the definition of stupidity

"The definition of stupidity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." — Albert Einstein

A new article in the Salt Lake Tribune lays this message out somewhat subtly.

Last year, President Bush came to Salt Lake for a older military veteran club conference, hoping to kick off a campaign that would rebound his support (at least amoung his conservative base) on the Iraq War and in general. Of course, Bush went down hill from there amoung all Americans and now somewhere between 55-60% of Americans disapprove of the course we are staying on in Iraq...and have done so for several months now. This was due in no small part to what happened the day after Bush spoke to the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW): Katrina.

"That just dominated all other issues - local and national issues," Utah Republican Party Chairman Joe Cannon said. "There's no question that Katrina sucked the wind out of everything, including the president's views on Iraq.
"And that was the story for months."

It laid bare that Bush's cronyism, incompetance, and ideology over reality can directly hurt Americans back home too, and not just those who signed up to join the armed forces.

This year, the Bush White House is sending not just Bush, but Condi and Rummy to an American Legionniares conference in Salt Lake in an attempt to bail out his, and his party's, abismal approval ratings. Also this year, another storm looms in the Carribean threatening New Orleans, whose leeves are admittedly still not up to snuff.

At the time of Bush's last speech in Salt Lake City, about 38 percent of adults nationwide supported his handling of the war in Iraq, according to a CBS News/New York Times poll. This month, the same pollsters found just 30 percent of the country still felt confident in Bush's war leadership.

And yet, they try again to convince us with the same "cut and run" language that they are right and we--the majority--are wrong.

And although the majority of Utahns still support Bush because he is a religious conservative man who is in power, the rest of America is willing to give Democrats a shot at Congress. Were that 2006 were 2004, and Bush's days would truely be numbered. As it is, he will stubbornly hang around as investigations reveal the true disasterousness of his presidency.

My own view? Iraq may need to be divided into three states now, with UN/NATO peacekeepers squelching the violence as much as possible, a giant Yugoslavia of our own making. The US military cannot bomb our way into ending a civil war, we need Arab allies and other nations to go back into Iraq and try to create peace and stability, but none I fear will want to go. The Iraqis on some level don't trust us anymore, but we cannot leave them to their own devices...some sort of troops need to be there. Right now, Iraq and Afghanistan are failed states, breeding grounds for terrorists and extremists of all sorts. We can't let them stay that way.

In order to win this war that started on September 11, 2001, the people of the middle east need hope: hope that they can get a good paying job to support their family, hope that they can walk down the streets and go shopping without fearing death or pain, hope that life can get better, hope that their leaders are responsive to their needs, hope for peace and security. All these people have now is dispair.

This means creating a viable Palistinan state, complete with access to jobs, housing, and drinking water. This means ending corruption and cronyism in middle east countries. This means ending using hate and religion to keep the public distracted from a failure of governing. Of course this is a tall order, but Europe too was mired in nasty religious wars for centuries until the end of World War II. The creation of the EU, NATO, and the Warsaw Pact helped create peace, stability and economic growth. Now, a war in Europe is a laughable idea.

Oh and if you think things are terrible in the middle east now, wait until the oil really starts to run out.

Friday round-up

• Utah has so many divorces that they have an online divorce tool, which is pretty slick.


• Alabama Democrats tried to split the baby: the state party "disqualified an openly gay candidate for the Alabama Legislature and the woman she defeated in the primary runoff because both women violated a party rule that party officials said no other candidate has obeyed since 1988," but it failed. Why, because if the party disqualified Patricia Todd "for not filing a financial disclosure form with the party chairman it would also have to disqualify the party's nominee for governor, Lt. Gov. Lucy Baxley, and for lieutenant governor, former Gov. Jim Folsom Jr."


• Utah's own Senator Macacca: St. Sen. Chris Buttars R-South Jordan.
  

  Buttars was responding to questions from reporter Tom Grover on Logan radio station KVNU-AM.
  Buttars plans to introduce a bill that would allow the Senate to remove a state judge from office at the end of the jurist's term if he and fellow senators took issue with the judge's rulings.
  When Grover mentioned that "courts are the way for those in the minority ... to ensure (their) rights are protected," Buttars responded with the following:
  "I don't understand that at all. You give me an example. I don't know of any example where the minority is being jeopardized by legislative action."
  When Grover mentioned the 1955 Brown v. Board of Education ruling as an example, Buttars said: "Well, I think Brown v. Board of Education is wrong to begin with. That's a whole other subject. Call me again and take a half-hour to talk about that."

  
  It gets better: The book that he cited to support his argument, says nothing of the sort.
  

  [Author Jay P.] Greene said Thursday that his book isn't about desegregation but about what he calls "common claims in education not supported by evidence. Nothing in the book discusses the affects of segregation or desegregation."

  
  
• Bush says there's no point “discussing the pros and cons of the war.” Why, because as long as he's President, we are staying there [unless Democrats take control of Congress]. This man is just begging Democrats to run a great campaign about Iraq, and then the laundry list of domestic woes. Iraq is the number one issue on voters minds. We don't need to do one of those "If was in the Congress in 2002..." voting questions, but say "Congress[wo]man/Senator X is enabling Bush's disasterous Iraq policy by not holding the administration accountable/responsbile for their errors." While you are at it, you can say "Congressman/Senator X voted for it over and over again, and I wouldn't have."

Have a happy and safe weekend. I think Saturday will be hike day for the wife and I. Recommendations for easy hikes near SLC are welcomed.

lede with understatement

This has got to be one of the funniest introductary clauses I have read in a long time:

Perhaps concerned that he is 40 points down in the polls, state Rep. LaVar Christensen is the first major candidate to jump into the TV advertisement wars this election season.
...he actually only bought one $3,200 spot on the Thursday night late news on KSL-TV, a television ad executive said. She said other local TV stations report Christensen bought a single ad on their late news, as well.

Just to give you an idea how little chance Christensen has, the last poll had him down 64-23 (in mid-July)...now sure that will narrow with ads, but here's another big problem. Matheson has about a million cash on hand, whereas Christensen has $100,000 in bank. Keep in mind, Christensen cut himself a $150,000 check...Matheson might pay for a tank of gas on his way to campaign event now and again, but that's about it. [FEC reports and breakdowns here]

This means that unless NRCC can pump in hundreds of thousands in a few weeks assuming it gets close. And the NRCC is already having to play defense on dozens of districts such that they aren't even playing offense in UT-02, a high-60s/low-70s percent Bush district in 2004.

This there isn't much room for LaVar to attack Jim:

Out of the 15 votes that Bishop bragged about to his constituents, Matheson voted with Bishop and the GOP majority 13 times.
...
Since entering Congress in 2001, Matheson has voted about 50 percent of the time in step with GOP President Bush's positions on legislative issues, reviews by Congressional Quarterly have shown.
"I don't keep score" on whether votes are for or against Republicans or Democrats," said Matheson. "I try to take each issue and vote how to represent my constituents in Utah."
...
A July survey shows that 75 percent of Matheson's constituents approve of the job he is doing. That's a very good rating.

That's a good line, and true from my experience interning for him. And I am obviously not the only one who likes and trusts him, in fact, he is the most popular member of the Utah delegation.

So Jim's seat is safe, although I doubt he will win 64-23.

campaigning for a job

The cliche line is that running for office, especially running for president, is like one long job interview. If that is true, man campaign are going to be tough.

Today I blasted through 4 motions in 6 hours (all of which rock thank you), raced up to Milcreek Canyon to have lunch with the division I used to clerk for at the DA's office.

There, I glad-handed each and every attorney I could manage in the time without looking like I was glad-handing. Plus, the chicken and side dishes were amazing, but quite a long drive. Up and down to park the car, then off to law school to glad hand again.

All your classmates will be your collegues soon. All will be able of giving you work. All your professors are your recommendations and graders. This year is a never ending job interview for dozens of jobs, most of which I won't get. But I will never know which I will get until I do...so the campaign trail never ends. Wish me luck and vote Oldenburg for employed.

George W. and Laura Bush crash my wedding...over a year late

I got this in the mail on Monday. At first, I thought it was a joke. Who from the White House would send a letter hand addressed to both me and my wife. It is not like I have friend or even acquaintance working there.

The postmark showed it was indeed sent off from the White House on August 18, 2006, exactly a year and two months from my wedding date.

So what gives? They certainly weren't sent an perfunctory invitation. And the New York Times article on our wedding my wife managed to get published came out the day after we tied the knot. It was pretty cool to pick up the Times in the Newark Airport on the way to our Honeymoon and see our names in it.

Any theories as to why much belated wedding wishes were sent out to Mr. and Mrs. Oldenburg? Third Ave'ers know that I have not been a fan of Bush since 1994, and not been a fan of his father's since the 1980 GOP convention when he flip flopped on "voodoo economics." Nor do I like Laura, who is complicit in her husband's failed presidency.

It was by far the funniest bit of junk mail I have ever recieved. I say junk because by definition, it was wholly unsolicited. Could a closet GOP relative be behind this? The whole thing boggles my mind. I will let this one slide, but if I get a Christmas Card from the Bush family, all bets are off.

end the snobbery

Take a break from the endless, mindless coverage of that wierdo who the media has decided killed the Ramsey girl. Do we really care what he ate on board? If only he got hit by a bus, the madness would end.

Anyway, when you go to a movie or think about going to a movie, do you ever read the New York Times movie review? I doubt it. Why? Because who cares what a bunch of elitist jerks think? Last night I watched Alfred Hitchcock's "Torn Curtain" starring Paul Newman and Julie Andrews (odd casting I know). That 1966 thriller wasn't perfect, but I enjoyed it. It obviously was not as good as the Hitchcock classics, but definitely better than anything that claims to be a thriller in the theaters this summer. Also, no real sex or gore.

That is the thing I like about old movies, and not because I am a prude. Older movies are more like books in that the violence and sex are left to your imagination, which can be even more exciting/scary than if you were to see every last drop like modern movies show.

But back to the point. So after the film I searched around for the review, and got this from 1966. Bosley Crowther, "America's foremost film critic for over a quarter of a century," wrote the review for the Times. Not only was it dripping with contemptuous sarcasm, he is unnecessarily horrible.



Here's a section that proves it was written in 1966:

His troubles are further compounded by the mildly romantic fact that his secretary, who also happens to be his fiancée, has stubbornly tagged along with him on his flight into East Germany, not knowing what he is up to, and embarrassingly gets in his way. In the manner of women, however, she's a help when they have to flee.

One of the last vestiges of New Yorker's superiority complex for the whole world to see is the Times movie review. I am trying to think of the last movie they liked. The point is never to enjoy a film but to find as much fault as possible, and say it with as much clever cruelty as possible.

You can almost picture Bosley smirking with each return of typewriter, DING! The film industry left New York City in the 1920s because movies could be filmed year round in the sun of Southern California. But the gloomy NYC haughtiness never left Gotham.

This is why I had trouble with the Times and New York long before 9/11 and the Iraq war. They just behave and believe they know better than the rest of us bumpkins. Bosley is currently embodied in A.O. Scott, who has never said a positive thing about a major Hollywood film to my memory. There is a reason people listen to Roger Ebert more than any other reviewer, and it is not because the Chicago Sun-Times is such a great paper (it isn't), it is because he has thoughtful, constructive things to say about most films. Sure he can slam a terrible SNL-alum film like the best of them, but he isn't universally nasty.

My favorite reporter the Grey Lady employs is Jennifer 8. Lee. That's right 8, as in eight. She decided that there were too many Asian ladies named Jennifer Lee, so to distinguish herself, she gave herself a numerical middle name. I wonder what the 8 is short for. She also knows how to party like the fictional women on "Sex and the City."

See you can have your “high class” without having to hate everything on God’s green Earth and come with a too-clever-by-half insulting line. I would like to dump the whole lot of them out in the wilderness and see how Nature enjoys their insecurity-based taunts.

requiem for the summer

Normally, I hate the summer. First, it's hot, so I sweat and get sunburned. Second, I don't see my friends from school as much. Third, I am not in school so there is less learning and more monotony. But this summer went by pretty fast. I saw many friends, visited my sister, remodeled my kitchen, and had interesting work.

Of course, there were dull and down times, like when a insect bite got infected and traveled up my arm, or when I was begging for a project at work. Next year I am sure will fly by, with all the applications, classes, and goodbyes. If I stay in Utah, I will see most of my classmates occasionally. But if I get some job out of state, all bets are off. Right now I am applying to the FEC, DOJ, scores of firms in Utah and the Baltimore-Washington area, as well as judicial clerkships and hoping for an opening to a job here at the DA's. I am also applying for a fellowship that would take me to Germany for a year to work in legislative, judicial, or executive branch (or the media or industry or private law firms), how cool is that?

School starts on Tuesday and on one hand I am glad to get back into it, and on the other, I am afraid of all the changes to come and would like to continue my life as is for a little longer. After all, it is comfortable. But I am excited to see everyone again, learn new things, and start a new phase in my life: as a working stiff.

I have given some thought to getting more education, but I think it is a pretty selfish move because it would be purely for self-enrichment and not for the sake of providing for my family to be. I like teaching and learning but I don't want to actually be a high school teacher...maybe a college professor, but those are extremely competitive.

Only a few days remain before responsibility kicks back in, but it was fun while it lasted.

Corrupt and idiotic to the core

Joe Cannon, Credit: AP.

Chris Cannon, Credit: endtheoccupation.org

Joe and Chris Cannon, brothers and major shareholders in ultra-poluting Geneva Steel, did another stupid and unethical thing.

"Three times this year, a lobbyist sought help from Rep. Christopher Cannon [(R-UT)] for his clients and got it. The lobbyist was the congressman's brother, Joseph Cannon.

"The Utah lawmaker acknowledges helping his brother's clients, including pressing Congress last month to intervene in a business dispute over an Internet contract estimated to be worth as much as $1.3 billion. . .

"Cannon has a financial interest in his brother's success: The lobbyist owes him more than $250,000, according to the lawmaker's financial disclosure reports."

Rep. Cannon denies the aid he gave his brother's clients was improper. "The rules really come down to disclosure," he told AP. "It's easy to make the connections you made between me and my brother."

Yes indeed it is easy, which is why the head of the state party shouldn't be related to a member of congress. Nor should a relative be a lobbyists, let alone a lobbyist to said relative. It gives, at the very least, an appearance of impropriety.

"If my wife decided to lobby, then we would probably say, 'No talking to my office.' I just don't see my brother in the same category," Cannon, R-Utah, told The Associated Press.

Do you really think that Haddassah Lieberman or Mrs. Tom Daschle are such sucessful lobbyists because they are good at it, or is it because their husbands were powerful Senators? Even worse are Curt Weldon's kids, whose company pretty much exclusively lobbies him and makes millions, or John Doolittle wife, who gets a cut of every dollar raised. Or Bill Richardson's family, who were paid hansomly in lieu of Dollar Bill himself until Bill discovered his freezer.

The Cannon boys take the cake. Chris is one of the most idiotic, vote in droves Republican out there. And his brother is a terrible chairman. In the reddest state in the union, he has yet to find a mildly appealling alternative to Jim Matheson.

Meanwhile, Orin "hypocrite" Hatch is pulling off his best Lieberman/Cheney Impression:

Hatch was quoted in Tuesday's Tooele Transcript Bulletin as saying Middle East terrorists are "waiting for the Democrats here to take control, let things cool off and then strike again."

BOO! Now vote for me. That is the GOP 2006 platform appearantly. Have you ever heard a dumber argument? Terrorism is thriving under the Bush Administration because of their terrible policies. I mean, bin Laden filmed a campaign video for Bush in the fall of 2004. They love Bush and his GOP accolytes because those morons drive recruitment.

Can't people in this state see through the utter lunacy and corruption that is the leadership of the Republican party, both nationally and in Utah?

What a difference Carroon makes

If Jim Matheson were ever to lose an election, I thought back in 2002 and 2004, Utah Democrats would be screwed. He was our last best hope. But now, I think we got another waiting in the wings, thanks in part to Howard Dean.



Dean's cousin, Peter Carroon, worked his butt off and got lucky in his 2004 race for Salt Lake County Mayor. But now, Carroon is one of the most popular politicans in the most populous county in Utah. He keeps making smart moves that make him appealing to those beyond his Avenues/9th and 9th base.

Even though a soccer stadium is going forward, Carroon showed that he isn't a push over, and doesn't like to waste taxpayer dollars. He got a big boost in popularity while taking on the Speaker of the House, Sandy's mayor, and other GOP big wigs. Instead of showing up to the cerimonial first shovel, Carrroon kept it real by being at his son's soccer game/practice.

Now he gets to use Rocky as a foil on the left. Salt Lake City's outgoing (thank goodness) mayor grandstanded...I mean protested against the war in Iraq by protesting the American Legion conference. American Legionniares are all old vets, I doubt any more than a handful of those there were in the Iraq war. And it probabbly offended a great many of them. So this year, Carroon will be the official greeter instead.

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

Buttars than Erza

Utah's most demagogic State Senator is at it again:

Chris Buttars - the state senator who last session championed instruction on divine intervention and banning gay clubs at schools - now proposes giving him and his Senate colleagues the power to fire judges whose rulings they don't like.

Right now, our system is appointment by the Governor, confirmation by the Senate, and periodical retention votes by the public. Personally, I think our system is the best of all possibilities. Judges are mostly insulated from the public and will do what they believe is right under the law, but if they act very egregiously, the people can organize a campaign to oust them. Only a few have not been retained, and that was for truly biased decisions. I am sure if one of them got caught doing drugs or went insane, the voters would can those judges too.

Buttars, who I am sure never went to law school or read the Federalist Papers, said "That is the only way to make the public aware of some of these terrible decisions. ... I don't know where some of these decisions are coming from. Some judges just go in there and wing it." You don't know Senator because you don't understand that they go by statutes and the common law, not the Bible and/or Book of Mormon.

Richard Schwermer, assistant state court administrator, said Buttars' idea has constitutional problems.
"The (Utah State) Constitution says the governor has his role to play, in nominating. The Senate has its role to play, in confirming," he said. But nowhere in the constitution does it say that the Senate gets another shot at a judge in the retention process.

Oh and both Governor Huntsman and Chief Justice Durham agree with me. Yet scarily enough, Buttars has chair the Judiciary Committee for 4 years.

"This is a really bad idea," said Scott Daniels, a former president of the Utah State Bar, former Democratic legislator and former 3rd District judge. "This goes in the wrong direction. We want to keep judges away from political pressure, not closer to it."
Besides any constitutional concerns, "from a practical matter you would not get very qualified people to even apply to be a judge."

Who wants to be a judge at the whim of a couple idiots on Salt Lake’s Capitol Hill? I sure wouldn't and neither would most attorneys. Federal judges can't be removed so easily. "The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behavior, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office." U.S. Const. Art. III, Sec. 1. Good behavior basically means criminal activity or insanity, I can only think of one federal judge that has been impeached, John Pickering in 1804, and that was because he had gone insane. Buttars is just trying to do his best Dobson impersonation. Leave the demagoguery to professionals Chris.

CW, meet reality

Before I begin, let me just say that I really respect Dan Jones. His polling in Utah is top notch and the only one I really trust. In fact, I almost considered going to this event at the UCC where he talked about why Utah is so red.

And maybe the reporter from the Deseret News was an idiot and just focused on the CW stuff, that's very possible. But I must dispell several MSM lines of CW here.

1. "Democrats have no clear policy on immigration."

Yes they do. They have passed several bills in the senate immigration. And McCain has signed on to this sensible solution. It is the GOP that is divided. A good chunk of them support the Sensenbrenner lock-em-up type legislation, others support the Senate Democrats position. I will say this over and over again in this piece, but Democrats don't control anything in DC. This makes it very hard to pass bills and without the high level of staff it is hard to further articulate your positions, yet Democrats have a bill that would get support from the majority of Americans but the House won't take it up. Even President Bush would sign this bill.


2. failure to articulate an exit strategy in Iraq


This is similar to the above point, but slightly closer to the mark. There are still a few Democrats that debate about when we should pull troops out of Iraq, and some of the Joe Lieberman camp that are still refusing to admit their mistake in cheerleading the war, but Lieberman and his followers' days in electoral politics are numbered (negatively). Democrats have united on Iraq for the most part. We all agree that it is going terribly right now, and we need to change the situation by strategically redeploying troops elsewhere. Both those who supported the war, like Joe Biden, and those who opposed the war, like Nancy Pelosi, signed on to this letter.

Unlike the immigration issue, Democrats have yet to issue a hard, definative policy on Iraq. It is however, a question of when, not whether we should get out of there. Some say the end of the year, some say another Friedman (AKA six months) after that. Iraq is an even more difficult policy issue than immigration. However, it was entirely preventable had we not elected to wage this unnecessary war. The situation has gotten increasingly worse as the President and his supporters have gotten increasingly obstinant in their support of this ill-fated adventure. And again, as the minority out of power party, we don't have to and shouldn't be expected to issue a white paper on what to do. Even if we did and took over Congress on that white paper (which only in punditland happens), we couldn't impliment it until 2008, because Bush is the Commander in Chief. We have a general policy that Americans can understand (and 55% of them support), and that is plenty.


3. Failure to pass the minimum wage bill


I don't know if Jones actually read the bill, but the GOP attached a poison bill amendment to further cut taxes for America's Paris Hiltons. Sure, GOP leaders can claim they voted for the wage hike and that their opponents voted against it, but Democrats have a great new line on the Estate Tax: Paris Hilton tax. And I think your average voter knows who supports increasing the wage and who doesn't. In fact, in several states across the country, there are ballot initiatives supported by Democrats and their union allies because the federal government won't raise the minimum wage.


4. "Utah wasn't always so red"


This is the one of the stupidest comments in the whole piece, and I assume Mr. Jones was misunderstood by the reporter. Red state does not mean Republican, it means conservative. The article claimed that Utah used to support Democrats for a long time. But let's remember that prior to the 1930s, the Democrats were a pretty conservative party, and it was still pretty conservative until the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Moreover, the Republican Party was founded on its zeal to eliminate "the twin barbarisms of our time" namely slavery and polygamy.

The GOP was filled with such hatred towards Mormons that is not surprising that Utah was a one party Democratic state for a long time. But remember, the last Democrat to carry Utah was in 1964 with LBJ's huge sweep.

I would say that the parties have changed overtime, and Utah really hasn't. It has always been a pretty conservative place, opposed to gay marriage, abortion, etc. And as the Democratic party grew to support such things on a national level, so too did the party's prospects wither in the Beehive state.


5. The inability of the state's Democrats and independents "to relate with a Democrat at the national level."


I don't think we Utah Democrats need to relate to the national party. Kansas, Arizona, Wyoming, New Mexico, Oklahoma, North Carolina, and Virginia (along with probably Colorado, Ohio, Alaska, and Kentucky in the up coming elections) all are states with a majority of Republicans in their delegations, which went for Bush in varying degrees in 2004 and most in 2000, yet have strong Democratic parties and popular Democratic governors.

These folks often distinguish themselves from the national party on abortion, or gay rights, or guns, etc. but they do just fine on a state level.

So why does the modern Democratic Party fair so poorly in Utah?


Many members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints "feel that Democrat policies are counter to church positions."


And not just that it is counter, but that Democrats are somehow immoral and untrustworthy because of these positions.

The cultural link between the GOP and the LDS church is so strong that many members who are Democrats feel ashamed to admit it or talk about their feelings personally. Culturally, they are pressured to follow along with the "dogma" that Republicans are virtuous and righteous while Democrats are downright evil. "You don't have to be LDS to win in Utah," said Jones. "You've got two chances: slim and none. But you've got a chance."

This is despite the fact that the official position of the church is that both parties have elements that fit the teachings of the LDS faith. Democrats have their social justice issues (poverty, health care, etc.) and Republicans have their culture war issues (gays, abortion, sex).

As I have said before, many a good Mormon was also a good member of the Democratic Party. Democrats also don't require its members to agree with everything in the platform. LDS Sen. Minority Leader Harry Reid is pro-Life. Tenn. Rep. Lincoln Davis is anti-gay rights. Senate Candidate Bob Casey is so pro-Life that his dad is the Casey in last landmark abortion case Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

Before I ramble off too much on this well-trodden ground, let me address another lame CW myth: "I promise you, he'll gain 5 percentage points, five," Jones said of Bush's popularity after the foiled London plot.

Let's look at the polls, shall we?

The arrests in Britain have not helped President Bush's popularity so far, the CBS poll finds. His job approval remains exactly at 36 percent, where it was a month ago. Even the president's rating for handling terrorism – his strongest suit – remains unchanged at 51 percent.

So much for that five point bump? The only other poll I have seen that was conducted on the issue had Bush at 38 percent, up a whole 3 points from the last Newsweek poll.

Oh and Dan? Three points in a month is within the margin of error. Shall I explain that concept to you as well?

Articles that leave out the real story

In the Salt Lake Tribune today, we get this enigmatic headline: "Leavitt makes surprise SUU visit"

Gee, why would Former Governor Leavitt unexpectedly show up at Southern Utah University?



Could it be he needed to take care of his laundry?

Leavitt pretended to be there about "he need for Americans to get fit and stay fit." Yet when questions returned to his sham charity, he refused to talk to reporters. "I'm not doing interviews," he said. "I'm on vacation."

Meanwhile, the Washington Post that other local paper, decides to mention a trival bit of news for their article on Leavitt:

The Internal Revenue Service plans to audit a foundation that channeled tax-deductible donations from the Leavitt family through Southern Utah University back to the Leavitts in the form of student rent for family-owned student housing,

Why leave this key item in the story? Apparantly this news was broken by the Trib itself. So why not connect the dots or raise the issue? Mark my words, Leavitt may have to resign for "personal reasons" in a few months. I am no tax expert, but this looks pretty nefarious. Finally something is sticking to Governor Teflon, even if he is now Secretary of HHS.

Is there a non-corrupt/crony Republican in power in Washington these days? Please name one for me, because I can't think of one off the top of my head.

quote of the day

Just back from filing her candidacy credit: Reuters

Porn Star Mary Carey, who ran in 2003's recall election as a Republican, is once again going to run as a Republican against Arnold for Califiornia's Governorship.

Her campaign slogan: "Finally, a politician you want to be screwed by"

Other gems:

"I think I'm more serious now," Carey said as she arrived at a Los Angeles County elections office to launch her 2006 gubernatorial campaign. "As you can see I'm dressed more seriously. I've got brown in my hair because brunettes are taken more seriously."

She also decided to lose weight and get new implants. Her core constituency, horn-dog young men.

She promised to give up on alcohol (at least until November) and her movie career like Arnold "Although my movies only take a day or two to shoot, so I could probably do them on weekends," she said.

McKinney's conspiracy theory redux

ex-Rep. Cynthia McKinney lost (again) a primary to a mainstream Democrat. And just like in 2002, she is blaming Republicans and Diebold for her loss, not her record of insanity.

“We aren’t going to tolerate any more stolen elections,” Ms. McKinney said in her concession speech, though crossover voting is legal in Georgia.
[...]
Under Georgia’s system, voters may choose either a Republican or a Democratic ballot in the primary election. If there is a runoff, primary voters must stick with the party they originally selected, but voters who did not vote in the primary are free to vote for either party.

Even if GOPers voted 100% for her opponent, that still wouldn't have been enough to unseat her by the 13 points she lost by. This too, is like 2002. I guess we should be thankful that her and her father aren't blaming the Jews for this one as well...although they tried to insinuate that all of ex. County Commissioner/Congressman-elect Hank Johnson's money was coming from Jews.

I am glad that Tuesday night was a massacre night for incumbents. Joe, Cynthia and endangered species sane GOPer Tim Schwartz (who was targeted by Club for Growth much more than MoveOn.org/DFA/DailyKos/MyDD targeted Lieberman) all went down hard. All deserved it for being out of touch with their constituents. Joe and Tim's constituents wanted a partisan, not a faux-compromiser. Cynthia's wanted a non-embarressing member of congress.

In other news, I don't buy this latest "thwarted Al Qaeda attack." Maybe all the manipulation and abuse of intelligence, the scaremongering, and lies of the Bush Administration has jaded me so that when their really is a wolf, I don't believe it. But why does Al Qaeda only threaten the U.S. at the end of the summer/early fall of even numbered years, just when the GOP looks like they might lose an election?

How many times last year was there a terror alert...that's right zero. And don't tell me the British were behind it, weren't they the stodges behind the "yellow cake?" Tony Blair is really the UK's version of Joe Lieberman. He used to be a respectable Third Way New Labour/New Democrat, but now he thinks being strong on security is supporting Bush's foreign policy without question or hesitation. The British public might soon can Blair like CT voters nixed Lieberman.

And I suspect that Lieberman will be crushed in November. He will lose a significant chunck of his primary supporters and overtime the rest of CT voters will grow weary of selfish Joe. This all started in 2000 when he refused to just run for VP, such that had Gore actually been inaugurated, now-convicted felon then GOP Governor would have picked CT's senator to replace Joe. It all went down hill from there. People say Joe was just following Gore's terrible adivsors strategy about being soft on Cheney. But once Joe realized (and he should have) that Cheney was trying to be CEO grampa and not the truely evil man he is, he should have ditched the script and gone for the juggular. And Lieberman shouldn't have nixed Gore's decision making on the military ballots during the recount. And on and on I could go. But we all know how it ended: with Karl Rove calling Joe Lieberman after losing his primary, and Joe accepting the call. Joe's people claim Karl never offered consultants/staff/money etc. But Karl's people say otherwise...and this point, I trust Karl on his political strategem. It is not in his interests to make Joe look bad.

A tale of two speeches

Thanks to CSPAN (the internets were overloaded with Joementum's hackers), I was able to keep abreast of the numbers of the Connecticut Senate Primary as they trickled in. A close, tough loss for Lieberman, and a hell of a game plan by the Lamont people.

Lieberman would have won had he not decided to run Indy should he lose, and had he quesnot scaled back on his GOTV. Also, he totally blew off Bridgeport, where DLC ally Gub. candidate Dan Malloy was mayor, and that too could have been the 4 points he needed. It was a high turnout primary and the message was pretty clear: Democrats are tired of Joe.

But I also got to watch Joe and Ned's speeches via C-SPAN. Joe's was very good under the circumstances of losing and demanding a Mulligan. It was obviously drafted way in advance, so Joe was expecting to lose. The theme will be: Washington is too partisan, and even though I have been a senator for 18 years while it got partisan and was unable to stop it, send me back so I can fix it as an "Independant Democrat." It was a load of hogwash, but it was as good a theme as he could come up with.

Ned's speech, by contrast was terrible. First he started out with talking point lines from some of the many rallies he must have been going to the last couple of days. Then he settled down, stopped shouting into the microphone and thanked a couple people. Then he remembered the one scripted bit, a nice classy talk about Joe. He thanked Lieberman for his service and hoped that Joe would come to his senses in a few days and give up on his grudge match. This should have come first. I also liked his tale about CA Rep. Maxine Waters. Revs. Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton (and Randy Jackson from American Idol's stunt double) stood in the back akwardly, giving those fist high-fives to people like Tom Swain. Al Sharpton is such a tag-a-long. Oh well. Today is the big CT-Dem unity rally, I am looking forward to the awkwardness when they mention or are asked about Joe.

Also, Joe's line that it is "half-time and Lamont is up" reminded me of Joe's "three way tie for Third Place" in 2004. It was just as laughably pathetic. I wonder if people will ask for their money back. That is also what the Netroots should do, call Democrats who gave big to Joe to a) not give him any more and b) ask for a refund.

The last time a sitting senator lost in a primary was 2002, when Bob Smith was ousted by the establishment for being too crazy, running briefly as an indy for president, and having no chance against then NH Gov. Jeanne Shaheen. This one was totally opposite. I didn't give any money to Ned, and I don't plan on doing so now either. The man has hundreds of millions of dollars. But I congratulate my friends in the blogosphere who worked long and hard for this, enjoy it.

Then go examine and challenge those signatures, strip him of his committees, revoke his endorsements, dry up his money, and make him the laughing stock of DC that he deserves to be.

those other primaries

Despite the media coverage, there are other primaries to watch today besides Joe v. Ned...but it sure has been the most fun. I was hoping McKinney would do something stupid to spark more interest, but this time they learned to shut up. But she will probabbly still lose to Hank Johnson, whom I have endorsed. UPDATE: I spoke too soon; McKinney is blaming the police, Diebold

Also the CO-07 congressional race seems to have died down, with DLCer Ed Perlmutter pulling away from the ex-governor's daughter Peggy Lamm.

Michigan has a house race that is the opposite of CT, a hard right winger supported by the Club for Growth challenging a moderate incumbent GOPer. This is a 54% Bush district...but maybe if the nutjob wins, the Democrat can cut into that.

The most interesting number out of the Washington Post poll for me was the extremely low approval number people gave their own congress(wom)man--55%. Usually, people hate congress, but love their congresscritter and then are some how surprised that congress doesn't change. This time, there is a pretty strong anti-incumbent mood in the country, the 55% is the lowest since (you guessed it) 1994. So maybe lots of congress critters will be working on K street this fall. The fact that a plurality, 49 to 34, think Democrats will do a better job on the war on terrorism (and a solid majority think Democrats will do a better job on Iraq) is also key. Seems like people are ready for a change.

To me this is 1992 all over again. The Dems had their chance to change (after all, lots of incumbents lost in 1992) but they didn't change enough, plus they were pissed at Clinton, and that is why 1994 happened. So if the GOP survives 2006 with majorities and doesn't change their ways dramatically, 2008 will be a big year for Democrats. Likewise, if Democrats get control of congress and go back to their late 80s early 90s ways, 2008 will be a year of reckoning for them as well.

Gregerson is an idiot

In a jailhouse interview with the media, he claimed that "It wasn't a full-fledged confession," to the FBI. "I told them the basics, and they filled in the gaps and exaggerated the details. I don't think what I said will hurt my case."

Um yeah it will because what you said helped them get a warrant and then they found A DEAD GIRL IN TUPPERWARE IN YOUR BASEMENT. The also did an autopsy and found that you had had sex with her AFTER SHE WAS DEAD. So unless you can through out the confession, and/or contest the warrant, and/or cast doubt on the autopsy, you might be executed because of your confession, so I think that might have hurt your case.

Gregerson decided also to nip the insanity defense in the bud, saying "I was sane when this happened." Also he is appearantly really bad at PR, and is prejudicing himself against the jury:

Gregerson was calm during the interview, according to KSL-TV, and at several points had a "perpetual grin" on his face. He denied reports that he helped look for Destiny during the massive community searches or attending candlelight vigils for the girl.
"When I saw that on the news I laughed because it wasn't true," the television station quoted him as saying.

He also decided it was a good idea to introduce the porno defense:

When asked why he did it, Gregerson reportedly said: "I really want to answer that, but my lawyer is preventing me from doing that right now in light of the case. I can tell you this: I have now become a strong advocate against pornography."
When pressed, Gregerson told KSL-TV that he was "addicted to pornography at one point . . . it was ruining my life and affecting my relationship with my wife."

Brilliant stuff. I hope this moron's lawyer is smart enough to be able to talk Gregerson into shutting up and taking a guilty plea. That's his best shot.

Hillary, stay in the senate

Today the Boston Herald reported a series of Dick Bennett (who rungs those ARG polls in NH) focus groups of 410 Democratic primary voters in NH had really negative feelings about the junior senator from New York.

“Lying b**** . . . shrew . . . Machiavellian . . . evil, power-mad witch . . . the ultimate self-serving politician.”
[...]
Hillary’s growing brain trust in the party’s upper reaches already knows she has high “negatives” among ordinary Democrats. They think she can win those voters over with the right strategy and message.
But they should get out of D.C., New York and L.A. more often, and visit grassroots members.
Because we’re not talking about “soft” negatives like, say, “out of touch” or “arrogant.”
We’re talking: “Criminal . . . megalomaniac . . . fraud . . . dangerous . . . devil incarnate . . . satanic . . . power freak.”
Satanic.
And: “Political wh***.”

"Dick Bennett has been polling New Hampshire voters for 30 years. And he’s never seen anything like it." I have said this for a long time, that Hillary's lead in these super early polls is name recognition only and that her support amoung primary voters in at least the early states is pretty soft. Still, "55 percent of ARG’s sample was either neutral or positive about Sen. Clinton. Thirty-two percent currently say they plan to vote for her in the primary." In a multi-person race, that is still a pretty big lead. I think that is Kerry or Dean numbers in 2004 New Hampshire. And really, Democrats can't ignore the Granite State. It was the lone 2000 Bush state to swing to Kerry. Bottom line: "It’s hard to see any Democrat winning the White House without carrying the state in the presidential election. And it’s hard, right now, to see Hillary carrying the state."

The grassroots is really not behind Hillary, and she already has enough battles to face against the GOP machine. Also, I would really like it if we didn't have a Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton line of succession. We are a Democracy, and no matter how great the Clinton brand is, I would like to a Clark or a Warner give it a shot.

living a lie?

The Salt Lake Tribune has an interesting article today about being openly gay, married and LDS. The first man profiled, Ben told a Jessie before proposal that he was gay: "They talked a lot about it. They prayed about it. They both felt it was what God wanted them to do.
Now Ben and Jessie have two children..."

There are also support groups for folks like Ben and Jessie, unofficial of course. These LDS folks who are gay "talk about trying to change, their temptations, addictions to pornography, guilt and denial as well as faith, their marriages and their notions of eternity." I think there is a big difference between discovering you are gay during a marriage and knowing well in advance then deciding to get married to someone of the opposite sex and have kids anyway.

A gay man marrying a heterosexual woman "is just wrong," says Craig Steiner, an activist who was married for 12 and 1/2 years and has two sons.
"You are not being true to who you are and it traps women in an unhealthy relationship," says Steiner
[...]
Idaho State University professor Ron Schow has studied LDS homosexuals. Of 136 he surveyed in 1994, 71 percent were returned missionaries and 36 had tried marriage. Only two of the 36 were still married.

That is a pretty small sample size, but still, I bet it is hard to find that many, especially those who are willing to participate in that study.

The article lists three blogs of such openly-gay LDS men Ben's blog is: fobcave.blogspot.com,Landon's blog is: ardentmormon.blogspot.com; "Jason"'s blog is: gaymormonandmarried.blogspot.com. I have yet to read any of them, but if I think I will add them to my Utah section if they are from the Beehive state.

So far, Ben's attempts to be 'cured' have failed: "therapy before and after his two-year mission for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. That helped him resolve issues with his father and other men, but it didn't diminish the strong attractions he felt for other men. He doubted those would ever go away." Yet, he believes God wanted him to marry.

Remember "The LDS Church says it's not a sin to have same-sex attraction, only to act on it." Langdon "doesn't believe he chose to be gay, so he doesn't feel guilty about having same-sex attractions. He agrees with the LDS Church's distinction between desire and actions and is trying everything he can to resist those desires, or even overcome them." "Jason" says, "Contrary to common misconception, I was never attracted to my [male] companions, and there was very little risk of problems arising from my attractions. It was a wholesome, formative experience, and was a paramount time period in my development and manhood."

As Jason anticipated making love to his wife for the first time, the thought was repulsive. He had a gnawing anxiety that he wouldn't be able to do it. But he was.
"I am surprised at how fulfilling my sex life is with my wife," he says. "It definitely exceeded my expectations."

I am just going to leave that one alone, but an interesting quote nonetheless. "Jason" married the girl he confided his homosexuality to all those years before.

So are these guys in denial, are their wives? Religious belief and faith is a big thing, and so is societal pressure. Yet all of these men (and it says something I think that this seems to only happen to gay men and not lesbians) know on some level that they will never stop having homosexual desires and/or attractions. They are trying to rectify their faith their beliefs and their heritage with who they really are. It is sad that the LDS church and the culture of its members makes them feel compelled to do so.

On another level, I think this is deeply irresponsible. If you want to try out straight marriage and still be openly gay, that is your choice with the prospective spouse. But once you create children, you are putting them in a situation not of their choosing. Given that study quoted above, these family's are extremely likely to head to divorce, probably more so than any other demographic. Divorces can be very hard on children. That isn't to say that parents shouldn't get divorced, but that they shouldn't take the whole marriage thing so lightly before they decide to get married and definitely before they decide to have kids.

There are no easy answers for folks like Ben, Langdon, and "Jason." Either they leave The Church, or remain single, or marry someone who they may love but aren't sexually attracted to. All are fraught with difficult, negative outcomes.

Reading stories like these makes me feel lucky that I have found the love of my life (whom I am attracted to) and that society condones our marriage. I wish everyone the same blessings I enjoy.

Quote of the Day

Courtesy of Media Matters

RIVERA: You know, Comedy Central is now a big hit, Stewart and the Colbert guy.

O'REILLY: Yeah, they do OK. They do OK.

RIVERA: They make a living putting on video of old ladies slipping on ice and people laughing. That's their life. That's their life. They exist in a small little place where they count for nothing. The history will be made by those who have affirmative thoughts, who make, you know, innovative suggestions in life and are inclusive.

Yet another reason I can't wait to watch the Colbert Report and The Daily Show with Jon Stewart tonight. That's right I like the Colbert Report now. Oh and I will be adding Jack Carter on to my totally dead ActBlue page. Those latest polls, reading about the candidate and their strategy make me think that if this really is a tidal wave election, the son of the former president could be a Senator in January.

Reed's master stroke

The man from Searchlight, Nevada seems to have made another cunning move. Steve Clemens of The Washington Note has sources that say that Senator Harry Reed offered Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton the Maj./Min. Leader's desk in 2008, claiming to be ready to give it up. I bet having to deal with all those egos especially going into 2008 when something like 5-10 Democratic Senators think they will be president (none of them will be) will be aweful.

But this offer makes sense for both Reed and Clinton (and Democrats generally), that's why it is a master stroke. For Clinton, she gets to turn down running for president, something she personally isn't that interested in. Clemons explains: "Reports are that Senator Clinton herself knows this [that she has a high unpopularity rating which will make it difficult to win, especially against popular McCain] and that her own enthusiasm for running actually trails that of her husband, her advisors, and her staff -- whose enthusiasm for the race is ranked in that order with Hillary the least enthusiastic." That is the most believable part of the story-- that Bill is dying to run again, as is her staff. Hillary loves the Senate it seems, and gets along well with conservative Senators, a skill necessary for being an effective a Democratic Leader. She also must like the fact that she is doing well where he husband never did, in the legislative branch. Bill ran for Congress in the mid-70s and was trounced. After that, he decided to go the AG-Gov-Pres route.

Hillary is dying to prove that she is her own person, that she isn't just Bill's wife. And even if she was to run for president, how many stories or mentions would there be about the First Gentleman? Bill loves the spotlight and would steal it from the first woman president, before and after the election.

This deal also would be great for Reed. He gets to spend more time being a king maker in Nevada, a crucial early state now in the 2008 Democratic Presidential Primaries. Right now, Edwards has a big edge with his links to hotel unions in Las Vegas, but if Reed were to endorse someone else, things could change fast. Reed also would get credit from all 2008 condenders for getting rid of their toughest competition. By falling on his sword, Reed would become even more powerful in a strange way. All those Democratic Senators would owe him, even Dodd might let Reed sink into the Whip position and give up hopes of gaining the Leader's chair.

To quote CNN's Bill Schneider, "Our political play of the week" is Harry Reed's overture to Hillary Clinton. Another deft move from the old boxer.

Not impressed with Ned

I watched Lamont's hyped TV 'interview' with Stephen Colbert on the Colbert Report. As glad as I am that he listened to Al Franken's advice to not try to be funny (every politican should follow that advise for all talk shows), I don't think Ned helped himself all that much.

A vote for Lamont in my mind is still an anti-Lieberman vote rather than a pro-Lamont vote. He forcefully answered most questions, but Colbert served him up a softball, and he wiffed it. Specifically, Colbert asked Lamont what other issues he cares about, how he differs from Lieberman on anything besides the war. Instead, Lamont answered with a MoveOn.org ad from 2004. That is, we could have spent more on education, health care, etc. were it not for the money going to fight the Iraq war. As true as this is, this could have been the time Ned talked about Joe's "short ride" comment on rape victims and Catholic hospitals, or Joe's vote for cloture on the terrible Bankrupcy Bill, or vote for cloture on Alito, or his vote for Condi, his Michael Brown confirmation hearings, or his lack of oversight as Government Reform Chairman in 2001-02.

Still, I would like to get rid of Lieberman because of his piss poor political calculus. Every decision he makes poltically is a disaster. And now that he is personally in charge of his reelection campaign, you can see how bad it has been. Creating a third party, making buttons without a union bug, failing to knock down rumors that he would accept the Republican nomination for several hours, screaming at local media, having no public events, tacitly accepting support from College Republicans, etc. I still think Ned will win the primary, but I am a bit sad that all he will be is a Democratic Rubber Stamp.

Putting your money where my mouth is

If you agree with my opinions on various races around the country, please contribute to the campaign I have listed here on My ActBlue page.



The cool thing about ActBlue is that anyone can raise money for the Democratic canidate of their choice without it costing them a cent. Some online tools take a percentage.

Contrary to what some might think, I do read your comments very carefully. This week, I got one comment (or rant) about illegal immigrants and one asking me to explain my views on Gov. Huntsman.

For those who are unitiated in the ways of the internets, let me just point out that comments other than by DaveB are not my own and I take no responsibility for them. Afterall, I can't take them down even if I hate them (that would require me to pay for my Haloscan account, and to remember my login information)

Anyway, even if illegal immigrants are the root cause of everything that my commenter opines about, his math is wrong. I doubt 50% of the Hispanic population in Utah is illegal. It is probabbly a much smaller (but still sigificant) percentage. Crime, amoung other social ills, has gone up in Utah because the population has increased as has poverty. He also claims illegals "believe they should have more rights than the Legal ones. They fill our Community Health Centers, our Welfare Offices, our Emergency Rooms, and any other Assistance meant for Citizens of Our nation."

The march was about getting the SAME rights as those who were legal, not more. Currently, illegal immigrants cannot receive federal or state funded welfare (you need a valid SSN for that), but they can and do use emergency rooms and other health care centers as ERISA requires hospitals to not turn them (or other poor human beings) away. If there were not so many uninsured, this drain would be much less.

Preventative medicine is much cheeper than ER medicine. Just ask every other industrialized nation that has universial health care. It is hard to tell just how much of a drain illegals are on the health care system, but I doubt they make up much of the tens of millions (40-50) of uninsured in this country.

As to Derek's question about why I consider Gov. Huntsman a political hack. Let's see: he is supporting frontrunner McCain over fellow LDSer Romney, he was a political appointee as Bush's Singapore Ambassador (which means he has given lots of money and sucked up to the right people in the GOP establishment, since he isn't a personal friend of Bush) and he is pushing for making the Utah tax code even more regressive. A flat tax is Steve Forbes' and Dick Armey's (ex-House Maj. Leader) wet dream.

Granted, Huntsman is much better than almost any of the other possibilities offered by the Utah Republican party (save maybe Oleen), and the fact that he passed up on Enid Greene Waldholz says much good about him. He also ran a dignified campaign against Scott Matheson. But then again, he could afford to. Johnny Jr was the annointed one like George W. Bush was in 2000. The son of a rich man, the insiders tried to clear the field for him, even shooing aside an acting governor, and it nearly failed. Scott was only tied in one Democratic poll, and was consistantly 10 points back in most the others. Scott never went negative; so why would Huntsman have had to?

Huntsman is the most popular governor in the country, but he seems aleady to be thinking of pulling a Leavitt and asking President McCain for a plum cabinet post so he can be as partisan and unaccountable as he wants. Why else would you endorse a guy who hasn't even announced they are running for president now?

topsy turvy

Remember way back, back in 2002, when members of Congress (Republicans and moderate Democrats) were dying to air campaign ads with footage of Bush supporting them? What a difference four years makes.



Now Iraq war Vet and Democratic candidate Patrick Murphy is running against George W. Bush while actually campaigning against Mike Fitzpatrick (R-PA). Here's the Ad. Here's the text (courtesty of Hotline On Call)

BUSH: "I'm the decider and I decide what is best. And what's best is for Don Rumsfeld to remain the Secretary of Defense" [on screen: Decided on Rumsfeld]. BUSH: "And Brownie, you're doing a heckuva job" [on screen: Heckuva Job Brownie]. BUSH: "Jim Gerlach and Mike Fitzpatrick are really talented congressmen" [on screen: Endorsed Fitzpatrick. Bush decided on Fitzpatrick. Have you?]



Not only does Murphy take advantage of some of the many dumb things Bush has said (watch the Daily Show's "The Decider" faux-comic book series) but he also has a picture of Bush at a fundraiser for two of the three endangered GOP congressmen from the Philly Burbs (Curt Weldon is the other), and shaking their hands. The ad even asks a fair question: "Bush decided on Fitzpatrick. Have you?"

All in all a great ad (and great campaign), and one that is emblematic of the GOP's inherant disadvantage this fall.

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.