The losing winning argument

I have been thinking about this whole debate over the "War on Terror" and whether it can be "won" or "lost" for quite some time now, but I guess it worth addressing now that the GOP-spoon-fed-media are attacking Sen. Reid for saying that the war in Iraq is lost.

There were clearly two main phases of this war, which really are two separate wars. The first was the initial invasion, which America obviously won. Saddam's government was quickly overthrown, his military destroyed, his son's killed, and Saddam himself going into hiding and all with very little burning of oil fields and other environmental self-destructions. Great work by the military, even if it was fighting a weaker opponent than they did in 1991. After all, it had a much bigger task, and with far less troops--thanks to Rumsfeld--to do it.

The second phase was the occupation, which everyone who looks at reality knows was lost. Not in the sense of military retreat, but in the sense that the Iraqi people quickly became distrustful and disliking of the "coalition." And the Iraqis had good cause because college Republicans who were put in charge of Iraq--like the 24 year old real estate major who was in charge of the Iraqi stock exchange--messed everything up horribly. We couldn't even execute Saddam properly. Massive weapons stock piles went unguarded, giving groups plenty of raw material for IEDs... You know the litany as well as I do.

The point is, Americans are not seen as liberators but as occupiers who just want Iraqi oil and don't really care about democracy. Meanwhile, our military was unable to provide security and stability in important areas of the country, like the capitol were most people live. This is because they were not trained to be diplomats and police officers, but to conquer. Republicans used to critique Clinton's aggressive internationalism as being a "policeman to the world" well now our military is Baghdad PD.

The resulting instability and lack of security enabled tribalism to prevail. Ethnicity-based gangs offered neighborhoods protection in exchange for payments, these gangs infiltrated the state security apparatus, not only enabling the Baghdad Iraqi police force to become a tool of ethnic cleansing but also body guards to members of parliament themselves. Imagine if the IDF didn't exist and it was just groups like Hamas, Hezbollah, and Jewish extremists warring in the streets of Jerusalem...that is what happening.

Militarily, US forces cannot "win" Iraq back at this point. Maybe in 2003 or 2004, a surge and competent multinational leadership (with Muslim troops and leaders) could have made a difference. Politically, no side wants to renegotiate because they all believe they can achieve control of the country via genocide. There is nothing for these groups to gain by talking to the US or US-backed Iraqis.

Maybe the US forces are slowing the rate of such a genocide, as conservatives argue, but I don't think the US has any credibility left with the Iraqis to stay in a humanitarian capacity. If we give up our bases, let the Iraqi government invite in NATO or the Arab League (plus Iran) or the UN, we could be a part of that contingent. But the "coalition" has no power to serve as a power broker.

Republicans like to get into this rhetorical battle over "losing" and "defeat" on "the War on Terror," even though you can never defeat a tactic on the battlefield. What the U.S. and its allies are really fighting against around the globe is religious extremism that wants to dissolve church-state boundaries to oppress women and to eliminate all religious dissenters through violence. These groups use terror because they don't have the multi-billion dollar military budget of the US, and because it is pretty cost effective.

That war has not been lost. However, Bush's policies have strengthened the enemy. Iraq has wasted our resources (money, equipment, troop moral, public support, and troops themselves) on a side project that created more trained radicals willing and able to kill us. So now we have no troops to send to Afghanistan, where the Taliban is regaining control, no covert ops to send to Indonesia or deep into Pakistan. And the American people no longer trust President Bush, so he has no leeway in fighting this true war. Moreover, the world has long stopped trusting President Bush, so he will get no help from any country without bribes.

As many others have said, instead of using the events of 9/11 to rally the world behind the threat of religious extremism and eliminating it, Bush chose to go to war against someone who tried to kill his Dad, and to finish the job his Dad started. He chose to use the war as a club to beat his political opponents with, leveraging it into victories in 2002 and 2004. Meanwhile, he made the real war that started on 9/11 harder to win for him and his successor. That's why Cheney and his enablers in the Media are trying to tear down Harry Reid over the win/loose argument. They know that Al Qeada and ideologically allied groups are stronger than they were on 9/10.

copy and paste journalism

Now many of you know that I am a big fan of Rep. Jim Matheson (D-UT), and that I proudly served as intern in his office one summer. And what I am about to say is no slam on Jim, although I wish he would have voted for the Iraq Accountability Act.

What this post is about is lazy journalism. It seems once someone reports for the D.C. bureau or works on a national paper, they have to turn off their brain and parrot talking points and the Beltway's always wrong CW. Just look at David Broder's embarrassing foray into going after Maj. Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev) as incompetent as AG Alberto Gonzales even though he managed to corral 50 Democrats and Joe Lieberman into passing lots of great legislation already (oh and can remember stuff he did a few months ago).

Anyway past to the meat of my post. This article "written" by Robert Gehrke, is clearly a Jim Matheson/Blue Dog press release with little or no edits. Politicians draft their press release in the following formula: snappy positive headline with pol's name in it, brief one sentence pro-politician spin on the event, a quote from the politician, an explainer paragraph, and then one more quote from the same politician or a bigger name.

This article follows the formula to a tea. In fact, it is very similar to a 2 year old Blue Dog Press release...one that came up as the number three hit on Google when I copy and pasted Gehrke's headline into the search engine (number one when you remove the phrase "moderate Dems").

Now I agree with this Blue Dog legislation, and applaud Allyson Heyrand and the rest of Matheson's press staff for getting this article in the Tribune, but couldn't Mr. Gehrke actually write the article next time? Is that really too much to ask? After all, when politicians copy and paste legislation that lobbyists give them, the public cries foul. Shouldn't someone watch the media and cry foul when they do the same thing?

wednesday round-up

Well, I finished my last final exam....[probably] EVER. That feels good, even if the test was long taxing. Oh elaborate fact pattern, how I dislike thee. After reclaiming my freedom temporarily (I have a 25 page paper to write on Wisconsin Right to Life's as-applied challenge to McCain-Finegold, and then the dreaded Bar awaits), I decided to skim through my google reader and found a few stories that I wanted to share with my readers.

• "Brigham Young University will bestow on Vice President Dick Cheney an honorary degree Thursday when he speaks at the university's commencement exercises" according to the Utah Republican Party Morning News. One question why? What has he done other than get GWB elected twice? Made a lot of money off questionable oil deals with Iraq and Iran? Steering no-bid contracts to his former company? Leading us into a war that has been disasterous on so many levels? Lying openly and repeatedly? Pushing a theory of executive power equal to Nixon's wrong interpretation of the constitution? Advocating torture? Where are the things that Cheney stands for that BYU finds in keeping with the LDS faith? Answer that, and you deserve an honorary degree.


• I am glad the media finally picked up Gov. Huntsman's flip flop on vouchers: "Huntsman [] said earlier this spring he would stand by the public should voters reject school vouchers, this week he said it would be up to the Legislature to respond to the vote." Here's the exact quote from a news conference in February (not exactly spring, but I guess it makes it sound more dramatic): "If the people vote (the voucher law) down, obviously that's the answer, I mean the people have spoken ... and I would obviously respect that." Actually, it is obvious that he has no respect for the voters. I guess that he why he supports McCain, who doesn't care what the people think on Iraq, and his Dad supports Romney, who cares so much what the people think that he is willing to pretend he agrees with them whomever he is talking to.

Monday round-up

OK I just couldn't resist writing another post about these next two items (someone diagnosed with ADD shouldn't have caffeine in the system):

Sean Hannity is a coward, a chicken, and a bully. Everyone knows it, and others in the Utah blogosphere have said it before, but it bears repeating.

Suddenly, the debate planned for May 4 between the liberal Salt Lake City mayor and the conservative Fox News commentator appears off. Hannity objected to the presence of a documentary film crew, which had planned to record the Kingsbury Hall smackdown.
According to Anderson's office, Hannity is blaming the mayor for backing out on contract terms. But Patrick Thronson, Anderson's spokesman, says the reverse is true. Thronson says the ban on documentary filmmakers "came out of nowhere."

Why are you so afraid of Rocky, Sean? Are you too used to beating up on people on your radio and TV shows by cutting them off? What is so wrong with a documentary crew (my guess--this divided state, part II)? Are they going to show you in a bad light to liberal audiences? Oh no, that never happens. Plus, if they really use editing to distort the debate against you, as you would claim, you can always go back to the raw footage/transcript to prove it.

The headline "Cheney will call on LDS leaders while in Utah" disgusts me. It can be read as either, A) Cheney kissing their rings, or B) LDS leaders signaling that this is our guy. Either way is distasteful in my book. Moreover, the article says it is A) but then only mentions George and Laura Bush's visits with LDS leaders, subtlying sayin B) is the real answer. I know for a fact that Clinton met with LDS leaders in 1992, and charmed them. They really liked Bill, at least for a few moments.

exam week

Amazingly enough, on the first day of exams I am already half way through finals. (I turned in a paper after my test) But I still have one more exam Wednesday and then a 25 page paper by the end of next week.

So just warning you that posting may be light the next week or two. But here is something for you to chew on in the mean time:

Career politicians these days are getting too comfortable with Washington. Too risk-adverse, and get sucked into the allure of K street. Exhibit no. 1,243: ex-Sen. John Breaux (D-LA).

He took one look at the $5M US Rep. "Bobby" Jindal (R-LA) raised [he is a Brown Alum and Rhodes Scholar by the way], another look at his Maryland mansion and high paying lobbyist job, and wanted no part in helping his state get out of the post-Katrina mess.

Selfishly, Breaux, probably the most popular politician in the state, didn't want to lose an election, and certainly didn't want to lose his new found opulent lifestyle. So he asked the AG to rule either that he wasn't a resident or couldn't tell if he was a resident, so that Breaux could blame the AG's opinion letter for why he wouldn't run.

Same on you Breaux. Louisiana needs you, now more than ever.

making themselves unaccountable

Instead of calling a special session of the Utah Legislature if the Voucher bill goes forward (like he promised), Gov. Jon Huntsman will simply make the people vote on the referenum (assuming there are enough valid signatures). But instead of having an election relatively soon, as the law currently requires, or during a general election when people are used to voting, Huntsman wants it to be during the presidential primary next February.

House Republicans batted around scenarios during a caucus meeting earlier this week. Logan GOP Rep. Scott Wyatt, who voted for the voucher law, argued against a June 2007 vote.
"I just don't want to see it this summer," he said. "The summer elections bring in such a low number of voters."
With no money allocated, House Majority Leader David Clark, who also supported the bill, said he thinks a June vote "is not physically a possibility."
And Senate President John Valentine isn't inclined to provide any extra money for a special election. He calls a June vote "not acceptable," but would be fine with a referendum election in February, June or November of 2008, during elections that are already funded.
This November's municipal elections are not fully funded because some counties don't have seats up for a vote and others would need to upgrade to electronic machines for a statewide election, said Joe Demma, lieutenant governor's chief of staff.

If you recall, I argued that having our primary on Super Duper Tuesday will mean that no presidential candidate will ever stop by the state (except the big three GOPers, but only to raise money, they know that Mitt has this state wrapped up). More importantly, no one will come to vote in February.

While I agree with Min. Leader Clark that June would be a bad time too, why not 11/07 or 11/08? If you actually care what people have to say about things, you would place it on a date when people can and will vote on it. But we all know what the real agenda is, to save their own butts so that folks like Speaker Curtis don't get voted out of office over the voucher bill and the RSL stadium.

Hatch: I picked the wrong week to quit sniffing glue

[as an aside, "Airplane!" is one of the few movies I own on DVD because it is still funny after watching it for the 20th time]

While Alberto "I do not recall that, Senator" Gonzales was embarrassed himself [by being caught lying multiple times] for 5 straight hours under questioning from Senate Judiciary Committee members, ranging in ideology from Feingold and Leahy to Coburn and Graham, two Senators tried to give the embattled hack Attorney General a mini vacation. Three guesses who one of them was, and the first two don't count:

Sen. Orrin Hatch had a burning question: "How many employees do you have at the Department of Justice?"
Not to worry. Hatch, who has been on the Senate Judiciary Committee for 30 years and counting, had a follow-up. "What are the main core functions of the Department of Justice?" he asked. "You overview the FBI?"
Maybe it's because the senator still is recovering from shoulder surgery, but for several minutes Thursday, he lobbed softballs. Not just typical softballs, but questions so wispy a gentle breeze in the committee room would have sent Hatch's inquiries drifting into the ether.

Boy those sure are hard probing questions. Ones that any idiot with an org chart and access to an "about us" web page could answer.

"If you had had more hands on, on this, maybe we wouldn't be in this position today," Hatch said. "On the other hand, with 100,000-plus employees, it's easy to see why something sometimes slips by."

If it is so tough to do the job and forget something like a) offering a secret amendment to a key piece of legislation for the DOJ b) multiple meetings on said amendment and its new powers c) signing off on firing 8 US Attorneys...THEN RESIGN. And if Hatch thinks this is such a tough job where one can forget things, then he seems unqualified for the job either.

Poor Orin was one of the few cheerleaders left for a morally bankrupt national party. Not one, but two of his House colleagues had their homes/businesses raided by the FBI for investigations into corruption this week. Both men blamed the raid on their wife/in-laws, classy. World Bank President Paul Wolfowitz not only demanded that the State Department give his paramour a higher paying job than Condi Rice, but he personally urged that said girlfriend got a no-bid contract for Iraq in 2003 from the DoD where he worked at the time.

Once leading Presidential candidate Sen. John McCain "joked" about his would-be foreign policy to the Persians: singing "Bomb Iran" to the tune of "Barbara Ann" by the Beach Boys. And former HHS secretary and ex-gov. Tommy Thompson "praised" Jews in an audience for their "tradition" of raising money...his state newspaper called on him to drop out of the race.

I could go on, but I won't. I looks like Sen. Hatch picked the wrong week...

He Who Makes the Rules, Rules the Game

If you ever find yourself elected to a legislative body, and are in the majority party, try to get yourself on the Rules Committee. And you are a staffer, and are also ruthless and creative, Rules is the place for you to be.

The Salt Lake Tribune provides a great example why:

Republicans who used gun rights to derail a plan to give the District of Columbia its first full-voting House member and a fourth congressional seat for Utah won't be able to repeat their tactic today when the bill returns to the floor.
[...]
Several Republicans in late March tried to attach language that would have eliminated the district's long-standing handgun ban. Democrats, fearing many of their pro-gun rights members would side with the GOP, pulled the measure from consideration.
The legislation, mainly designed to give the nearly 600,000 residents of the district representation in Congress, will be brought up separately from a provision to pay for the new Utah seat, a move aimed at keeping Republicans from hindering passage with parliamentary procedures.
A spokeswoman for Rep. LaMar Smith, R-Texas, who pushed the handgun ban removal says the GOP won't be able to try the same move again because the Democrats are putting procedural roadblocks in the way of such an attempt.
"That is not going to be germane, so right now we're still weighing our options," said Beth McGinn, a spokeswoman for Smith, the ranking Republican on the House Judiciary Committee.

The article also mentions that given the massacre at Virginia Tech earlier in the week, Rep. Smith's amendment might not seem as attractive as it once was. It might even be a liability to vote for such an amendment so soon after the mass killings. In a weird way, Democratic leadership might be doing pro-gun folks a favor.

As for the Utah-DC bill itself, DC Vote predicts it will pass with 20 Republicans voting in favor.

Even if that happens, the bill still faces hurdles. Many senators fear it could lead to the district pressing for a Senate seat as well. And several members have expressed concerns about the bill's constitutionality.
White House advisers have also said they could counsel President Bush to veto the bill should it pass Congress.
Republicans will attempt another approach today that is not expected to get much support: giving back most of the District of Columbia to Maryland, making residents there part of that state. The Capitol, National Mall, White House and other federal buildings would remain part of the district but the first family would be the only residents.

That too is a fall back poison pill amendment. Maryland does not want to deal with DC, those Marylanders living along the Chesapeake, or in the western regions, don't want Maryland's power base to shift to Washington and the burbs. Aside from the political problems, there is also the issue of DC's crime, prisons, drinking water, schools, city maintenance, that makes Maryland weary of taking ownership of the city.

Getting the bill past the House is the easy part (thanks to the new rule), but the Senate doesn't have the ability to make such rules since pretty much anything is germane in the world of senate amendments. Unanimous consent agreements also make closed rules difficult to get through.

So ends today's parliamentary lesson.

one last post on this, I promise

Bob and I have been blogging the back and forthin a polite yet spirited debate about BYU's new and improved honor code.

He also makes a good point: "Yes, the Bible contains no references by Jesus to homosexuality. However, Mormons don't rely on the Bible as our only source of scripture [they rely on inter alia the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, Pearl of Great Price and the Articles of Faith]"

True enough, but my point was that BYU claimed that the honor code is necessary for members of the BYU community (faculty, staff, and students) "to live the 'moral virtues encompassed in the gospel of Jesus Christ.'" Now again, correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding is that the gospel of Jesus Christ is limited to the gospels according to Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John. Does the BoM contain any more stories of what Jesus said and taught? My understanding is that the BoM is about the time prior to Jesus and other attesting to/forseeing the Son of Man.

Ergo, if the gospel of Jesus is limited to the Bible, and in said Bible Jesus himself makes no mention of homosexuality [or as Bob suggested, the Mormon additions to the Bible also leave little mention of homosexuality], then BYU has no basis for its discriminatory honor code.

I don't get how Bob's referenced citations have anything to do with a) Jesus' teachings or b) homosexuality as being inherantly sinful. The only thing I can think of is that there is a loophole for future prophets to learn from God that homosexuality is a sin. But again, since it didn't come from Jesus during his ministry, such revelation has no bearing on BYU's purported justification for despirate treatmnet of same-sex couples.

Bob also makes the good point that while Jesus hung out with sinners, he admonished them to sin no longer. But my point is, is it a center for academic learning's place to say what is a sin and punish accordingly?

OK moving on...my correction of the day goes to the Utah Republican Party Morning News: " The U.S. Constitution was signed in 1787. An incorrect year was listed in Tuesday's Education section." Oh the irony!

I am no theologian but...

I am so glad that great bloggers like Bob read my posts and take time to critique them, but I thought I would do some response.

As my friend and BYU alumnae Alisa pointed out in the comment section to the original post, not-married heterosexual couples who hold hands and kiss on BYU campus are not targeted by this "hate the sin, love the sinner" honor code, whereas homosexual couples that did the same thing would fall under its purview.

I didn't say that Jesus never talked about sin, only that he did not say that homosexuality was a sin. He talked about adultery, and divorce, and other stuff, but his main gist about sin was forgiveness. He ate with prostitutes and tax collectors, in BYU they only would talk to the later. Again, his followers might have said that premarital sex was wrong, like Paul, but Jesus never mentions it as far as I can tell.

Now I am not asking to get into a chapter and verse war, and I am happily educated on the subject. But from what I remember from Sunday School and Confirmation classes (as well as Sunday sermons) I don't recall Jesus really talking about sexual sins.

Most of the sins he talked were sinning against our neighbors by not loving them as ourselves. And most of the times, like when he found the adulterous woman he admonished but forgave. "Sin no more" and "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." And my all time personal favorite: "Judge not lest ye be judged."

My point is that the vast majority of sexual sins conservative churches tend to focus on were not really directly mentioned by Jesus himself, let alone the focus of his ministry. It seems conservative churches are happy to focus on the Old Testament that went around smiting people and destroying cities like Sodom and Gomorrah but really work at ignoring the beatitudes, especially in the lead up to the Iraq War, this one: "Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God." And for the subject at hand, sexual morality and those who are marginalize and persecuted for their sexuality: "Blessed are they that hunger and thirst after justice: for they shall have their fill."

Scholars say that this speech by Jesus is the one thing they are pretty sure he said. The rest, there is debate whether the Son of Man said them, or if they are summaries/parables of general Christian messages.

Now it is true that I don't have to go to BYU (and I won't, I am pretty sure I am done with schooling) and don't have to follow their honor code, so why should I care? Well because when I see disparate treatment and discrimination, I feel discriminated against. To me, when people suffer unjustly, I suffer. This solidarity I feel with my fellow humans is part of the reason why I identify with the Democratic Party, as I don't feel that same level of empathy and passion on the other side of the isle.

It gets me upset that Bob can't wear his beard around campus as well, but I don't think it is as unjust as gay BYU students who can't hold hands around campus. Afterall, Bob can shave off his beard, the gay students cannot shave off their sexual orientation.

dis-honor code

BYU just changed its honor code.

The changes, which condemn behavior rather than sexual orientation, "remove a lot of the Gestapo atmosphere from the campus," said Brett Condron, a BYU freshman.
The new section of the honor code application reads, in part: "Brigham Young University will respond to homosexual behavior rather than to feelings or orientation and welcomes as full members of the university community all whose behavior meets university standards. . . . One's stated sexual orientation is not an Honor Code issue. However, the Honor Code requires all members of the university community to manifest a strict commitment to the law of chastity."
The honor code is a set of rules students and staff at the school owned by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are expected to follow in order to live the "moral virtues encompassed in the gospel of Jesus Christ." The honor code's applications clarify the short set of rules. Students who disregard the code can be put on probation and, in rare situations, suspended.
Prior to the honor code application change, the section on homosexual behavior or advocacy read, in part:
"Brigham Young University will respond to student behavior rather than to feelings or orientation. . . . Advocacy of a homosexual lifestyle (whether implied or explicit) or any behaviors that indicate homosexual conduct, including those not sexual in nature, are inappropriate and violate the Honor Code."

While agree it is an improvement, I still disapprove of the singling out of homosexuals, especially on the basis that "Jesus said it was cool."

Jesus said a whole lot of great stuff, but he never said anything about homosexuality. Most religious anti-gay people point to Leviticus, AKA a book in the Old Testament AKA not something in Jesus' teachings, to say that God believes homosexuality is a sin. The Son of Man certainly talked disapprovingly of divorce, something unfortunately quite frequent in the LDS Church.

But the bulk of his gospel was about social justice: poverty, social castes, the sick, the weak, etc. To blame Jesus for the school's anti-gay policies is dishonoring his legacy and his teachings.

"As more and more members of the LDS Church are coming to know individuals who are gay and finding out that they're human, that these are people just like them, that they're good people, it becomes difficult for them to demonize homosexuality the way the church positions do," said Nick Literski, a former BYU student. "Literski, a gay man who has withdrawn his membership from the church, said his daughter will attend the school this fall." I guess there is hope in us all.

using tragedies and crimes

By now you have heard about the mass murder at Virginia Tech. I don't really have much to add to the words of condolence, sadness, and anger about what happened.

But what does get my ire are op-eds (and pundits) making arguments like the Salt Lake Tribune's:

But we do know that the terrible events in Blacksburg, Va., the most deadly rampage shooting in U.S. history, will reignite the debate over the ready availability of guns in this nation and the price we pay in death for that policy.
There you have it. We said it. A nation awash in guns cannot protect itself from or prevent tragedies like the ones at Trolley Square or Virginia Tech or Columbine. That's the simple truth.
Gun-rights advocates will argue ...
That's an argument that should not be easily dismissed. But on a day like this one, it is not persuasive.
We note, too, that Virginia Tech has a policy that forbids students, faculty and staff from carrying guns on campus, even if they have a concealed-carry permit. That is similar to the policy the University of Utah and other public colleges in this state had until recently, before the Legislature struck it down.
[...] But we can be sure that the arguments from both sides will gain fresh emphasis in the days ahead.
And they should. Because this is a debate that must continue so long as horrors like the one Monday occur.

I don't know about you, but I am sick and tired of people using events like this as props for their arguments.

Arguments about the proper limitations to the right to bear arms has its place in the United States, but I think that such a debate should be put on hold until at least the bodies of the victims are buried. Standing knee deep in their blood and screaming into the camera to score political points is beyond tasteless.

Personally, I think now is a time to reflect on their lives and then later why this keeps on happening in the US. I don't think it is because of our gun laws or lack thereof, I think it is a cultural issue. So when the dust has settled, I recommend watching Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine, to me his second best movie and most provocative. It raises lots of questions, and whether you agree with him about his conclusions or not, it is worth thinking about. Later.

WWBD?

What Would Brigham Do? The city named in its honor is wasting its money on millioniares:

Millions of dollars in taxes and fees collected from airline passengers have paid the bill for improvements at northern Utah's Brigham City airport, which caters to business jets and sees no commercial traffic.
But airport officials say the improvements were long overdue, and the airport was encouraged to apply for the funding by the Federal Aviation Administration.
A review by The Associated Press found the airport in Brigham City, about 50 miles north of Salt Lake City, received $6.2 million in 2005 and $8 million in 2006 from the federal Airport Improvement Program — several times more than any other airport in the state.

Is this a boondoggle that Rep. Bishop got for his friends? Maybe the airport was all run down, but when it is as privatized as this one is, to me it makes no sense that federal tax payers will be paying for it.

In other dumb ideas this week, Lee Benson's tax plan:

If elected I will eliminate the income tax side of the IRS entirely, except for a couple of guys to open the mail and deposit the checks.
My plan is to scrap the current rich people-favoring, receipt-saving, complicated-as-calculus income tax system and replace it with a voluntary flat tax.

Who would willingly pay the 20 percent Benson proposes? Not the rich, who currently spend lots of money on tax attorneys to avoid paying such rates.

There will be no penalty for not paying, for paying late or for paying less than you're supposed to.
But if you don't pay your share you will know about it and have to live with that every time you drive on a highway or call the police or use a fire hydrant or enjoy a city park or watch fireworks on the Fourth of July or send your kids to public school.
That will be your penalty. Knowing you are freeloading off your neighbor.

Good luck with that. By defunding government to this extent, we would have no highways, etc. A flat tax will never work, because it is a poor tax and the poor have less money than the middle class and wealthy.

Just look at the lottery, another voluntary flat tax with a random (microscopic) chance of rebate. The poorer less educated play the lottery, and the middle and upper class folks don't throw their money way.

the nose in the camel's tent

Overstock.com CEO Patrick Byrne, a major GOP donor and pusher of the unconstitutional trademark law in Utah, is also the biggest in state donor to the voucher effort. Here's why he wants voucher's to succeed:

"This is the camel's nose under the tent," said Patrick Byrne, who...gave $70,000 to the local pro-voucher group Parents for Choice in Education. "If it takes hold here and proceeds here it will have a demonstrative effect that no other states can afford to ignore."

By afford to ignore, I think he means politicians will have to support it because big moneyed donors from out of state will get pro-public school politicians out of office.

Nearly half the money the group spent on legislative campaigns came from a political action committee called All Children Matter based out of Alexandria, Va., that has its headquarters in Grand Rapids, Mich. All Children Matter donated $240,000 to Parents for Choice in Education in 2006 and about $250,000 during the 2004 campaign cycle, finance reports in Utah show.
Utah was one of 10 states that All Children Matter has targeted to affect state elections, spending about $8 million nationwide in the 2003-04 election cycle. It is an organization dedicated to supporting candidates who favor charter schools and voucher programs.
It's largely financed by heirs to the Wal-Mart fortune and the founders of Amway, according to finance reports in Virginia.
In 2004, Jim Walton and John Walton, children of Wal-Mart founder Sam Walton, each donated more than $3 million to All Children Matter, the reports showed.
In 2006, the estate of John Walton donated another $4.1 million, the reports showed.

Each one of these groups are right-wing organizations that are more anti-union than pro-education, especially the Walton family.

I don't blindly support whatever teacher's unions, or other unions want, but I fail to see how unionization is the cause of Utah's educational struggles. It has far more to do with class size & per pupil spending. More, highly-trained teachers and better facilities (and better student loans) will go a long way towards Utah's education problems, vouchers will not.

But if the anti-union out-of-state corporatists have their way, our public school system will suffer and then die.

A non-partisan bipartisan agenda

Listening to the Becker-Buhler debate (I am about half-way through it), you get the distinct impression that being a Democrat in this Utah race, for once, is a distinct advantage.

Over and over again, Buhler went out of his way to pretend he was not a Republican or a partisan Republican...except when it would help him, touting his period in the UT Senate leadership for "I can get pork for the City" argument. You don't get to be in the leadership in the legislature unless you toe the partisan line and make nice with those already in leadership. So how he can be "bipartisan" in a "non-partisan" election is beyond me.

Lucky for both men, the debate got front page, front fold coverage by the Tribune of course, the article focuses on the new downtown mall's skybridge, the boringist controversial issue I have seen in this state, and the mormon/non-mormon debate, wherein no one wins.

But Ralph was the debate winner for related reason, the article's second and third paragraphs:

"I wouldn't [trot around the globe as an activist for a cause]," said Buhler, a city councilman and former state senator. Buhler, a Republican, argued the mayor instead should focus on being chief executive - to manage all city departments while working with other city captains and state lawmakers.
Becker, a Democrat, pledged to work with residents, steer clear of anti-war rallies - Anderson has participated in several at home and in Washington, D.C. - and resist hopscotching across the globe. But the professional city planner and House minority leader maintained the mayor should give voice to issues such as air quality.

In talking with Ralph's people during the blogger meeting, they told me that if they got the debate to be about parties they were halfway home. Later in the article...

The candidates placed a lopsided emphasis on party affiliation - despite the fact the mayor's race is officially nonpartisan. Buhler downplayed his Republican pedigree, saying city issues are nonpartisan. But Becker celebrated his Democratic status.
"In a city that is progressive like Salt Lake City," Becker said, "it is important that those values are reflected and represented."

Ralph, a city planner, talked about making SLC more like Portland, with green spaces, public transportation, walkable neighborhoods, and bike trails. Buhler talked about "experience" and his ability to "get things done" because he was "bipartisan" even though his key getting things done ability comes from his Republican credentials.

Rocky Anderson didn't win two terms because of "experience" or because he was "bipartisan" or because he could "get things done." In fact, he was elected and reelected despite of his lack of those qualities. Salt Lake residents liked having a jerk for a mayor because he was an articulate, passionate guy who talked back to legislators instead of cooing in their ears. They liked his activism, to a degree. And they liked pissing off conservatives from neighboring cities and towns, even if it meant less state money for their city and capitol.

The Utah Republican Party Morning News had a different, no-shockingly pro-Buhler spin on the debate, focusing on "experience." Yet they still played into Becker's plans:

Ralph Becker and Dave Buhler have both represented Salt Lake City on Capitol Hill. [...]
The two mayoral candidates tout their experience as key to helping them lead [...]
Becker is a Democrat and current House minority leader. Buhler is a Republican [...]
According to recent polls and the city's political history, Buhler's party affiliation may pose challenges in the mayoral race, and Becker may struggle for never having served in an elected city position.
"While some people want to put people in a box and label people, it's really about working with people," Buhler said.
The mayor's office is officially nonpartisan, but Salt Lake City residents have not elected a Republican mayor since the early 1970s.

Real family values

"The Republicans talk a lot about family values. It's time they started valuing families." --Wes Clark.

If you really believe the LaVar Christensen/John Swallow "family values" rhetoric is not just code for anti-gays and anti-abortion, then why is our pro-family state allowing this to happen?

The number of Utah's uninsured children, up to and including the age of 18, rose by 18,200 from 71,300 in 2005 to 89,500 in 2006. Meanwhile, the number of adults, ages 19 to 64, who lacked health insurance declined from 221,600 to 220,100.
"The increase is almost exclusively among children," said Norman Thurston, health economist for the state agency. "Most of that increase is among kids under 200 percent of the federal poverty level."

You can believe in Social Darwinism (which is a load of crock by the way) and still support universal health care for children. It is not the fault of children that their parents are too poor to afford health care for them.

The Legislature this year appropriated $4 million to allow an additional 12,000 children to be insured through CHIP starting July 2, he said.
Enrollment in CHIP, for which children living under 200 percent of the poverty level — roughly $40,000 for a family of four — are eligible, has been closed since last September because of a lack of funding, he said. CHIP currently provides insurance for an average of 35,000 children.
"It's definitely not good news for kids," Karen Crompton, executive director for Voices for Utah Children, said of the report. "It does highlight the fact of what happens when you have CHIP closed."
While the Legislature's CHIP appropriation is a good start, she said, more needs to be done to make sure all eligible children can access the publicly funded health insurance program.
"Kids need coverage 365 days a year," she said. "It's about immunizing on time, about well-baby check-ups, about getting glasses kids need if they can't see the blackboard."

Karen Crompton ran for SL County Mayor against Nancy Workman the first time around. Al Gore proposed universal health care for children by 2004 when he ran in 2000. Every Democrat running for president has supported expanding CHIP programs, so why can't American children get health insurance?

To me, family values are helping families stay together strongly. That means sick leave, maternity/paternity leave, flex time, virtual commuting, clean air, clean water, quality education, safe neighborhoods, health care for working families and all children, tax reform for working families, and living wages. It seems when Republicans talk about family values, what they are really saying it "Dobson's agenda," which has very little to do with actually making life better for families.

And one would think that here in Utah, with the highest percentage of the population under 18, we would truly put children first. And not behind big business, anti-arbortion, anti-gay zealotry.

unconstitutional special interest driven legislation 101

Wherein two Republican Utah State Legislators write a bill for 1-800-Contacts, Unspam technologies [who wrote another unconstitutional bill] and Overstock.com that regulates interstate commerce. "Utah's innocently named Trademark Protection Act is set to take effect June 30." The Act would ban keyword advertising, basically destroying Google's--and every other internet business's--business model.

[Law Professor Eric Goldman] said the bill's history shows that Utah lawmakers are "easily captured by industry interests" and eager to serve up bad Internet experiments.
The law is deeply flawed, said Corynne McSherry, an attorney for the San Francisco-based public-interest group Electronic Frontier Foundation.
"Consumers also have an interest here. This isn't just harmful to Google. It's harmful to consumers who benefit from comparative advertising," she said.

In response, one of the co-sponsors showed he knows as much about the internet as US Sen. Ted "series of tubes" Stevens (R-AK):

House Majority Leader David Clark, R-Santa Clara, Utah, likened the deed to diverting a shopper who enters a particular department store to buy a dress shirt.
"You get right to the front door and somebody whisks you away to a different store," said Clark....
[Senate Majority Whip Dan] Eastman [(R-Bountiful)] and Clark said they didn't come up with the idea but believe in the cause. They said they understood they were doing the bidding of a select group of Utah companies. [...]
Representatives at both companies acknowledged they have a problem with rivals stealing their customers but insist they weren't involved in drafting the Internet trademark law.

Unspam Chief Executive Matthew Prince, who claims "We wear different hats," in an email, has a pretty cosy relationship with Senate Republicans:

Prince is identified only as an adjunct professor at Chicago's John Marshall Law School on the Utah Senate [Republican]'s blog site, where he wrote a defense of the Trademark Protection Act. The blog makes no mention of Prince's business interests.

I guess if you don't believe in conflicts of interests among legislators, you don't believe it among lobbyists either.

I wish I was surprised, but I still can be dissipointed. Shame on you Republican legislative leaders. Why do you have to be such a cheep date?

© 2006 Jeffrey D. Allred, Deseret Morning News
The caption: "IHC lobbyist Elaina White talks to Rep. Brad Dee, R-Washington Terrace, during the House GOP's $100-per-person 'speed dating' event at the Hard Rock Cafe on Thursday [January 5, 2006]."

ex-Bush administration official reclaiming reality

Welcome back to the reality based community former EPA chief and ex-NJ Governor Christine Todd Whitman!

This ruling [Massachusetts v. EPA] should herald the beginning of a carbon-constrained U.S. economy.
[...]
For guidance on which to base a policy [on how to regulate greenhouse gas tailpipe emissions], we can look to the results from the last time the Clean Air Act was amended, in 1990. Those amendments required substantial reductions in the emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO2), the primary component of acid rain. There was broad agreement that acid rain was seriously damaging our environment. There was less unanimity about the method to be used to achieve the reduction in emissions - a market-based cap-and-trade system.

Cap-and-trade works for free marketeers and pro-regulation environmentalists, and actually creates incentives to reduce pollutants. Everyone wins, especially companies who innovate.

There will be a renewed push in Congress to create such a program to force the EPA's plan. McCain and Lieberman have a bill that would do just that, not just for car tailpipes, but all carbon dioxide emissions (like coal-fire electric power plants, oil refineries, etc.) With Democrats now in control, I would assume that a version of this bill will come out of EPW committee in the Senate and the House's select committee on Global Warming or Energy and Commerce committee.

Moderate Republicans, ex-Democrats (Joe Lieberman) and Democrats can form a working majority and pass this bill.

putting your political career on the dotted line

If only more politicians had as much cajoles as SL County Mayor Peter Carroon:

Get Real Utah might fall short - by thousands of signatures - in its petition drive to put public funding for a Sandy soccer stadium to a public vote, but the grass-roots campaign did secure at least one high-profile voter.
Salt Lake County Mayor Peter Corroon, who refused to steer county hotel taxes to the stadium project, signed the petition last month.
The Legislature, led by Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr., trumped Corroon's decision and passed a bill that funnels $35 million of county hotel taxes to land, parking and infrastructure for Real Salt Lake's $110 million stadium, slated for 9256 S. State St.
"We didn't think [the stadium] was a sound investment," Corroon said Monday. "The state has a higher risk tolerance than Salt Lake County does. That was their priority. It's a little disconcerting that they used Salt Lake County hotel taxes to pay for a state priority."

I can think of few politician who would risk their career on a potentially losing effort against big political powers for something they believe in.

Petition sponsor Brad Swedlund acknowledges the referendum is a "long shot," but said Monday that signature booklets were being turned into county clerks across the state. He doesn't have a count of how many signatures have been gathered.
Organizer Gary Forbush said Monday, if the petition drive fails, it's not because of a lack of public will - opinion polls consistently have shown most Utahns oppose public funding for the stadium - but because the referendum process is too cumbersome.
Forbush, who ran a surprisingly strong race against incumbent Tom Dolan in the Sandy mayoral race in 2005, handed in 6,000 signatures at the Salt Lake County Clerk Office Monday morning. Forbush argues the effort should have had to gather signatures only in that county because the bill deals exclusively with Salt Lake County revenue.
And he said low-budget, grass-roots groups like his - the campaign spent about $2,000 total - could have a chance if voters were allowed to sign the petition online or by phone.
"The referendum process is broken," Forbush said. "To have to do pen on paper in this day when we can e-file our taxes . . . it's just archaic. If we don't end up making it with the number of signatures, I hope we can maybe have a more thoughtful conversation about referendum reform."

I couldn't agree more. And so do others "Salt Lake City mayoral candidates Jenny Wilson, Ralph Becker and Nancy Saxton also signed the referendum petition."

SLC mayoral race shakes up

Meg Holbrook, is out! She is ex-chair of the Utah Democratic Party, and wife of a beloved professor of alternative dispute resolution at my law school.

But why did she decide to drop out well before summer? A guaranteed job with Gov. Huntsman's administration.

Instead, she will accept Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr.'s request that she serve on the state Transportation Commission.
"I can't do everything," she said. "I've thought it over a long time, and I've decided this is the best way to serve the state and Salt Lake City."
That leaves eight candidates in a field that once had 10 contenders.
The governor also nominated former state Rep. Stewart Adams, R-Layton, to serve on the commission. Their nominations now must be approved by the state Senate.

Plus, she is nice enough to not run while holding an office that gets federal funding, creating Hatch Act problems.

For me, there are two questions that need to be answered. First, why did Huntsman pick her? Because she is a good person and qualified candidate, or because he feared she might win? Second, what does a top tier candidate's drop out say about the race?

The article helps answer number two:

Holbrook's former role as head of the state's Democrats had given her some name recognition in the mayor's race, but many of the other candidates are widely known through their political and business history in the city, and Holbrook had not been a front-runner.
A Dan Jones & Associates poll conducted last week for the Deseret Morning News and KSL-TV showed Holbrook as the favorite candidate of only 2 percent of respondents. That put her in sixth place, although fully 44 percent of respondents remained undecided in this early stage of the campaign.
In the first round of campaign fund-raising disclosures, filed Feb. 15, Holbrook ranked seventh in the amount of money raised. She had raised $18,470, compared with the top fund-raiser, former City Councilman Keith Christensen, who had $257,176, and City Councilman Dave Buhler, who was second, with $123,026.

Right now, few people know who is running "Dan Jones and Associates put the list before Salt lake voters last week and only two get double-digit recognition right now: City Councilman Dave Buhler with 12 percent and County Councilwoman Jenny Wilson has 20 percent." More interestingly, this is a Democrats race to lose if they can get the Donkey out there. "Twenty-one percent said it has a great deal of impact, 33 percent said some and 44 percent said party affiliation in this race has little effect."

It seems that maybe Ms. Holbrook saw that Jenny Wilson was sucking away voters from her big time. To me, it looks like Wilson, Becker, Christensen, and Buhler are all in the running for the top two spots. At this point, it looks like Wilson will take the poll position, but if she is paired with Becker, thing will get interesting. If she is paired with a Republican, I can call it today.

Other than that, the race is still wide open.