on this day in history...

Who would have thought that today was such an eventual day, but here are a list of important things that happened January 11.

• Six years ago, the first "detainees" arrived at Guantánamo Bay. The ACLU urges you to wear orange today to protest (urging Congress/Bush/the Court to close Gitmo). Learn more about the planned protests in your area--including a vigil at the Moss federal courthouse at 5 PM--by clicking on the icon.
  


• If my ancestor were alive today, he would be 250 years old. No I am not talking about John V. Long. I am talking about my mom's side of the family--Alexander Hamilton. Wish him a happy birthday, and say thank you to him for making America an economic powerhouse.


• In 1964, the Surgeon General issued a report pointing out that "Gee, cigarettes might be bad for you." Billions of dollars in lawsuits later, tobacco companies are still standing.


• France and Belgium got greedy on this day in 1923, and invaded the Ruhr Valley in Germany, which would be like if Canada had invaded Pittsburg in the 1920s. This act of vengence for World War I, allowed Hitler to use the demoralizing event as an emotional tool to sieze power and militarize the country.


• And East Pakistan became Bangladesh in 1972. Unfortunately, the idependence from Pakistan did not relieve the country from annual monsoon floods and cyclones, and the occational earthquake or mudslide.

The first two I knew about, the rest are thanks to Wikipedia. Happy Friday everyone.

Trib thinks gun owners are stupid

Why do I assert this? Check out this lede:

It doesn't take a genius to know you can't tote your .40-caliber Glock through the metal detector at Salt Lake City International Airport. It does take a book of statutes to decipher the no-guns-allowed sign at the airport door, though.
It implies that you can't pack inside the terminal, but it lists a state law that says you can.

Then look at this picture:

(PHOTO CREDIT: Trent Nelson/The Salt Lake Tribune)

Actually, I think if you read the "PROHIBITED AREA FOR ALL WEAPONS" part and ignore the statute citations, you probably get the idea that you can't bring a gun into the airport. Unless, of course, you are a newspaper writer for the Salt Lake Tribune. Or a gun rights activist.

Do you really need to bring your concealed weapon into the baggage claim and check-in area when state law requires that the chamber be empty and in plain sight? Is it really that dangerous? I mean we have air marshals, airport, and city police officers, all who have loaded guns-- and far superior training than an average gun enthusiast has. The only person who will have a weapons will be those guys, or other people coming off the street besides our Second Amendment rights friends.

I will freely admit that I am just a city boy, and I a terrible shot (I did go on a turkey shoot down in Beaver once when I was like 13), but just don't get the need to carry a gun with you everywhere...unless you are afraid for your life because of a crazy ex-loved one/rival gang/war zone.

Would it really be so terrible for a concealed weapons permit holder to leave his gun in his car when he goes to the airport? Or to (his kid's) school? Or to church? Or to court? Or to an oil refinery?

crow eatin' time

Well another prediction ruined by those pesky voters. Maybe I should get out of the prediction business. Then again, I did about as well if not better than those who get paid big bucks to conduct polls and pontificate on TV. Maybe I should get into this business. On this 1,316th post (plus a dozen or so of the early ones when I switch blog addresses from thethridaveune to 3rdave), I thought I would give you a two-fer, a mea culpa on what I got wrong and what I think these results mean more long term.

First, as always, the Democrats:

I had "Obama ... 36-40%" He got 36%. I had "Clinton ... 28-32%" She got 40% It seems I overlooked my own analysis: "She handled the media blow up over her 'tearing up' and those 'iron my shirt' morons very well. ... Bill and Hill are very frustrated, but they aren't out of it." In retrospect, it seems Democratic voters flocked to her in repudiation of the overt misogyny displayed by the media (especially those "iron my shirt" guys, who were shock jocks from Boston) and of the media's presumptive happy talk of the Clinton's demise.

Another thing to consider: Obama hired Kerry's Iowa organizer and Hillary hired Kerry's New Hampshire organizer. I don't think that is a coincidence that they both exceeded turnout expectations in those respective contests.

Obama needed to win Iowa to prove that he wasn't a flash in the pan. Clinton needed to win New Hampshire to prove that she wasn't Howard Dean redux. Both did what they needed to do to stay very competitive in this race. Edwards, on the other hand, needed to win Iowa, and he didn't. He came in at 17% in New Hampshire a point lower than my 18-20% estimation. He gave a passionate speech last night, and rightfully pointed out that 99.5% of voters haven't voted yet.

But here's an ugly secret: voters in presidential primaries vote for the "winner," not necessarily the best candidate. Exhibit A is John Kerry.

For Democrats, the results here mean the race will undoubtedly go on for another month at least. And that will probably be a good thing. If Obama had won another by a big margin, the coronation process would have begun and Democrats would have had their nominee with lots of time and money to spare...but they wouldn't know what they were getting until it might have been too late. Kerry's instincts during the spring and summer of 2004...to let Bush and his surrogates attack him without any push back, made him look weak and gave credence to some of the attacks, even though many were factually falsehoods. Obama will be (assuming he still wins the nomination) a much stronger candidate for having to outright defeat Clinton over and over with less candidates on the field than merely sweeping IA and NH with people like Richardson, Dodd, and Biden in the way.

The same thing goes for Clinton. She can only count on using the media as foils for so long. The married women who voted for Bush (let alone the men) are not going to come to her defense if she is maligned during the general election like Democratic women did in the New Hampshire primaries. [My campaign junkie friend who ran a governor's race in RI claims that race placed a bigger factor in the results, but I am not buying it.]

"Richardson ... 8-10%" Reality was 5%, most of this dip went to Clinton I bet. Like I said last time, I expect him to hang around quietly until Nevada, and then exit gracefully. At first I thought he would endorse Clinton, but I think he isn't expecting a VP nod from her after what he did in Iowa. On the plane ride back from Iowa, Clinton's fundraiser (and former DNC chair) commented on how many key appointments Bill Clinton gave to Richardson, and implied that Richardson was not only ungrateful, but had betrayed the Clintons and was forever in the doghouse. Assuming it is still neck and neck between Clinton and Obama, look for him to endorse Obama.

Clinton is now going to fight in Nevada, where she was once up hugly, but now that Obama got the culinary union and local SEIU endorsement, he should be in great shape. South Carolina similarly should be intersting. He was up 20 points on the eve of New Hampshire thanks to his surprisingly easy Iowa victory, will black voters come back to Clinton?

Get out your popcorn, because it is now a two way brawl for the Democratic nomination. As long as Clinton and Obama keep it civil, both will be better for it. Clinton's victory speech was much better than I had seen her in a long time, and her "crying" moment seemed genuine and was excellent as well.

OK now on to the Republicans, where I seem to have a thing for Mitt.

"Romney: ... 32-34%" Actual result? 32% "McCain: ... 30-33%" 37% I wonder if those independents thought Obama didn't need them and pulled the lever for McCain. "Huckabee: ... 10-15%" 11% "Paul: ... 8-10%" 8% "Giuliani : ... 5-8%" 9% "Thompson: ... 3-5%" He got 1% (as did Hunter)

So what does this all mean on the GOP side? Chaos. My RI gubernatorial campaign vet thinks McCain is done. And his victory speech sounded like a farewell speech more than a rousing "win one for the gipper" speech. NPR this morning played the best clip of it but my wife and I were stunned by how flat his affect was. He seemed to be reading something and didn't really care what he was saying. He looked OLD.

Romney's troops seemed a lot more energized, although I am sure they were disappointed to be sure. Twice he was up in important early states, and twice his lead melted away to candidates with no money. My friend I keep referring to (he called, as he always does, on election night) lives in Boston now and said Romney's ads were really just terrible and very negative. The exit polls support his belief that all of Mitt's ads turned people off Romney and towards McCain. Those polls indicate a person dislike of Romney and like of McCain, which drove Lou Dobbs nuts. After all, his candidate has got to be Romney, now that Tancredo endorsed him.

Lou Dobbs has been having hissy fits with CNN because they won't let him blabber on about isolationism (both in the form of immigration and trade, but not necessarily on war) and slam the candidates rather than just report/analyze the results. And as unbearable as Lou Dobbs is, Chris Mathews is even worse. At least Dobbs has a point of view that is relatively consistent on issues rather than individuals or parties. Mathews clearly hates the Clintons and wants to call the race for Obama and McCain, results be damned. Keith Olberman tried, but it took semi-retired Tom Brokow to shut Tweety up for a couple seconds. Mathews talks first and thinks second, which is a virtue in today's media market I suppose.

Anyway, sorry to get off on that diatribe. It is easier for me to tell you who isn't going to be the Republican nominee than who will win. Thompson is done. You can't get 4th in Iowa and not even give a speech, then follow that up with barely showing up for debates and getting 1% in New Hampshire. How demoralizing must it be to work for that campaign? Giulini is also done. He is fourth in his vaunted Florida, he isn't coming back. Ron Paul should lay low from now on and save up his war chest for that independent bid that his supporters crave. Clearly, his GOP candidate colleagues have no respect for him. In the debates, he is laughed off the stage by them, even when the audience roars in response to his answers.

Now on to who is still alive: Romney, McCain and Huckabee. Assuming McCain gets some big money and a shot of adrenaline in time for Michigan, it will be a two way race. If McCain is as ready to ride off into the sunset as his New Hamsphire speech (and my friend) indicate, then Romney walks away with his first big victory by a big margin. I don't see Huckabee being competitive there.

However, Huckabee should win South Carolina and Florida easily, which means second place will be important for McCain and Romney. So far, Romney is the only candidate that has gotten two second place spots in the top contests (and his Wyoming win). Huckabee and McCain have both received a win over Romney and a distant third.

So call me in a couple weeks and I might be able to tell you who will win on the GOP side. Bottom line, this is a very different race from 2004 and even 2000. I would say the closest examples would be 1976 and 1980, for Republicans and Democrats, respectively.

NH predictions

Now that I am slightly more present than I was yesterday (thanks to all who tried to decipher that rambling post), I think I will venture another prediction thread.

First the Democrats, which I seem to have a better grasp of:

1. Obama
2. Clinton
3. Edwards
4. Richardson
5. Kucinich/Gravel

Obama was virtually tied in New Hampshire before his surprisingly strong win in Iowa, and 5 days was just not enough time for Clinton to right the ship. His crowds are huge, and every report I read is that even at other candidates rallies, people are taking about him and wishing they weren't in the overflow. Obama is doing two speeches now per an event, one for the people in the auditorium, another for the overflow outside. And to his credit, he is holding lots of events each day. His throat probably hurts like H-E-double-hockey-sticks. 36-40%


Clinton: She handled the media blow up over her "tearing up" and those "iron my shirt" morons very well. ... one blogger suggested she get out an ironing board and an iron at every rally, and I think that would have been a great idea. She seems bewildered that people are moving from her to Obama, whom she views has just a great speaker (with no real accomplishments). Bill and Hill are very frustrated, but they aren't out of it, even if they lose NH SC and NV as a result of IA. I saw a clip of Chelsea on the TV yesterday and she looks good. Her parents should really let her out in public more. 28-32%

Edwards: just like in 2004, New Hamsphire voters some how aren't drawn to Edwards. His middle class warfare rhetoric doesn't seem to work on them. In 2004, Kerry co-opted Edwards but in a milder form. With his built in good will from being their neighbor (and an army of MA volunteers), Kerry won big. The same thing is repeating itself in 2008 with Obama, who has a softer version of Edwards' populism. Edwards will stick around until Super Tuesday, hoping that Hillary listens to her advisors that suggest she should drop out after NH. 18-20%

Richardson: He is so happy to be in a debate with just the big three and thinks that Dodd and Biden voters will flock to him. Even if they do, that is only adding 2-4% I bet he gets 8-10%

Kunich/Gravel: who cares 0-2%


Now on to the Grand Old Party, which really seems to be be getting more complicated not less.

1. Romney
2. McCain
3. Huckabee
4. Paul
5. Giuliani
6. Thompson
7. Hunter

I know, I know, I picked Romney to come back last time, and I was way off, but hear me out.

Romney: The Mittster pulls of a mini-miracle, but the press won't want to cover it, grouchy that their favorite lost (no more unlimited access and booze). With Obama surging, Independents ditch McCain while Republicans go back to Romney, who has been effectively pointing out all of McCain's apostocies (Immigration reform, voting against Bush Tax Cuts, Campaign Finance Reform, etc.) Romney 32-34%

McCain: It was fun while it lasted. McCain's nail biter second (or first) means that both he and Romney are still viable for a big Michigan show down. 30-33%

Huckabee: third place isn't bad when you have no money, no churches, and no endorsements in your favor. Thank goodness you booked that cool local band, Leno, and Chuck Norris. 10-15%

Paul: If ever there was a place to shock the political establishment in a GOP primary, "Live Free or Die" is the best state to do it. My favorite part of this primary season so far has to be Sean Hanity running "for his life" from Paul supporters (second favorite has to be O'Rielly shoving an Obama staffer because his camera couldn't get a good view, then claiming he did it to protect the constitution) Fox News is providing the entertainment of this primary season which has nothing to do with what they put on the air 8-10%

Giuliani: he makes a last ditch effort to do better in NH due to his dreadful showing in Iowa, and tries to spin it away again. hate to break it to you, but you are not going to win Florida, let alone the nomination or the presidency. 5-8%

Thompson: zzzzz...oh yeah he showed up for the debates and had a couple zingers after everyone else had taken Mitt down. After that, back to some other state he is going to snooze and lose. 3-5%

Hunter: usually, if you bother to show up to Dixville Notch and Hart's Location, the handful of voters there feel bad about not voting for you. No one felt this problem with Duncan Hunter. 1-2%

wash your hands

On Saturday, my wife and I had lunch with a friend from high school (and her husband) that we lost touch with.  Another couple that met due to our mutual high school was supposed to join us but the female was sick.  The friend we did have lunch with said there was a bug going around her household and that her siblings, mom, and children were all feeling badly.  

We thought that was too bad, but never really put much more thought into it.  Yet early this morning, I suddenly got violently ill and could keep anything down until about 10 am. 

While I am starting to feel better I want to warn everyone to wash their hands and drink OJ.  

Ifnally got through reading some blogs about the state of things in NH.  It seems clear that Obama will win there and in SC, where sme polls have him now up 20 points. 

What troubles me is how biased the media is towards their the candidates they hate (Clinton, and to a lesser extent Huckabee) and they love (McCain, and to a lesser extent Obama).  It really is disgusting how misoginistic the coverage has been towards Hillary at times.  I saw the clip of her geting "teared up" and I thought it was a real genuine moment by her.  She really does believe that she is the best person for the job and is confused why people would rather opt for Obama, who she thinks has no clue how to do things.  

When John Edwards get choked up, the media (if they cover him) say he is being passionate, but with Hillary, she is weak.  Or if she attacks Obama, she is "shrill" ...please.

It seems like sexism is going to take longer to get over than I thought.

cross purposes

Hillary Clinton and Mitt Romney are in the same boat: they both were up in New Hampshire, and both thought they could win both Iowa and New Hampshire, and crush the field. Turns out, it didn't work that way, and they both lost Iowa by 9 points.


Hillary needs McCain to win New Hampshire to take Independents away from Obama so she can win. I would say that Obama is up around 4-5 points, well within the margin of error. Hillary's crowds look HUGE, which is always a good sign for her campaign.

Conversely, Romney needs Obama to win so that McCain will not have his Independents so that the Governor can win. I saw a peek into Romney's stump speech on CNN this morning and he was already presuming an Obama win, arguing that he would be a better change agent than McCain, who he argued had been the Senate for too many decades and too old to go up against that whippersnapper. Then he said "or it could be Hillary. I would can't wait to meet Hillary face to face." That was the biggest applause line.

Of course, the one Republican that Obama has matchup problems with is John McCain (currently he cleans the clock of Giuliani, Huckabee, and Romney). So while Clinton could still win the nomination even if she loses NH, SC, and NV (because of her overall delegate count), it could be short sided if Obama manages to create a real bandwagon effect.

Similarly, Hillary's presence of the ticket is the best thing for Republicans in terms of exciting their base given that their base is really not that into their field. And currently, the weakest Republican in swing states against the Democrat's top three is Romney. By contrast, McCain is the strongest against the Democratic field (although he loses to Clinton and Edwards and is close to Obama)

Perhaps the long term interests of the Democratic and Republican parties and the short term interests of Clinton and Romney might be at cross purposes.

PS, I wish I was up in New Hampshire right now. I remember freezing my butt off in the Granite state weekend after weekend, holding up signs, going to rallies, and meeting voters. It really is fun and exciting. I would recommend anyone to get involved in a campaign some time.

Free exercise

No, I am not talking about a promotion for the local gym. I am referring to the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

Paul Rolly takes us in the way back machine to 1997, shortly after the last Democrat was elected statewide, Attorney General Jan Graham.

Graham inquired about the apparently steroid-enhanced book to be used for the oath of office. Fox explained that it wasn't just any old Bible. It was a "Quadruple." He said it included the Bible, and three LDS scriptures: the Book of Mormon, Pearl of Great Price and Doctrine and Covenants.
Graham, an Episcopalian, said she was uncomfortable swearing on the LDS Scriptures and preferred a regular Bible. Inauguration staff seemed miffed, but they let her have her Bible.
The next day, at the inauguration, the four Republicans put their hands on a huge book to take their oath. The lone Democrat had her hand on what appeared to be a relatively skimpy Bible, perhaps a symbolic gesture of the party's status in Utah.

Rolly's wrong here. I think it is a emblematic of the problems that can stem from swearing an oath on a religious text-- it tends to tell everyone what your religion is--especially when yours if different than the majority.

US Rep. Keith Ellison, a Democratic Congressman from Minnesota, happens to be the first Muslim ever elected to national office. The official oath of office requires just a raising of the hand in the chamber, but when he asked to place his hand on the Koran for the ceremonial/photo-op swearing, all hell broke loose. Religious conservatives in America became especially upset. To his credit, Rep. Ellison shrugged off people's bigoted remarks and checked out Thomas Jefferson's copy of the Koran from the Library of Congress.


I say, the Constitution requires in two separate places (see Article VI) that folks like Graham and Ellison get to swear on whatever they want to as long as they affirm an oath to obey the constitution.

Can anyone tell me if this book is a Quadruple? If it isn't why isn't Leavitt swearing into the EPA on the same type of holy book as he did for Governor? Especially after we just learned that he held seminary meetings in the governor's mansion with staff.


P.S. I hope you got that free exercise title also had to do with the "relatively skinny bible" line. If not, now you do.

prediction meets reality

OK so let's see how I did. First the order of finish. Prediction

DEMOCRATS:
1. Obama
2. Edwards
3. Clinton

Reality:

SENATOR BARACK OBAMA : 37.58%
SENATOR JOHN EDWARDS : 29.75%
SENATOR HILLARY CLINTON : 29.47%

That brings me to percentages. You can see the real results here are my estimates: "Obama . . . : 35-39%" "Edwards . . . : 30-33% " "Clinton . . . : 27-32%"

Biden hangs around until he finds out that he isn't allowed in the New Hampshire debate, protests, then withdraws and endorses Hillary. Richardson hangs around until Nevada, and when he gets fourth place, he drops out, endorses Obama (hoping for a VP slot) Dodd also drops out shortly after Iowa and maybe even before New Hampshire.

Reality: Biden and Dodd dropped out tonight, as did Gravel. I thought he would stick it out until the bitter end. I guess he finally got his meds. Biden and Dodd ran honorable campaigns, but voters just aren't looking for experience this time around, they want populist change.

Oh and congratulations to the Obama people, especially for truely increasing the number of caucus goers tonight from 124,000 in 2004 to 236,000 in 2008...amazing, especially getting college students to turn out during winter break.


Maybe this TIME cover will be right:

On to the Republicans, which I got more wrong.

1. Romney
2. Huckabee
3. McCain
4. Paul

Reality:

Huckabee 34%
Romney 25%
Thompson 13%
McCain 13%
Paul 10%
Giuliani 4%
Hunter 0%

Wow, I knew the polls had Huckabee back up, but I thought Mitt had righted the ship and that his professionals would out organize Huckabee's volunteers and outside groups. Clearly I was wrong. And Thompson came back from the dead with 13%, but I thought his advisors leaked that he would exit unless he got 15% or higher. McCain and the media are going to claim he was tied for 3rd place. Paul was respectable, Giuliani looked like a fool on CNN trying to spin his embarrassing showing. Wolf could bearly hold back the laughter.

Congrats to Mike Huckabee...and Chuck Norris! My wife, a Hillary supporter, really loved Huckabee's speech. I thought it was good too. There wasn't much policy substance in there, short of hints about taxes. Most of it was about feeling us vs. them. Us was the little people who were tired of being told what to do by people in DC and New York. And listening to Barack Obama's speech later in the evening, I was struck by how similar the two were.

Both talked about working with the other side, about the little guy, about DC powerbrokers, and the establishment, and how "they" were wrong and underestimated them. Both spoke in positive hopeful, and unifying terms. Obama talked about health care, education, and the war. Both spoke like ministers. Huckabee is actually an ordained Baptist minister, Obama just sounds like one. It was very effective.

I am off to bed, but boy what an exciting night for this political junkie.

Iowa Caucus prediction thread

At 7 PM Central time, the doors will close in schools, churches, and rec centers and 200,000 to 300,000 Iowans will start to pick the presidential nominees for each major political party. The ultimate victor will lead the most powerful military and economy in the world. Without further puffery, I will tell you my predictions for order of finish and why (please tell me yours).

DEMOCRATS:
1. Obama
2. Edwards
3. Clinton

With word that Kucinich and Richardson will tell their people to walk over to the Obama camp if their group doesn't reach 15% in a particular precinct, and with the Des Moines Register poll showing lots of Independents and first time caucus-goers turning out for Obama, I have to say he wins this: 35-39%

John Edwards is a great closer, just ask all those attorneys for insurance companies who heard his closing arguments and watched their clients' money disappear. His organization is tested and familiar with the process: 30-33% [He hangs in the race until South Carolina]

Never count the Clinton's out, even with this disappointing 3rd place finish. Many new women voters showed up, but has Hillary herself argued, the format of the caucuses (where you have to stand up and explain/convince others why to side with your candidate) puts her core supporters at a disadvantage, even with Biden's caucus-goers being instructed to side with Hillary: 27-32% The loss is narrow, leading Bill to say they tied for second place and for Mark Penn to be fired.

The rest of the Democrats: Biden hangs around until he finds out that he isn't allowed in the New Hampshire debate, protests, then withdraws and endorses Hillary. Richardson hangs around until Nevada, and when he gets fourth place, he drops out, endorses Obama (hoping for a VP slot) Dodd also drops out shortly after Iowa and maybe even before New Hampshire. Kucinich and Gravel continue to "campaign" even though they are banned from the debates and kept off some states ballots (Kucinich refuses to unconditionally pledge to support the Democratic nominee so he is not on the ballot in Texas).

REPUBLICANS

1. Romney
2. Huckabee
3. McCain
4. Paul

The Mittster's organization is second to none in Iowa and it comes through for him in a narrow win over the Huckster: 29-33%. Romney's people spin this as an amazing comeback, but all the media care about is McCain. Why? Because his bus was always loaded with free booze and McCain would allow them to talk to him all the time on that stupid bus. New Hampshire becomes a real battle against McCain who is sinking now with Obama's Iowa win that Indies will vote for the BHO.

Huckabee will utilize his evangelical email list, church vans and other outside groups to get his people to the polls. The lack of money and control over these outside groups leads to a narrow loss: 27-30%. He stays on until Florida, hoping that with the other Southerners out, he will retake control of the nomination from Romney or McCain. With the media and public's loses interest, he quickly fades back to obscurity.

McCain uses the Des Moines Register's endorsement and the lackluster nature of the other candidates to cantapult into a third place victory without even really campaigning there: 15-17%. Obama's strategy of expanding the universe of caucus-goers and getting the lower tier candidates to send their troops to his side of the room will dash McCain's chances of easy New Hamsphire victory.

Ron Paul's army of enthusiastic misanthropes, and all their cold hard cash propel Paul into fourth place in Iowa, slaying Giulliani, Thompson and the other losers: 10-15%. He gets moderate media buzz for doing so, but mostly about his supporters.

Giuliani gets 5th place and becomes a laughing stock by the beltway and New York media due to his stupid Florida strategy. His campaign continues to implode, with staffers leaking their tiffs to the press, and then leaving for Romney or McCain's camp: 8-12%

Thompson gets 6th place and has the greatest moment on the campaign trail when he gives a great concession speech, then flies up to New Hampshire and endorses McCain.

Duncan Hunter and whoever else is still there either drops out over even political junkies like myself forget they exist.

Utah's growing problem

With a growing population, comes more problems, but I didn't expect this to happen so fast. And the worst part is this last sentence of the article I quote.

There had been five killings involving more than one victim over the previous four years, according to records kept by The Salt Lake Tribune.
In all, The Tribune recorded 65 Utah homicides in 2007 - the most since 2001. One-third were victims of child abuse or domestic violence.

What is going on?

"Q.S." was one of 12 Utah children who died of abuse. Seven women and three men died in domestic violence.
Salt Lake City took the largest brunt of the homicide spike. The city recorded 16 homicides last year after having eight in 2006.

The article doesn't give any guesses as to why this is happening. More gangs? More drug use?

A more radical suggestion would be that since the number of abortions in Utah has remained flat while the population has boomed, the increased number of unwanted children has lead to an increase in crime. It is a very controversial thesis, and one that rests on a number of assumptions. The biggest problem with this thesis is that there is no real way to prove or disprove it.

But murder isn't the only negative impact of more people in Utah. We also get high rents and mortgages, more traffic, more air pollution, less open space, and more.

Don't mistake me for a grumpy old nostalgist though. I loved Salt Lake during the Olympics with all the crowds and interesting people. The city felt alive like never before. Our goal should be to recapture that magical two weeks with the coming growth. If we don't we have worse years than 2007 to look forward to.

New Year's Day

Happy 2008 everyone. Let us start with the song of the day, "New Year's Day" by U2.

All is quiet on new year’s day,
A world in white gets underway,
And I want to be with you,
Be with you night and day.
Nothing changes on new year’s day.

I think this last sentence is mostly right. We always hope and plan to make the next year better for ourselves, and some succeed. But the difference between New Year's Eve and New Year's Day is really nothing other than the calendar. My boss and I were discussing this holiday and why we even have it. He said he didn't get why this was a holiday and really didn't feel special. At first, I said it probably is a practical holiday; employers know that their employees will not show up for work or would be unproductive due to hang overs (even in Utah). Then I thought about why people make such a big deal out of this changing of the year.

I told my boss that it really has replaced the pagan holiday of winter solstice...that people need something to celebrate and look forward to in the dark and cold of this time of year. But that does not explain the holiday's popularity in the southern hemisphere, where it is summer. So my revised answer is that people need to feel hopeful and in control of their lives, while at the same time able to blame the bad things on external forces.

An artificial delineation between now and the future is a perfect chance for people to feel they can start over, or improve themselves, or improve their circumstances. How things will change or get better is some times left vague on purpose other times they latch onto something bigger than themselves to explain away their path.

For some, it is a politician who will deliver them from salvation, others it is God himself. I won't begin to attempt to say which is the right way or what is the appropriate feeling for a day like today. But somehow for me, every New Year's I wake up and see the sun brilliantly shining over all that snow and ice and cold. And I feel like good things will happen to me this year, that I can make myself and my lot in life better.

I had a great year last year, and I feel this year will be even better. One of the friends we have over for dinner last night said her resolution was to not get so emotionally involved in this year's election. I hope I can do that too, it is so straining on me to follow the results, even with the euphoria of 2006 and 2007 for me. We have the same Myers-Briggs personality letters and it is amazing when things like that are so similar. We both have trouble watching comedies like "the Office" and "Seinfeld" because we empathize too much with the characters. Anyway, my resolution was to get myself back into shape. I really let myself go in law school and especially this last fall where I enjoyed too much cream in my coffee (and too much coffee).

But I think my other resolution is to know myself well enough to try to counteract the problematic aspects of myself and take advantage of my skills. What is your resolution? Do you really need to do one now, other than the handy changing of the year? What do you expect in the year to come for you and the world?

last post of 2007

Here's a deep thought for you: The economy could still be headed towards a slow-down or even a recession, even if the stock market has done well this year.

I have converted

...to Mac.  My lovely wife gave me one for Christmas and I am still figuring out all the tricks.  In fact, I am writing this post on a desktop widget.  

Soon 2007 will be over, what are your goals, hopes and dreams for 2008?  I wonder which will last longer, the presidential primaries or the NFL playoffs?

Panic-stan

By now, I am sure you have heard about the death of Benazir Bhutto and maybe even the assassination attempt on another opposition party leader (ex-PM Narwaz Sharif) that same day in the same city-- Rawalpindi.

Rawalpindi hosts a large garrison for the Pakistani army, which used to be lead by Pres. Musharraf. This isn't to say Musharraf or Musharraf's government is directly responsible. After all, much of the military was barely under his control when he went into Waziristan. But the security for Bhutto and Sharif was like JFK driving around in a convertible with the top down in Dallas.

Pakistan is holding (or was going to hold) its parliamentary elections on the same day as the New Hampshire primaries--January 8th. It seems as if someone or some groups didn't want either former PM to became the next democratically elected leader of Pakistan. Musharraf has called for several days of mourning over Bhutto, which is basically a stalling tactic to decide what to do and essentially suspend any political campaigning against him.

Also remember that this is a country with nuclear weapons pointed at the world's largest democracy (India) with radicial Islamic groups not only in western Pakisan--including Ossama bin Laben Tailban forces--but also infiltrated into the military. This is a country that already was in the midst of a quasi civil war with an on again off again war with India over Kashmir. Musharraf has also seen his share of attacks against his life...and that was before these bombings happened.

If I had a vote in their elections, I would choose Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry, National Law Journal's lawyer of the year. He stood up to "Busharraf," and told him he couldn't suspend the constitution just to stay in power longer. As a result, Musharraf fired him and jailed him, along with lots of other lawyers who protested. In fact, the one glimmer of hope in that country is the lawyers movement, who have become leaders in a grassroots effort to restore democracy to Pakistan. American lawyers (via the ABA) have linked arms with this attorney in support of the rule of law and democracy. It makes me proud to be a lawyer.

But the facts on the ground don't look good. Things appear to be on the verge of complete chaos. Somehow, despite billions of dollars and high level intervention--we have two more failed states in the world since 2002: Iraq and Pakistan. (Afghanistan has basically remained a failed state, but changed management)

All in all, it is hard to feel optimistic about the immediate future of Pakistan and the region as a whole.

thought of the day

Could we please dispense with the notion that any of these presidential candidates' "plans" will actually become law? The news media and rival campaigns like to dig into the numbers of various "plans" on health care, taxes, etc. and claim they don't add up. Of course they don't.

These schemes are cooked up by a bunch of wonks who don't have access to real budgetary numbers. And even those real numbers are always just estimates. Every campaign waves a magic wand to find savings via efficiency in their plans...to make for a nice even number for a total cost of some policy proposal.

In the law, there is concept known as a "legal fiction"--something that everyone knows isn't true, but all these smart lawyers look the other way because it is much for convenient to assume that fiction for one reason or another. For example, everyone knows a corporation isn't a person, but under the law, corporations are treated (for the most part) as a person.

Do we really need the political fiction that any of these plans are going to be passed as is in the first hundred days of the next president's term? For example, maybe it is a terrible policy/political idea that Obama's health care plan doesn't mandate coverage, either by employers or by individuals, but wouldn't his plan have to go through Congress first? And wouldn't Congress consist of House Members and Senators interested in health care like Hillary Clinton, who could change the Obama bill to include a mandate?

Even in 2001, with Republicans in control of both chambers of Congress (and Democrats with 50 senators), Bush's tax cut was altered to expire in 2011 and reduce the overall number slightly.

I can't think of a single policy proposal offered by a successful presidential candidate since FDR (and maybe LBJ) that was passed as proposed by Congress.

So we all should think of the candidates various plans on the important issues of the day as wish lists, ones that will be tweaked even during the transition period, let alone after consults with Congressional leaders. These wish lists tell us something about what kind of president a candidate will be, but won't tell us how they will compromise and negotiate their plans with Congress.

So could the national media and rival campaigns please stop pretending like they know nothing about how the legislative process works (or doesn't)? Because such posturing really is contributing to the public's ignorance of civics.

the legislators are coming

I hope you all had a Merry Christmas, Happy Kawanzaa, etc. That big storm on Christmas Eve tweaked my Christmas plans and led to family tensions, but I guess that is part of the holidays too.

Anyway, on to the subject of this post. Every January and February, the legislature arrives from all 6 corners of the state to pass new laws and budgets. Now that the renovation of the capitol building is nearly complete, they are ready to tackle some big and small topics.

Even in Utah, Mark Twain is right that "In the West, whiskey is for drinking; water is for fighting."

HB51 would give municipalities and public water suppliers the ability to keep unused water rights for up to three decades.
Doing so would raise the ire of farmers and ranchers, who have to fight to keep their unused water rights every five years. Why, they ask, shouldn't cities and water districts be held to the same standard?
Under current law, if any water right has not been tapped for five years, it must be forfeited and put to good use. Those holding those rights, whether they be cities, districts or individuals, generally can keep them - if they periodically apply to the state water engineer.
City officials and water suppliers want to hold on to those rights for at least 30 years.
That way, they can plan for future growth without taking a chance that their five-year applications could be denied - particularly if water supplies decline.
Farmers, in the proposed bill, would be required to reapply more often - every seven years.

This bill should be an interesting one to watch, as it will pit rural Utahns against their formerly rural brethren in places like St. George. Even if I wasn't in a strictly non-political job, I wouldn't touch this debate with a ten foot pole.

Next up, the small: a culture war issue.

Sen. Allen Christensen, R-North Ogden, is drafting a bill that would require the display of the American flag and a copy of the Declaration of Independence in every public school classroom in Utah.

"This started off because a friend of mind did a little bit of research on college campuses and he couldn't find anybody who could tell him what the Constitution was, let alone what was in it — and these were college students," Christensen said.

[...]

The bill does not require the Constitution be displayed in classrooms, but Christensen said he might add that provision, and maybe the Bill of Rights, to the bill's requirements.

[...]

Many schools have a "freedom shrine" of historically significant documents. State law requires elementary students to recite the Pledge of Allegiance daily, though parents can excuse children from the exercise. Secondary schools are encouraged to do so weekly; the Granite Board of Education, for one, requires as much.

State law also requires schools to post the national motto, "In God We Trust." Several school districts received donations to buy framed depictions of the phrase; Christensen believes a similar outpouring would follow his bill.

The state core curriculum also includes flag education for elementary students and U.S. history and civics for older children.

Does putting up the U.S. Constitution (and the Bill of Rights), "In God We Trust," the pledge of allegiance, and U.S. flag provide civics lessons? Personally, I think if Sen. Christensen's goal is to create a more educated and civic-minded generation of Utahns, he would be better off requiring more civics in lesson plans at the primary and secondary education levels.

When I taught law at East High last spring, most of the kids had no idea about their 4th Amendment rights (let alone their article 1, section 14 rights), nor what the 1st Amendment meant for them. They all knew some basics about the branches of government, but didn't know about committees (especially the Rules Committee), amendments, and conference committee. Now I don't remember a "In God We Trust," a constitution, or a flag in the room, but there are plenty of flags all over the school and on every big building near East High, and I really doubt either would have been of that much help. My co-teacher (a fellow law student who was once my boss when I interned for Jim Matheson) and I handed out constitutions for everyone, but I doubt they read those. And those constitutions had a much better chance of being glanced at than one mounted on the wall.

Now the legislature has blunt instruments to implement solutions to complex problems like "why don't our kids are about democracy anymore?" But like I said, curriculum-based civics is going to be much more effective than display-based civics.

On a final note, as a Jazz fan, I say who cares and good riddance to whiny baby Gordan Giricek. This guy loved being a star on a barely make the playoffs team, and hates it that he is now a bench player due to all of the new talent on the Jazz in the last few years. Suck it up and try to win the 6th Man of the Year award, don't just sulk.

rhetoric versus reality

Resently, there has been much hemming and hawing my front-pagers on the big national liberal blogs about Obama. On the one hand, they like some of his policy positions (on things like net neutrality, open government, ethics reform etc) but on the other, they hate his linguistic approach to the campaign--by saying he wants Republicans in his cabinet and talking about bipartisanship and coming together.

These same folks for the most part were clear supporters of Dean four years ago. Howard Dean was a New Democrat during his days as governor. And even when he gave his most famous speeches (such as "What I want to know" at the CA convention), he really never abandoned most of the policy perscriptions of the DLC...only the rhetorical and tactical approaches of the DLC.

The silly thing is, the DLC freaked out about Howard Dean, and Dean happily played off the DLC to help him in the primaries with activists. And if I remember correctly, Howard Dean only won his home state of Vermont in the end.

By contrast, Barack Obama was listed as one of the 100 to watch by the DLC in 2003, well after his "dumb wars" speech in 2002. In the profiles, which I was in charge of putting up on the website at the time, there were a few standard questions and then a "fun" question at the end. Here's a couple of them, and they still ring true in 2007 for Barack:

Top Issue: A fiscally sound and efficient program to deliver universal health care to all Americans and a high quality education, from pre-school to college, for all of America's children.

#1 Rule of Politics: You can compromise on strategy and tactics, but not on principles.

The strategy and tactics that Obama is compromising on, is to sound like a Beltway columnist's dream. He rhetorically calls for going beyond partisanship and working together across party lines.

The liberal blogosphere is founded on the premise that Republicans in power (and to a lesser extent Democrats in power) are not bargaining in good faith, and that change must be foisted upon them by the people. And if one reads Obama's speeches and statements literally, these bloggers foresee a naive President Obama that will compromise with Republicans Senators who's idea of compromise is to give them everything they want.

There are other ways of looking at Obama's rhetoric however. One is to see it as a cynical tactic to get the national media on his side, which is something neither Al Gore nor John Kerry would say they had in the last two presidential cycles. Having the media on your side against every Republican candidate except McCain (who appears to be coming back off political life support) would be a huge asset in the general election and in the first 100 days, assuming victory.

The other way to view Obama's talk is to see it as a gambit--by taking a Republican Senator seriously when they offer a critique to a policy and offer them a seat at the table, you are forcing said Republican Senator to offer up a real solution or admit their oposition to a policy is merely political.

A third view--which is mine--is that Obama views reforming the machinery of Democracy is more imparitive than and essential to getting important policy goals (like universal health care) accomplished. By "machinery of democracy," I mean campaign finanicing, election laws, government transparancy, government ethics reform, restricting lobbying, reforming various executive branch commissions and committees that have so much power (like the FCC and FEC), etc. In short, Obama appears to believe that if you create an environment where everyone knows who is attempting to legally bribe who in order to exact policy X, policy X will be less likely to be corrupted by monied interests. And therefore policy X will be a better policy.

And remember, by looking at Obama's actual voting record and previous jobs--community organizer, civil rights attorney, U Chicago law professor, Joyce Foundation Board Member, Executive Director of Illinios Project Vote in 1992--all point to a much more liberal politican than Howard Dean ever was.

question of the day

[Photo Credit: Trent Nelson/The Salt Lake Tribune. Caption: Rita Woodward holds lone survivor, Precious]

Who stuffs 14 puppies into a sack and then decides to toss said puppies into a dumpster to die?

Anyone with information on the litter should call Riverdale police at 801-394-6616. Animal abandonment is a class B misdemeanor, according to the Humane Society of Utah, which is offering a $2,500 reward for information leading to the arrest and conviction of those responsible.

Of course, they still can't be charged with a felony because the Legislature "ran out of time" last session. I guess you could charge the perpetrator with 13 class A misdemeanors, which if sentenced consecutively would mean almost 13 years in prison. And in my book, they would deserve it.

adding to the dialogue

Some candidates run for president with the real expectation and goal of winning, others have other motivations. A third category exists of those who had a real expectation of winning but then realize they cannot win, and convert their campaign into a cause.


In 2004, US Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) ran thinking he would be the anti-war candidate. Too bad for him, Gov. Howard Dean (D-VT) decided to switch his campaign's emphasis from health care and balanced budgets to the Iraq war and the problems of the Democratic Party. Both lost badly, although there was a moment there where all the other candidates realistically though Dean would be the nominee. However, neither man's effort was in vain. The war went from popular from unpopular, and the party eventually rallied together (as much as Democrats can) against the war. Moreover, Dean's complaints about the Democratic Party struck such a cord with state party activists that he was able to convert his campaign into a successful race for DNC chair.

In 2008, it is happening on the Republican side now as well. The issue is illegal immigration. In this week's New Yorker, Ryan Lizza explains why the GOP candidates have veered right on immigration: US Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO). When he first got to the House about 10 years ago, Tancredo could hardly interest his Republican colleagues on the issue. Now, it is a topic that is discussed in every GOP debate and the subject of attack ads between all the candidates. The issue even tripped up Rep. Hillary Clinton (D-NY), and with her arguably Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R-NYC). Unlike Kucinich or Sen. Mike Gravel (D-AK), Tancredo openly admits he knows he will never be president. But his goal--putting the issue out there and having people agree with his views--has been achieved to a large extent in the GOP primary. Granted, he is the only one who advocated for "bombing Mecca" but even Sen. John McCain (R-AZ)--the author of most of the compromise immigration bills--has reversed course on "amnesty," all thanks to Tancredo.

On the Democratic side this cycle, it has been argued that Sen. John Edwards (D-NC) is pushing Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) and Clinton to propose much more ambitious health care and energy Independence proposals. Edwards forced Clinton to say she wasn't going to apologize for voting for the Iraq War after he asked Americans for forgiveness. Now Edwards has a real chance still of winning the nomination, which is why the other top contenders have had to address his policy proposals seriously. Still I still can't figure out how he planning on winning New Hampshire or any February 5th state on anything other than momentum.

Other Democratic candidates have similarly impacted the debate. Gov. Bill Richardson (D-NM)--with help from national bloggers like Matt Stoller and Chris Bowers--have made beef with the 'no residual forces' gabit, forcing the top three to first say they would have troops in Iraq until 2013, and now making statements like Obama's pledge to get all American troops out of Iraq by the end of his first year.

Dodd's FISA fight is another example of this. Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) knew he really had no chance of becoming president. His initial first goal of running was to rehabilitate his father's reputation. Why else make your campaign book about letters your dad wrote sixty some years ago? But the lack of Senate leadership on constitutional issues like torture, habeas corpus, and wiretapping gave Dodd an opening. He could safely "sacrifice his campaign" by fillibustering bills and offering his own, while calling out Clinton and Obama for never showing up while they campaign.

Some candidates really add nothing to the dialogue. For example, did you know US Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA) was running for president? He's running on keeping gays out of the military and building a boarder fence. Those two topics are pretty much covered by the other candidates.

Likewise, Kucinich again is running on the war, this time with added bonus of impeaching Cheney and shaming Congress for lack of action to stop the war. With all of the candidates on the Democratic side against the war, and with no hope of actually impeaching Cheney, he really has nowhere to go. His anti-corporate rhetoric has been overwhelmed by Edwards' populist message too.

annoying Christmas songs

Here is one of my biggest pet peeves about Christmas--there are only like 20 good Christmas songs, yet they have stations that play only Christmas music non-stop for over a month. The result, pressure for more Christmas songs, the vast majority of which are terrible.

The ones I dislike the most are ones that really have absolutely nothing to do with the idea that Christmas is Jesus' birthday observed. Or even the sentiment about thinking of others etc. Instead, they are a) capable of getting stuck in your head b) while talking about "Santa" or other creations by corporations [Coca-Cola created him to boost sales of their flavored sugar water during the winter]. The exemplars of this horrific-style are "Santa Baby" and "Rockin' around the Christmas Tree." The only time using songs like these is appropriate is for ironic purposes--such as in a Christmas comedy like "Bad Santa"-- or if you are having a party that mocks the worst parts of commericalized Christmas (complete with blinking lights and sweaters). Otherwise, these songs really should be put out of their misery.

It is fine if kids want to sing songs like "Rudolph the Red-nosed Reindeer" or "Frosty the Snowman," but please don't make me hear it on the radio.

What are your most hated Christmas songs?