Who is spinning whom?

The Tribune reports, "The Office of Legislative Research has until Aug. 20 to submit an impartial analysis of the voucher program for the pamphlets The Office of Legislative Research has until Aug. 20 to submit an impartial analysis of the voucher program for the pamphlets that will be mailed and placed in newspapers around the state."

But meanwhile, both sides of the voucher debate offered 250-rebuttals to each other's arguments. First up, fellow blogger State Rep. Steve Urquhart, Republican:

It's simple. A vote for vouchers is a vote to improve education.
If you vote "Yes,"
* school funding will improve
* children's options and opportunities will increase
* academic achievement will go up
* parents will gain a stronger voice within the system

Why is there such a fuss over 0.0025% of the education budget?
Because some people think the status quo is good enough.

Let's do better. Vote FOR Vouchers to improve education.

Now, the teachers unions:

* Reasonable Choices Are Available
Utah already offers many good choices through "open enrollment" and charter schools. Taxpayers can't fund every choice.
* Proposed Voucher Laws are Inadequate
Even with last-minute legislative "patch work," voucher laws authorize schools with too little oversight, no real coursework or attendance requirements, lax standards for teachers and minimal accountability to taxpayers. Risk of inadequate and unstable schools is high.
* Whom Would Vouchers Help?
Probably not the disadvantaged. Even with vouchers, parents with a modest income couldn't afford to send their children to good private schools.
* Is There "Additional Money" For Public Schools?
No. For five years, transferring students would be double funded by taxpayers - in the private schools and the public schools they left behind. Thereafter, public school funding would be cut to reflect lost enrollment.
* Would Vouchers Prevent Tax Increases?
Unlikely. Subsidizing students now privately funded creates a projected deficit of almost a half billion dollars. These dollars would come from other worthy projects like health care, public safety and roads. If we have extra taxpayer money, it would be better spent reducing class sizes and improving Utah's public schools.
* "Bureaucrats and Liberals"?
Who are they? Not the 29,000 dedicated, caring and underpaid teachers in our neighborhood schools; also not Utah's commonsense conservative citizens who oppose another entitlement program. The real "bureaucrats and liberals" are the subsidy advocates and out-of-state voucher pushers looking for Utah to save their faltering national movement.
VOTE NO ON VOUCHERS

One at least alludes to facts, the other just makes blanket statements without facts. If you want Rep. Urquhart, I would be happy to get into a "study war" where we each show a study of the vouchers working and failing. No points for you if you use a conservative think tank, no point for me if I use a liberal/moderate one. Since I have a Bush Administration Department of Education study showing they don't work, I think I win already, but I look forwards to battling you.

Romney used you, Utah GOP

In 2002, Romney swooped in and claimed credit for "saving" the olympic games, even though he did really nothing other than give SLOOC a clean face. Now in 2007, he had treated the Beehive State like his personal piggy bank, raising $4M already.

Here's what Mitt really thinks of Utah Republicans, and Republicans in general:

If you can't watch the video, here are his words:

• "I'm not convinced that a state would be better off with all Republicans. As a matter of fact, I've been in a state like that for the past three years. Not a good thing."


• "It is a very clear thing for the people across the commonwealth (of Massachusetts) that my R doesn't stand so much for Republican as it does for Reform."


• "I'm not running for the Republican view or a continuation of Republican values. That's not what brings me to the (governor's) race."


• "I lived in a place that was a one-party state that was primarily Republicans and I thought, 'Oh, won't that be nice?' The answer is no."


• "it is always a burden for someone to run with R for Republican after their name. Surely I have many friends who are Republicans and Republican voters."

"It was in the context of a gubernatorial race" in Massachusetts, not in Utah, said Romney Spokesman Kevin Madden. Right the context for what Romney says always changes, and by context you mean audience. When he is running in Massachusetts, he is a liberal. When he is running for the GOP nomination he is a conservative.

Let's find some more Romney flip flops caught on tape, shall we?

In 1994 he said this:



Tucker Carlson points out Multiple-Choice Mitt:

growing by leaps and bounds

(graphic credit: © 2005 Deseret News)

When I was still a toddler, Utah had only 2 congressional districts. A few years ago, a new ago, Utah got a second area code, and imposed it on all non-SLC/burbs people (except for Park City and their suburbs). Now we are getting another area code next year.

[T]he Utah Public Service Commission opted Thursday to bring on the new 385 telephone area code through an "overlay" rather than through a geographic split of the existing 801 area. The new code takes effect next year.
With an overlay, the 385 area code will be assigned to new phone numbers throughout the five-county Wasatch Front region after the 801 code is depleted. One result is that existing customers will keep their phone numbers. Another will be that callers will need to dial 10 digits for local calls.

I am sure someone would complain either way (10 digits versus changing your number).

(graphic credit: © 2007 Deseret News)

Of course, another question to be asked is why we have region-based phone numbers now anyway? With the increasing ubiquity and range of cell phones, the area code system seems very anachronistic. Most people my age that I know don't even have a land line. This is partially due to the fact that they are more likely to be in an apartment than a home, and partly due to the local telephone monopoly's outrageous fees. I chose getting cable over DirectTV because I didn't want to get a land line.

Nowadays, one needs a land line for alarms, Direct TV, and it helps with 911. Even with 911 though, new cell phones have GPS built in that will give 911 operators your exact locale without having to triangulate your location from nearby cell towers.

If you don't want to ever miss a call or tell people about your new phone number ever again, check out GrandCentral. Since Google just bought them, I am sure the free service will stick around as long as Google does and could develop lots of new features beyond what the offer now. Another great feature is one voice mailbox for ALL your numbers, which you can access in any order online. No more remembering all those changing codes and missing a message because someone called your work instead of your cell. Check it out.

What a difference 4 years makes

In 2004, you couldn't pay a Democratic candidate for president to come out here, and that race was much closer than the 2008 one. But already, we will have had Edwards, Dodd, Richardson, and Obama come out.

On the Republican side, I don't think Bush came out for a fundraiser here either. But Utah has already hosted McCain Romney and will soon Giulliani.

Why is this happening? Perhaps the need for money is so high that Boston, NYC, Chicago, LA, Houston, Austin, Dallas, etc. have already been maxed out this early (a frightening thought) and big money places like Park City are the natural next pit stop. Or maybe the race really is more competitive and on going than we thought. In 2003 at this time, Lieberman was on top still, but Dean was having concerts in Central Park.

This time Obama is having Dean like rallies all over the country, but is also turning them into fundraisers and list gathering tools. For Obama's sake, I just hope he doesn't give all of his Iowa volunteers special hats to wear as they annoy caucus-goers.

Candidates: spend your money on holding rallies, making pamphlets, signs/buttons/stickers, lists, vans, gas, and food/lodging. Don't spend it on polls, pollsters, consultants, broadcast TV ads in prime time (try niche cable channel ads, radio ads, and flyers), or white papers.

you've been served

I thought you might want to enjoy this trip to the woodshed. [The original post is here]

Oldenburg said...

However, none of Clinton's pardons were for people involved in any scandals of his White House, but were scandals in themselves.

GW Bush, like his father, has "pardoned" (he will pardon Libby later on) person who would or could otherwise sing to prosecutors about a larger crime. That is called obstruction of justice, one of the impeachment charges against Clinton.
July 11, 2007 3:06 PM
Mike said...

Here, folks, we see a classic argument from a degenerate.

You say "none of Clinton's pardons were for people involved in any scandals of his White House"...

Sure, they were just drug dealers (the president's brother being one of them), tax evaders, embezzlers, etc. Why would you justify the pardoning of such individuals?

And since you brought up "White House scandals" let's not forget some new words the Clinton administration coined:
Lewinsky-gate, Perjury-gate, Billary's Impeachment-gate, and let's not forget Whitewater.

(And please don't make me bring up the 73 House and Senate witnesses who have pled the 5th Amendment and 17 witnesses who have fled the country to avoid testifying about the Clinton's Democratic campaign fundraising)

No scandals in Clinton's White House, huh?...
July 11, 2007 3:37 PM
Oldenburg said...

Did I say that there were no Clinton scandals? NO
Did any of your references allude to pardons based on Lewinsky, etc.? NO

The fact that Roger Clinton was addicted to drugs (I don't know that he was a drug dealer) is really besides the point and just slander. Bill Clinton didn't pardon his brother.

Do I agree with Clinton's pardons? NO

But they are not the moral equivalence of the de facto pardon of Scoter Libby.

You can slime the Clintons or me all you want, but you never addressed my actual point.

A classic argument from a degenerate. [Welcome to the blogosphere by the way, I found you via SLCSpin]
July 11, 2007 3:42 PM
Mike said...

I see.

Like you, I never said I agreed with the decision to commute anybody. Current facts seem to confirm that Libby broke the law. But the purpose of this somewhat facetious article is to call attention to the hypocrisy steaming from the left.
July 11, 2007 3:49 PM

But But! Oh that terrible logic trap of logic. Oh and by the way, there is no hypocrisy is complaining about a commutation that obstructs a criminal investigation about why a CIA agent was outed. I don't remember Bill Clinton doing that.

Provo Republican LG agrees that lobbyist "reform" bill is worthless

A few months ago, when our dear legislature pretended to give a hoot about how had their appearance of corruption is, I pointed out the numerous loopholes that were so wide a truck could drive through. I blamed those loopholes on Utah Republicans, because they have a massive majority in both houses of the legislature. The Utah Republican party "Senate Side" blog complained that I was just saying that all Republicans are bad and all Democrats are good. Then it turned out that their blog allows posts from lobbyists.

Now, the former Provo big wig and now LG agrees with me.

"So far it doesn't seem to be making any sense," said Joe Demma, chief of staff of the lieutenant governor's office, which oversees lobbyist regulation. "I can't tell you what the point of the law is."
[...]
Take Craig Peterson, former Senate majority leader, who is a lobbyist for hire. His report includes a $630 dinner with Utah House and Senate leaders in Washington, D.C., on May 6.
But he only paid one third of that amount. ...
[...]
The law as written would allow lobbyists to hide spending as long as they could get a colleague to claim the entire expense. Peterson believes the report should include that he only paid for part of the bill and who picked up the rest of the tab.
[...]
This reporting period also marks the first time lobbyists must disclose the name of a legislator who accepted a sporting event ticket, regardless of the cost. Previously, the names were only included if the cost of the ticket was over $50.
[...]
On just about everything else, lobbyists have become masters at getting costs under that $50 threshold.
A lobbyist for the Utah Home Builders Association paid for five rounds of golf for legislators that cost between $47.77 and $49.34.
[...]
A Utah Restaurant Association lobbyist filed a disclosure for $650 and the purpose was listed as "activity."
She provided no other information.
A Johnson & Johnson lobbyist spent $360 on "interim discussions," without any indication of what that money was spent on.

Lack of disclosure means lack of accountablity. And when that lack of disclosure is "a feature not a bug" of the bill, it raises a presumption that legislators have something to hide. I would make the same criticism of Democrats if they where in charge. In the US Congress for example, some old House and Senate Democrats want to prevent true lobbyist reforms and they are dead wrong. I call on Pelosi and Reid to go over the head of folks like Conyers and Murtha.

has Vitter been emasculated?

Compare and Contrast:

"I'm a lot more like Lorena Bobbitt than Hillary. If he does something like that, I'm walking away with one thing, and it's not alimony, trust me."

-- Wendy Vitter, when asked by an interviewer in 2000 whether she could forgive her husband, Sen. David Vitter, if she learned he'd had an extramarital affair, as Hillary Clinton had done.

With

"This was a very serious sin in my past for which I am, of course, completely responsible," Republican Sen. Vitter (La) said in a statement yesterday after his telephone number appeared among those associated with an escort service operated by the so-called "D.C. Madam." "Several years ago, I asked for and received forgiveness from God and my wife in confession and marriage counseling. Out of respect for my family, I will keep my discussion of the matter there - with God and them. But I certainly offer my deep and sincere apologies to all I have disappointed and let down in any way."

So either one of them is lying about forgiveness, or he had to give some "consideration" in exchange for Wendy's continued support. And I think you know what I am talking about without me spelling it out for you.

get ready to get spun

A new Deseret News/Dan Jones poll on the vouchers issue came out, and the results are the same:

"We do have quite a bit of education to do in the community, and that is why our plan revolves mostly around grass-roots efforts and really taking the time to explain the true merits of the voucher program," said Leah Barker, spokeswoman for Parents for Choice in Education. "We feel that when we are faced with that 57 percent and we have an opportunity of three to five minutes to sit down with them and explain certain things, then they are more likely to change their mind and say they will be voting for vouchers," Barker said.

And by "education" and "sit down with them and explain," she means TV ads funded by rich ideologs from out of state filling with lies and distortions. "I think that it is in line with the value system that Utah families have — when families really understand what the voucher program is about, then they are going to vote 'yes' because it is right in line with their value and belief system," Barker said.

Their value and belief system? You mean the Book of Mormon said that thou shalt use public monies for private schools and that private schools should go away? Funny, I don't see ANY LDS private schools, in Utah or any other state.

Such heavy handed tactics are bound to flop. Just look at how "Utah values" were used against Jim Matheson over and over again, with increasingly diminishing returns. Just ask not congressman John Swallow.

Sunday local round-up

Here's the stories that caught my eye this morning (after idiots with fireworks kept me up at 3 AM last night)...

1. Chris Cannon is an idiot...again. Because he has been taking a beating on the immigration issue from his base, the sage of Provo came up with this:
   

   His idea: show the public that the immigrant-blocking fence along the U.S.-Mexico border is going up, and soon workers will not just be able to stroll into New Mexico, Arizona, California or another border state.
   "When millions map their trips online or view their own neighborhoods on Google Earth, making it possible for concerned citizens to see for themselves where the fence has been completed, where it is being built and where it is scheduled to be built, updated in real time, is not a Herculean task," Cannon said.
   If the all-knowing search engine isn't going to create Google Border, you can always create your own visual map of the immigration problem. The directions will come back something like, "Leave Mexico City, head north," 500 miles. "Climb fence," 12 feet. "Enter Arizona."

   
   Don't you think Mexicans could use "Google Boarder" to know where NOT to cross the border and where they could better avoid detection? This would be the very definition of a waste of money, since it could only make the problem worse. Oh and why would Google do this and put their butts on the line if the Senate won't?


2. Keith Christensen realized that the Republican brand in toxic in Salt Lake City in the mayor's race, so he is adopting the Monty Python approach: RUN AWAY!
   

   Suggesting his Republican status is a stigma and pronouncing Utah's GOP "scary," Keith Christensen is jettisoning his Republican label and abandoning the state's predominant party in a bid to win the Salt Lake City mayor's seat.
   ...
   "I'm sick and tired of being labeled as a Republican. I've always been fiercely independent," Christensen said...
   
   Political observers say Christensen's move is a desperate attempt to court Democrats in left-leaning Salt Lake City - some tag it a "Mitt Romney flip-flop" ...
   Christensen, who has been leading in fundraising but lagging in the polls, says even though the race officially is nonpartisan, it seems to be "the most fiercely partisan race in the state."

   HAAHAHAHA


3. The Utah Republican Party Morning News say that you are too stupid know how to vote judges out of office. "Some lawmakers worry many voters aren't even bothering to look at the information on judges." Yet, they sure don't want voters to know about how they are in the pocket of lobbyists. And our system is far better than say Texas.
   "Since 1988, Utah's judges have run in uncontested retention elections. Legal experts say this was the best solution to avoid having judges run in contested elections where they may be influenced by people or groups who contribute to their election campaigns. National studies show there are indications of bias among judges in states where they run in contested elections."


4. Ethan is back blogging. I have to say thank you to Freddy Adu for dogging it at RSL games so that we get to hear more from this local voice. If only we could get Ethan more pissed off about other things...

this week's sign that the appocolpse is upon us

I was flipping channels tonight (hey I earned it with my two-day mock bar exam) and saw this listing:

USA Rock Paper Scissors League Championship®
Rated: TVPG
Running Time: 60 Minutes
Genre: Other

On ESPN 2?!

Which means, apparently, that it is as much of a sport as bowling, billiards, competitive eating, spelling bees, world's strongest man competitions, and poker.

ESPN programming and acquisitions director Ilan Ben-Hanan said the channel felt the competish would be a "fun" alternative for its viewers. The sports cabler is no stranger to nontraditional sporting events, having televised the National Spelling Bee and several major eating competitions (including the annual Nathan's hot dog battle).

"Nearly everyone has played Rock Paper Scissors, so it will be interesting to see the strategic skills displayed by this elite field of competitors," Ben-Hanan said.

Oh Variety, I love how you read like LA executives talk.

And why do Americans love this idiotic game? Why it is because the French saved our butts in the Revolutionary War, especially Commander Rochambau, for whom it is named. And here I thought it was Ro Sham Bo some sort of abbreviation for Rock Paper Scissors. At least, that's what I learned on ESPN 2. I needed that space for Bar exam trivia, not cocktail hour trivia. Damn you, ESPN 2.

the epic collapse of the conversative movement

Sorry that I haven't been writing. I got back at 11 am and spent all of yesterday studying for today's simulated bar exam. I have to say, it is not fun and I still have another day of testing.

Back to my post at hand. Almost immediately following Bush's "re" election I predicted that in short order people would pretend they didn't vote for him, like how people seemed to magically have switched their votes over Nixon. I was confident that he would return to his previous unpopularity, and become more unpopular.

But the fact that 45% of the American people would support the impeachment of President Bush is amazing. No longer is it just the random people at your co-op or peace rallies, now it is almost within the margin of error in terms of popular support. Remember, only 26% of Americans supported Bill Clinton's impeachment. There was no polling on Andrew Johnson, but I wonder if there was any on Richard Nixon.

Even more incredible is the majority that support impeaching Cheney-- 54%.

Bush and Cheney have become so toxic, yet the Republican candidates running to replace them have to say nice things about them because the 26% of Americans that still support Bush are the ones that vote in GOP primaries. That means supporting clemency for Scotter Libby and an endless continuance of the war in Iraq, something a vast majority of Americans disapprove of in large numbers. Not to mention GitMo (which Romney thinks we should double as a symbol of a national resolve to torture people).

At this rate, no Republican will have a prayer at winning the White House in 2008 or regaining control of Congress. Of course, things will change as new events come up. But right now, I can't foresee anything that will change the direction of the circling of the drain for conservatives.

Last day in Canada

This is another posting about those flappy-headed-beedy-eyed folks...you know Canadians. I forgot to mention my joy at reading the names on the Canadian walk of fame. It lists such luminaries as Michael J. Fox...and Gordon Lightfoot.

Today, we went to Niagra falls, Canadian side. The actual falls themselves are amazing. The rest, well kitsch is probably the best word to describe the resturants (planet hollywood, hard rock cafe, tony romas, hooters, etc), the attractions (ripleys, guiness book of world records, marvel comics, etc), and so on. We took a boat into the horseshoe falls, and were soaked by the spray. There is one spot where it rains on a clear sunny day from the tremendous amount of water pouring down all around. I took lots of photos, but I am sure many did not come out due to said mist.

The whole reason I was here was due to a friend of mine and my wife's from college. She is Sikh and married a fellow Sikh in a temple in a Torono suburb. The pomp and circumstance was amazing. cerimonial horses, cars, swords, shoe stealing, a kit to carry the bride away to her new family, a fog machine, a shuttle bus (like a coach), three indian buffets a day, the clothing, head scraves, and a US Congressman (Jim McDermott is friends of the bride's family).

This was all set to a 1-2 hour delay because the groom was one of those people that is always really late and the vendors were also in no rush. So we just sat back and relaxed.

It was a nice time to be up here when it was in the high 90s/low 100s in SLC. (It was in the 70s here)

There are a lot of things that the US could mimic Canada on and be much better off: 1) create a universal health care system 2) sign onto the Kyoto Protocol and its progeny. You don't see ads for prescription drugs here. Why? Because there is no profit to be had (or the government forbids it). Either way, there is no need for ads that push people into getting a certain drug that they might not need.

I haven't been following the news that closely, other than the two big political stories of the quasi-pardon by Bush ("Republicans are above rule of the law") and the Obama money machine. Canada had its campaign reporting dateline the same time the US did, and the Conservative [Tory?] party trashed the Liberal party, but the numbers of contributors and amount raised was like Bill Richardson levels FOR THE WHOLE PARTY. I know Canada is a smaller country and they don't do attack ads, but still. It is just amazing how much Obama is able to raise and more importantly, how many people have given him money 253,000 is a lot of people.

Some of this is obviously due to how badly Bush and the previous GOP congress ruined the country and partly due to the fact that people want change badly. Like it or not, Obama represents this change. He is not part of Washington because he just got there. He is also black, which also says change more than anything else...even a woman (when it is Ms. Clinton only)

Anyway, I need to get to bed because DHS is making the lines long on the way back into the good old US of A...and I have a flight to catch tomorrow.

oh Canada Day (observed)

Dear Readers,

I have been late in posting today because I am visiting our neighbor up north. I love how Canada has to have everything like America, but HAS to be different, if only a little bit. For example, I have seen "Canada's next top model" and "Canadian Idol," both crappier versions of already bad shows.

Everyone here is very polite and orderly, almost annoyingly so. I will be back in the good old US of A for our nation's birthday. But it has been fun to enjoy another country's.

I dread Romney-Clinton

Can you imagine a worse set of choices than Mitt Romney and Hillary Clinton? You have a person with no core beliefs other than fulfilling his family dream of becoming president and a person who is so eager to get back there that she will try to confuse people where she stands on THE issue of the day: Iraq.

Both candidates seem to think that doing more of the same or a smaller version thereof will be acceptable to the American people. And it won't. If the major parties go this route, it could spell trouble.

The poll by Mason-Dixon Polling and Research found that 52 percent of Americans wouldn't consider voting for Clinton, D-N.Y.
Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, a Republican, was second in the can't-stand-'em category, with 46 percent saying they wouldn't consider voting for him.

What does that mean? Low turnout, possibly. Or Bloomberg having a realistic chance in throwing the whole thing to guy who thinks tying his dog to the car makes him tough.

illegal wiretaps and subpoenas, part deux

So yesterday I praised Sen. Hatch for voting with the overwhelming majority on the Senate Judiciary Committee to subpoena the White House for information about its warrantless wiretapping program. Unfortunately, Rep. Cannon seems to disagree with Sen. Hatch (via TPMmuckracker):

It is unfortunate that the Majority has seen fit to turn down reasonable offers of cooperation in favor of court battles that will do nothing except draw headlines and further distract the Judiciary Committee from work that needs to be done. After close to 10,000 pages of documents, dozens of interviews and testimony under oath, this investigation has not led, as the majority has speculated, to the White House. This investigation has spent millions of dollars and thousands of hours of work to discover politics play a part in political appointments. If the Majority had accommodated the White House in the early part of the year, we could have already interviewed these people and moved forward with the investigation.

Cannon continued, "Instead, the Majority has stonewalled and denied the Committee the ability to interview the White House staff with the intent to promulgate a myth about wrongdoing. The Majority's stonewalling has led the American people down a path of 'constitutional crisis'. We take an oath to defend the Constitution, not shred it." (emphasis added)

Where to start...how about the fact that a violation of the law, even if the president does it, is illegal. And when the president says he can violate the law, and that no body can hold him accountable, that creates a constitutional crisis of his own making. This is because the president clearly has no executive privilege to deliberations regarding whether and how to violate FISA by not seeking a warrant from the FISA court.

Don't believe me? Check out United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974):

The impediment that an absolute, unqualified [executive] privilege would place in the way of primary constitutional duty of the Judicial Branch to do justice in criminal prosecutions would plainly conflict with the function of the courts under Art. III. In designing the structure of our Government and dividing and allocating the sovereign power among three co-equal branches, the [Framers] sought to provide a comprehensive system, but the separate powers were not intended to operate with absolute independence. To read the Art. II powers of the President as providing an absolute privilege as against a subpoena essential to enforcement of criminal statutes on no more than a generalized claim of the public interest in confidentiality of nonmilitary and nondiplomatic discussions would upset the constitutional balance of "a workable government" and gravely impair the role of the courts under Art. III.
[...]
...But this presumptive privilege must be considered in light of our historic commitment to the rule of law. This is nowhere more profoundly manifest than in our view that "the twofold aim [of criminal justice] is that guilt shall not escape or innocence suffer."

But wait you say, this involves wiretapping terrorists, therefore it involves the military and foreign relations, which the court said was included in executive privilege.

Let me point out that we don't know who or what the targets of the warrantless wiretapping were, let alone why. How come we don't know for sure? Because the White House won't let anyone see even the legal memos they drafted in support of this program, let alone internal memos discussing the scope or targets of the warrantless wiretapping. Since this administration has a terrible track record with being open, up front, and honest about things, forgive me if I doubt the official line that this was only targeted at terrorists. To me, there seems a very real possibility that these warrantless wiretaps were listening in on political enemies. After all, the Rumsfeld Defense Department was listening in on peace groups.

I am sure there must have been some great things about the 1970s (I was born in 1979), but the government spying on its political enemies sure wasn't one of them.

Good for Orin

(Photo Credit: Doug Mills/The New York Times)

This rare praise of Sen. Hatch is due to his voting for oversight and the rule of law. (and praise to the AP, which finally juxtaposed spin with truth)

The Senate Judiciary Committee subpoenaed the White House and Vice President Dick Cheney's office Wednesday for documents relating to President Bush's controversial eavesdropping program that operated warrant-free for five years.
[...]
"We're aware of the committee's action and will respond appropriately," White House spokesman Tony Fratto said. "It's unfortunate that congressional Democrats continue to choose the route of confrontation."
In fact, the Judiciary Committee's three most senior Republicans - Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, former chairman Orrin Hatch of Utah and Chuck Grassley of Iowa - sided with Democrats on the 13-3 vote last week to give Leahy the power to issue the subpoenas.

This is an interesting turn of events since Orin used to be his usual GOP cheerleader self on the issue of Bush's law-breaking wiretaps. Take it from Glen Greenwald, the blogosphere's resident expert on FISA.

Thursday, January 18, 2007
[...]
Orrin Hatch spent the first two minutes of his time "questioning" Gonzales by lauding Gonzales' extreme integrity and diligence during this Grave and Epic War on Terrorism that America faces, explaining that everything they've done is critical to protecting us and describing the time in which Gonzales is Attorney General as one of the most difficult and important in history -- Hatch emphasized that he means not only U.S. history, but in the history of the whole, wide world. That is really what he said. He did not ask one question about anything the DOJ is doing with regard to this Most Important Matter Ever.

Hatch then spent the rest of his time (all 6 minutes) demanding that Gonzales and the Justice Department devote much more of its resources and attention -- including FBI agents, other law-enforcement resources and a new task force -- to enforcing anti-obscenity laws against people in the U.S. who produce pornography, particularly those who sell it over the Internet, and urged that whole new laws be created to criminalize Internet pornography. [...]

Or, to put it another way, the Terrorists pose such a grave danger to our Republic that it is the most threatening and important time Ever, justifying whole new expansions of government power and total government secrecy in order to protect us and to win this War because the Terrorists want to kill us all, and our law enforcement resources should therefore be poured into imprisoning people who make adult films and putting an end to pornography. That's what Orrin Hatch said today.

Additionally, this subpoena also has the benefit of having Dick "Forth Branch" Cheney seek to avoid the document request by again claiming he IS the executive branch. Don't worry though, he won't comply with any executive order that would require him to share information or power with any agency, office, or person.

(Photo Credit: AP/Eric Gay)

More 2008 logos

A thoughtful reader pointed out that of all the presidential candidates with a real chance (being generous to include McCain and Richardson) that I forgot Fred Thompson, who is basically in this race already. Without further ado...

Fred Thompson GRADE: C+

Sorry it is so long, but the main page (this is the blog page) doesn't have a jpg you can pull thanks to CSS. Here's my problem with the logo: Fred who? I know he is famous due to Law and Order (and has been the best DA on the show since the first two guys) but he isn't a household first name to the extent that Hillary and Rudy are. Moreover, I don't like the navy and gold color with underline motif. It says, "we have to be enthusiastic! Otherwise, people won't join this late campaign." And was Fred in the Navy? The colors seem to suggest such. Compare that to Wesley Clark's 2004 website and logo which alluded to military service well, but had a bad domain name (because there was some dude named Wesley Clark who wouldn't give it up)

"Four stars? Oh yeah, he was a FOUR STAR GENERAL." It was about as subtle as a sledgehammer (unless you were dumb enough to think the stars were supposed to match the 04 part of the site), but that was one of his main selling points. And it almost worked.

Even assuming this isn't Thompson's final campaign logo, what a terrible domain name. JoinRudy was bad enough, but ImwithFred? That's fine for a state convention button, or a fan site (unofficial or astroturf) but not as your official website. The color change between I'm and With and Fred again smacks of desperation when it is just trying to be for emphasis. I can easily see a mocking site called "ImagainstFred.com" with the word against in gold instead. Or it could be a paid-for attack site by a Romney or Giuliani. The whole thing is a lazy slap job that reinforces the whispering campaign that ex-Sen. Thompson lacks "fire in the belly" and won't really campaign hard (aka will lose and GOPers will blame it on his lack of effort)


And remember this isn't some fly-by-night candidate. He, like Wes Clark in September 2003, was supposed to save the party from certain electoral doom due to the terrible candidates available. After all, he is second in Iowa and first in South Carolina already.

too little, too late

"What me, principled?" © 2007 Deseret News

After endorsing Romney in 2002 for governor of Massachusetts (and using his "liberal street cred" to bless Mitt as a moderate-- "Take it from this liberal Democrat: If you want an amazing leader, vote for Mitt Romney."), now Rocky wants a do over at the presidential level.

Anderson scolded his "great friend" and GOP presidential hopeful Mitt Romney for what he called caving to handlers and flip-flopping on stem-cell research, torture policy, abortion and the Iraq war.
The two men had backed each other during past election bids despite their partisan divide.

"This is not the Mitt Romney I knew, and it really saddens me." he added. Really, you think you knew this guy? You were part of the bait and switch with Massachusetts voters.

"But you can see very clearly what's happening - it's so transparent," Anderson said. "A year before the presidential race, all of a sudden he's got these new positions on these issues.
"If Mitt Romney would be himself, true to himself, true to the people of this country, I think he would be a great president. But he has fallen for these handlers and flip-flopped on these issues and, I think, is misleading us in terms of his positions."
[...]
"He told me, going into that [governor's] race, that Roe v. Wade is working," the mayor said. "And he felt that it was important that women have choice."

So did Ann Romney, when she gave money to planned parenthood, a family planning group that includes abortion as an option for women.

So who does Rocky support? NM Gov. Bill Richardson, who is so principled he said he is both a Yankee and Red Sox fan.

He told the Deseret Morning News last month that Richardson "is genuinely a good man with tremendous values. He's very effective — better experienced than any of the other candidates."
Richardson has a "real respect for international law and diplomacy" and has been "one of the best state leaders in the country on responsible environmental practices," the mayor said.

Good luck Bill, it sounds like Mayor Anderson's golden touch is about to kill your mini-surge.

logo wars: presidential edition

I love to comment on signs and logos by candidate, and since the SLC mayoral one was so well received (and the Obama one was well received) I am going to do as many presidential candidates as possible...in no particular order

Romney: GRADE F

I'm sorry but what the heck is that supposed to be, an eagle? It has a brain washed patriot feel to it that I can't stand it. The man isn't about liberty since he wants to regulate your personal life but let corporations do as they please.

Giuliani: GRADE B+

This one keeps it simple stupid. Rather than scaring people with his hard to spell and pronounce name, you keep the "All-American" part of the name. Moreover, it reminds people of that movie about the kid that wanted to play for Notre Dame. It lends itself to chants of RUDY! at the convention.

H. Clinton: GRADE B-

The difference between using "Hillary" and "Rudy" is this: Sen. Clinton's logo is as cautious as her campaign. Everyone knows her by first name, and using Clinton would be confusing to some. Remember, assume those who star in "Jay walking" vote. So she really doesn't gain anything by going first name. Moreover, it hints at the vibe that Sen. Clinton is a being phony about how personal voters can get with her. Plus, I am just tired of this modified version of a flag in her banner.

Edwards: GRADE B

The use of green is welcome change from the over use of red, white and blue. I don't think German candidates use gold, red and black in their logos, so why do American candidates have to do so? But the moving star reminds me of A) Gore's 2000 logo and B) after school cartoons. The whole thing seems to lack seriousness to me.

Richardson: GRADE B-

Another boring flag waving logo. If you are trying to get out of the pack of "who else is running for president" candidates, you need to do lots to distinguish yourself, starting with your logo. His campaign is rumoring that he will raise more than Edwards and is in third place (13%) in Iowa head of Obama. If both hold up (Obama is running some ads in Iowa now), Richardson will create a second tier with him and Edwards on it, with Hillary and Obama in the first tier.

McCain: GRADE B+/A-

The use of black, white, and yellow is striking. I think the way Ralph Becker is doing is a better way to do it.

The image pops more in yellow than black. But then again, black used this way reminds me of night and death, which is exactly accurate for McCain's candidacy at the moment. He could really make a splash by bowing out and endorsing his lazy friend Fred Thompson.

Obama: GRADE A-/A

As I have said before, I really like this logo because it is an iconic summary of his campaign message: optimism and change. "A new day is beginning," it seems to say. This helps me overlook the annoying use of flags and flag colors. Plus, it is an "O" --a unique shape for most logos and immediately reminds the viewer of the first letter of the candidate's last name, something very useful in finding them on the ballot. This makes Hillary and Rudy seem not so helpful, especially if he is listed as "Rudolph" in some states. You can double the size of one "O" and then stack two more on top of another for a quick and dirty "'08" sign, useful to mix it up at a convention.

Vouchers won't fix Utah's schools

Conservatives who believe that free markets are a panacea have recently attempted to use Utah as a guinea pig to prove their point about public schools. Previously, the Republican-controlled Congress did the same for DC, whose ailing public schools are in as bad a shape as Utah's, but for different reasons. The results were underwhelming, to say the least.

Students in the D.C. school voucher program, the first federal initiative to spend taxpayer dollars on private school tuition, generally performed no better on reading and math tests after one year in the program than their peers in public schools, the U.S. Education Department said yesterday.

...[The] only [] exception[] to the conclusion that the program has not yet had a significant impact on achievement: Students who moved from higher-performing public schools to private schools and those who scored well on tests before entering the program performed better in math than their peers who stayed in public school.
[...]
A Republican-led Congress created the $14 million-a-year program in 2004. The five-year initiative provides $7,500 vouchers each year to 1,800 students, from kindergartners to high school seniors, who attend 58 private schools, most of them Catholic schools. ...

... [T]he initiative is one of the few government-run voucher systems in the country. Milwaukee and Ohio have similar plans, and Florida and Arizona offer vouchers to special education students.

In studies of those programs and others funded with private money, researchers tended to find little improvement in test scores after one year, said Paul Peterson, director of Harvard University's program on education policy and governance. He said it takes time for students to adjust to new surroundings.

"Kids lose ground when they change schools. Even if they may be in a better school, they're not going to adjust to that right off the bat," he said. "It doesn't happen overnight. It's a slow process."

That's right the Bush Administration's own Education Department, with NCLB brainchild Margaret Spellings at the helm, says vouchers don't work.

But don't worry, that won't stop Utah Republicans from making dishonest arguments about Vouchers and NCLB.

Utah once challenged No Child Left Behind, threatening to defy the No Child law and forfeit $76 million in federal aid. The Legislature, however, adopted a softer approach, telling state education officials to give precedence to Utah's own assessment standards over federal mandates.
[Scott] Parker [Rep. Rob Bishop's Chief of Staff] says Bishop has been trying to help the state receive waivers from the Department of Education for certain aspects of federal law and to allow Utah to try some pilot programs. But he said the voucher opponents are sending mixed signals by challenging the law.
[state school board chairman Kim] Burningham says Bishop and others are playing politics with the November vote.
''I guess the logic is that the arch conservatives are supporting vouchers nationwide and when we oppose them . . . it therefore weakens other conservative efforts like opposition to No Child Left Behind,'' he said.

NCLB has to do with testing and de-funding schools that underperform. Vouchers are PARTIAL tuition grants for children to go to private (often religious) schools. While an NCLB shut-down/defunded school makes children go elsewhere for their schooling, it has nothing to do with the use of public monies for private schooling. And exemptions to the testing standards has nothing to do with how to use public monies for education. This is just an attempt to confuse the issue.

Good thing our schools are so bad that people might not be able to understand how the Rep. Bishop's of the world are trying to make them worse. I say worse because if you spend more money on something that makes no difference you waste that money that otherwise could have gone to hiring more teachers, better/more teacher training, building more classrooms/schools, buying better/more textbooks, etc.

I think we all can agree that NCLB needs to be massively reformed, if not scrapped altogether. Since states/counties/school districts/schools don't want to lose funding, they have opted to teach to the test and/or make the test easier. Either practice defeats the original purpose of the bill, which was to RAISE standards and make sure our children were being educated properly. Countries like Germany & Japan score much higher on tests for not just math but in virtually every category. Maybe it is time to stop trying to reinvent the wheel and rather try to adapt their practices into the US.

I will give you a hint: they don't use vouchers.