Postcards from different worlds

Last night, my fiancee and I went to Bountiful. This town is pretty homogeneous: over 95% white and probably at least as high percentage belong to the LDS faith.

We went up North to participate in student group that is designed primarily for spouses/partners who would like to get out and talk to adults everyonce in a while (read: stay-at-home moms). The ones there were 3Ls and gave us a snapshot of where we would be in two years. We talked, ate pizza and other snacks, played games and had a good time with nice people.

This are very conservative people. We played a comparison game called Apples-to-Apples. The word was "Trustworthy" and you were to choose among your cards of nouns which word you thought the judge would deem the most apt. Someone choose "Republicans," and my fiancee and I held back our shock and laughter given the record of lies by George W. Bush's administration and the homegrown version ex-SL Co. Mayor Nancy Workman, who is currently on trial for defrauding the county of money to pay her daughter for a do-nothing job.

The other one was a word somewhere between "evil" and "untrustworthy" (I can't remember the exact word) and someone chose "Hillary Rodham Clinton" as there card. Now some time HRC bothers me, but other than being ambitious and cut-throat, I can't think of many negative things about her...She had bad hair styles at times but she was hyperscrutinized. She is brilliant (probably smarter than Bill, and that is saying something), a good senator (in terms of getting stuff done and working with GOPers etc.), shying away from the spotlight that follows her around, and passionate about her causes.

This morning was completely the opposite politcally. Wellesley Professor (emeritus) Alan Schechter was speaking at an alumnae's house near us. Schechter was Hillary's mentor and got appointed to the Fulbright committee by Clinton. The man is from the "Democratic wing of the Democratic Party" but his wife was even more of an activist. Yet I had Wesley Clark in common with them. They had campaigned in Portsmouth while I was Derry last winter. We reminisced about how cold it was and talked about gearing up for Clark '08. In the crowd we had my contracts professor (class of '67), the dean of the law school/ Democratic gubenatorial candidate/husband of '76 alumna Robyn Matheson, lawyers, artists, PhD candidates and more prominant alumnae. A very powerful group of women assembled around Schechter and the muffins we bought from Costco.

Schechter talked about how we got to where we are today. His synopsis: we are in a backlash that started in the 1960s and 1970s where LBJ and the Warren/Marshall court changed the cultural landscape: allowing blacks to vote, women equal protection, abortion, banning the death penalty (and recently allowing gay marriage in places like SF and MA).

The Democratic majority from the '30s until '94 in Congress was a false, corrupt bargain between the "Solid South," filled with conservative (and racist) members/senators and the emerging coastal liberals. It was the Civil Rights act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965 (combined with the court rulings) that sealed the eventual fate of that Democratic party. Almost all of these same conservatives slowly, but surely joined the GOP starting with Goldwater, then Reagan and eventually Bush 43.

While Reagan played lipservice to the evangelicals, Bush 43 actually is a born-again, as is many in his staff. Schechter sees no hope of the GOP's strange marriage between Wall-Street Republicans and evangelicals because they are mutually dependent on each other to achieve their goals.

The White House, he said, is up for grabs, but the Congress is out of reach for the foreseeable future. He believes Hillary is susceptible to a Draft movement like Clark was and both have the same view of running for the presidency: that they would run if their country called them.

Like me, Schechter knew Kerry was a loser from the get-go because a) his lack of person magnetism needed to win over marginal voters b) his Vietnam history c) his ability to make every position seem two-faced and flip-floppy, even if he was consistent d) the fact that he was a senator for 20 years, and finally e) the fact that he represented Massachusetts. Thus, he liked Clark because he a) he charismatic (more than the the other candidates save Sharpton and Edwards) b) his clear pro-Vietnam history c) is lack of track record d) not a senator e) the fact that he was from flippable Arkansas. The idea was, with no voting history, Clark could be consistent and make up his positions as he went along. Of course, it didn't work out that way (see "Help, Mary!").

Clark learned from his mistakes, I believe, like Schetcher thinks that Dean learned from his. Schechter thinks that Dean will watch his mouth more and not try to change the party ideologically. But hopefully structurally Howard.

The church's fingers

Today there is a story in the Salt Tribune which I doubt has a corresponding article in the Deseret News, which is owned by the LDS church (along with a couple radio stations and a local NBC affilate, which has correspondingly opted out of showing Saturday Night Live).

The Mormon church is the most powerful and influencial lobbyist on Salt Lake's Capital Hill. While that is not a shocking statement, the level of their power is unlike any other church in any other state. Bills are routinely nixed or boosted by the church's support and they are in many areas a de facto branch of state government, who's veto power kills stuff before they even get a committee vote.

This case revolves around charter schools, which I am mixed about. As with anything in education, it seem ideology drive the research and it is difficult to tell if progress is actually being made or if there is regressions.

The Salt Lake Arts Academy right now resides in the old main branch of the SL Library, but their lease is up this summer to make way for a cool new perminant exhibit called Leonardo. Academy officials and city representatives (city councilmembers, the mayor, state representatives and senators) want them to stay downtown so students would "take TRAX, use the city library and mix with the business crowd." The problem? "[S]tate law prohibits alcohol establishments from opening within 600 feet of parks, libraries or schools for kindergartners through 12th-graders...If local zoning allows, there's no state law against a school opening near a bar. But if the city, which does not allow schools downtown, were to change its zoning to allow them, it would prevent new bars and restaurants from opening - running counter to redevelopment efforts."

State Senator and democratic LG candidate (in 2000 and 2004) Karen Hale (who's also LDS) proposed a bill to exempt charter schools to get around such laws and let more than one bar exist on a block. But then word got out that the church didn't like it (and MADD too). And then Hale dropped it, but she wouldn't say that it was the church that made her do it, or MADD, but the writing is on the wall.

Constroversal mayor Rocky Anderson was pissed: "The church, like anybody else, certainly has a right to make its views known," Anderson said Thursday, but added: "It's the only organization, I think, that seems to automatically get its way among most elected officials."

Just two days ago, the mayor "held his last public forum on bridging the divide among Mormons and others and one theme was the alienation some non-Mormons feel when they believe Mormon values run the state. To heal, Anderson said it is 'crucial' to move away public officials allowing the church to 'control' public policy."

Some times it seems that church has too much power. Any group, when it has total control in an area tends to get tryannical, just look at the Democratic party in Massachusetts.

Gonzales round-up

After an exciting and agressive debate on my comment board regarding the Torture Memo, we finially heard from people who had a say in the matter, our 100 US Senators. Armando and Kos have a nice handy sheet of Democrats who voted yea or nay or abstained.

I disagree with some of their conclusions and will make some of mine. First, lets go to the "yea" votes for Gonzales by Democrats (GOPers are irrelevant because they all voted with their president, even people like Linc Chafee who supposidly didn't even vote for Bush).

(1) Senator Ken Salazar (CO). His excuse? The "he's hispanic" argument/"American Dream" argument. Dick Durbin (IL) had a great rebuttal to the "American Dream" part:

I respect and admire Alberto Gonzales for his inspiring life story and the many obstacles he has overcome. Some of my colleagues suggested his life story embodies the American dream. But there is more to the American dream than overcoming difficult circumstances to obtain prominence and prosperity. We also must honor Fred Korematsu's dream that our country be true to the fundamental principle upon which it was founded: the rule of law...I cannot in good conscience vote to reward a man who ignored the rule of law and the demands of human decency and created the permissive environment that made Abu Ghraib possible....When the history of these times are recorded, I believe that Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo will join the names of infamous Japanese-American internment camps such as Manzanar, Heart Mountain, and Tule Lake where Fred Korematsu and over thousands of others were detained. I cannot in good conscience vote to make the author of such a terrible mistake the chief law enforcement officer of our great Nation and the guardian of our God-given and most cherished rights.

As for the "he's hispanic and I'm hispanic" argument, I would hope this country has come far enough that you don't have to vote for someone just because you share their race/ethnicity if you are a minority Member/Senator. I think that is insulting to all Hispanics out there that people can't tell the difference between a Cuban-American who will do whatever this President wants him to do and a guy like Caesar Chavez.

(2) Senator Joseph Lieberman (CT).OK well Joe is like George Kastanza and always manages to stick his finger in the air, and feel it blowing the wrong way. He is after all, the sole member of the "loyal JOE-position." Sorry, couldn't resist another Joe joke, he brought this on himself.

(3) Senator Ben Nelson (NE). He is running for reelection in a hyper-Red state. His biggest competition (the Governor) is now the new Secretary of Agriculture. But then again, Martinez was Bush's HUD secretary and that didn't stop him from running for FL's open senate seat. Just what we need another Bush puppet in the senate. I feel bad for Ben Nelson because some other dude with the same last name is now also a senator (see below) and it must be really annoying, but it is no excuse to vote for torture.

(4) Senator Mary Landrieu (LA) I hear her kids are real brats and she won't control them on airplanes. So I guess she is really into torturing mild-mannered law-abiding citizens on their way from Washington DC to New Orleans, so why not Iraqis Afghans and various other Arabs?

(5) Senator Pryor (AR) He will be up for a tough bout in 2008, the only reason he won last time was the guy he ran against was a holier-than-thou type who was porking his staffer and then dumped his wife for the staffer (who was like 20 years younger than him too). Nevertheless, Pryor also won because people liked his Daddy and might have thought they were voting for him.

(6) Senator Bill Nelson (FL) Bill, the other senator named Nelson. Wasn't there a band named Nelson, with long WWE hair? Oh right, they sucked. He too is up for reelection like his twin from Nebraska. Florida has seemingly gone Red on us since 2000, and Nelson is the only statewide Democratic elected offical (the legislature and the House delegation has been nicely gerrymandered to ensure a GOP majority for the next decade). Translation: he is taking a dump in his pants, and doesn't want to seem like a wuss against those terrorists to people in Pensacola.

Phew...now on to the Nay or Abstained, with particular focus on our Red state Democratic senators.

Evan Bayh (D-IN) Running for President in 2008...good luck.
Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) one of those guys who nobody really knows what he does in the Senate, until now.
Robert Byrd (D-WV) the old man rules despite being ex-KKK.
Byron Dorgan (D-ND) He's got senority
Tom Harkin (D-IA) The last liberal of "the Heartland"
Tim Johnson (D-SD)it takes guts when you won by a few hundred votes...and your benefactor just lost by a few hundred.
Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) you go girl!
Harry Reid (D-NV) Minority Leader with cajoines
Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) Yes, that Rockefeller. The last of the Rockefeller Democrats.

Not present (fighting off Bush misinformation in their home states)
Max Baucus (D-MT) His wife hit someone over a bag of soil once, caused quite a stir in Washington society.
Kent Conrad (D-ND) I think I had an LSAT class with his daughter, she was nice to me.


And there you have it. Enjoy and have a great weekend.

A better way to spend SOTU night

Instead of watching a series of illogical reasoning for bad policies, deceptive use of numbers, and outright lies (along with mandatory juvenile boos and cheers), I went to CostCo last night. The workers there are always so happy, genuinely so, unlike the creeped out feeling you get at a Wal-Mart (where they speaking to you in code that they want out of this miserable existence).

After that, we went searching for dinner, as the hot dogs and pizza didn't seem like our cup of tea last night. In search of something "healthy" we went to Wild Oats, the blue state grocery store. And who did we see but local celebrity Bill Gephardt (not to be confused with Dick Gephardt, two time presidential loser and unemployed Cardinals fan.), the local TV channel's "consumer reports investigator." He looked pretty grumpy and tired gathering some food for the checkout counter, so I didn't bother him with some scam that had been pulled on me.

Ironically (not Atlantis Morrisette Ironic), we ended up eating at Taco Bell and Burger King. And although I regretted the feeling in my stomach while I tossed and turned, it was still better than watching the Bush's weltanshauung.

The most depressing thing I've read...today

That great title is owned by a Newsweek article entitled Dream On America.

The basic gist of the article is that America is in decline. We have lost our moral compass, and the world no longer looks to us as a beacon of freedom. Our economy is not doing as well as the EU, our health care system ranks 37th best in the world (according to WHO), "behind Colombia (22nd) and Saudi Arabia (26th), and on a par with Cuba." The gulf between the rich and the poor in the US has widened faster than in EU countries. "In Sweden, you are three times more likely to rise out of the economic class into which you were born than you are in the U.S."

When the soviets withdrew from Central Europe, U.S. constitutional experts rushed in. They got a polite hearing, and were sent home. Jiri Pehe, adviser to former president Vaclav Havel, recalls the Czechs' firm decision to adopt a European-style parliamentary system with strict limits on campaigning. "For Europeans, money talks too much in American democracy. It's very prone to certain kinds of corruption, or at least influence from powerful lobbies," he says. "Europeans would not want to follow that route." They also sought to limit the dominance of television, unlike in American campaigns where, Pehe says, "TV debates and photogenic looks govern election victories."

The same thing happened in South Africa, Kosovo, other African countries, and South America. They all prefer a European-style constitution over a American-style one.

Much in American law and society troubles the world these days. Nearly all countries reject the United States' right to bear arms as a quirky and dangerous anachronism. They abhor the death penalty and demand broader privacy protections. Above all, once most foreign systems reach a reasonable level of affluence, they follow the Europeans in treating the provision of adequate social welfare is a basic right. All this, says Bruce Ackerman at Yale University Law School, contributes to the growing sense that American law, once the world standard, has become "provincial." The United States' refusal to apply the Geneva Conventions to certain terrorist suspects, to ratify global human-rights treaties such as the innocuous Convention on the Rights of the Child or to endorse the International Criminal Court (coupled with the abuses at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo) only reinforces the conviction that America's Constitution and legal system are out of step with the rest of the world.

The rest of the world is hating us more and more, and not just President Bush. "A plurality of voters (the average is 70 percent) in each of the 21 countries surveyed by the BBC oppose sending any troops to Iraq, including those in most of the countries that have done so. Only one third, disproportionately in the poorest and most dictatorial countries, would like to see American values spread in their country."

One of the main reasons I supported Wesley Clark and opposed George Bush this last election was that Clark understood the worldview, and Bush couldn't care less. Now I am not saying the UN or the EU or whatever gets to have "veto power" over US policy, but I am saying there are lots of good things that come out of listening to ones Allies seriously beyond good will: increased trading, more foreigners studying in our colleges and universities (they are now going to Europe more instead), increased military support for missions around the world, increased influence on the world stage, moral authority to push American Ideals and our version of Democracy. I am afraid that if we continue down this road of Bush-ism, in my lifetime we will see the US surpassed by China or the EU.

Iraqification

I am so happy that the voting went off with nary a hitch this weekend. Too bad it will be a while before we know who won and at some will doubt the authenticity of the outcome given the low participation by Sunnis. The real winner will be Sistani in my boat, he will be the power broker not too far from the glare of the flashbulbs.

It is also unfortunate that we had to spend over $150 billion so that 26 million people would have the chance to vote. Is that really why we invaded the country, spent blood and treasure? I wonder if people really are aware of how much history repeats itself with the second Nixon Administration...I mean the second Bush Administration.

"United States officials were surprised and heartened today at the size of turnout in South Vietnam[Iraq]'s presidential election despite a Vietcong [insurgent] terrorist campaign to disrupt the voting."
-- New York Times, September 4, 1967. Here's the PDF of the original article. Courtesy of Political Wire and DailyKos

site of the day

Hot or Not for US Senators!
via Political Wire

I don't know where these photos were dug up but they are hilarious and extremely unflatering for just about everyone of them.

Go ahead see how your senator ranks.

much to do about nothing

Senator Hillary Clinton's speech over abortion have been labeled "triangulation" and an attempt to position herself for 2008.

In reality, this is the same position on reproductive choice that she's held since those halycon days of "It Takes a Village." Abortion, Clinton said, is "a sad, even tragic choice to many, many women," said Clinton. Then she went further: "There is no reason why government cannot do more to educate and inform and provide assistance so that the choice guaranteed under our constitution either does not ever have to be exercised or only in very rare circumstances."

The new twist, according to Slate's William Saletan is the idea of never.

Once you embrace that truth—that the ideal number of abortions is zero—voters open their ears. They listen when you point out, as Clinton did, that the abortion rate fell drastically during her husband's presidency but has risen in more states than it has fallen under George W. Bush. I'm sure these trends have more to do with economics than morals, but that's the point. Once we agree that the goal is zero, we can stop asking which party yaps more about fighting abortion and start asking which party gets results.

My favorite quote of his? "Many profound things are at stake in the abortion debate. Afternoon delight isn't high on the list."

Anyway, this is the same old same old. Hand it to Hillary to have her "Sistah Soldier" moment in 2005 in front of the pro-choice crowd instead of in 2007 or 2008, if she really is running for president, which I doubt.

don't fear the national ID

I don't get the liberatian fear of a national ID card. The ACLU has another one of their scare campaigns on the subject. Ellen from BOPNews and the Draft Clark movement is concerned about the issue.

Even if we were to make smart cards like PPI folks like Shane Ham want, I doubt we would ever get close to the ACLU 1984-esque ad. It makes sense to have one uniform ID across the US, instead of 50 different systems with varying degrees of security. It was find in the old days when people were just making fake IDs to buy beer before they turned 21 or work if they were illegal immigrants. But now terrorists could pick on a state were the standards are lax and make lots of IDs that won't be immediately recognizable. Futher, more security would help prevent identity theft, a rapidly growing crime in the information age.

Sure, at first the costs would be high to retool ever state, but the savings would be great. One swipe, and the bar tendor could know you are old enough to drink and who you say your are. We don't want criminals evading the law via changing IDs either. The government is too incompetant to compile that much data on the man in the ALCU pizza ad, nor would any Congress ever let them.

Companies already sell each other what magazines you read, what catalogues you order from what stuff you buy online to each other. So far, none of their targeted messaging has been effective on me. Maybe they base too much on the fact that I bought one philosophy book for college freshman year.

Just think, in nearly every other big, industrialized country, they have a national ID system and has anyone heard of the government listening in on people in those countries that don't have such a strong liberitarian past? Such fears are misplaced and while pure in motive, wasted in effort.

The Clinton's throw in the towel

For a while there, it seemed Bill and Hill were deserately groaping around looking for someone, ANYONE other than Howard Dean. But now that we heard Ex-Clinton Aide Hardold Ickes, Jr backs Dean for DNC we know they have given up on finding their own Tim Roemer.

``I think all the candidates who are running have strong attributes, but Dean has more of the attributes than the others,'' said Ickes, who considered running for chairman himself before dropping out in early January. ``Many people say Howard Dean is a northeastern liberal, he is progressive, but his tenure as governor of Vermont was that of a real moderate.''

Ickes, who heads the political action committee of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton....While Ickes would not comment on the Clintons' preferences, he is a close ally and would not be endorsing Dean against their strong objections."

To be sure, their fear of Dean was different than say, Al From's. The Clintons liked the old chair, not because of his ideology, but because he was their guy. Having a wide-open race for DNC chair meant that they had lost their control over the party to a degree.

It reality though, it could have been a smart vote. Howard was on the cusp of winning for sure, but he was also "a lock" about this time of year for the Nomination too and look out that worked out. Now, in theory, the good doctor "owes" the Clintons for his victory.

The timing of Ickes was impecible, just before the ASDC was about to endorse on Monday, which might or might not of sealed the deal for Howard anyway. This way, the Clintons can at least claim they influenced that outcome.

This is all very bad news for people like Frost or Roemer, who had hoped the Clintons would endorse them in the last minute and save their candiacy from an uncertain (Frost) or certain (Roemer) fate.

All the wannabes like Rosenberg and Fowler must be quite dissipointed too. They will never know if their complex strategies for taking down Dean without attacking Deanism would have worked.

Now the real question is, who will this help in the 2008 primaries? Certainly not Kerry or Bayh or Biden, maybe Boxer, maybe Clark, Clinton if she gets in, I doubt it would help Edwards, and rest of the cast of characters have yet to emmerge.

9 years and counting

The quote of the day:

"Well, I quit drinking in '86"

-- Bush, asked by C-SPAN's Brian Lamb if he sees "ghosts of past Presidents"

George doesn't have a reflective bone in his body, and I think that is what some people like about him. But there is a big drawback to moving ever forward without looking back or admitting mistakes: repeating past mistakes over and over again.

Bush likes loyalty, but what he has gotten in return has been good (Rove) in parts, but mostly horribly incompetant (Rumsfeld, Rice, Wolfowitz, Gonzales, etc.). To have yet another trite but true saying, "be careful for what you wish for, just might get it."

Remember the days?

The GOP increased the majority they gained in '94 this cycle, but with the retirements in '04, there are even fewer GOPers who remember life in the minority. Only 79 GOPers have served as the minority party. On the Dem side, 88 members served in the majority. Less than 40% of House members have memory of what it's like on the other side -- one wonders if any institutional memory will be utilized in the GOP's aggressive agenda for the 109th Congress.

--From National Journal's House Race Hotline.

This is the major problem with the Democrats in the House, they keep acting like they are in a decade-long nightmere and that sooner or later, they will awake to see they still have an overwhelming majority in the House. Meanwhile, their GOP counterparts have lost their way and forgotten what got them to power: the Contract with America. "To restore accountability to Congress. To end its cycle of scandal and disgrace." Look down the list of their pledges and you will see that the majority of them never came to be and GOPers have actually gone backwards towards accomplishing these goals, which are basically copied from H. Ross Perot.

All of a sudden, the majority isn't interested in term limits or having the rules apply to them, they aren't interested in anything but Tax Cuts for corporations and other forms of Corporate Welfare (see Social Security Privatization).

On one side there is a stench of arrogance, on the other, handwriting and speechifying with no results. Chris Bowers at myDD says that the DCCC targeted 13 races last year, and they were down 13 races PLUS they were bound to lose some in Texas. In other words, they had consigned themselves to defeat. I feel sad for many House Democrats I really do, but many of them have been there for decades and really done all they could to stall progress in order to enhance their careers (see Dingell, John). I have trouble feeling pity for those who win with over 80% of the vote and sit on their hands when others who barely win or lose come begging for help.

We need to clean house on both aisles. If we truely want reform, we will have to through the bums out, all of them (those who are bums that is). I would do this through redistricting reform.

Another interesting development in redistricting is the "compromise" legislation that would give Utah another seat in exchange for letting DC's delegate be a real House member and vote on bills. In theory, it would be a wash for both parties and thus amenable to all. I bet Jim Matheson would run in the new 4th district. The state legislature already has made a map of a 4-district state in case they won that Supreme Court challenge involving the uncounted missioniares and North Carolina. The 4th district would basically be Taylorsville and surrounding areas of Salt Lake County exurbs(like Draper) and involve much of Jim's 2000-2002 district which he did well. This would be a compact district again like his old district and urban versus the incredibly rural-urban mix of the current 2nd district.

I wish I could find a map of the old plan, but I can't here is the bill, but not the map. Oh and the governor signed that too, so this should be a speedy process.

So if Jim does run in the 4th or against Cannon (another favorite option of mine, since the man is an idiot and has never had a real race), who runs in the new 2nd? I doubt Scott Matheson would run again and I can't think of anyone who they could get to run, maybe St. Sen. Minority Leader Mike Dmitrich (sp?) who basically owns the Price-area. Further South than that, and the pickings get really slim for Utah Democrats.

The first firing?

Good news. The biggest incompetent of the War in Iraq, the War on Terror and just about everything else, is "resigning" to be "closer to his family." Maybe this is the way Bush likes to fire idiots who are loyal to him.

Douglas J. Feith, the Pentagon's top policy official who became a lightning rod for issues including intelligence on Iraq and information warfare, said Wednesday that he would resign this summer.

Feith had the Midas touch, turning everything he got himself involved in, whether it was warplanning, post-war planning, troop training, intelligence gathering to find proof for the war, finding the non-existent Saddam-9/11 connection, into a complete disaster for the President.

Douggie even got entwined in an FBI investigation over DOD being too cozy with Israeli intelligence via IPAC.

The man was a wrecking ball at the DOD policy shop. This is what happens when you put ideologies in positions of power where they should be off writing nasty letters instead. Like Bush, it seems Doug didn't bother himself with "facts" he just went about his business to prove the unprovable to make plan with so many built-in erroneous assumptions that they were bound to fail. He was too busy worrying how many roses the Iraqis would use up to greet American soldiers as liberators to worry about guarding arms depos or the Iraqi Museum or provide enough armor for the troops.

Now I have another reason to look forward to the summer. Good riddance.

A cry for help

St. Louis mayoral candidate/school board member Bill Haas (D) says in his blog "that loneliness, depression and financial problems have led him to consider suicide." Haas writes that his blog "his 'last day' may come sometime this spring or early summer after he euthanizes his three-legged cat and other pets." Haas: "In a nutshell, I'm 60 years old, still all alone. ... Unless something breaks professionally in the next couple of months, I'm going to be out of money and then I'm going to put the animals to sleep and take my life."

Haas "confirmed" to the Saint Louis Post Dispatch 1/25 "that he posted the blog and has contemplated suicide." Haas: "Being out of money and alone are bad things for me. I'm not going to be on the street and watch my life spiral down." Haas "has moonlighted as a sex columnist" while on the School Board, "ran ads for a rich wife" to help fund his '97 mayoral bid, applied for "American Candidate," ran for the House, the MO Legislature and circuit atty, "and continues to bombard the city's media daily with meandering e-mails." His blog is titled "Run Bill Run." The subtitle: "Bill Haas' journey in the Mayor's Race of St. Louis, but mostly about his life, and possible death."

Haas, who has two Ivy League degrees, is an adjunct instructor at Harris-Stowe State College "and a customer service manager at Wal-Mart" (Wagman, St. Louis Post Dispatch, 1/25).

I don't know if I should be drawing any further attention to him, since clearly that is what he wants. He seems to crave public attention and perhaps even sympathy. I am sorry that his life hasn't panned out the way he hoped but sucicide and in particular killing your pets is NOT the way to go.

Down the line

It looks like the spine transplants were sucessful: every Democrat in the Senate Judicary Committee voted against confirming Alberto "Torture Memo" Gonzales.

While Rice will probabbly sail though, the vote on Gonzales will be much closer. Thank goodness. We want our allies across the world to know that at least 48% of the population don't think it is ok to torture some one in the name of "the war on terrorism" (sorry I hate the name).

I am looking forward to watching the Battle Royale on C-SPAN, but I am a politics nerd.

IA Docs Say No to Pharma

great news from the Hawkeye statevia Yahoo! News:

"It's just plain ethically wrong and it's designed to color our judgment," Dr. Dean Abramson of Gastroenterologists P.C. said of the practice. "I don't think patients realize how much drug companies spend on this." Accordingly, he and other doctors in Iowa have made a pact to not accept all those free trinkets and lunches from drug companies. In fact he called it "a bribe."

CalPIRG claims that Pharma spends as much as $5 billion annually, whose costs are passed on to consumers.

If you thought the lobbying groups do to politicans is bad, I would have to say Pharma peddling drugs is far worse. All those "free samples" to get people on their product can lead to incedents like those with Vioxx.

This isn't candy folks, these medicines could save your life, give you complications, or even kill you.

Rice v. Gonzales

It seems like Senators will do a bit of speechifying (their favorite thing) on Rice, but I doubt more than 10-20 senators will vote against her, even though she should have been fired, let alone promoted.

However, the real fight seems to be Alberto Gonzales. Even Joe Biden, who whimped out on Condi, will vote no on Gonzales. I urge all my readers to contact their senators to ask them to condem Gonzales as a supporter of Torture. We hear more stories daily about how bad things are in Gitmo, Iraq, and Afghanistan holding cells. All this is a direct result of Gonzales giving his blessing to torture. Gonzales should also be disbared for lying to a judge and prosecutor to get then-Gov. Bush out of jury duty in 1996. Furthermore, he failed to do his duty as council to then-Gov. Bush to look at the clemency cases and properly brief Bush. This man is directly responsible for the miscarriage of justice, the death, and torture of people.

How could any one sleep at night if they voted for him? Count me in as a NO vote.

AARP is back

After being embaressed by backing Bush's Rx drug plans, the group is coming out strong against Social Security Destruction/Privatization. The GOP for its part is quibbling over the term "personal accounts" versus "private accounts." You don't have to spin your plan if it is good at first glance.

Conducted 12/6-23 by Roper Public Affairs; surveyed 1,501 adults 30 or older; margin of error +/- 3% (release, 1/24).

Would You Favor Private Accounts If It Meant ...? Favor Oppose
No withdrawals prior to retirement 33% 56%
Lower Social Security benefit in retirement 27 64
Stock market fluctuations result in decreased money 25 62
Still need to reform Soc/Sec to meet financial needs 24 62
Losers of private accounts will need more help from govt 22 65
Workers pay management fees associated with accounts 21 67
$1T needed to pay benefits of current retirees 18 68
Children will be confronted with two bills: one for
current shortfall another to meet additional shortfall 17 68
New government agency created to administer program 18 70

Keeping Soc/Sec As Is? All 30-39 40-49 50-59 60+
Strongly support 37% 27% 30% 35% 53%
Smwht support 29 35 27 30 26
Smwht oppose 14 16 17 16 8
Strongly oppose 11 16 14 12 5

Not Confident Soc/Sec Will Be There When You Retire?
30-39 40-49 50-59 60+
Not too confident 28% 40% 31% 13%
Not at all confident 44 25 18 9

Agree Strongly/Smwht Strongly Smwht
Private accounts will hurt Social Security 32% 22%
It is not fair to saddle children with additional debt
created by private accounts 58 14
Soc/Sec should be protected as a guaranteed benefit 63 15
Soc/Sec should be strengthened not replaced 66 17
Problems with Social Security can be fixed 68 24
Problems should be fixed sooner rather than later 71 20
We have a responsibility to meet our obligation to
children to make sure that Soc/Sec is there for them 77 15
We have a responsibility to meet obligation to people
currently on Soc/Sec 84 11

Overall View Of Soc/Sec Trust AARP For Accurate Soc/Sec Info?
Very fav 15% 30-39 40-49 50-59 60+
Smwht fav 47 Strongly 19% 27% 35% 32%
Not too fav 23 Smwht trust 57 55 42 46
Not at all fav 12

From release: "Approximately 4 in 10 respondents (43%) initially favored private accounts. However, those who initially favored private accounts dropped off substantially once they were exposed to any of the consequences associated with the implementation of private accounts. Opposition to private accounts increased to as much as 70% depending on the items or 'consequences' presented" (1/24).

courtesy of the National Journal

Smokey Valley

This is what the Utes (or was it Piutes), the native Americans to the Salt Lake Valley, called the area. This is a good description because every winter, high pressure fronts trap clouds and, nowadays our polution, in the valley for weeks at a time.

For the past two weeks, I have not seen the sky or the sun and the weather has stayed about 35 degrees with toxic air. In Park City, a thousand feet or so above Salt Lake, is sunny and in the 40s. So all the Hollywood types up at Sundance are enjoying themselves, blistfully unware.

I had so many books and gear to haul over to the law school today that I rode my bicycle over. Big mistake. I couldn't catch my breath it was so smoggy and disguesting. It has been about 30 minutes and I can still feel it in my chest, and would say I am in decent shape.

According to the local TV news, it yesterday was the most depressing day in Utah, due to the weather. No wonder I have been feeling down these last days; Bush only made it worse.

These days I have gotten myself entwined in another DLC-related comment thread on myDD, which seems determined to churn up the hate toward the organization while making a half hearted effort to inform the bloggers of what the group really does and does not do.

List of the Day

www.mcsweeneys.net :

THINGS I'D PROBABLY SAY
IF THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION WERE JUST
A WEEKLY TV SHOW AND I WERE
A REGULAR VIEWER.
By Eric Maierson

"Now, see, you can't just go and do something like that. That would be illegal."

"Boy, someone's gonna get fired for that."

"Wasn't that the one who made all the mistakes? Why is she getting promoted?"

"Come on, in real life you'd never get away with something like that."

"They really expect us to believe that?"

"Am I the only one confused here?"

"Does this make any sense to you?"

"Why is this still on?"