missing Sandra Day

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bush has a sense of humor

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dems sell out Voting Rights

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

UPDATE:Rick Hansen over at Election Law Blog reports:

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

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

Josh Ewing for UT St. Rep. (25)

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

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

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

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

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

Jacob is beating Cannon

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why NYC Dems always lose

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Joe Klein: brown noser in chief

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

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

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

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

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

why bloggers suddenly are noticed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Restoring American Values

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

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

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

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

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

Restoring American Values

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

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

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

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

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

Get real Senators

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In George W. Bush's America

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

• Violent Crime is up 4.8%


• Abortions are up.


• Wages for the working class are stagnant


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


• CEO compensation has grown much faster than working class wages


• Federal Spending has outdone the Johnson Era


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

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

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

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

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

Pelosi's purge

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

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

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

A bit premature if you ask me.

scary mailer of the week

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


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

It doesn't look good

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

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

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

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

The worst news for Tester:

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

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

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

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

The Devil's Wedding Day

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

$ and Congress, part 2006

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

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

CREDIT: Deseret News

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

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

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

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

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

Joe-vinile

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

how gay marriage effected a straight, married man in Utah

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

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

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

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

Ursprache

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

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

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

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