as if you needed another reason

(Photo Credit: AP/Mary Ann Chastain)

But in case you thought about voting for Romney because of his "values," this should dispel it.

DENISON, Iowa
[...]
"I support tough interrogation techniques, enhanced interrogation techniques, in circumstances where there is a ticking time bomb, a ticking bomb," Romney said.
[...]
"Our president, for all the criticism he receives, has kept America safe these last six years, and he has done it by: One pursuing the Patriot Act, which has given us the intelligence information we needed to find out who the bad guys were and get them out before they got us, and No. 2, when al-Qaida was calling America, he made sure someone here was listening," Romney said. "And No. 3 ... when terrorists were detained, were captured, he made sure we interrogated them."

So let's see, Romney supports torture, in violation of the Geneva Convention (and uses the same term the Nazis did to support torture); he supports repeated civil rights violations by the FBI; illegal warrantless wiretaps on American citizens and political enemies; and above all, Romney supports every illegal thing that George W. Bush does, just to seem tough.

But that's not tough, that's cowardice. He is afraid that people will notice that is a privileged son who doesn't really know how to use guns. He is frightened that evangelicals would notice that he prefers to take money from people buying porn and booze than ban either while he was on the board of directors for Marriot. Romney doesn't want you to know that he is a vain man who spends hundreds on makeup and hair.

And don't bother asking Mitt about how and when he changed his positions on Abortion, Gay Rights, Gun Control, Stem Cells, etc. you won't get the real answer.

Mitt, Al Qaeda doesn't call into or out of the US on a phone, they aren't as stupid as you are. The fact is, Bush's own intelligence people have admitted that we are less safe now than we were prior to 9/11. And it is because of all those things that Romney listed, and because of Iraq, which Romney also supports the president wholly heartedly on.

We all have witnessed the worst series of foreign policy mistakes in US history since 1812. On North Korea, Iraq, Afghanistan, Russia, Israel/Palestine, western Europe, etc. the Bush team has consistently made terrible decisions that have endangered our national security. We are darned lucky we haven't been struck again in US soil. And Mitt Romney wants to not only continue those mistakes, he wants to make them worse by doubling gitmo.

He'll even thrown in a free dog torturing, just to prove how manly he really is. If you want a bully and a coward, or want to continue living in fear, then vote for Romney.

But if you have hope for America and believe in its greatness and goodness, please vote for someone who won't follow George W. Bush in lockstep off the abyss.

who's it going to be

The children, or your party, Sen. Hatch?

The Senate Finance Committee approved a 61¢ increase in the federal tax on cigarettes and other tobacco products to help fund the expansion, which would add 3.2 million children to CHIP rolls over the next five years and continue services to 6.6 million currently being served.
Leavitt told Senate leaders Tuesday that the Bush administration strongly opposes the legislation.
Hatch, R-Utah, said facing a veto threat from the White House and opposition from Leavitt did not make him comfortable but he was confident the final bill was an appropriate compromise that focused on needed child health care.

For decades Sens. Hatch and Kennedy have agreed to fund CHIP via taxing tabacco. I am not suggesting that Hatch will vote against his own signature bill, rather, that we won't go the the mattresses for it. Oh and why on God's green earth would you rather have lower taxes on cigarettes than give poor children heath care? Especially when raising the price of cigarettes encourages people not to start and to stop smoking? That seems like a very free market thing that Republicans would favor. But not Mr. 26%, he wants to keep tobacco execs rich. And even though their parents might have voted for him, Bush doesn't care about poor people. Just dictatorial powers (see you can't prosecute my White House for contempt, "Justice" department, unless I say so). But then again, Chris Cannon doesn't care about poor children in his district either.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said Thursday that President Bush should "drop his irresponsible veto threat" and that senators who oppose the bill should not block a vote on it.
Meanwhile, the Partnership for Quality Care, which strongly supports the bill, is hoping Rep. Chris Cannon, R-Utah, follows Hatch's lead and can take a leadership role in the House when it takes up its version of the bill.
The organization, made up of labor unions and hospitals, started an $80,000 ad campaign in Cannon's district urging residents to call their representative to support the bill.
[...]
But Cannon does not like the idea of tying insurance to the tobacco tax, nor does he like the government getting deeper into the health care business by expanding the program, said spokesman Fred Piccolo.
Piccolo pointed to facts from the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, that the cigarette tax "disproportionately burdens low-income Americans, lacks long-term stability, and ultimately results in significant shifting of health care costs onto others."
A tax on tobacco could deter people from buying cigarettes, reducing tax revenues designed to fund the program. The government then would need to get the money from elsewhere to fund CHIP, he said.

We shouldn't tax tabacco because it would reduce people smoking? Isn't that a good thing in terms of costs for people who pay for health care? Remember, this is the same guy that doesn't see the need for raising the minimum wage because "no one" is paid $5.15 an hour.

Leavitt too is paying the dishonest "I care about regressive taxation" card as well. All the Republicans that don't want this tax are the same ones that voted for or supported tax cuts for the wealthy while raising taxes and fees that impact the poor, like sales tax on food and clothing, using public pools, etc.

They call Democrats spineless for holding a 30 hour whine session about the fact that Republicans are holding up majority votes for withdrawing troops from Iraq, yet Republicans can't stand up to their heartless, drunk with power president. I think who the real whimps are has shown themselves by falling all over themselves to parrot talking points and voting in lockstep.

Good thing he has immunity

I wouldn't bet money on this AG's legal opinions to be worth anything when the subject is remotely politically heated. So it is a good thing he has immunity and shelters state officials that follow his advice, because his track record is lacking. But you will find suckers just about anywhere.

The Utah Attorney General's Office released an opinion today stating that there is a "substantial likelihood" that the school district division law, which allows only some residents of a district to vote, would hold up in court.
The opinion, requested by [Speaker] Greg Curtis, R-Sandy, may influence the final votes needed as politicians decide whether to put the division of the state's two largest school districts on the ballot this fall.
"It's really based on this idea that cities, as political subdivisions of the state, have a duty to their citizens," said Attorney General Mark Shurtleff.

I haven't read the opinion, but I wonder why Shurtleff is doing his best impression of Gonzales these days. That is, he tells the Republican powers that they want to hear, regardless of whether it is good/sound legal advice.

Riverton Mayor Bill Applegarth is not so sure [about Shurtleff's opinion].
"I think there's enough doubt here that it needs to go to court," Applegarth said.
Alta, Cottonwood Heights, Draper, Midvale and Sandy all have voted to let their residents decide whether to break away from the Jordan School District. In a separate movement in Granite district, elected leaders are poised to vote on putting the question to Holladay, South Salt Lake and Millcreek township voters in the coming weeks.
Several west-side officials contend that SB30, passed during the 2007 legislative session, is unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment's guarantee of one man, one vote. As the law is written, only voters in cities proposing to split from a school district would vote on the issue.
[...]
The Taylorsville City Council told the mayor Wednesday night that he had its unanimous support in allocating funds for a lawsuit to challenge the law. Other west-side cities are preparing to take similar action to pool their resources for the legal fight.

I agree with Shurtleff that the standard of review is the whole ball game, but I don't think necessarily that he will get the "rational review" standard. There are minority populations in some of these areas, which might trigger strict scrutiny.

Anyway, today is ethics and evidence for me. Can you believe that they test ethics every year on the Utah bar exam? And really you will get tripped up if you try to be too ethical, you have to be sorta ethical, sorta ruthless for your client.

Ban fireworks, says Huntsman

(Photo Credit: © 2006 Bobby Haven/The Brunswick News)

And I agree with him. It's lunacy to let people light combustible things that are designed to send sparks all over when it is this dry.

Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. signed an emergency declaration Tuesday calling for local officials to ban personal use of fireworks in their areas because of wildfire dangers.
"With our state already coping with unprecedented loss of life and property due to record wildfires, extraordinary measures are called for," the governor said in a news release. "We must work together to protect life and property in these unusual circumstances."
The Utah Division of Air Quality immediately seconded Huntsman's call. The division noted in a news release that fireworks are a hazard "not only because of wild land fire dangers but also because fireworks pump fine-particulate pollution in the air, prompting an unhealthy spike in air pollution that makes it difficult for people to breathe."
Because of the severe fire danger, such a ban is already in effect for most federal and state lands, including national parks, the governor said. "I am asking local leaders to join me in taking a step beyond those guidelines already put in place at the federal and state levels."
The possibility of extending the ban has local fireworks vendors worried.
"Will it affect our business?" wondered Anthony Abdullah, sales manager of Phantom Fireworks, a fireworks distributor in Evanston, Wyo. "It very well could."

Let's see what is more important, firework distributors making money in Wyoming (where people go to buy illegal fireworks) OR peoples lives, property, and air quality?

Provo, "banned" the fireworks before the ink from Huntsman's pen was dry on the page.

The council met Tuesday night but by law couldn't pass a resolution banning fireworks because it hadn't given prior notice that it would consider a formal action.
Instead, the council unanimously called for Provo residents to voluntarily abstain from using fireworks from July 21-27, when the law allows them

Yeah that will work.

Utahns support nuclear energy

Who knew? The Natural Resources Defense Council certainly hopes you don't put two and two together.

Voters in Utah's 2nd Congressional District say climate change is the nation's most pressing environmental problem and that immediate action is needed to address it, according to a new poll by the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental group.
[...]
Half of Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr.'s 24-member Blue Ribbon Advisory Council on Climate Change voted last week to endorse nuclear energy. Utah currently has no nuclear power plants, given the sensitivity of the issue in a state that has fought high-level nuclear waste storage, received nearly $1 billion in compensation payments for victims of nuclear-testing fallout and endured about $1 billion in cleanups from previous nuclear-energy activities in the state.
David Tuft, director of NRDC's climate change project, said the group included nuclear power as part of its survey but was not releasing that data at this time. He noted that nuclear energy is not part of the climate-change legislation Congress is currently considering.
[...]
A Salt Lake Tribune poll last summer showed that Utahns were roughly split in their belief that global warming is occurring. Baldwin said as more businesses tackle climate change and as Huntsman gets more active on the issue, it has become more visible to the public.

Nice try Mr. Tuft. Good work on getting the lede you wanted in there though. The whole point of this poll was to pressure Jim Matheson to vote with other Democrats on binding climate change provisions. Now that Rep. Matheson is on the Commerce Committee, he has a say on whether our cars and trucks will have increased full efficiency, whether the US will further subsidize ethanol [please say no], or how much will go into solar and battery research, if the US will have more nuclear plants etc. Since Rep. Matheson used to be an energy consultant and is from the west, his colleagues will listen to him more than other new committee members.

Rep. John Dingell, the octogenarian chairman who is from Detroit and for decades has been an SUV maker's best friend, is considering offering a bill that calls the environmentalist's bluff--a carbon tax and major gasoline tax hike. Sen. Chris Dodd supports a carbon tax but none of the other candidates for president do. Most Democratic candidates support raising the CAFE standards (average fuel efficiency) and other more moderate efforts to address global warming.

Climate change is a real issue and it needs serious solutions, not just statement bills like Dingell's (that say environmentalists lack support) or Dodd's (that says I am liberal so vote for me Iowans). Recently nuclear energy has been given a second look by environmental politicians and policymakers in Europe as well as the US because it is carbon-neutral (and radiation-not-neutral).

Nuclear's fundamental problem is the end waste has a more immediate, localized, and long-term danger. Where do you put it? NIMBY How do you transport it out of your backyard? Who will accept it? (Nevadans don't want it, but impoverished Native American tribes do)

This is a serious problem with no easy answers. But pretending you didn't get informaiton supportive of nuclear energy really is dishonest, even if I might be inclined to agree with NDRC. I just hope Jim will vote for solutions that seek to make a real impact on climate change and not just a feel good measure like hydrogen fuel cells or ethanol.

Why McCain isn't going to be this cycle's Kerry

All of Senator McCain's media whores routinely reference John Kerry as an reason why we shouldn't count out John McCain, who now as less than $700,000 in his presidential campaign account (compared to Giulliani's $12.7M, let alone Obama's $34M). John Kerry was at 9 percent in the polls two weeks before Iowa and in third place in New Hampshire, yet ended up winning both and nearly sweeping all the primary states after that (Clark won Oklahoma, and Edwards won South Carolina) and of course ended up getting his party's nomination in 2004.

However, those "journalists" who have been in love with St. John McCain have seemingly forgotten that Kerry put a mortgage on "his" Beacon hill home late in 2003 so that he would have $9M to spend in Iowa (and later New Hampshire). Kerry flew a helicopter barnstorming around Iowa, which isn't cheap and was a good stunt.

After having an adulterous affair with her, John McCain married his current wife, who like Kerry's is an multimillion dollar heiress, "who inherited a lucrative Budweiser beer distributorship from her father, the late Jim Hensley. Her assets are value in excess of $24 million." Unlike Kerry however, he isn't going to tap their "joint assets"

McCain flatly ruled out such a move: "I value my marriage too much. I have never thought about it. I would never do such a thing, so I wouldn't know what the legalities are."

Can we please stop talking about how McCain will magically ressurrect his DOA campaign now?

SPED vouchers don't necessarily work either

Isn't the definition of fiscal conservatism and small government not spending money on new government programs without at least being able to know if the money is being put to good use? Utah has one of the highest rate of overall taxes and fees of any state, yet our public education is not making as much progress as we would like. Maybe it is because we are wasting some education money on ideologically appealing funding rather than reality-based funding.

As Utahns prepare to vote on whether private school tuition vouchers should be made available to all students, the state's special-needs voucher program has quietly expanded. The two-year-old program has grown threefold since its inception, but demand has yet to outpace available funds.
A legislative audit of the program, which could spend as much as $2.4 million on more than 400 students this year, should begin this fall. But because Utah doesn't track the achievement of voucher recipients, the report likely will focus largely on participation.
[...]
Utah['s SPED voucher schools] do not have to provide any special services to students. They simply must explain their services to parents.
[...]
Voucher supporters say parents are most qualified to choose the best schools for their children.
But a lack of data can undermine their ability to make informed choices. A 2005 survey revealed many parents of Florida's [program, which is similar to Utah's] felt they didn't have enough accurate, comparable information to choose a school.
Plus, "parents sometimes insist on choosing poor-quality schools," noted the Education Sector report, citing several examples of schools that remained popular despite poor academic performance. "This suggests that accountability to parents alone is insufficient to protect the public interest or ensure taxpayer money is used well."

Your tax dollars at work. I guess they would rather go to a Jazz game on a lobbyist dime than draft a bill to collect the necessary data and do the necessary oversight.

Sunday morning dog assisted blogging

Poe helps me read the new TPM so I can study for the bar (he's not so good on trusts and wills). (Yes, that's me with Rep. Jim Matheson in the background.)

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.

the case for a fourth branch

All this talk about Dick Cheney's ludicrous claim that he is both a member of the executive branch (so he can claim executive privilege for his secret energy meetings with oil and nuclear company executives) and not a member of the executive branch (so he doesn't have to comply to classified document requirements, in case he wants to oh out a covert CIA officer because her husband said true things about the case for the Iraq war) has gotten me thinking about an idea I have been kicking around for a while.

Prior to the 12th Amendment, the Electoral College runner up became Vice President. This was OK when the two men (and until at least 2009 it has always been and will always be two men) agreed on stuff, but was very awkward when they were political rivals (see John Adams vs. Thomas Jefferson). However, without this bitter rivalry, the alien and sedition acts wouldn't have been tested so early. In an age that is just as partisan and nasty as it was then (1990-2000s=1790s-1800s) I think this time it will actually work. This is especially true if the VP was to not be the president of the Senate (a default job the constitutional drafters gave him since they had no clue what to do with the VP) but rather, the head of the Justice Department.

The first attorney general was like Alberto Gonzales, aka just the president's lawyer, at first. However Edmund Randolph quickly saw that he needed to be able to intervene in cases on behalf of the US, not the president. Only one justice at the time agreed with him, James Iredell. Today, the Justice Department has grown far beyond Randolph's desk and now employs thousands of prosecutors & investigators, with broad powers.

Imagine if Bush had gotten the White House in 2000...but Al Gore was made VP/AG with a separate constitutional office and powers of his own. This would have likely prevented many of the scandals you see today, or at least drawn them out into the light of day much sooner before they became cancerous on the Administration. Such a fourth branch would have the power to check into wrongdoing not only of the executive branch, but also of the legislative branch. This also would have obviously prevented the US Attorney scandal since a bootlicker like Alberto Gonzales never would have gotten the second most electoral votes.

The current VP office can be as powerful as junior president for someone like Dick Cheney, or "not worth a bucket of warm piss" for someone like John Nance Garner. The voters don't know what power/role the president will give his vice president, which leaves the office either with little political influence or Dante's political purgatory from which they can run for the presidency or vanish into the night.

The American people deserve an independent Justice Department, and the only guarantee for that is my plan, given human nature. Americans deserve a VP who is ready to take over for the president should something terrible happen, and one who will be wholly independent of the Congress and the President.

Under the current system, someone like Cheney can create a secret shadow government, which can order civilian planes shot down (like he did on 9/11 with Lynne Cheney, and without George W. Bush) and who knows what else. After all, he doesn't want us to know.

But if we had a true fourth branch, which was separately elected from the President and Congress, we would ensure that partisanship does not go awry. After all, if the AG/VP started to investigate members of Congress/the White House for no reason, he could always be defunded/impeached.

important stuff

It seems these days lame duck executives are twiddling the time on really critical matters like these:

By Executive Order, Crocs Aren't Chic
By Robin Givhan
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, June 22, 2007; Page C01
Crocs have been given the presidential seal of approval but this is not necessarily a good thing.
George W. Bush was photographed recently in a pair of black Crocs -- Cayman style, $29.99 -- as he was heading out from the White House to ride his bike.

(Photo Credit: Ron Sachs via Bloomberg News Photo)
OK well maybe that was unfair to Mr. 26%, all he did was wear them. Let's beat up on Rocky instead (a favorite past time of mine)

Salt Lake City Mayor Rocky Anderson hopes to make his fight against water bottles a national battle.
Anderson, along with San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom and Minneapolis Mayor R.T. Rybak, will sponsor a resolution today at the U.S. Conference of Mayors in Los Angeles calling for a study on the impact of bottled water on cities' budgets and waste-disposal systems.

Why so we can say that bottled water hurts the environment by contributing to global warming and polution? Any idiot can figure that out. Why don't we do a study to measure how many people Rocky has managed treat like crap (including and excluding staff)?

But as the race to replace him rages on and his days in office wane, Anderson isn't worried about being treated like a lame duck.
"I don't think it could get much worse with this council," he said. "They're very slow and very indecisive. I hate to paint with a broad brush, but the majority of the council have been extremely difficult to move toward the kinds of improvements that I think ought to be embraced in this community."
Anderson has created a list of about 100 priorities he hopes to accomplish before he leaves office. He wants to start a Sunday Farmers Market at the city's west-side Jordan Park, complete the Grant Tower rail realignment and replace the light bulbs in all city-run buildings with more efficient types. He also has broader aims, which include explaining to the general public ways to combat global warming.

I would just like to point out that the one guy he endorsed is in fifth place. The man is not popular and that is why he could not win unless it was Dave Buhler vs. someone else conservative...and that won't happen. Either Jenny Wilson or Ralph Becker will make it through to the next round, or both.

If that happens, it will be an embarrassment of riches.

if you can't beat 'em make 'em join you

The old "kicked upstairs" routine. The two Board of Education attorneys that but the law above party are going to probably sucked into the vortex of the Attorney General's office, where I am sure they will have horrible jobs.

The Attorney General's Office is set to weigh whether to bring into its ranks two lawyers working at the State Office of Education who went against its opinion when the school voucher ballot question was before the Utah Supreme Court earlier this month.

Deputy Attorney General Ray Hintze on Wednesday said one of his first assignments in 2001 was to rein in "illegal in-house counsel" at state agencies by making them part of the Attorney General's Office, a move he said was supported by then-Gov. Mike Leavitt.
[...]
"We left these two (attorneys) in place thinking it was a workable situation, and until this issue came up, it has worked very well," Hintze told the legislative Education Interim Committee Wednesday.

Remember, that was the committee hearing where the Board of Education's attorney's said they wouldn't show up to, because they were worried about politicization.

Looks like someone just fired a shot across their bow. Shurtleff's Hintze-man basically told them they were going to sleep with the fishes. That is, be stuck in dead-end jobs AG jobs where no one affiliated with the Utah Republican party would dare hire them.

I don't know about you, but I am tired of the AG using his power like a bully because his power was questions and his judgment was proved false. Mark has egg all over his face but insists on terrorizing a small public agency because he won't admit he was wrong. A bully and a coward, and this man counts as a "rising star" in the Utah GOP.

EXCLUSIVE: Becker's Education proposal

Sources close to Becker for SLC Mayor campaign spoke on condition on anonymity about his education platform and plan.

The plan is a big departure from the current, hands-off approach to schooling that Rocky has made. (Who by the way, realizes his 15 minutes of fame are up and is toying with running again...gag me with a spoon) Here are some of the ideas I like the best:

• Second-Language Proficiency: "by the time every Salt Lake City student is 18 years old, he or she will be able to pass a basic proficiency exam in a second language." This includes not just Sudanese refugees and Mexican kids, but white kids named Jensen. What better way to get a talented workforce ready for a globalized economy than having them proficient in another language? And by the way, it would make missionary language training much easier if one is called to serve in a country that speaks the language you learned in high school. I hope this will mean that not only will the next generation of Utahns know how to speak a language like Spanish, but also languages like Mandarin or Japanese.


• Expanding Excellence in Education ("E3"): E-cubed is based on the idea that schools should not be limited to the knowledge and materials found inside their buildings. Rather, students would be encouraged to participate in "extracurricular learning opportunities" in the form of formal and informal programs with local companies, museums, researchers, etc. The real world is coming soon to a high schooler near you. They need to learn what it will take to make it in the real world without mom and dad's assistance. Maybe one of these programs will inspire a student to go to medical school, architecture school, start a business, become an artist, or dissuade them that working as a mechanic is really going to be great.


• Public-Private Partnerships: "the city will build partnerships with local businesses to help provide opportunities for our children to learn and excel" through grants of money/equipment, as well as employees volunteering. Imagine people who work out at the refinery teaching kids chemistry.

There are several others, like appointing a senior staffer to be the "Ed Czar," monthly meetings with principals and the mayor, city employee engagement, but those are less "sexy" than the other plans in my view.

Anyway, feel free to talk about the merits of these ideas or suggest your own, I am sure Ralph would love to hear them. And it seems his staff read my blog.

Who's the boss

(photo credit: Television Heaven UK)

Remember that crappy 80's sitcom, where it was so funny that a woman could be in charge of men? And that men were stupid (Tony Danza only played characters with the name of "Tony" so he wouldn't get confused) Well it seems to be back in syndication up on Salt Lake's Capitol Hill.

"Although Superintendent (of Public Instruction Patti) Harrington initially may have indicated some availability to attend the Education Interim Committee meeting this coming Wednesday, after due deliberation, I, representing the State Board of Education, respectfully decline to send a representative to that gathering," State Board of Education chairman Kim Burningham wrote in a letter to Education Interim Committee co-chairman Sen. Howard Stephenson, R-Draper.
"It is unclear what role the committee has in relation to what essentially is business to be conducted confidentially, if at all, between the Attorney General and the state board. It is clear, however, that any further politicization of the relationship between the Attorney General and the state board is unwelcome to the board, if not to (Attorney General Mark) Shurtleff, and would be ill-advised in any event."
The letter sent a ripple through legislative leadership Tuesday.
"The State Board of Education cannot refuse to talk to us," said Senate President John L. Valentine, R-Orem, following a meeting Tuesday afternoon of top-level legislative bosses — the Executive Appropriations Committee.

Valentine went to my law school, but he seems to forget attorney client privilege and that his duty is to the people of the state of Utah, not Mark Shurtleff or the executive committee of the Utah Republican Party. [By the way, don't you think it is funny that when they had a choice, they chose a lobbyist? And the lobbyist said that lobbyist are an important part of the GOP coalition?]

Shurtleff was pissed that they didn't follow his advise, claiming they had to. No state agency has to follow the AG's advice, but if they guess wrong and are sued, there will be no immunity. In this case, the state board guessed right, as the Utah Supremes voted unanimously that Shurtleff was completely full of sh!t. But that didn't stop legislators from doing his bidding

After that decision, the education interim committee changed its agenda for today's meeting. The committee had originally planned to discuss the board's decision no to offer vouchers. But a revised agenda released Monday had replaced that item with a discussion of the AG's duties.

All hail partisan hack Mark "Tony Danza" Shurtleff. Who's the boss now, legislature?

Becker gets Ashdown's support

But will it matter? Pete Ashdown got about the same (about 31%) as former State Sen. Scott Howell got in 2000 against Hatch. Pete's walloping was least bad in Salt Lake County, where he got 91,601 votes to Hatch's 109,201. Of course, Salt Lake City is the biggest city in the County and probably the source of the bulk of those 91,601.

But Ralph Becker isn't the only guy with endorsements. Jenny Wilson got Peter Corroon's who actually won Salt Lake County (albeit only the plurality) and will likely win in a landslide reelection next year. All things considered Jenny's endorsement is probably worth more than Ralph's.

people as props

Today's post is on how the media and campaigns use groups of people to make a point and thus to dehumanize them. First up, LDS families:

The Becerras live in Sandy. He is a financial adviser and a stake president who has done voluntary work for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints' public affairs department. Because of the latter connection, he got a call from church headquarters asking if he would allow his family to be observed by Sharpton while they held a family home evening.
So the Becerras did what they do every Monday night, or most of them anyway. With Sharpton and his assistants watching, along with an LDS Church official, they sang a hymn and prayed. Daughter Rachael sang a church hymn solo, and Debbie gave a lesson on the Prodigal Son. Sharpton sat quiet until he was asked to read a passage from the Bible.
[...]
Then three weeks later, the church sent another visitor to the Becerra household. This time it was an "NBC Nightly News" crew, headed by reporter Ron Allen. They showed up on a Monday night to observe another family home evening. With cameras rolling and the crew observing, the Becerras sang a hymn and then prayed. Jorge gave a lesson. They ate Popsicles. They played croquet in the yard. The kids, distracted at first by the large TV cameras leaning in for close-up shots, eventually ignored the audience, and it was business as usual.
[...]
After a pause, Jorge [Becerras] added, "We felt like we were under a microscope, but we welcome any interest."
Ready or not, it's coming anyway. CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, Time magazine and newspapers from around the country have all come calling in recent weeks, and more will follow in the months ahead. They all want to know the same thing: What, exactly, is a Mormon?

In both cases, TV cameras, famous African-Americans from New York, and church officials took the "family" out of family home evening, one of the most universally appealing practices of Mormons.

The spectacle makes LDS families seem either like an ants in an ant farm, or nostalgic '50s throwbacks.

Next up, homosexuals

The vote taken by Bay State lawmakers showcases the state's ultra-liberalism and gives the former Massachusetts governor another reason to kick Massachusetts around.
Beyond that, it fires up opponents of same-sex marriage, who constitute a fierce conservative base. They are already expressing fears about what happens now that Massachusetts is the only state where same-sex marriage is legal: Gay couples will travel here, obtain a marriage license, then sue to strike down laws banning same-sex marriage in other states.

First off, Romney and the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court affirmed that only Massachusetts residence can get marriage licenses, applying a 1918 law narrowly. This eliminated gay marriage tourism and probably hurt the economy slightly, and made these conservative fears unfounded.

Second, I am glad to see that Romney's people acknowledge they are using gay people to burnish Multiple Choice Mitt's conservative credentials ("It helps Mitt," a Romney adviser said.)

Here's more on his flip flopping

Romney committed himself to pro-choice policies and miscellaneous moderate social stands in order to run for office in Massachusetts, and with good political reason. It would be hard to imagine a pro-life, anti-gay rights social conservative winning a Massachusetts governor's race. Once elected, Romney used Massachusetts as the launchpad he intended from the start. He began the dramatic political retooling that he hopes will win him the Republican nomination, then the presidency.
In that regard, gay rights and the gay marriage issue hold similar peril for Romney. When he was running against Edward M. Kennedy, Romney said he would be a stronger advocate for gay rights than the liberal senator. Conservative critics also charge that as governor, he unnecessarily implemented same-sex marriage after the state's highest court declared that gay couples have a right to marry. In a compilation entitled, "The Mitt Romney Deception," Romney critic Brian Camenker holds Romney accountable for gay marriage in Massachusetts on the grounds that he "jumped the gun and needlessly advanced the homosexual agenda by granting marriage rights without a fight."

And in Romney's defense, he at least rhetorically fought the results. He even tried to campaign for GOPers in 2004 and 2006 in Massachusetts and their power actually decreased in Mass.

Mitt Romney is today's Aaron Burr

(Sorry, I don't have Photoshop so this ghetto mashup of Romney and the third Vice President of the United States is brought to you by Microsoft Paint. )

Anyway, as you probably know, in 1800, Thomas Jefferson overwhelming won the popular vote against John Adams. However, the idiots selected to be electors cast their votes for both Jefferson and Aaron Burr in such a fashion that both had a tie in the Electoral College.

As a result, the election was thrown to the House of Representatives, which was for the moment still controlled by Federalists (but would become overwhelmingly Jeffersonian in a matter of weeks). Rather than be happy with being VP Burr saw an opportunity for power indirectly asked the Federalist to vote him into the presidency in exchange for power in his administration.

Alexander Hamilton, Federalist party chief (and ancestor of yours truly), had a tough choice. He hated Jefferson's ideas, believing he would be a disaster. He hated Burr personally, because as a fellow New Yorker and banker, had seen how loathsome Burr was as a human being. After tortuous deliberation, Hamilton decided "Jefferson is to be preferred. He is by far not so dangerous a man and he has pretensions to character."

By contrast Burr's "private character is not defended by his most partial friends... His public principles have no other spring or aim than his own aggrandizement... If he can he will certainly disturb our institutions to secure himself permanent power and with it wealth..." As V. Lowry Snow put it "Hamilton recognized that Burr was dangerous not because he took a strong stand for what he believed in, but precisely because he took no stand and believed in nothing but himself."

Is it just me, or was the first Treasury Secretary and the author of our national economy describing the former Governor of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts? Mitt's views on everything have changed to suit his electorate--Abortion, Stem Cell research, Guns, Gays, pardons, taxes, even the articles his own faith.

When Burr ran for Vice President, Hamilton said: "Mr. Burr is determined, as I conceive, to climb to the highest honors of the state. He is bold, enterprising, and intriguing, and I feel it is a religious duty to oppose his career." Likewise, I feel honor bound to oppose Romney's rise to the Oval Office.