Friday, February 16, 2007

Utah's 4th will be voted on in two weeks?

The Deseret News reports that "House Speaker Nancy Pelosi gave her 'unequivocal support' to the legislation" DC Delegate Norton believes that the Utah-DC bill is certain to come up for a vote. DC Vote's Kevin "Kiger said there appears to be enough momentum that movement on the bill would likely come in March." I.e. after the week-long President's Day recess. [side note: isn't it ironic that Don Young is misquoting Lincoln on his Birthday weekend?]

House Republicans from Utah want our state legislature to be able to re-redraw the map (to screw Matheson I guess). Jim is concerned about the cost of a special election in November. A study in constrasts.

Now would you want to put something representation in charge of this bunch of clowns?
But for Sen. Chris Buttars, R-West Jordan, the real driving force is a desire to allow school administrators to reject clubs they find morally objectionable without the fear of a lawsuit.
He wants schools, such as Provo High, to have the ability to stamp out gay-straight alliances, which he describes as "a place of indoctrination."
Buttars says the bill provides legal cover for such a decision and would require the attorney general to handle any lawsuits.
Sen. Scott McCoy, D-Salt Lake City, the Senate's only openly gay member, led the charge against the bill.
McCoy described the bill as too "onerous" because of the requirements to provide detailed club bylaws and schedules to school administrators.
McCoy had no problem with the section that required parental-consent forms, but he tried to remove almost everything else. The House passed a similar version to McCoy's proposal.

McCoy is being very reasonable. Parental consent and information on clubs is fine. What is problematic is writing a bill based off an eroneous belief that gay-straight clubs are cults that brain wash teens into becoming gay. And even if that were true, the only reason Buttars cares is because he hates gay people. Afterall, he can't even call his collegue by his name, he calls him "the gay."

Thursday, February 15, 2007

Trolley Square Shooter's Criminal History

The 18-year old that killed at least 5 people Tuesday night's sealed juvenile record was leaked to the Salt Lake Tribune this evening:
At age 12, Talovic was before a judge for allegedly holding a knife over the head of girl while stating, "I'll kill you," according to a source who is familiar with the case.
Two years earlier, Talovic was referred to juvenile court for throwing rocks at a little girl.
About the same time, he threatened his parents' landlord with a knife.
The first girl was not struck by the stones. And the mother of the second girl snatched her up in the nick of time, just as Talovic took a swipe with the blade, according to the source, who has seen court documents relating to the case.
[...]
...Musto Redzovic, the family's first landlord in Salt Lake City, said Talovic pulled a knife on him at their duplex apartment in 1998 or 1999. Talovic would have been 9 or 10 at the time.
"He was just a child," said Redzovic, who brushed the incident off and did not report the incident to police.
Redzovic said he believes Talovic did not recognize him and may have been simply trying to protect his family's property...
[...]
"I used to feel bad for him," said Redzovic, who believes the behavior was a direct result of the war in Bosnia. "That child must have seen some troubling things in Bosnia." The rock-throwing incident occurred on Sept. 23, 1999. During a juvenile court trial, the allegations were found to be true, although Talovic denied them.
[...]
The knife brandishing episode involving the girl occurred on April 24, 2001, and was eventually dismissed because the victim and her mother could not be located.
Talovic was also referred to court for stealing fireworks from a Smith's grocery store on June 22, 2001.
On July 9, 2001, Talovic admitted the shoplifting crime, and it was the last time he appeared in juvenile court, according to the source, quoting court records.
Court officials said they have been unable to find any juvenile court history on Talovic. The source said the records were expunged in October, when Talovic turned 18.

I wonder how much they paid this source and who it is. Whomever it is, what they did is illegal, which is why they are staying anonymous.

Again, this seems to indicate not that Talovic was a Jahidist, but rather a messed up kid. Messed up by the war, or just a violent youth who felt alienated from society? That is the question.

When bigots react

Little Green Footballs (LGF), a nutty right wing group blog, flipped out when the local newspapers didn't mention the Trolley Square shooter's religion every time they referenced him. [The link is not to LGF, because I don't want to promote their commerce in anyway, but I guess you can click through]
The blogosphere erupted with xenophobia as some posters noted that Talovic was Muslim and concluded the rampage was a terrorist act. The Tribune also has been criticized for not mentioning his religion in every story. The assumption, apparently, is that all Muslims are violent.
"I had my suspicions immediately," one YouTube poster wrote. "I'm willing to bet they will find American hating evidence in this guy's home, computer, etc. Am I racist? No. I'm a realist. We are at war folks!"


The result of LGF and like minded bigots is an avalanche of hate e-mail to Bosnians and Utah Muslims, blaming them for the deaths on Tuesday night. We still have no idea what the shooter's motive was.
"No, he was very good," his uncle, Sadik Omerovic, said Wednesday.
[...]
The shooting rampage came as a "very big surprise for me," Omerovic said. "It just happened. We're shocked."
Also a mystery to Talovic's relatives is how he got a shotgun and handgun.
"Nobody knows," Omerovic said. "We don't know who [gave] him the guns."
[...]
Omerovic said Talovic had no history of violence. "He never, never [hurt anyone]. He was very nice person."

Just because he is Muslim doesn't mean he thought he was on a Jihad. After all, a right winger named Timothy McVeigh killed hundreds of people, including infants and children, all because he had such hate for the federal government. He believed what he was doing was justified by all the horrible things the federal government does. You know, like giving social security checks to old people.

These are the same kinds of people that attacked Sikhs because they were dark skinned bearded men who wore turbans. Who cares if they are not Muslim or not even from the Middle East? Such facts were details that got in the way of Operation Infinite Justice. Such thinking is what got us into war with Iraq. Such thinking could lead us into war with Iran. Such thinking needs to stop here and now.

Wednesday, February 14, 2007

wednesday round up

Sorry for the sporadic posting this week.

  • I had a jury trial all day long, and the jury found him not guilty. The worst part for me as the nascent prosecutor was having to call the victim and tell her the bad news. Domestic Violence case on Valentine's, you gotta love the court's sense of irony.

  • Good for Jim Matheson for learning from his Iraq vote in 2002 and voting for the resolution against the escalation of the war (the McCain Doctrine)"At a minimum, we owe them [American soldiers] a new approach and a thoughtful approach to the situation in Iraq and the pursuit of a comprehensive strategy for success." Right on. He supports the Iraq Study Group. I have my quibbles with the ISG report, but to the extent they say it is a mess and that 20-40k more troops will only make things worse, I agree.

  • Harkening back to my post yesterday about the shooter, we learn new deals that basically affirm my suspicion:
    Sulejman Talovic, an 18-year-old fatally shot by police after Monday's rampage, was only 4 when he and his mother fled their village of Talovici on foot after Serb forces overran it in 1993...
    Talovic lived as a refugee in Bosnia from 1993 to 1998, when his family moved to the United States, they said.
    During that period, he spent some time in Srebrenica, the northeastern enclave where up to 8,000 Muslim men and boys were slaughtered in 1995 by Serb forces loyal to late ex-Yugoslav leader Slobodan Milosevic. It was Europe's worst massacre of civilians since World War II.
    [...]
    "...I'm convinced the war did this in Utah," said Murat Avdic, a friend of the family. "There cannot be any other reason."

    His aunt disagrees: "We all suffered things in war, but, no, we didn't have anything [lingering psychologically]," Omerovic said. Even if he wasn't in Srebenica when the massacre happened, he most certainly heard about it, and he probably knew people who were murdered by Slobo's goon squads. A year after he got to America, we began bombing Serbs for Kosovars, and on TV there were horrific images of bombings, villages being torched, etc. I don't see how it could have not affected, but it doesn't excuse his behavior, even if that were the cause.

  • Is the administration insane? [Don't answer that] Why would you try to make another bogus case for war with a better equipped country when your troops are already beyond the breaking point? And when the American people believe you about as much as a used car salesman in a plaid suit? I am sure they believe Iran is behind all their troubles, but there are no real facts to support it. That is why two sitting Generals with lots of stars have said this is hype. Iran is a big player in the region because of this disastrous Iraq policy, compounded by a failure to admit failure. Arrogance and pride should not be the basis of our foreign policy.


That's it, Happy Valentine's!

Tuesday, February 13, 2007

A generation raised by violence


(Photo Credit: World Revolution.org)

Everyone in Utah by now knows about the "mall massacre" at Trolley Square: six dead (including the shooter) and four seriously injured.
Killed were:
• Jeffrey Walker, 53
• Vanessa Quinn, 29
• Kirsten Hinkley, 15
• Teresa Ellis, 29
• Brad Frantz, 25

Wounded and hospitalized are:
• Carolyn Tuft, 43
• Shawn Munns, 34
• Stacy Hansen, 53
• Allen Walker, 16

The shooter was an 18-year old Bosnian immigrant, which means he was born in 1989. It also means that if he grew up in Bosnia, he lived through two genocides (assuming he stayed until 1999). He might have seen people being brutally murdered by their neighbors for no real reason at all. I am not saying this to excuse his actions, far from it. I am speculating like this to show the consequences of allowing children to be victims of and witnesses to massive violence and war.

This is the second time in a few months that a young man from the former Yugoslavia acted out with random violent rage. The first time, Salt Lake got lucky, and no one was hurt [the SLC library bombing]. This time, obviously, was far worse.

Those who grew up in many parts of Africa (especially Rwanda 1994 and Sudan now) risk being tomorrow's Yugoslav violent youth. The same holds true for those who are growing up in Iraq and Afghanistan right now.

As awful as last nights shooting was, worse may be still yet to come if we don't stop letting violence raise another generation of young people.

Another hurdle for Utah's 4th


(Cartoon Credit: © 2001 Clay Bennett)
The Washington Post reports that several members of Congress requested a Congressional Research Service report on the constitutionality of the DC-Utah bill, and the CRS report said it was unconstitutional. Here's why this is a big deal:
The report by the Congressional Research Service is not binding, and its conclusions reflect what some prominent legal scholars have been warning for years. But it could carry extra weight because the service generally gets high marks for its nonpartisan advice to the House and Senate.
[..]
The report lands at a time when the D.C. voting rights effort has been gaining momentum. The new Democratic majority in the House has vowed to move quickly on such legislation.

Thomas Mann, a congressional scholar at the Brookings Institution, said the report represents "a creature of the Congress . . . saying this doesn't really pass constitutional muster. That has to be taken seriously and will certainly be used by those who oppose it."


The question, however, is highly debatable. Ken Starr, "a former federal appellate judge and onetime independent counsel [who investigated Bill Clinton for years]," and Viet D. Dinh, a former assistant attorney general, had analyzed the measure and found it constitutional."

It all depends on how you interpret the case law:
One is a clause that limits House membership to individuals chosen "by the People of the several States." Courts have determined that the phrase excludes the District, the report says.

The second relevant part of the Constitution, the "District Clause," grants Congress broad authority over the city. The bill's proponents note that the Supreme Court ruled in 1949 that Congress could use its powers to give D.C. residents the same rights as other citizens.

That case, National Mutual Insurance Co. v. Tidewater, concerned the right to have a federal court hear lawsuits involving people of two states.

But the research service says that ruling was narrow. Six justices wrote that the congressional powers over the District weren't big enough to justify making "structural changes to the federal government," the report says. Giving a vote to the District would be such a change, it says.

So what does this all mean? Well for those who were leaning against voting for the bill, the CRS report gives them another excuse to vote 'nay.' There is no doubt that someone will sue to challenge the constitutionality of the bill, assuming President Bush would sign it.

I would hope that DC residents would protest outside the homes of every Justice to drive home the point that they are American citizens and should be able to have the same voice in Congress that their fellow citizens a few miles away enjoy. Of course, Justices like Clarence Thomas don't live in the District.

How Obama got his groove

Notice there was no "back" in the title. That is because I am talking about how his 2000 primary lost to Rep. Bobby Rush made Obama the rock star that he is today.

The Salon article is written by a reporter who knew him back when he was a terrible politician. Barack was a typical, haughty self-entitled Haaaarvard guy. In other words, George W. Bush without the backslapping ability. He tried and failed to be cool and "black." He talked down to people, let them know that he was making a big sacrifice, that he could be making hundreds of thousands in some big law firm, but instead he tried to fix their city. Obama tried to run on his resume rather than on his personality AND his resume.

But a funny thing happened after only getting 31% of the vote. He learned that he needed to work with people to get things done. He learned from critical reporters and colleagues in the State Senate. He learned how to convey his big ideas without sounding intellectually superior to you, but without "dumbing it down." And he learned to use his natural charm and looks to his advantage, and to use his upbringing in the "white world" to his advantage as well. By 2004, he won a crowded Senate primary easily. By 2006, he was charming the country, raising money for Democrats and selling his second best selling novel. By 2007, he was a presidential candidate. In other words, he learned fast.

From reading his first book, the one he wrote before he was full time politician, you get the sense that this is a very introspective person. And from hearing bits from his second book, it seems he now very carefully examines himself and what he does. He is afraid of going back to that 2000 Barack, he is trying to learn the ways of running for president. Of being a movement candidate who is disconnected from the movement. The man has enormous potential to unite the country and win in a landslide against a reactionary same old Republican nominee. He just needs to be comfortable being who he is, and allowing the masses that want him to be president to carry him to the white house.

Sunday, February 11, 2007

Rep. Greg "Icarus" Curtis


(Credit © 1971 Frank Wright)

Lee Benson, identical twin brother of US District Court Judge Dee Benson, makes many excellent points in his most recent Op-Ed column:
[C]ould somebody please explain how Real Salt Lake survived to play another season in Utah while work now begins on its $110 million stadium?
[...]
After months and months of economic due diligence and political leaders behaving like true public servants, following the lead of public opinion polls against the deal, Real was denied taxpayer help with its stadium and thus its future in Utah.
[...]
Overnight, a deal that had been studied upside down and sideways for nearly two years by the county and declared "too risky" by Corroon was declared "a solid investment" by Huntsman.
What was that all about? Other than proof positive that a governor trumps a mayor?
I don't get it. Why is RSL so special? With a few exceptions, the Jazz being the most prominent, other pro sports teams on the verge of collapse have looked for government assistance and gotten basically the same reception as someone trying to butt in line at the airport magnetometer.
And no matter how great soccer is as a sport, no matter how many American kids play it at least until they're 14, RSL is no Jazz and the MLS is no NBA.
Major League Soccer is a second-class league with a reputation for losing money that averages 15,000 fans a game — 2,000 less than when it started 11 years ago — and is hanging its latest hopes on a benchwarmer from Europe married to an aging pop star who is being offered a salary that, with bonuses, could exceed the payroll for the entire rest of the league.
Forget Real Salt Lake, there's no guarantee the league will be around in five years.

Benson puts the blame on the Governor, who flexed his political muscles for this to happen in such a short time. But I think Huntsman was trying to cover for Speaker Curtis, who has been pushing for this from day one. And despite seeing his proverbial wax melt in November and barely survive, he decided that public be damned he was going to waste millions of tax payer dollars on a stadium. And vouchers. And tax cuts on the rich. And an abortion test case. But spend a million to prevent cancer in women who might be sexually active? No way.

I expect that next time, Curtis' most recent trips to the sun will be rewarded with a nice salty bath in the Great Salt Lake. At least I hope that the voters of Sandy will see how unrepresentative of their district and values their Representative really is.

Saturday, February 10, 2007

O is for optimism

I just finished watching Barry's speech on C-SPAN, and one of the most striking things was his campaign logo:



To me, the "O" serves as allusion to a rising sun, a new opportunity, and of course his name. My wife said the logo reminded her that Oprah has basically endorsed him, calling on him to run and saying he was her "favorite senator" (poor Dick Durbin).

I wonder, what is going to happen to the logo if he wins the nomination? Will another initial be added for his running mate (OC for Obama and Clinton or Obama and Clark? OR for Obama Richardson?) Or will the logo change like Kerry's from a boring safe logo to an even more boring and safe logo? Every candidate has to use red white and blue, with stripes or stars or both...but at least Obama is trying something different. It is a bit narcissistic however.

As for the speech, he stepped on his applause/chant lines a bit. The crowd was cold and wanted to get into it, and he basically plowed through it. But can you blame him? Here is his schedule for today and tomorrow: Feb. 10 | Presidential Announcement
Springfield, IL, Feb. 10 | Announcement Tour Cedar Rapids, IA | Feb. 11 : Waterloo, IA | Ames, IA | Chicago, IL.

The content of speech was generally pretty good, although sometimes he used too big of words. There was an applause line for a long convoluted phrase that made you know most of these people were trucked in from Champaign-Urbana. But the area was packed with thousands, and he is a good speaker.

Bottom line: people hunger for leadership and change. For 7 years we have had a MISleader (great line by MoveOn.org) who has divided us for electoral success. People are tired of being prayed upon and leveraged for some ideological agenda. And people like the idea of Obama: a man whose life story represents the hope and promise of America. That somehow if you are smart enough, you can achieve greatness even if you are black, or poor, or foreign, or whatever. Obama the man might not be anywhere near the idea of Obama. And the idea that we can move past the debates that we have been mired in for the last 30 years. People are tired of talking about Vietnam even as this generation's Vietnam is well underway. They want leaders who can frame debates beyond Watergate and Vietnam, and Obama's youth (born in 1961) is a big part of the hope. All he has to do is sell that idea.

Friday, February 09, 2007

Buttars the first time

So as I foresaw, Sen. Chris Buttars used his position on the Senate Rules Committee to replace the new high school [GAY] clubs with his old version:
Under his proposal, Buttars said schools would be free from the fear of being sued for accepting or denying a non-curricular student club because the Utah Attorney General's Office could defend schools, freeing districts from legal costs.
Like a similar bill last year, Buttars wants to target Gay-Straight Alliances, allowing school leaders to deny the clubs at the school without the threat of losing resources in a lawsuit.
"In my opinion, I hope they don't allow them, they could, but I hope they don't," Buttars said. "The school would have the authority to make a decision on yea or nay — that part got taken out over in the House, and I am going to put them back in."

You can't draft a bill that targets a group because of who they are, that's a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. See Romer v. Evans. And like that terrible abortion bill, it makes the taxpayers pony up the money to pay for ideologs' battles. Not to mention that the schools don't want this bill. Not because they love their gay students, but because it is an administrative nightmare even if it wasn't unconstitutional.

Buttars may be fanatical about homosexuals, and have no knowledge of the law, but he is no dummy and knows his parliamentary tactics.

2007 Kerry to become 1971 Kerry



Now that he has given up losing to Hillary, Obama, Edwards, and all the rest of them (hopefully Clark soon...but I will get to that later), John Kerry has listened to the young man that famously asked who wants to be the last man to die for a mistake.
Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) is embarking on a major national campaign to end the Iraq war and has pledged to spend a considerable amount of his campaign war chest on the effort. On Sunday morning, Kerry will appear on This Week with George Stephanopoulos to kick off the campaign which seeks to have all American troops home within a year....

Kerry will finally use the remaining $7.4 million from 2004 presidential primary account and his Senate campaign account. "He also has $5 million saved away in a special account reserved for legal and accounting costs related to his 2004 general election campaign." And who knows if he can use that for this...I doubt it.

As The American Prospect's Garance Franke-Ruta argues, "it's starting to look like the real [bold leaders] are the former presidential candidates." That is because they don't have to suck up to interest groups any more and they can reveal their true selves. And unlike term-limited sitting presidents, they can't sign last minute executive orders or pardons.

Al Gore's moral authority and persuasive power now comes precisely because he is not seeking any political office. If Gore tosses his hat in the ring, his crusade becomes political message or theme and loses its punch. Plus, he can kiss that Oscar and Nobel Peace Prize goodbye.

Does this mean that Kerry is not running for reelection in two years? Or that he will merely confine himself to being the junior Senator from Massachusetts for life?

Thursday, February 08, 2007

East of San Francisco

Former Utah Jazz Center John Amaechi wrote a biography about the great time he had as a closeted gay black man in Salt Lake City. How had how delusional people in Utah (and the NBA) are about all the homosexuals in the midst:
It's hard to overestimate the stranglehold of the Latter Day Saints on the state of Utah. With the majority of the residents, the church had major say in everything from the composition of the legislature to what was considered appropriate attire. Which is why I was astonished that the city is the hippest, gayest place east of San Francisco. (Okay, so there's not a lot in between.)
Frankly, the Jazz fan base isn't all that different from that of Coffee Garden. You can't throw a basketball into a crowd without hitting a gay man or a lesbian. Dozens of season ticket holders who sat directly behind the bench were same-sex couples. I knew they were gay because they'd show up at some of my parties. (One of my guests even turned out to work for Senator Orrin Hatch.)
. . . Yet the Mormon majority seems blithely unaware of this flamboyant minority in its midst. They see same-sex couples walking down the street hand-in-hand. They drive by parts of town where every other Victorian house is festooned with rainbow flags. They see joyfully gay men pouring in and out of bars and clubs.
And at the same time, they don't see it. They're oblivious.

The Salt Lake Tribune, got an advance copy of his book that will be released next week, "Man in the Middle," and provided juicy excerpts.
"Homosexuality is an obsession among ballplayers, trailing only wealth and women," he wrote. "They just didn't like [gays]- or so they insisted over and over and over again. It soon became clear they didn't understand [gays] enough to truly loathe them."

Similarly, a local sports columnist took it upon himself it to point out that that Armaechi was not a good basketball player, as if that was relevant:
John Amaechi remains one of the worst players in franchise history.
I'm not Amaechi-bashing here.
I'm just stating a fact.

On a related note, Jazz owner and homophobic businessman Larry L. Miller (who payed Amachi's salary) regrets blocking 'Brokeback Mountain' from his theaters.
Miller said he probably would allow "Brokeback Mountain" to be shown if the movie was released now, calling his ban a bad decision.
"Not because I got beaten up over it, but because it was a knee-jerk reaction," he said. "You have to choose your spots to draw your lines and I didn't choose a very good one."
[...]
"It was good for me in a couple of ways," he said. "I learned a lot about them with some open and honest dialogue. It didn't change my way of thinking or theirs, but we all realized after talking with each other we have a better understanding of each other.
"I'm still outspoken on issues, but I know I have to look at people's feelings and lives. I'd like to say I'm more understanding now. To say I'm tolerant would be less
accurate, but I am more understanding."

Folks, you tolerate bad tasting food, you understand why Germans voted for Hitler in 1933. Of course understanding and tolerating are not the same as condoning or liking or supporting.

Nonetheless, he is trying.

Tuesday, February 06, 2007

Utah GOP: life begins at conception and ends at birth

The title of this post was taken from an Ed Bagley cartoon that I posted on my blog a several days ago. But the point is still true.

First, punish women and other taxpayers for your anti-choice views:
A proposal to ban abortions in Utah might also carry with it a criminal penalty for women who get an abortion. Representative Paul Ray thinks it's not just the doctor who deserves to be punished in what he calls "killing babies."

"It's a two-way street," says Ray. "The provider's not forcing the woman to do it - she's opting to go there and to pay for it."

If that weren't bad enough, there's the $4 million price tag for this pointless bill:
Even if both Bush-appointed justices John Roberts and Samuel Alito "were hellbent on overturning it, they don't have a fifth vote," said Pam Karlan, a constitutional law professor at Stanford University. "Right now, on the Supreme Court there are not five votes to overturn Planned Parenthood versus Casey. ... It's absolutely clear that the current court would not permit a state to ban all abortions."
[...]
"If all the lower courts agree that this is unconstitutional, then the Supreme Court would probably react cautiously and not take it," said Robert Bennett, a constitutional law scholar at Northwestern University.

Meanwhile, Utah Republican controlled legislature wants women and girls to die, because they might have had sex:
Introduced by Rep. Karen Morgan, D-Cottonwood Heights, HB 358 would have given the Utah Department of Health $1 million to raise awareness of the disease and immunize girls and young women against it with the new Gardasil vaccine.
[...]
Many health providers hailed it as a major advancement because it is the first vaccine designed to prevent human papillomavirus, which can cause genital warts and cervical cancer.
Critics have said it is too early to know if Gardasil is effective and questioned whether it might lead to increased promiscuity among adolescents.

HPV is a curable disease and having a shot would not make people want to have more sex. It is not like sex has gone up since HIV has become less of a worry. And who says that these females won't get HPV from their husbands who sleep around? This is a public health issue, and shouldn't be another front in the culture wars.

I would also like to point out that Texas Governor Rick Perry (R) signed an executive order to do the same thing as HB 358. And no one would accuse Perry as being a liberal or disloyal Republican. Of course, the Texas Republican Party is freaking out about that executive order.

Monday, February 05, 2007

Buttars luck next time


(photo credit: Deseret News, © 2006)

I never grow tired of those puns. I am sure you do though. Anyway, it looks like the Utah House bothered to make Sen. Chris Buttar's (R-crazytown) anti-gay bill constitutional and administratively possible. Originally, Buttar's wanted every high school club to submit minutes and [OF THEIR RADICAL GAY] agenda to the principal (or vice-principal) and have copies of such items available for parents prior to any meeting of any [GAY] club, so the parents could pull their kid out of the club [BECAUSE THEM GAYS ARE TRYING TO CONVERT LITTLE EPHRAM SMITH GAY!!! BOO!]. Here's what happened House side:
The bill, sponsored by Rep. Aaron Tilton, R-Springville, now only requires all clubs to have a name consistent with its purpose, that the club can't deviate from its purpose and that a parent must sign a consent form.
The House eliminated language defining human sexuality or allowing administrators to block clubs for moral reasons. Lawmakers also removed a provision requiring the state to cover the costs of lawsuits involving the restrictions of school clubs. And the bill no longer requires clubs to provide the principal with information that would be presented to the club a week in advance so parents can review it.
House members responded to the pleas of Rep. Scott Wyatt, R-Logan, who said the original bill placed a "bureaucratic stamp" on what should be handled on the school district level.

If you really care about what you are pretending to care about, Sen. Buttars, then you will pass this bill as is. But if all you want to do is keep them gays out High Schools, well then you are going to have to kill all the gay Utahn teens, or use your voucher bill to send them all to private gay schools. People are gay because they are born that way, they don't catch it like some disease (or is a disability to be born homosexual). It isn't a cult where you can be convinced you are attracted to the same sex.

All his obsession with gay sex really makes me wonder if he isn't hiding something from himself.

the announcement that wasn't

So I got back information...Clark seems to have pulled back on his announcement plans this past weekend after he got a luke warm reception from the DNC winter meeting folks.

He canceled his Hardball appearance, and never went back on TV. Could it be that one of the candidates talked him into joining their ticket? Could he have decided he couldn't win based on the reception? Could it be that his old donors said their sticking with Hillary or Obama? Who knows.

Clark has a rock-solid NH asset: newly election US Rep. Carol Shays-Porter, who actually worked for Clark in 2004. Will he be able to use it? Will he use it if he can?

It is sad that a man would be a hell of a president and his over-qualified is not considered a front runner because a bunch of party hacks didn't like the way he talked.

Friday, February 02, 2007

disasters in the making

There once was an idea out there to "professionalize" our state legislature by making it year round. If they passed bills like the ones I am going to describe below year round, no thanks. If it would attract saner politicians, I am all for it.

  1. the zombie RSL stadium is back:
    A bill emerged Thursday on Utah's Capitol Hill that could bring a Real Salt Lake stadium to Sandy and salvage Utah's two-year-old soccer franchise, which is being aggressively courted by investors in St. Louis.
    If the measure passes - it was crafted behind closed doors this week with the blessing of Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr., Salt Lake City Mayor Rocky Anderson and legislative leadership - it would snatch at least $20 million for the project out of Salt Lake County coffers, which critics allege could result in a countywide property-tax hike.
    The move to revive a stadium in Sandy spells the end of talk to relocate RSL to the Utah State Fairpark in Salt Lake City or the former Geneva Steel site in central Utah County.
    [...]
    A separate bill - sponsored by Sen. Michael Waddoups, R-Taylorsville, and backed by Sandy Mayor Tom Dolan - threatens to redirect $15 million in annual restaurant taxes from the county to the suburbs.
    Corroon calls the new soccer bill "troublesome" and insists it could gut the county's ability to fund conventions and tourism.
    "It's regretful," he said. "It will end up hurting all the citizens of the county and the state."
    Good thing they didn't consult the public who would be paying for it.

  2. Rather than an abortion trigger bill, the Utah Legislature wants to be the test case to overturn Roe:
    "On its face, it is unconstitutional. But there are a lot of issues that are ripe for the Supreme Court to consider," said Senate President John Valentine, an attorney. "It's the kind of thing the citizens of this state would support."
    And citizens will have to support it - literally. Defending the bill could cost at least $2 million.
    [...]
    The bill provides exceptions in cases of rape, incest or to prevent a woman's death or "substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function." Without allowing public comment on the new bill, committee members sent it to the House floor for debate.
    [...]
    The Attorney General's Office estimates the legal battle will cost taxpayers at least $2 million - double that if an outside law firm is hired. In the early 1990s, the state's abortion ban cost more than $1 million to defend - not including plaintiffs' fees. That law was found unconstitutional.
    Once again, the legislature is going to be wasting the public's money without any input from them.

  3. Another dumb bill is the school voucher bill, one that will not help a single poor person go to private school but will give the rich a break on their bill:
    After weeks of back-room arm-twisting and spirited lobbying on both sides of the issues, supporters managed 38 yes votes to the 37 opposed -- there were no representatives absent. Surprise supporters included Rep. Brad Last, R-St. George, and Rep. Keith Grover, R-Orem - two former public school officials. Both said they had wrestled with a decision.
    [...]
    HB148 will let parents spend public money on private school tuition. Every Utah family, with the exception of current private school students, would be eligible for a voucher ranging from $500 to $3,000 depending on family income.

    "The Parent Choice in Education Act, sponsored by Rep. Steve Urquhart, R-St. George, would give families a private school tuition voucher that would range from $500 to $3,000, based on income.
    The bill, which calls for $9.2 million in general, not school funds, would leave per-student spending over and above the amount of the voucher in the school system. So, an estimated average $2,000 voucher still would leave $1,500 in state spending in the school district where the voucher recipient lives for the next five years, unless the student graduates.
    The bill seeks $9.2 million, but the Office of the Legislative Fiscal Analyst also says it would put nearly $4 million back into the schools' budget in the first year. The program would require more funding in the coming years."
    Man oh man...I won't get into this any more, because Utah Amicus and others have written much more and better things about it. Count me in as agreeing with them

Thursday, February 01, 2007

Ed Bagley Rocks


Oh and the legislature hates brown people too:
Sen. Mark Madsen, R-Lehi, is again seeking to require voters to prove their citizenship and residency in order to register to vote.
[...]
"I don't want to disenfranchise people who are citizens," Madsen said. "In order to have confidence in the system ... it's worth a little bit of effort on everyone's part."
[...]
"I'm not sure what they're trying to solve," said Salt Lake County Clerk Sherrie Swenson. "It just creates a bit of a hardship for everyone. ... If someone poses as someone else, we should punish that person."

And even though Speaker handout doesn't think it is a big deal, the public wants ethics and campaign finance reform in their state government.

Oh and standing up to RSL and Sandy politicians was a popular move.


For those of you keeping score at home, that 70.5% approval for the RSL move and 67.5% approval of Carroon in general. Unless something goes horribly wrong, like San Fransisco Mayor Gavin Newsom's affair with a substance abusing wife of an aide, he will win reelection in a landslide.

Wednesday, January 31, 2007

Clark is in?!

Good news for me. It seems that Wes Clark is IN!

So he will probably announce this weekend at the DNC winter conference/on Hardball. With him in, the field goes to 10 (just like 2004). So, let's take a look at the field and see who's up, and who is down (and who should be out):

1. Obama: his timetable legislation is specific and tough, with a date far enough away to be realistic and not 'too liberal' it forces other candidates to either make their time tables sooner (and seem to be followers or 'too liberal') or reject timetables altogether (and be labeled as Joe Lieberman clones).

2. Clinton: she went to Iowa and demonstrated how much press and people she can attract. But some seemed non-plussed with her who weren't already firmly behind her beforehand. And then her big splash in NH got canceled due to a family illness. I hope they get better.

3. Edwards: with Hillary and Barack in, he is a front runner who is running against the media this time who is hell bent on making this a two-way race. Obama timetable outflanks Edwards who cannot do anything other than make a speech. (that's the downside of not being in office). But he can hang out with primary voters and raise money all day long (that's the plus side).

4. Richardson: His Darfur peace treaty seems to be holding up, and his resume is pretty impressive. But the fact that he was part of the When Ho Lee scandal (as Clinton's Energy Secretary), and the rumors of philandering may kill his candidacy before it starts. Plus, he lost NM for Kerry.

5. Clark: he starts off much better off than last time. Like Edwards, he learned a lot by running last time. He now has a real organization behind him (WesPAC/VoteVets/etc.), he has campaigned for candidates all over the country in 2006 by request, just like Obama. His wife, who was against it in 2003, learned to love campaigning in 2004. A general who make a lasting peace in ethnically divided land and ran a competent war (save the embassy bombing) seems like a pretty good selling point in 2007. Now who is he going to hire? Where is his money coming from?

6. Vilsack: he keeps going lower and lower in Iowa, where he was governor for 8 years. If he can't win Iowa, how can he win nationally? Plus, that name is terrible.

7. Also rans (Dodd, Biden, Gravel, Kucinich): none of these guys have a prayer. Dodd said he is competing with the margin of error in polls. A paper replied, you wish, the MoE is 5.4%, you are at 1%. Ouch. Biden made news today by making a racist-sounding "compliment" to Obama. This from a guy whose whole strategy is to convince South Carolinians that he is just as racist as the worst of them (saying that Delaware was once a slave state and wished it could have joined the Confederacy, mean old Maryland and DC where in the way). Gravel will never be heard from. Kucinich is trying to capture the Nader vote, so I guess that is useful, but he is a joke.

To me, the biggest threat to Democrats wanting the White House is no longer John McCain, but ex-AR Gov. Mike Huckabee. He really sounded great on the Daily Show. My wife remarked that she had no idea that he was a GOPer until the label appeared. His anti-fat campaign is something that many Americans can get behind. After all, there are lots of overweight people in America. His story of losing hundreds of pounds is about as inspiring as Obama's to some.

Tuesday, January 30, 2007

why RSL must die

I don't know about you, but I am sick and tired of the political drama of Real Salt Lake and its stupid soccer stadium. Clearly, Sandy's Mayor and representatives in the Legislature (especially the Speaker) miscalculated SLCo. Mayor Peter Corroon. Same with Dave Checketts. They all assumed that Corroon was a normal politican and would bow to their whim because they were "powerful" and "influential."

But Corroon decided that he needed to do what was in the best interest for the taxpayers of the County, and in his judgment, that was not selling the farm to rent a cow to milk. He wanted real hard numbers, and so did the County Council after Corroon led the way. And when those numbers finally came in, it was clear that they were about as forthright and reasonable in their assumptions as Enron's financial statements (or President Bush's Budgets). So Carroon and the Council said no dice.

And guess what? The voters love them for it. And the Speaker almost lost his seat last fall because of this chest-beating exercise.

It is good that someone finally stood up to professional sports teams when they ask cities to pay for their stadiums or threaten to leave. The economics behind such sweet-heart deals just isn't there. That's why Portland's voters said see-ya to the Trail-Blazers. Now the Speaker is going to punish the County while trying to punish Corroon by taking away the hotel tax money.

I would love to see how that turns out. But really, I don't want to hear another story about that soccer team. I am tired of it by now, aren't you?

Monday, January 29, 2007

Utah's legislature: corrupt, male chauvinist pigs



Tribune opinion columnist Rolly notes that "The Utah Legislature has consistently rejected legislation mandating that insurance companies cover birth control for women. At the same time, the Beehive State is the easiest place in the country to get Viagra." Could it possibly have something to with the fact that the average state legislator is male, middle-aged, alumni of the U or BYU, and LDS (90% of them are) with dozens of grandchildren.

Meanwhile, those same legislators who are sexists can't bother be ethical either.
The tickets were so good that [a legislator] took an elbow from Jazz forward Matt Harpring, who was chasing after a loose ball.
[He] accepted the bruise and the gift, as did Senate Minority Leader Mike Dmitrich and Senate Majority Leader Curt Bramble.
Bountiful GOP Sen. Dan Eastman rounded out the quartet. But he paid Stokes for the ticket.
The cost: $500.
"Because of the price of this seat, I just thought it was appropriate that I pay for it," Eastman said. "I was always taught to avoid the appearance of evil, and if there is some there we ought to avoid it."
Bramble shrugs off concerns about perception. He says he routinely disagrees with Stokes and that the Jazz game will not buy his vote.

The gift limit is technically $50, but no one will enforce it against Bramble, who wants to eliminate the restriction altogether. Because you know, it won't buy his vote, at least that is what he says. And how dare we citizen's question his morality?