Let the Madness Begin

Today marks the first of forty-five days of insanity commonly referred to as the state legislative session.

Today was a day of formalities; bringing the house to order, introducing new members, acknowledging staff and interns…you know, the usual stuff.

What made today unique, however, was the setting. As I walked around the original House and Senate chambers I was taken aback by the stunning artwork that surrounded me. Indeed this was an improvement from years past. I know from my own personal experience that it seemed that you could walk ten feet with out attempting to dodge at least four people. Today I was stunned by a grand lobby, plentiful seats in the gallery, and breathing room.

But it is not all as it seems.

I could not help but think, as I saw open cracks, floors still in need of grout, missing statues, numerous technical glitches, and (above all else) men still walking around in hard-hats, that the building is, above all else, far from functioning as a whole.

I could not help to make parallels to the bodies held within the Capitol. Indeed, standing from afar our Capitol and Legislature are impressive bodies. In the case of the Legislature we see a general veneer of a functioning system…after all the roads still work and the economy is booming; it is only when we actually start to enter the bowels of the system do we see the subtle but potentially crippling problems still yet to be fixed.

Partisan supermajorities pushing agendas, lobbyist gifts, a general disregard of the will of the people, and shady deals mar the system as it stands today.

And so today, as I stood in the halls of “The Peoples House” I have to wonder if, like the gaps in the stairwell or the flecks of gold leaf still falling from the ornamentation, we are able to fix the problems behind the closed doors. Here is hoping that this year problems are solved and gaps are fixed in order to make our representative form of government a little bit better.

On a positive side note (assuming you are part of the roughly 65 percent of people who don't like President Bush), today marks 365 days until the man is officially out of office and can no longer make decisions. Hang in there people, 7/8ths of the way done!

Bills to Watch - HB 237 - Illegal Immigration Enforcement Act

Today we will be discussing Representative Donnelson's HB 237 - Illegal Immigration Enforcement Act.

Surprisingly I am going to be talking about yet another issue that just will not die on the Right side of the isle: Immigration.

Now this is the second time Representative Donnelson has attempted to run this bill, in fact the 2008 version is almost an exact copy of the 2007 version. Last year the bill had a very undignified death - having its enacting clause struck (basically legislative jaron for "you need this to be called a law") in the Senate.

Let us start on line 59, shall we?

59 (2) A local law enforcement agency may enter into an agreement with the Secretary of
60 Homeland Security, pursuant to 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1357(g), to allow a local law enforcement officer
61 to perform a function of a federal immigration officer in relation to the investigation,
62 apprehension, or detention of aliens in the United States.
63 (3) If a local law enforcement agency enters into an agreement described in Subsection
64 (2), the local law enforcement agency shall ensure that the local law enforcement agency, and
65 the local law enforcement agency's law enforcement officers, comply with the terms of the
66 agreement and the provisions of 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1357(g).
67 Section 4. Section 53-15-104 is enacted to read:
68 53-15-104. Authority of a state or local law enforcement officer to enforce
69 immigration law.
70 A state or local law enforcement officer may enforce federal immigration law and
71 otherwise perform a function of a federal immigration officer if the law enforcement officer:
72 (1) is authorized to enforce federal immigration law or perform a function of a federal 73 immigration officer under:
74 (a) an agreement described in Section 53-15-103 ; and
75 (b) 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1357(g); and
76 (2) complies with the requirements of:
77 (a) the agreement described in Subsection (1)(a);
78 (b) 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1357(g).

And now it is translation time:

What this bill basically wants to do is allow plain 'ol police officers to act as Immigration and Custom Enforcement (ICE) officials. you can gather that this is a not so veiled attempt by Representative Donnelson to get them illegals out because they took 'er jerbs!

By giving this kind of power to police officers Representative Donnelson will effectively do the exact opposite of what he intends and create more crime along the way. Allow me to explain.

Suppose an illegal alien is raped one night on her way home from her job. Fearful of loosing what little she has in this country she does not call the police for fear of being deported. The criminal, successful in his previous attempt, repeats the crime. In effect this bill drives illegal immigrants deeper underground and society on the whole (yes even legal citizens) suffer because of it.

Also let us consider the shear logistics of this bill. Cops will need to be trained on how to handle such cases (the bill does not provide funding for this of course at it would be far to logical), further taxing strained public service monies. Supposing an illegal immigrant is caught, resources will have to be spent putting together cases for otherwise innocent people.

Another economic factor is the price we pay is when it comes to loosing members of the workforce. True, the argument is made that they are taking jobs away from American citizens, but I don't see people lining up for housekeeping jobs.

This bill is flawed at best and racist at worst. Sadly the burden of immigration has been saddled upon the states; failure on the national level has caused states to act...and the consequences are bills such as these. One day we will solve the immigration "problem" facing our nation, but bills such as these are not the solution.

Bills to Watch - HB 236 - Abortion Law Revisions

Starting a new feature on the ol' blog today. I figure that due to the copious amount of free time I have, I figure I can at least start diving into what the Legislature will be talking about during the session.

Today we will discuss H.B. 236 - Abortion Law Revisions proposed by Representative Sandstrom.

Yes, yes, I know, another abortion bill from another conservative Republican from Utah County... what is the big shocker? Well, none, but that does not mean that we should ignore this bill.

The amendment that Representative Sandstrom wants to put forward is truly and innovative one. On the surface (like most anti-abortion bills) it appears that the bill is a reasonable step to stop abortion without pissing of to many of us crazy liberals. But read the bill carefully (starting at line 49):

49 (2) No person may perform an abortion, unless: ...
56 (b) (i) the woman upon whom the abortion is performed is pregnant as a result of:
58 (B) rape, as defined in Section 76-5-402 ; or
59 (C) rape of a child, as defined in Section 76-5-402.1 ;
60 (ii) the incident described in Subsection (2)(b)(i) is reported to a law enforcement
61 agency before the abortion is performed; and
62 (iii) the unborn child is under 20 weeks gestational age; or
63 (c) on the basis of the attending physician's good faith clinical judgment:
64 (i) the unborn child has a medical condition that makes it highly unlikely that the
65 unborn child will survive more than 24 hours after birth; and
66 (ii) there is not a medically acceptable intervention or procedure that:
67 (A) may be performed before or after the child's birth;
68 (B) may be performed without undue risk to the mother's health; and
69 (C) has a reasonable chance of extending the unborn child's life beyond 24 hours.

Let me break this down for you in English: Abortions are still legal if you are raped...if you report it before the 20th week. I mean there is no reason why a scared wife or child would not want to come froward to report that she was raped, right? Plus (and here is the real kick in the teeth) if you do finally decide to come forward after the 20th week and actually report the crime, well, too bad; you lose. I guess you are just going to have to live with the fact that you are not prompt.

Furthermore you can (and here is the tricky part) you can get an abortion if the baby may not survive out the womb a day after it is born; this is based on the assumption that you can predict the future health of your newborn. Furthermore the state is basically forcing you to have medical procedures before or after the birth of the child unless, again, you can magically predict that your child will pass within the first day of its birth.

Now I know, this second part of the bill isn't so bad, I mean the state is going to pay for these procedures right? Let me just check the fiscal note, you know the one that is not there. I guess the state is going to make you pay for this yourself, on top of the heartbreak and risk involved.

Oh well at least this bill is not going to violate citizens rights... Oh wait, let me quote the Legislative review:

The United States Supreme Court has held that a woman has a constitutional right to a pre-viability abortion without undue interference from the state. Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973) and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 846 (1992). In light of this holding, the Court has declared state regulation to be unconstitutional if it has "the purpose or effect of placing a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion of a nonviable fetus." Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S. 914, 921 (2000), quoting Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 877 (1992). Based on this precedent, there is a high probability that a court would hold that this bill unduly interferes with a woman's right to a pre-viability abortion by providing that such abortions may only be performed under the following circumstances: where the pregnancy resulted from incest or rape and the abortion is performed before the fetus reaches 20 weeks gestational age; where the fetus has a medical condition that makes it highly unlikely that the fetus will survive more than 24 hours; or where an abortion is necessary in order to avert a woman's death or a serious risk to a woman of substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function.

I guess this would be the hallmark of a bad law. Not only does it put further burden on the mother, but it won't even hold up to Constitutional muster. We are going to tie up the courts, waste taxpayers dollars, waste legislative time, and take away citizens rights. Nice work Representative Sandstrom. If you would like to contact the fine Representative from Orem, he can be reached atmailto:%20ssandstrom@utah.gov.

Smart Ass

As is my tradition (and when I have nothing in particular springing to mind but still want to post), I present to you my quarterly rant that is posted in the Young Democrats of Utah newsletter. I figure it was original content when I wrote it, and odds are you don't know what craziness I have come up with this time around!

This time around I present to you my "Smart Ass" column, unabridged:

All right, I know that you may look at some of Utah’s laws and feel them to be archaic, misguided, and perhaps even detrimental to the state.

But fear not…I have a great idea that could really be revolutionary. You see, after searching on a series of tubes I like to call the Internet, I discovered a concept called representation. You see, basically, we are supposed to elect people who represent us in government. In return they gain our votes and are chosen by the people to represent them; if someone does not represent us, they get kicked out. This of course assumes that people care and participate in their government and want to make the world a little bit better of a place.

I know, I know, this is a little crazy of a concept, but I feel that it is really a good way to go. Allow me to explain.

Let us suppose our state legislature tries to pass a law that is widely unpopular – I dunno, something like having private vouchers in our education system, liquor laws that prevent adults from acting like adults, or building a stadium that the people really don’t want to pay for (you know, just in theory) – well under representation these things don’t happen because, well, the people don’t like it. Furthermore if something does happen to slip through the legislature, the will of the people can easily override the representatives by vetoing the law with out any sort of trickery on behalf of the lawmakers or elect people who better represent them.

Now I know that this is a crazy Liberal (note the capitalization on the letter “L”) idea that probably won’t catch on in Utah any time soon, but I feel that it is my duty as a young idealist to really push for something along these lines. I mean I think it is a great idea to have the 43 percent of people who did not vote Republican in the previous gubernatorial election to have a greater say than the current 23 percent they currently have in the legislature. I mean there is nothing that could possibly explain why people are not currently under represented by 20 percent, right?

Now some people may disagree with me. “Curtis,” they say, “why would I actually want the interests of the people to be represented in the Legislature…how can I possibly punish a teachers union, liberal city, environmentalist, or low-income family under this system?” Well, I can’t lie; it will be much more difficult to do those things under this system. If someone wants to do those types of activities they will have to convince the majority of the people to actually agree with them, rather than just the majority of people who already agree with them.

You know, as I flush out this idea a little more, I start to realize how strange an impractical this idea really is. I mean why would lawmakers want to put the interests of the citizens above their steak dinners and Jazz tickets? Alright, I take it all back. After all why fix something that isn’t broken? I have not heard of anything passing that the people were upset enough to complain about. Still representation sounds like a good idea, I dunno, I’m just being a smart ass.

You know what I just noticed?

The presidential race looks somewhat similar to last years Salt Lake mayors race...now hear me out on this one.

Hillary Clinton is Jenny Wilson, no not because they are both women, but rather because they were destined to win right from the get go only to loose soundly. Both candidates walk(ed) around with a swagger, assuming that they would win and focused more on reminding people who their husband/father was and reminding them of how great a time things were when their family was in power. Once things start(ed) to slip away they suddenly start complaining about how the media is spending too much attention on themselves and not on their opponents records.

Furthermore I have noticed that Hillary fans usually supported Wilson, and furthermore these reasons appear to be superficial - she is a woman so I am going to vote for her; her name carries weight; (and my personal favorite) I don't know, I just like her. I have also noticed that my feelings towards both are similar: I am sure they would do a great job and would happy vote for them in the general election, but I just don't support them now.

Now don't get me wrong, these are two very different people with very different strategies. Let us not forget that Clinton gets a redo tomorrow night and could bounce back from the debilitating loss Iowa.

Mitt Romney is Kieth Christensen. All money, all talk, no results. Both have (had) a difficult time drumming up support and getting votes despite the fact that they are very qualified for the job at hand. These candidates go to show that all the money in the world dose not a slam dunk make. Now Mitt does have one thing Christensen did not have: an actual shot at winning. From what I can see Mitt has a strong machine going and will be able to at least hold his own (although it still looks bad for him in New Hampshire).

Another aspect that both men hold is that they will do or say anything to win. One leaves their party, the other changes their stance on everything from gays to abortion. Point is they care more about pleasing the most people (which is not necessarily bad in a representative form of government mind you) than sticking to their guns.

Also they are both Mormon (shocking I know).

Mike Huckabee is Dave Buhler - nice on the outside but a fierce competitor who is not afraid to get nasty. Both had surprising, but earned, victories by playing the "I'm a nice guy" card. But as we are seeing now, as these two discover(ed) that they had a shot at things they were not afraid to show their teeth and bite into their opponents. Both have a built in base that may (proved) to be difficult mobilize on election day.

It seems that both have (had) a long march towards an inevitable loss.

Barack Obama and John Edwards are Ralph Becker. They are all candidates for change and, although respected, no one thought they had a legitimate chance until votes were counted. All surprised the media with impressive wins despite all the signs pointing that way. It should also be noted that all are viewed as "nice guys" who lack fight (again despite signs telling people the opposite).

All are viewed as more philosophical than nitty-gritty politicians (in fact I had to chuckle when I heard CNN call Obama a "doer, not a dreamer"). Again we see the pundits treat hope as a bad thing and "the machine" to entrenched in electing people it wants to elect.

It should also be noted that all three men hate how much money is in politics and refused to play into the games that lobbyists want to play.

Finally, Ron Paul is Rainer Huck...I think you know why (coo-koo)

Iowa votes for change

Last night the nation witnessed something interesting; voters, from both political parties mind you, voted for change over experience.

Let us start with the Republicans: By choosing Mike Huckabee over Mitt Romeny, voters overwhelmingly went with the dark horse candidate. Now many factors entered into this particular win and Huckabee should be wary of himself and his staffers becoming to lackadaisical; on the Republican side the race is still far from over. By winning Iowa Huckabee was only able to confirm that he has the evangelical vote locked, after all he got 46 percent of the total Christian Conservative/Socially Conservative vote while Romeny was only able to pull 19 percent of the same demographic.

The nation is only 26 percent evangelical, with half of those identifying themselves as Republican. Courting the Right as worked in the past, however it is more difficult to appeal to a broad base of support when the far right (along with all the baggage president Bush has added) is on your side.

I feel that the outcome of the New Hampshire primary will be far more indicative of who the Republican nominee will be. All the major candidates have worked hard in the state, and (for the Republican voting bloc) the demographics are similar to the nation on the whole. Indeed Huckabee pulled off an impressive win, but it is far from a sure thing.

Now on to the Democrats. As I tend to do, I always give full disclosure as to who I am supporting so that you understand my bias: I am an Obama supporter and I am thrilled to see how well he did last night. That being said I would still like to offer up my analysis.

The victory last night for Obama was two things: a great win for Obama, and a near crippling loss for Clinton.

Clinton, since day one, made her self out to be the only candidate for the Democrats. Indeed she is a strong candidate and would do a fine job as president. But this (dare I say) hubris did not fly in Iowa. Touting experience is a great asset to any campaign, however when the winds are shifting towards change it is the last thing you want to accent. I suspect that Iowa Democratic voters don't want more of the same from their president; Bill was a great president, but he also represented the good 'ol boy network of business as usual in Washington. Hillary carries that same baggage when she makes herself out to be the golden girl who will be able to swoop in and make changes only because she knows how the system works and how to manipulate it. The other main reason Hillary is now crippled by this loss is that she made herself out to be unbeatable - Obama's victory effectively showed voters that not only can he win, but that Hillary can lose.

One can not discount Obama's voting base. Obama one women, young adults, and Independents. It is clear that Obama cuts across multiple groups when he espouses a message of hope and change. I must admit that this is one of the reasons he is so appealing to me as a voter: Obama is not seen as a "business as usual" candidate and, frankly, a lot of people are tired of the partisan politics associated with it. Unlike Huckabee, Obama's message is more universal, and victory in Iowa proves a huge momentum shift for the Obama campaign. As an example let us look at Blacks in South Carolina; they have widely supported Clinton over the last year, but now that Obama is seen as not just viable, but winnable, do you honestly think they will stand in the way of the first black president? Likewise Obama answered the race question to most fence sitters; if Obama could win in a state that is 91 percent white, imagine what he can do when he starts campaigning in the South and Mid-Atlantic and Western States.

The Clinton campaign is not down and out, but they need a win in New Hampshire in order to at least remain relevant. Even if Hillary came in second place ahead of Obama, the Clinton campaign will be all but sunk; nothing short of first place, and a decisive first place at that, is allowable for he Clinton camp.

Lets see what happens next Tuesday in New Hampshire!

WHO NEEDS TO KNOW TRIGONOMETRY?!

I mean COME ON. Here I am, a college graduate, A COLLEGE GRADUATE, having to study for the GRE, and all I see is stupid crap like "find the length of this stupid line" or what "how stupid do you have to be to not know what this angle is."

I MEAN COME ON! I am a Political Science Major, I have never (nor will I ever) use this steaming pile of mathematics. "But Curtis, how will you find the hight of that tree based on its shadow?" You know what... I DON'T CARE. There I said it: I DON'T CARE. IS THE TREE GOING TO FALL DOWN ON ME? NO? WELL THEN SHOVE IT.

Damn I just want to get into a nice school, one that will teach me, oh I don't know, things I need to know for MY career. Trig, you can shove it, go find your way over to that engineering test and leave me the hell alone!

As a side note, I know it is unfair to drop this bombshell on primary day, but I hope to sway all my Iowa readers out there by telling them to vote Obama. It will be interesting to see how things shake out, and I will have my opinions tomorrow.

Happy New Year!

Sorry everyone (all three of you) who have been waiting with baited breath to see a new blog post from me...I mean with a grand spanking total of one post last month it was obvious that updating the blog was not on my mind.

You see there is a direct correlation between unemployment and video game playing, and, well, what can I say...Sim City 4, Civilization 4 and Railroad Tycoon 3 are fun games. Furthermore there is an inverse relationship between video game playing and blog posting; I mean how often can you come up with a new idea when you are busy invading the Incas?

But never fear, I am sure that my ire will be raised in the coming weeks as the legislative session starts. Nothing interesting seems to be on the radar yet, but I have come to learn that this is the calm before the storm. I am particularly excited to see what the sleeper issue will be this year - after all when raw cow milk dominates the talk on the hill last time, anything can happen!

But, for now, I just want to wish everyone out there on the Inter-web-net a wonderful new year. 2007 was an interesting year for myself, filled with many personal and professional triumphs and some bad setbacks, but I am sure that 2008 will be a great year. It should be fun to watch how the year shapes out on a global, national, state and local level.

So cheers to you and lets see where the ride takes us!