the state coffers and make live better is to create an environment that employees not employers, find appealing.

Attract the smartest, most tallented, creative types, and you get the high paying jobs that contribute back to your community. How do you do it? Create great schools, safe neighborhoods, clean livable streets, nice shoping centers, walkable downtowns, a nightlife, and lower cost of living by lowering or eliminating taxes on groceries, clothing, etc. Utah already has a great advantage over other states. We have great weather, great outdoor activities, a relatively low crime rate, cheep housing, friendly people, and relatively light traffic.

But our public schools are a mess, and traffic/crime are getting worse without any leadership from Johnny on either. Didn't Huntsman run primarily on education, and moving the prison out of Draper? Funny where his focus ended up being: on the ultra-rich and mega-corporations. You shouldn't have to bribe companies (or sports teams) to move to your state. It is better for everyone if they move because they want be in the ideopolis.

"Was tuen Sie denn?"

Our photo of the day:

Can Bush stop embaressing himself and the U.S. during the G8 conference? First he talked with is mouthful to British PM Tony Blair as if he really was his lapdog (then they both talked about a different Middle East than the one that exists), before that actually was the pig roast, and now "the grope"

Appearantly Bush is just like those bosses that touch you in uncomfortable ways at awkward times. Just because she is a 'conservative' woman doesn't mean you get to give her an unasked-for backrub. Bush has shown off the worst sides of his personality: his boorish and imature behavior, his lack of knowledge (and lack of interest) in important world affairs, and his general inability to do any policy (foreign or domestic) right.

["Was tuen Sie denn?" Means "What are you {formal} doing?" in German]

Matheson is cruising

Today, the local papers finally got around to covering the Matheson/Christensen race, such as it is. The general assesment is right: Jim will have an easy time and part of that is because he is an encumbent, part because he worked so hard to develop his reputation with conservative voters.

I must take issue with this line, however: "Utah's lone Democratic representative in Congress has commandeered traditionally conservative values like fiscal responsibility, multiple use of public lands and protecting children from violence." These are not conservative values, these are DLC/Blue Dog values, and really fiscal responsibility has become a mainstream Democratic value since about 1993. Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and other New Dems triumphed these values and ideas for decades. Everyone wants to protect their children from violence, some just don't see the harm in violent video games and movies. Others find sex in video games and movies more troubling than violence (Christian Conservatives).

As far as the St. George land deal goes, I don't know the specifics and haven't talked to any knowledgable environmental friends of mine about it, so I can't comment on the propriety of the Matheson-Bennett bill on a policy level. But on a political level, it is a no brainer. Jim has surely shown that he is not beholdant to the environmental wing of the party and given Washington County voters another reason to vote for him.

After learning he was being redistricted into Southern Utah, Jim made it his goal to deliver for Washington County, especially since it nearly cost him his seat in 2002. So Jim got a nice airport for St. George, and this land-deal would help development which would be key for swingish voters in the area. Smart moves all.

The payraise move Jim makes every year gets him editorial mentions around the nation and is also good politics. But it also good policy. Why should Congress give itself a raise when it won't raise the minimum wage or reign in spending on boondoogles?

Christensen's slam is to call Jim's legislative career as "representation by press release. Hopefully, he can find one bill that can pass. That would be great." It would be great if he could pass a bill, but guess how many House Democrats get their bills passed in a GOP controlled House, especially ones from potential GOP pick-up seats? I am guessing a handfull at best, and all of those are probabbly much more senior than Jim. So it is a nice line, but has no real substance behind it. Then again, this is the same guy that said "Tolerance is the religion of people who no longer believe in anything."

That has to be the most bigoted and hate-filled statement I have heard in a while. Even if Christensen was running against a pol as disgusting as Joe Biden or Joe Lieberman, I would still vote against LaVar. I have no tolerance for such intolerance.

VRA now a tool of GOP majorities

Don't get me wrong, I think the Voting Rights Act is one of the best pieces of legislation ever divised by Congress. But thanks to the Supreme Court's unwillingness to step in and create clear, bright-line rules about redistricting (and deciding this year to allow re-redistricting) and advances in software, the GOP is able to use the VRA to ensure they stay in power. How? By using majority-minority districts to their advantage:

The Republicans are more than happy to cede 40 or so majority-minority Democratic big-city districts, carved to the specifications of the Voting Rights Act, in exchange for a lock on the far more numerous [white,] suburban districts.

One of surest ways to make seats more Democratic leaning is to spread the black vote around several districts, such that there is a sizable minority (20-40%) but not an overwhelming presence (so that the rest can be divvyed up in other districts. But this could violate the VRA, which prohibits diluting the votes of minorities. New York Magazine has the goods:

"It seems clear that the VRA doesn’t serve us well," says a Democratic congressman who’s tried to push the issue with colleagues. "But a weird, self-interested math comes into play. Black Democrats don’t want to appear retrograde; whites don’t have the courage to stand up and try to fix it without blacks standing alongside them; and Republicans like the outcome that they’re getting, which enables them to have perpetually lily-white suburban southern districts. And then there’s so much animus—not between the parties, but between white Democrats and black Democrats, in lots of parts of the South. So any effort to ‘fix’ the thing is a nonstarter. But I’d be a better congressman if my district were more diverse, and Democrats would have better chances of winning if there were more ‘swing’ districts."

Such swing districts would be more progressive and ultimately more favorable to the interests of African-Americans. But not necessarily Black politicans. I hope that by 2006, a district without a majority of minorities could elect a minority to represent them. Of course, I am not so naive not to recognize that people vote against minorities all the time just because they are minorities and folks like Barrack Obama are the exception rather than the rule.

Still CBC members should look beyond their own selfish interests into what is best for their constituents-- having a Democrat-controlled House-- and not what is best for them personally.

Story of the day

Now that I am back working in the criminal division of the DA's office, I get to relish the stupidity of criminals.

A 45 year old man in Salt Lake City broke into someone's house and starting cooking their 2 pounds of bacon, whereupon the owner returned home and found him and called the police. "Responding officers found ...[him] sitting at the kitchen table. " He was charged with burglary.

What the heck is going on in Canaan?

Man, Israel is getting attacked with hundreds of missles from Hesbolah, Hamas is cheering away, and who knows how much Syria, Lebanon and Iran are involved. Meanwhile, the Bush administration is saying nice dipomatic nothings and doing less.

This is a direct result of the failure of the peace talks in the twilight hours of the Clinton Administration, the election of Sharon and Olmert, and the election of Hamas to the PLA. What a freaking disaster.

Meanwhile, our troops are being beseiged in Iraq by local insurents, rival tribal gangs, and Iranian operatives. Meanwhile still, Iran is moving forward with nuclear technologies, as North Korea reworks their crappy missle technology. They already have nukes.

This is also a direct result of cowboy diplomacy of the Cheney/Rumsfeld cabal. They PNAC plan really has made things much, much worse.

Israel has the right to defend itself, but at the same time, there needs to be peace and it cannot be achieved at the butt of a gun. The Palistinans need a contiguous homeland, with access to water, the ability to work, and saftey and security for all those living in the land of Canaan. If only fmr. Rep. Wayne Owens (D-UT) were still alive to help bring both sides back from the brink of disaster.

the week I missed

Sorry for the long absense dear readers, I took a much needed vacation. Canada is very interesting, it is like a cleaner, nicer version of the U.S. But I couldn't live in a country that doesn't have the guts to stick up for itself and permitted Great Britian to control it until late into the 20th century. I saw many interesting things, like the hundreds of bunnies hopping around the University of Victoria (pics to come).

I also enjoyed Seattle, but I think the overcast weather would eventually be draining on my phyche even though my skin would love it. I had not really been outside in the sun this whole year until last week and even though I used sunscreen, I got pretty burned. Remember kids, apply liberally and thorougly, especially when you go out on a boat or on a long bike ride.

On the plane, I read Glenn Greenwald's book, which I bought, and Kos/Armstrong's book, which I checked out from the library. I am glad I bought what I bought and borrowed what I borrowed. Crashing the Gate reads like a series of blog posts by Kos, which tend to be more based on emotion that clear, thorough logic. Maybe it is the fact that I am in law school, but I found Glenn's writing to be excellant and will be giving the book to my father who seems inclined to think that the NSA wiretapping scandal is no big deal. I believe it will pursuade him otherwise. Whereas, if you weren't already a believer in Kos and Jerome's brand of agressive progressiveness, you were only pursuaded that the GOP has their sh!t together whereas the Democrats don't in areas of consultants, ad buys, and GOTV.

The DLC section to me is the most frustrating thing. No matter how many times I and others tell folks on Kos or MyDD that the DLC doesn't endorse or support candidates other than writing policy papers and calling them the New Dem of the week or among the 100 to Watch. The DLC doesn't have a vast conspiratorial agenda, and I don't see how they can simultianously be irrelevant and capable of taking down Howard Dean.

The DLC is a 501(c)(3), which means it can't support candidates or get involved at all in primaries other to state their opinion. Individuals associated with the DLC/PPI like Al From could endorse a candidate personally and give them $2,100, but that's it. There is no way they would risk their tax status to help Liberman win. Sure they might had advised him, DLC members might have given money or raised money for him, but the DLC can't and doesn't get involved in any election other than in their magazines, blogs, and interviews. DLC staffers liked Rep. Ed Case, CA Aud. Steve Westly, and ex-Rep. Tim Roemer, but they did little for those folks in their efforts to climb higher. The DLC like to take credit for spotting rising stars and crafting them with the DLC's message, but they aren't repsonsible for telling them to run for higher office or supporting them on an institutional level.

Westley's big mistake was hiring the Chris Lehane of California politics: Garry South. South ran Gray Davis' horribly nasty 2002 reelection effort that reduced turnout to unheard of levels, even for California. Was it surprising to anyone that South used the same low-ball tactics against Angelides that he used in 2002 against GOPers? Westley also shouldn't have listened to South, but that's another story for another time.

missing Sandra Day

While Justice Kennedy has written some pretty great opinions lately, without the presence of Justice O'Connor, Kennedy has been left to steer the court.

The results have not been pretty: 4-1-4 decisions, vague concurring opinions, multipart multi-split opinions and generally bad law all around.

Why are the police able to turn knock-and-announce warrants into no-knocks at their discretion? Why has the Clean Water Act been, um watered down? Why has mid-decade re-redistricting been upheld? Because Kennedy is the lone swing vote.

Vieth v. Jubilander was also a terrible case, and these are hard issues, but allowing redistricting purely because the legislature changes political hands sets an awful precedent. This is in effect makes the U.S. House of Representatives the pre-Seventeenth Amendment U.S. Senate-- a federal legislative body whose members are chosen at the whim of each state legislature. The House will now represent the majority party in their home state's state house (and governor's mansion), and not the people of their district. With advances in statistical analysis and computer programming is it possible to create districts which virtually lock in a seat for a particular party.

The Framers of the Constitution intended the House to be the more representative body, which is why they made it larger, based on population, and gave it the power to originate spending and tax bills, the power to impeach, and the power to choose the president in the case of an electoral college tie/plurality. The Senate was supposed to be the more deliberative, tempered body (the saucer to cool the hot coffee of the House's cup) filled with more learned, wise men [now a few women], which is why they had the power to ratify treaties, advise and consent on presidential appointments, and vote to remove the President or Supreme Court Justices from office.

Gerrymandering has turned this all on its head. I am sure that the Founders were political and believed in Gerrymandering (after all, it started with the first Congress) but I highly doubt they ever dreamed mapmakers would ever wield the precision and predictability they possess. If they had known where it all would lead, I doubt they would have approved of such counter-majoritarian abilities.

Maybe the court looked the other way because Democrats in 1990 redistricted Texas overly favorably to their cause and the DeLay Gerrymander was just a wing in the opposite direction that made the state Congressional delegation match the statewide voting percentages. But now other states will be emboldened to reredistrict not just to "correct and injustice" but to counter the will of the people. The very fact that elected officials are now beholden more to mapmakers and party bosses than the electorate violates the spirit, and I believe the letter of the Constitution.

Bush has a sense of humor

Appearantly, Bush wants the Line-Item Veto, despite the fact that SCOTUS was pretty definative against such power in Clinton v. City of New York (although dishonest partisans like Thomas, Scalia, and Alito might change their minds). Bush's claimed reason for having increased executive powers? To cut spending.

"And I'm not going to deal myself out of the budgetary process," he said. "So my point is, they can meet the size of the pie, but I may not like some of the slices of the pie. And therefore, what do we do about it? And one way to deal with it is the line-item veto. The president could approve the spending that is necessary, could red-line spending that is not, and then let the Congress decide whether or not the president is right."

Just like how he let Congress decide whether or not to use the NSA to spy on American citizens' phone records, library records, financial transactions, and internet activity. Or just like how Bush let Congress pass a ban on torture, only to seemingly veto the bill without allowing the Congress a chance to override the veto.

Bush's signing statements violate the Constitution. specfically, Article I, Section 7, Clause 2 ("The Presenment Clause"):

Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law.

This is a radical agenda by Dick Cheney and his cabal. Having already reclaimed whatever executive power presidents had prior to Watergate, Cheney, John Yoo et al are trying to use Article II, Section 2, Clause 1 ("Commander-in-Chief") to grab as much power as the Rubber-Stamp Do-Nothing Republican Congress will allow.

Right now, Specter has another Kabuki Theater effort of "reigning in the president" and being a "moderate savior of the Constitution." One wonders how many days he will keep up the charade.

Dems sell out Voting Rights

House Democrats must not be that confident that they will win back the House in November. The Hill Reports

The prospect of a Texas House Republican chairing the Judiciary Committee motivated Democrats to compromise earlier this year on a bill that would reauthorize and amend the 1965 Voting Rights Act.

Amazingly enough, they prefer James "lock up the illegal immigrants" Sensenbrenner to Lamar Smith. It just goes to show how radically conservative the House GOP leadership is. It also shows how Democrats have no spine to stand up for the right thing, and trust the voters to help them.

Democrats and civil-rights leaders compromised on measures regarding voter protection, including those to curb the use of photo-ID laws, to ensure that a bill would be passed before the bill sponsor, committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.), gives up his gavel at the end of the legislative session, according to several Democratic sources in the House, including multiple committee staffers.
...
One House staffer who works for a CBC member said the Democratic leaders’ concern was so great that they told CBC members not to campaign too intensely for the bill for fear that it would splinter the bipartisan coalition and delay a vote. This deal was brokered long before tension between Pelosi and the CBC surfaced after Pelosi asked Rep. William Jefferson (D-La.) to step down from the Ways and Means Committee.

In my book, the only legitimate complaint that Southern House Reps have against the VRA is that the section 5 clearance by the DOJ should not be limited to the South. There is racism in New York, in Maryland, in Massachusetts, in Indiana, in Illinois, in California...in every state. Both parties use racial demographics to draw line for state legislative and congressional districts, but they pretend it is "communities of interest" and the like.

Republicans like to pack the minorities into as few districts as possible, and CBC-type minority politicans love to have a safe seat. Democratic leaders tend to try to spread out the minorities, especially African-Americans as much as possible so as to increase their chances at picking up seats.

So why would House Dems allow tried and true voter suppression tactics like ID cards be permissible under the VRA? Because they are afraid of a different chairman? Shouldn't they be licking their chops at having African-American and voting rights champaign John Conyers in charge in January if the Dems take back the House? Why cave now when you can beat the GOP over the head with it and get a better bill later?

No matter what, Dems are going to pick up seats in both chambers and the Senate will be able to craft a better bill than this. So why the rush? Are they too chicken?

UPDATE:Rick Hansen over at Election Law Blog reports:

Last night the Rules Committee voted to table H. Res. 878, which had provided for the rule on debate of VRA renewal (that's the deal that allowed two proposed amendments, the Norwood amendment and the Westmoreland amendment). It appears then that the details of the VRA renewal debate will have to be renegotiated, and that's likely not to happen until after the July 4 recess.

Is this because of the compromise that the Dems made? Even with 152 co-sponsors and the political goldmine of holding up VRA? I hope I am wrong.

Josh Ewing for UT St. Rep. (25)

Maybe I am hopping on the establishment bandwagon, considering all the big names that have endorsed Josh, but after noticing his signs (quite nice, aren't they), reading his bio and positions on his website, I think he would make an excellent Representative.

Better still, he has a blog in which he tells the story of an attempted bribe by Summit Co. (Park City and its environs) Democratic Party Chair Rob Weyher, whose neice was in my high school graduating class (and her brother was a 3L when I was a 1L at the U).

This guy is an idiot. First, he gets caught driving drunk, then he leaves a message on the phone of Josh's boss at Love Communications? FYI Rob, if you want to bribe someone, you don't leave a record of it.

I’ve been asked several times if I thought my opponent had been involved with Mr. Weyher’s acts. I’ve always said that I have no reason to think that Chris would have been involved. I know that Rob is a strong supporter of Chris, because he thinks she would be the more “liberal” candidate, but I don’t think Chris knew what Rob was doing. Unfortunately, like what is happening in the Cannon-Jacobs race, outside forces are trying to intervene and influence the outcome. I just hope voters look beyond this issue, learn about the candidates, and pick the best person for the job.

Josh is a classy guy. My only beef is that he didn't know this was against the law, but at least his instincts were sound.

Jacob is beating Cannon

Or at least, Jacob is within striking distance, and Cannon is scared of losing his seat. How do I know? Because all of a sudden, Jacob has to tackle rumor about being a gambling adict.

Now in most places, that wouldn't be much of a scandal. But in Utah, and especially in Orem/Provo, it's a big issue. Here's why:

President Gordon B. Hinckley of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints forcefully repeated the church's long-standing opposition to all forms of gambling at General Conference in April 2005.
President Hinckley gave a similar speech in 1985, when he said, "President Brigham Young spoke out against gambling. President Lorenzo Snow spoke against it. President Joseph F. Smith spoke very strongly against it; and, in 1925, President Heber J. Grant and his counselors said, 'The Church has been and now is unalterably opposed to gambling in any form.' "

Jacob has gambled before, he's admitted it, but he claims he quit in 2005 and spoke out against during debates with Cannon. But on the Doug Wright show, a conservative radio talk show host that toyed with running against Jim Matheson [but who was blocked by Eagle Forum-types], let callers chime in with the rumor that had been swirling via email.

Jacob also admitted he vastly exaggerated the number of illegal aliens in the Gunnison prison. He said 40%, the Dept of Corrections told the Deseret News the number is 8.4%...even if the state's entire immigrant inmate population were at Gunnison, they would account for 30 percent of Gunnison's prisoners. And remember these are all immigrants (both legal and illegal), who knows how many of these prisoners are naturalized citizens, or have become citizens, or had visas etc.

Jacob is talking to blogs like Right Wing News and Michelle Malkin has attracted the attention of Xenophobe Lou Dobbs, who will be filming in Utah today. This is going to be a tight race.

UPDATE: Jacob is even crazier than I thought! Courtesy of the Salt Lake Tribune:

"There's another force that wants to keep us from going to Washington, D.C.," Jacob said. "It's the devil is what it is. I don't want you to print that, but it feels like that's what it is."
Jacob said Thursday that since he decided to run for Congress against Rep. Chris Cannon, Satan has bollixed his business deals, preventing him from putting as much money into the race as he had hoped.

Why NYC Dems always lose

Two words: Al Sharpton. Now he wants to have all 3 black candidates unite against David Yassky for NY's 11th Congressional District. Why, not because David was prominently featured in DLC literature. [Heck, I even wrote two articles about him, this one and a this piece.] Nope, it is because Yassky is white (and Jewish)

Sharpton claims this isn't about Yassky's race, but rather about how African-Americans in New York are underrepresented at all levels from NYC.

But what does that have to do with it? Sharpton himself points out that "The district, which includes Brownsville, Crown Heights, East Flatbush, Flatbush and Park Slope, is roughly 60% black." Yassky got lucky that there are 3 black candidates in the primary, thereby presumably splitting the black vote.

Sharpton has a history of ruining the party's chances by playing the race card, in his run for Senate and Mayor and in whom he supported for Mayor, Senate, Governor, and Congress.

If Al really wanted what's best for black representation in the NY delegation, he would have met privately with the three black candidates and talked off record with local news. Instead, he does an NY Daily News Op-Ed. Another Crown Heights riot indeed.

Brooklyn is gentrifying as a result of skyrocketing property values, and Yassky represents Brooklyn in the city council. It seems perfectly reasonable that Yassky could represent the area in Congress. Plus, it is not like he is going to vote against 60% of his voter's interests in Congress and expect to be re-elected.

You can't understand why NYC has something like 80% of the voters Democrats and still has a GOP mayor, GOP governor, a GOP state Senate, and until 1998 a GOP U.S. Senator until you look Al Sharpton's race-baiting strategies straight in the eye and denounce them.

Joe Klein: brown noser in chief

I used to think that Joe Klein was a New Dem. After all, he spoke quite approvingly of Bill Clinton's policies, even if he expressed dismay about President Clinton's moral behavior. Now after the latest in a series of fawning pieces about the manliness of George W. Bush, we know that Klein is just a suck-up to Presidents.

Klein's lust for being around the powerful is typical of the DC pundits/"reporters," but Klein seems to have a bad case of cocktail weenie fever. Digby [via FDL] sums it up this way:

Bush is stuck in the mid-30s, his brain narrowly escaped indictment and he had to mount the most top secret trip since Kissinger went to China (someone left the cakewalk in the rain) yet Klein is drooling and panting over the president's pants again, getting all hot and bothered when the frat-boy in chief calls the Iraq defense Minister an "interesting cat" and al-Zarqawi a 'dangerous dude.'

It doesn't matter what the idea is (Immigration Reform in 2006 or Welfare Reform in 1996), if it is held by the President of the United States, Joe sure thinks is a good idea and people on both sides of the aisle in Congress should agree.

Klein thinks he is a liberal, he has the media convinced he is too. Some liberal bloggers think he is a Joe Lieberman Democrat. I think he is just a kiss-a$$.

why bloggers suddenly are noticed

Remember when bloggers were referred to in the media as this intreguing side note? Oh those rabble rousing youngins, with their computers and internets, what will they think of next?

Well it turns out, you hold a convention, you get coverage. YearlyKos might have been the smartest move the blogosphere's made in a while. The MSM really could wrap their heads around what the blogosphere is and what its demographics are. No matter how much we complained or paid for surveys. Because the media was able to attend the event and speak to bloggers face to face and see the thousands of them who paid their way there, they could finally cover the blogs properly.

Reporters could see with their own eyes that bloggers were not all college students, in fact that the average age is in the 40s and 30s, not the 20s and teens. They could see that they bloggers don't wear pajamas and are actually real people, just like those Iowan caucus goers political reporters like to cover.

I think comparing the left and right bloggers to Iowan straw pollers/caucus goers is actually quite apt. Both are relatively small portion of the Democratic Party, and not necessarily representative of the entire party. They tend to be more educated, whiter, etc.

They are called activists. Now some are activist (online and off) of the kind that deserve the term used in its pejorative context: the single issue Nazis who demand ideological or racial loyalty, reality be damned.

The kind I prefer and read are mostly the best kind of activists: concerned, organized and vocal citizens. Folks like John Aravosis, who fights for gay rights as he sees them, urging boycotts, calls to Congress, exposing hypocrites etc. While he may be focused mostly on gay rights, he also delves into other privacy rights, like cell phone records, NSA wiretapping, credit history, etc.

The blogosphere will continue to be influential because we are using an incredibly effective medium of spreading our ideas, message, efforts, and money to the candidates and causes we believe in. Its power will only grow as more people go online and more people read blogs, especially decision makers and reporters.

Restoring American Values

That's my slogan, which I believe is better than "Let's get Real" and certainly better than "Together We Can Do Better."

Restoring American Values is something down home and apple pie, and might even sound conservative. And true, what Democrats would like to do is go back to the past...the 1990s.

By American Values I mean: respect for the Constitution and co-equal branches of government over certain political leaders, respect for hard work and sacrifice over wealth and priviledge, a Communitarian rather than a Hobbsian worldview, the Geneva Conventions, open government, accountable leaders, responsibile leadership, the American Dream, fairness and fair dealing, acting in good faith, reality over spin, patriotism as critique of the government's policies, a level playing field, freedom to believe in whatever you want without hurting others or yourself, freedom to say what you want within reason, reason over fear.

All of these have broad support, much broader support than: treating public policy as a business and expecting a return on "investments" in politican's campaigns/families, dividing Americans by religious expression, class, sexual orientation, utilizing fear to win, giving special deals to special interests, prefering communications experts over policy experts, Post-Modernist belief that their is no reality, denouncing critics as traitors and/or faithless, the infalibility of the president, torture, etc.

Join Democrats across the country demanding change, we need to restore America and American values before its too late.

Restoring American Values

That's my slogan, which I believe is better than "Let's get Real" and certainly better than "Together We Can Do Better."

Restoring American Values is something down home and apple pie, and might even sound conservative. And true, what Democrats would like to do is go back to the past...the 1990s.

By American Values I mean: respect for the Constitution and co-equal branches of government over certain political leaders, respect for hard work and sacrifice over wealth and privilege, a Communitarian rather than a Hobbsian worldview, the Geneva Conventions, open government, accountable leaders, responsible leadership, the American Dream, fairness and fair dealing, acting in good faith, reality over spin, patriotism as critique of the government's policies, a level playing field, freedom to believe in whatever you want without hurting others or yourself, freedom to say what you want within reason, reason over fear.

All of these have broad support, much broader support than: treating public policy as a business and expecting a return on "investments" in politician’s campaigns/families, dividing Americans by religious expression, class, sexual orientation, utilizing fear to win, giving special deals to special interests, preferring communications experts over policy experts, Post-Modernist belief that their is no reality, denouncing critics as traitors and/or faithless, the infallibility of the president, torture, etc.

Join Democrats across the country demanding change, we need to restore America and American values before its too late.

Get real Senators

Roll Call reports there are too many Senators looking in the mirror these days.

With an extraordinary 11 sitting Senators seriously eyeing a bid for the White House in 2008, both parties are already dealing with logistical and personality headaches as the lawmakers use the chamber as a testing ground for their competing agendas.
...
“It’s going to be an absolute circus,” acknowledged one GOP Senate aide. “There’s going to be a lot of thumping of the chests, a lot of third-person speaking.”

Lord, save us! Let's do a run down on the wannabes and the reality. For the Democrats: Sens. Evan Bayh (Ind.), Joseph Biden (Del.), Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.), Chris Dodd (Conn.), Russ Feingold (Wis.), John Kerry (Mass.), Barack Obama (Ill.), and ex-Sens. Tom Dashcle (S.D.), and John Edwards (N.C.). For the Republicans: Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (Tenn.), who is retiring after this Congress, as well as Sens. John McCain (Ariz.), Chuck Hagel (Neb.), Sam Brownback (Kan.) and George Allen (Va.). Oh and don't forget Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.).

Of the Democrats only Hillary, Edwards, Finegold, and Obama have a prayer. [Even then, I think Obama won't run, Finegold will fizzle out like Dean did, and Hillary will collapse under the weight of all her CW strategy] The marginals are Kerry and Bayh, but both of those two will flop by Super Tuesday. The rest, well they will do about as well as Sen. Orin Hatch did in 2000 or Sen. Lieberman in 2004.

Of Republicans: McCain and Allen are the only ones. Frist will be fun to watch implode. Brownback will say something too nutjob that pragmatic GOP folks will have to kill his candidacy lest he hand the White House to the Democrats (ditto for Tancredo). Hagel has no support from the base and is about the same as Joe Biden on the Democratic side: both think that being on Sunday talk shows nearly every week equals press love and/or actual support; it equals neither, rather it means you are a good counter-label guy and filler.

What is it about the senate that makes those electeds think they are somehow qualified to be president, or more importantly, able to get nominated and elected president? For 46 years, no guy whose most recent elected position was U.S. Senator was elected president. By 2008 it will be 48, I bet.

Senators can't talk like normal people after a certain number of years there. Senators don't actually accomplish much that voters can latch on to. They have long voting records which can be easily distorted.

This is why the best Democratic canididates are ex-Gen. Wes Clark, ex-Gov. Mark Warner, ex-VP Al Gore, and ex-Sen. John Edwards, in that order. Edwards is unique in that he spent only 6 years in the senate, and still talks like a normal person.

McCain is exceptional because most people know him from his presidential run in 2000 and the moderate reputation he built up by co-sponsoring popular Democratic legislation. McCain pretends to talk like a normal person, but an attentive listener can see through the facade.

Personally, I see Guillini taking it over McCain. I doubt Romney will do well, he seems gaff prone and a one term Massachusetts governor by choice is a lot different than a one term Virginia governor by law.

Please Sens. Dodd, Biden, Hagel, Frist, Kerry, Brownback, et al, save us all the hassle and pain and just don't run. For the love of your country and party, don't waste our time.

In George W. Bush's America

Under a Republican White House, a Republican Congress, and a Republican majority Judiciary:

• Violent Crime is up 4.8%


• Abortions are up.


• Wages for the working class are stagnant


• The cost of Health Care is far outpacing wage growth.


• CEO compensation has grown much faster than working class wages


• Federal Spending has outdone the Johnson Era


• Federal Republican policy to treat public policy as a business, creating rates of returns that you get in business

I could go on, but why bother. Democrats' only message thus far is "we can't mess it up any worse than the GOP." Well that doesn't get your base excited and it doesn't get your marginal swing voter to the polls either. Yet nothing less than the Republic is a stake here. Congressional Republicans have wholly abandoned their role under the constitution, except the spending part. Rather than write laws on various matters or make ruling, Congress has created hundreds of agencies which they have no desire to police. [Government is bigger under George W. Bush too] Rather than watch over these agencies, and the rest of the executive branch, Congress seems content to spend like a drunken soldier and not be bothered with violations of the 4th amendment or the like.

You can't trust Republicans with your saftey (home or abroad [did a mention that terrorist attacks are up too]); you can't trust them with your money; you can't trust them with your economy [stock market has tanked]; you can't trust them with your 'culture of life'...yet they keep on winning.

I am tired of being polarized and divided by Republicans. I am a proud Utahn, but in the Red State/Blue State culture they have created, I am destined to feel "Othered" in my home state. We have been sliced and diced in this county, designated as Soccer Mom, NASCAR Dads, Latte drinkers, Prius drivers, Security Moms, "Values Voters," etc. We are Americans, damn it.

The so-called Unity'08 ticket won't solve it. We need to denouce this kind of approach to governing by voting in droves to kick out anyone that uses our money too feed his donors, friend or home district just 'cus, anyone who plays on our basest fears and stereotypes to win elections or pass legislation, anyone who treats government jobs as paybacks to donors or party hacks, anyone who wants to lie to further a misguided foreign policy, anyone who calls people who disagree with them traiors or question their religion.

Pelosi's purge

I know bloggers don't like how spineless Nancy Pelosi has been in general (although they are warming to her stance on Jefferson), they sure as heck don't like Steny Hoyer.
My money is on Pelosi is behind Murtha's challenge of Hoyer for Majority Leader.

Murtha is one of Pelosi’s top allies in the House, one of the architects of her 2001 victory over Hoyer. Earlier this week, Hoyer publicly pledged his loyalty to Pelosi, saying that he wants her to lead the Democrats whether they win or lose this fall.

Maybe Murtha is going to shoot for Majority Leader now that he is a famous Democrat outside the beltway and respected inside it. I bet that Pelosi is starting to create her own leadership team.

A bit premature if you ask me.

scary mailer of the week

I am not near my scanner but luckily this object has a website. Meet "Josh," described in the flyer as "the baby boy you've always wanted to hug, hold and keep sweetly innocent forevermore."


Isn't this one of the spookiest things you have ever seen?

It doesn't look good

After last night's super primary results are in, I predicting the Democrats will come up short in November.

If you can't beat a lobbyist replacing a guy who took $2.4 Million in bribes from lobbyists, where can you win? Now I think we should take Bob Ney's seat off the board, and Pombo's and Lewis'. Redistricting and idiot voters seem to be too much to overcome. Busby said something stupid, the CA-Gov primaries were turnout depressing, etc. but a loss is a loss. That was our best opportunity with a good candidate and a seemingly good message.

Liberals in the Blogophere think that Tester's big win means that populism works everywhere and that D.C. consultants are dead wrong. Well I agree with them, D.C. consultants are dead wrong. I supported Morrison because of my personal contact with him and my sense that he was a good guy and since he was elected statewide, he would have a better shot. But that was before the adultery scandal, and it was that scandal that sunk Morrison. Tester organized well and had good outside the box ads, but it was Morrison's failings that propped up Tester. As for populism working, well maybe in a state like Montana, but not in any other state I can think of.

Montana is not so ruby red as Liberal bloggers are trying to tell you. It voted for Clinton in 1996 and I suspect a Clark or a Warner or an Edwards could win that state back too if they showed up with Sen. Tester (God willing) and Gov. Schweitzer.

The worst news for Tester:

Now that Tester has triumphed 60 percent to 36 percent, look to national Democrats to lean on him to shake up his campaign and bring in more seasoned professionals and significantly ramp up his fundraising.

Burns came off his win swinging, challenging Tester to lay bare his thoughts on such emotionally charged issues as gay marriage and flag burning.

That means that if Tester does have to hire those idiot DSCC consultants (for love of humanity, don't do it, please) they will make it talk around or ignore gay marriage and flag burning, which Burns thinks will save his Abramoff-owned soul.

Back to my predictions: in the House, 10-15 seat pickup for Democrats, with the lower end being more likely; in the Senate, 2-4 seat pickup for Democrats; in Governors races I see a win in Ohio, Arkansas, Alaska, New York, New Hampshire, Maryland, losses in California (Angelides looks like Buddy Holly with less charisma), Georgia, South Dakota, Florida, Connecticut, and probably Massachusetts (they always manage to screw it up), toss ups in Colorado, Oregon, Illinois, Alabama, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota.

The Devil's Wedding Day

Today's date is 6/6/06, which you all know means horror movies, devil worshipers, heavy metal bands, and right wing nutjobs will use the day to promote their product.

At the County building, it means that some 'interesting' folk are getting married today. Those who think being Goth (and tatoos and piercings black lipstick etc.) is really cool and that this is the prefect day to get married, since Halloween is so passe' after "the Crow" came out.

How ironic too that today GOP senators are pretending to debate about amending the U.S. constitution to ban gay marriage.

Look, people get married for lots of reasons, some good (love), many bad (money/land, fame, sex, pregnancy, alcohol/drugs, rebellion, social pressure, diplomacy). What's wrong with marriage is not same-sex couples wanting to profess their love and commitment to each other, but that you can get married in a drive-through...and then get divorced in a drive through a few feet away. Or get the marriage annulled online. Or get married while under the influence.

Some say the real trouble is how easy it is to divorce (I sorta said so myself above, but I was really referring to the drive-thru culture infected marriage). But if you are going to go back to the pre-Henry the VIII era, you best make marriage a lot more serious of an institution.

No child marriages, no drunk/high marriages, no just for sex marriages, no "you'll go to hell unless you get married" marriages.

Personally, I think that marriage as an institution and concept is strong enough and flexible enough to welcome in same-sex couples. It is not "activist Judges" that are "redefining marriage," society has redefined marriage over the ages.

Divorce is no longer taboo, while you might have to be married to get the White House, the fact that John Kerry had divorced was never an issue. Nor is it an issue for dozens of U.S> Senators, including those supporting the marriage amendment.

While Britney's quicky marriage and divorce was the butt of jokes, it is quite normal for many Americans. Why else would the state of Nevada be in the marriage business (and Tennessee for that matter)?

And although pre-marital sex is still considered a sin (unlike divorce), it is regularly displayed on popular shows and movies without much to do (just no nudity please).

If people want to worship the Devil and get married today, they should realize their part of the trivilization of marriage (and of the Book of Revelations).

$ and Congress, part 2006

Sunday’s Deseret News had a very frank discussion of outside money in politics. It seems for once a political reporter actually looked at context and reality. So hats off to Lee Davidson and Bob Bernick Jr. (you have to praise them when they do something right, not just criticize when they do bad stuff).

The real deal as they alluded to: the safer the member of Congress is, the more outside money they raise, because it is a safer bet for lobbyists, interest-groups, and individuals seeking influence. And because Utah not is that that wealthy of a state. I didn’t do well in Stats in college, but I bet there is a statistically significant inverse correlation between one’s Cook rating (safe Republican vs. leans Republican vs. Toss up) and the type and amount members of Congress can raise. Just look at this chart:

CREDIT: Deseret News

Here is another fundamental problem with the system: “Matheson says he spends four to six hours a week on the telephone seeking funds. Because members of Congress cannot use federal phones or office space for such activities, that forces him to work out of his campaign or party offices in Utah and Washington.” That means that instead of spending his time reading bills or talking to constituents, Matheson is spending 4-6 hours on the phone raising money at the DCCC and maybe another hour or so walking back and forth from his office to the DCCC.

Another is that staffers get paid crap, like less than minimum wage in most cases. In an expensive city like D.C., offers of largess from lobbyists can be very tempting. And appearantly, that's what's been happening over the past 6 years. The Medill School of Journalism and D.C. watchgroups noticed that $50 million was given to saffers improperly. And because these staffers are the defacto members in many cases (because a lot of these Members are complete idiots and are just names), the lack of enforcement is scary.

Another big problem is most lobbyists are lobbyists not because they are experts in a field, and could therefore help their company get favorable legislation and Congress make an informed decision. Rather, these lobbyists are lobbyists because their relative is a Member of Congress or big dude in the Administration, or they themselves were a member of Congress.

Take, for example, the case of Tom DeLay's brother Randy DeLay, who is - no surprise here - a lobbyist. According to a report by NPR's Marketplace this morning, he whisked two staffers to a resort while they were both working on a transportation approrpiations bill. They spent the weekend with his client, who wanted money to a build a toll road in West Virginia. DeLay picked up the tab. No repercussions.

Now both Daschles are lobbyists. And soon both DeLays will too. Same goes for Hatch's family, the Hutinson's etc. I could go on and on. If we outlawed neposism in lobbying, made the sit out period for former Members/Appointees 3 years, publicly financed elections or allowed unlimited donations (with a payed for by section at the end of each ad), we could get back to governing for the people, not the well connected.

Joe-vinile

I have been reading the material of both sides of the debate over the primary battle between Joe Lieberman and Ned Lemont. As someone that worked at the DLC, I should be outraged that leftie groups like Moveon.org and DFA are pushing for the "purge" of Joe. Yet I would like to see Joe go, and almost none of it has to do with reasons either side is pushing.

The whole debate is juvinile, or should I say Joe-vinile.

To sum my view in seven words: Joe is a politican with bad instincts. That is my main problem with him. Everything he supports turns to crap and Democrats would be well advised to treat him as another haplessly comic character, George Costanza: do the exact opposite of what Joe would do or suggest. Having him in the Senate as a national figure creates the temptation for Democrats to listen to him and shot themselves in the foot again in 2006 and 2008.

Let me give you some examples (besides the obvious Iraq war one): the Department of Homeland Security. It was Joe's idea that Senate Democrats, then in the 50-1-49 majority, support a Department of Homeland Security. The idea was that the next 9/11 would be averted if we put all security type agencies under one roof who reported to the president at a cabinet level. But the idea really was, let's go to the right of Bush on terrorism and security and show him Democrats can be trusted with national security. Initially it worked, for months, Bush said no department or cabinet level position was necessary, wishing to avoid Congressional supervision.

Then Bush figured out that DHS could be used AGAINST the Democrats, and went further to the right than Lieberman proposed: no unions for DHS employees, all would be at will. Of course, Democrats balked; that was what Bush was counting on. He then claimed that moderate Democrats couldn't be trusted with national security because they were putting Big Labor ahead of those sacred swing voters.

It worked, every moderate Democrat lost except Mary Landrieu (who ran opposite of Joe's free trade advice), and Democrats lost control of the Senate. When Joe suggested going to the right of Bush on Iran, again it seems like Iraq and DHS all over again.

Joe's political strategy might have worked in 1960, when John Kennedy ran to the right on security to an unprepared Nixon ("missle gap"), but it won't work on the modern GOP. They learned that lesson 46 years ago Joe.

Same goes for big bills like the Cap and Trade Carbon Emissions bill. It is a pretty decent idea, not perfect but certainly better than nothing. But the problem is, Joe keeps working with John McCain on such big bills in a way that McCain gets all the credit for "crossing the alise" while Lieberman gets none of it.

Joe has been unwittingly helped McCain burnish his raging moderate reputation to disguise his raging conservative views on just about everything else. Again Joe is enabling Republicans to beat Democrats by propping up John McCain for 2008. Joe is not a statesman who gets things done, or a well-respected senator. He is a tool; a usefull well-meaning fool Republicans use. Ted Kennedy, like him or not, is a statesman. He has more legislation under his belt that actually has done great things for American than any other politican alive in America today. He is like Henry Clay good at getting his finger in the pie and making sure he gets the most out of his name being on there.

Joe has been against regulations and financial reporting of companies until Enron broke, and then he ran to the microphone, causing harm to the American worker and 401k holder while weakening Democrats who disagreed with him by calling them anti-corporatists.

He told Democrats not to attack Bush when George W. started his downward spiral in the polls. He fudged on Social Security while other Democrats stood down the swaggering president. He fudged on conservative judges because he thought Democrats would look to shrill complaining about this radicals. He is part of the "please let's not talk about Iraq!" coalition of consultants and pundits in the Democratic Party who think that "Kitchen Table Issues" will carry the day if we just ignore the number 1 issue on American's minds.

I don't want to get rid of Lieberman because he talks within GOP talking points, or he was the first to applaud Bush, or that he kissed Bush on the cheek, or even the War. I hope that Connecticut primary voters ditch Joe because his very presence in the cloakrooms, strategy sessions, talk shows, articles, etc. are a cancer on the Democratic Party's hope for reclaiming governing power.

Russ Feingold is right that Democrats need to stand for something. We agree 80-90% on what that something is. So let's go out and stick to it. And come to some sort of agreement on how to talk about Iraq for real. And keep Joe out of the room, he's bad for business.

how gay marriage effected a straight, married man in Utah

As a staffer for a liberal Massachusetts State Representative in 2003 and 2004, I kept asking concerned callers how gay marriage in Massachusetts would effect their marriage or their religious beliefs if they lived in say, Texas.

And now, I have the answer in Utah. Yesterday, my wife and I wanted to go to church. After all, we had a young adult group from our church at our home the night before and all of the attendees would be there; one was even going to be an usher. But when we got there 5-10 minutes before services began, the parking lot was full (it is smaller now with the construction to the cathedral). Moreover, all the street parking was gone because there was a gay pride parade going on right along one of the streets abutting the church. A big part of the parade was not just costumes and floats and motorcycles but a message that the U.S. Constitutional Amendment against gay marriage put out there by the GOP was bad.

Yet my wife and I couldn't get to church, and all the other churches in the area had already started 30 minutes ago. So instead, we "worshiped" by going to the grocery store.

I get why people are upset with the word "marriage" being used for gay couples, and I understand why those gay couples want the right to use the word marriage. I am in favor of equal rights for all people regardless of whom they love, what their skin color is etc. Yet yesterday, in this rare freak occurrence, gay marriage did effect my life in a negative fashion. Although there were lots of fresh produce available, so I guess it wasn't all bad.

Ursprache

As many readers know, I am a horrible speller [and proofreader]. My wife is terrific at both. But I have to brag that, last night when I was watching the National Spelling Bee with her, I got the final word and the word that caused the Canadian girl to lose (Weltschmerz) spelled right the first time (and she didn't).

No, I didn't suddenly become a speller, I had an edge in that they are simple German words. Ursprache means "mother tongue" Ur means original, beginning, first, etc. and Sprache means language. Welt means world and Schmerz means pain or hurt. Now Weltanschuung (ones perspective, literally world outlook), that would have been a tough spell or Danauschifffahrer. That's right 3 F's: 2 for Schiff (ship) and one for Fahrer (driver). I can spell in German much better than I can in English because German has very consistent rules.

Whereas, English has absorbed words from all over the world and those word's spelling systems. Most people don't use many Hawaiian words that they used in last night's Bee but most of use routinely do use stupid French-spelled words, like bureau. Do you know how long it takes me to spell those words? I shouldn't have to learn French and Latin to know how to spell in English.

German has complex grammar; Chinese has complex writing; and English has complex spelling (for every rule their is an exception, and there is often an exception to the exception [like "I before E, except after C."]). Each language has its drawbacks, no language is fundamentally harder or better than the other. But we can all complain, and we can all marvel at 10-13 year olds who can spell words they have never heard of in their lives.

Window dressing diplomacy

Don't get confused by the sham negotiation proposal by Secretary of State Rice, the Bush administration has no intention of talking with Iran.

This move is a joke, and even Bush administration leakers know it. One "Senior Bush Administration Official" said that Cheney didn't like the idea, until they convinced him that they really didn't want direct talks either. "it came down to convincing Cheney and others that if we are going to confront Iran, we first have to check off the box"...Doesn't that sound exactly like Iraq? Didn't Cheney refuse to go to the UN but Powell and others said we have to check this box?

In both cases, the offers made to the Persian Gulf country that begins with an "I" were known non-starters. Taking lessons from the Godfather, Bush officials only making offers they know the other side will refuse.

If they were actually serious about resolving the conflict peacefully, they would have made this offer in private, see it tank, then keep talking until they got terms both could agree were face saving. Something like what Kennedy's team did during the Cuban missile crisis (move the missiles out of Turkey later in exchange for missiles out of Cuba).

Think about it this way, if the US was in Iran's position, would American politicians be willing to give up the potential for national and regional pride just to talk to a regime that really wants to bomb them anyway? Iranian officials might be ideologues, but they aren't stupid.

They aren't going to buy that puppy in the window because they know it really isn't for sale. It's just window dressing.

blogging can save the planet!

Hard to believe I know, but according to Think Fast PM you can elminate a whole ton (literally 20,000 lbs.) of CO2 simply by linking to this market anaylsis blog. So if you liked Al Gore's new movie, blogroll Deep Markets.

Blogger treehugger has more details.

"Our powers combined..."

It won't go away

On my 809th post, I would like to go back to one of my favorite whipping boys: Kanab's Natural Family Resolution.

According to the The Salt Lake Tribune the locals can't stop talking about it. And the local press invites the public to forgo their Constitutional rights.

Tyler Juber brings it up because he wants others to stop bringing it up.
"Natural-family this, natural-family that," the Kanab teen writes in last week's Southern Utah News. "Oh, this person said this and now I hate him. The mayor passed a horrible proclamation. Shut up!" [...]
Since the resolution's passage, her quiver of letters to the editor has overflowed with commentaries - from near and far, both for and against the resolution.

Kanab's idiot Mayor Kim Lawson is upset that "the media has chosen to bother a community of 4,000 or less." All this attention was the last thing I wanted when I made my city one of the only to adopt a Sutherlands Institute resolution. "The majority of Kanab residents, whether they are for or against this, just want the issue to go away," says the Mayor. The Mayor goes on to say that he doesn't think the resolution intends to single out certain individuals and that he is one of those 'hate the sin, love the sinner' types when it comes to gays etc.

Kortney Stirland, a Kanab pharmacist and diner owner who is LDS and opposes the resolution, argues that another reason why the resolution is unnecessary is that the Church already has a similar resolution out there "That states my belief on the family. . . . Most people don't support the resolution for the same reasons I don't - because of the contention and anger it has caused."

Even some LDS leaders have asked Mayor Lawson repeal the resolution, knowing bad PR when it sees it, but Lawson refuses. I hope that the voters will refuse to reelect him.

The Jeffersons

Rep. "Dollar" Bill Jefferson, who was caught with $90,000 in cash in the cookie jar, I mean freezer, won't go quietly into the night. Min. Leader Pelosi took the timid first step of asking Jefferson to step down off his Ways and Means committee seat. Having no other option, it seems, Jefferson played the race card:

"I will not give up a committee assignment that is so vital to New Orleans at this crucial time for any uncertain, long-term political strategy."
[snip]
He said a request to give up the Ways and Means post would be “discriminatory” because no other member under investigation has been required to give up a major committee assignment.

That's because all the other members under investigation are Republicans Jefferson, not because they are white or don't represent New Orleans. [West Virginia's Mollohan was asked to step down from his Ethics committee seat, but I guess no other biggies]

Democrats can play Sista Soldier here and tell him to resign and ask the Speaker to begin voting to unseat him from Congress. Be like Francine Busby and call on him to resign. I don't care what his race is, where he's from, his ideology, gender, sexual orientation you name it. The man was filmed on video tape taking $100k from a FBI informant. They have audio of him that is pretty unequivocal that he took the money as a bribe. Using the serial numbers, they know that the $90K they recovered in a Saturday night siezure of his office was from the original $100k. They have guilty pleas from several individuals implicating Jefferson. This is about as open and shut case as it can be.

And if Pelosi and the Democratic Caucus (minus the CBC probabbly) held a press conference calling on him to resign and asking the speaker to vote on removal, Jefferson ought to get the hint and resign. Plus, Democrats can regain the high ground by saying 'look, we kicked out our worst offender; why hasn't the GOP done so?' I met enough GOPers would vote him out to make the 2/3rds necessary to remove Jefferson. And then the watch on Ney and so many others in the GOP power structure would begin. It can only get uglier for the Republicans in the House.

It is smart politics and more importantly, it is the right thing to do. Soon enough Dollar Bill will be "movin' on up" to Federal prison anyway. The Democrats in the House can't let themselves be tarred with the Jefferson brush and become the Jeffersons themselves.

bin Laden proves me right

Over a month ago I said:

Can someone explain to me why they let Moussaoui pled guilty and the jury was allowed to decided whether or not to execute him? Sure the man wanted to kill Americans like his Al-Qaeda friends. Sure he tried to learn how to fly an airplane, but he was not involved in the planning, nor did he know about the 9/11 plot in any real detail. I suspect bin Laden or his lieuteniants decided Moussaoui was too unstable for the job.

A few minutes ago, a tape claiming to be of bin Laden's voice surfaced on the internet saying:

"Since Zacarias Moussaoui was still learning how to fly, he wasn't No. 20 in the group, as your government has claimed," bin Laden said. "It knows this very well," he added.

Bin Laden said Moussaoui was not a security risk for al-Qaida, because he did not have knowledge of the plot.

"Brother Moussaoui was arrested two weeks before the events, and if he had known something — even very little — about the Sept. 11 group, we would have informed the leader of the operation, Mohammad Atta, and the others ... to leave America before being discovered," Bin Laden said.

So maybe he didn't out right say Moussaoui was insane, but he certainly affirmed my belief that although Moussaoui had wet dreams about blowing up Americans, he had no part in 9/11 and really did nothing to further any attack against the United States and its peoples.

So again I ask, why is this man in jail for life? For having bad thoughts? For being mentally insane? TalkLeft asks:

Will Moussaoui's lawyers ask for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence showing he's innocent? Is it admissible, if authenticated? Would it have made any difference to the jury? Does anyone care any more about Moussaoui, or has he already become a footnote in 9/11 history now that he is languishing at Supermax?

the most endangered incumbent in Utah

...is not Jim Matheson, despite all the happy talk from the state party. It's Chris Cannon. Cannon is ahead 48-28 against John Jacob. Twenty points isn't bad when 77% of voters don't know who you are. A million bucks worth of ads will clear that up.

"We're going to go out on radio, direct mail and possibly some television," Jacob said.
How much might he spend in this face-off between millionaires?
"I don't believe I have that answer," Jacob said. "I'm now closer to $350,000. I'll probably put another $100,000 to $300,000 in. If it takes more, I'll put it in."

I went down to Happy Valley this weekend to get my wife's ring checked, eat at Durango Grill, and see the Di Vinci Code. On our way to the movie theater my wife spotten a Jacobs lawn sign. Jacob has a real shot. Cannon's favorability is only 45% (36% unfav) Jacobs is at 77% approval rating, meaning those who care about immigration know who he is and like him for that one issue. I am not the only who thinks so, check out Roll Call's top ten most vulnerable incumbents (all Republicans by the way). Of course, this doesn't mean the Democrats have a prayer to pick up this seat, but if Cannon has to blow hundreds of thousands on this race, win or lose, that is hundreds of thousands he couldn't donate to vulnerable incumbents in tight Democrat-republican races and hundreds of thousands that could have been raised/donated to other GOP candidates were the party's hold of the seat is under threat.

I won't make much about Cannon being the first on Roll Call's list, because it looks like it is alphabetical.