KVNU's For The People

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Tonight:

We’re joined in the first hour with Cache Republican Party Chairman David James to discuss all things Bennett, Obama, and TEA Party.  David and I have agreed to not argue (too much) this time.

And in the second hour, as promised, we will speak with Chis Cocola, former Congressman and President/CEO of Club for Growth, who are behind the Stop Bob Bennett campaign and TV ad running here in Utah’s Senate Race.

We’ll find out what Club for Growth is all about, and why they decided to make the Utah Senate race a focus of their 2010 campaign.

Bring the popcorn, this should be good. (I’m surrounded by conservatives!!!)

Tune in, or Log in.

Your calls are welcome.

Podcasts of this and previous shows are available here.

Some industrial grade turd-polishing from the Senate Site:

Here are some facts:

HB 150 is designed to give law enforcement a technological tool to investigate not only sex offenses against children but also child kidnapping and stalking activity. Criminals have expanded their criminal activities with technology (text messaging, emails, access to internet) and it is important to expand law enforcement’s ability likewise to include electronic communication devices such as cell phones as well as being able to trace email addresses.

Great.  Lets save the children:

HB 150 does not violate the Fourth Amendment. The bill does not go after content. It only covers contact information such as name, phone number, email address, bank account identifiers and location of suspected offenders (of the three listed crimes: sex offenses against a child, kidnapping of a child, and stalking). The electronic sources being used are cell phones, smart phones, PDA’s and email addresses.

I’m pretty sure this information is already available to the AG via the PATRIOT ACT.  He would just have to wait longer.  Due process sucks.

18 U.S.C. § 2703(c)(2) lists the categories of basic subscriber information:

(A) name; (B) address; (C) local and long distance telephone connection records, or records of session times and durations; (D) length of service (including start date) and types of service utilized; (E) telephone or instrument number or other subscriber number or identity, including any temporarily assigned network address; and (F) means and source of payment for such service (including any credit card or bank account number)[.]

In general, the items in this list relate to the identity of a subscriber, his relationship with his service provider, and his basic session connection records. This list does not include other, more extensive transaction-related records, such as logging information revealing the e-mail addresses of persons with whom a customer corresponded during a prior session. The PATRIOT Act enhanced the categories of basic subscriber information in three respects. See PATRIOT Act § 210, 115 Stat. 272, 283 (2001). It added “records of session times and durations,” as well as “any temporarily assigned network address” to 18 U.S.C. § 2703(c)(2). In the Internet context, these records include the IP address assigned by an Internet service provider to a customer for a particular session. They also include other information relating to account access, such as the originating telephone number for dial-up Internet access or the IP address of a user accessing an account over the Internet. In addition, the PATRIOT Act added to this list of subscriber information the “means and source of payment” that a customer uses to pay for an account, “including any credit card or bank account number.”  From here:  http://www.justice.gov/criminal/cybercrime/s&smanual2002.html#_IIIC_

So, the truth is:  it does violate the American version of  the Fourth Amendment, but not the PATRIOT ACT version of the Fourth Amendment.

Additional content can only be obtained only through court orders/warrants.

Sooo, it isn’t surveillance if they don’t know what we are saying?

As an intelligence-gathering phenomenon, an analyst with an MIT degree in algorithms would rather have 50 pages of who called who than 50 hours of actual conversation. Think about conversations with friends, husbands, wives. That raw information doesn’t mean anything. But if there’s a pattern of 30 phone calls over the course of a day, that can mean a lot. It’s a much simpler algorithm.”  From here:  http://www.antiwar.com/orig/ketcham.php

Debatable.

Other states that have similar laws in place: Florida, Idaho, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, North Dakota, Kentucky, Virginia, and Wyoming.

=  All the cool kids are doin’ it.

Most of the major providers of electronic services have service contracts advising customers that the providers will cooperate with law enforcement in criminal investigations.

Hint:  Criminal investigations usually require WARRANTS, upon oath and affirmation (except Utah).

Every federal court that has addressed this topic has ruled that subscriber information to an internet provider is not protected by the Fourth Amendment. The internet provider is a third party and there is no legitimate expectation of privacy in non-content information

Since when does bank account information not considered content?  Log in/ off times not content?  Definition of content:

(A) name; (B) address; (C) local and long distance telephone connection records, or records of session times and durations; (D) length of service (including start date) and types of service utilized; (E) telephone or instrument number or other subscriber number or identity, including any temporarily assigned network address; and (F) means and source of payment for such service (including any credit card or bank account number)[.]

Thanks Draxler and Hillyard.  Nice ‘conservative’ vote.

Special guest for tonight’s 5 o’clock hour will be Chis Cocola, former Congressman and President/CEO of Club for Growth, who are behind the Stop Bob Bennett campaign and TV ad running here in Utah’s Senate Race.

We’ll find out what Club for Growth is all about, and why they decided to make the Utah Senate race a focus of their 2010 campaign.

Bring the popcorn, this should be good.

Just realized the last few of these “Tonight on…” posts I had dated 2/3, 2/4, etc.  So much for my grasp of the basic calendar, huh?

Anyway…

Tonight:

We’re going 8-bit with the theme music.  We do this to keep ourselves sharp, cutting edge, and proven geeks.

It’s time for another Mero Moment.  Not sure what Paul has chosen to muse upon today, but rest assured it will be some right wing extremist stuff!  (Just kidding… Paul’s usually pretty reasonable, and always good for sparking discussion.)

Mark Shurtleff’s hollowing out of the 4th amendment in seeking access to your email, phone calls, and library card history without a shred of court oversight sailed through the Utah house and senate without much of a peep.  We’ll say goodbye to “getting a warrant” and hello to “Utah’s Patriot Act,” and get your thoughts on the issue.

And in what may be our final FTP Legislative Limelight, we’ll hear from the lawmakers themselves on what goes on these final few days of the 2010 legislative session.

Tune in, or Log in.

Your calls are welcome.

Podcasts of this and previous shows are available here.

Note: this was originally published at blog.tomgrover.net

This is really frustrating.

Another person has written yet another editorial to the Herald Journal complaining about the behavior of Aggie fans in the Spectrum.  The most recent editorial was by Nick Eastmond, who is apparently a professor on campus.

There have only been three editorials (by my count) complaining of fan behavior in the Spectrum and all three editorials have a common theme- they fundamentally do not understand college basketball.  Mr. Eastmond, for example, concedes that he is “not an avid basketball fan.”  Nonetheless, the editorial seems to know what an appropriate college basketball atmosphere is.

I am sure that Mr. Eastmond means well in his criticism, however, I feel that I must respond to the inaccuracies in his editorial.

The editorial begins by rebutting an earlier Herald Journal editorial this way:

The gist of the article was: It’s OK for spectators to belittle and insult their opponents because (1) that’s the way basketball is played in other places; (2) our coach is “on board” with that; and (3) our fans can make a distinction between behavior in the Spectrum and the real world, where it implied that such behavior would be unacceptable.

This is not an accurate representation of the Herald Journal editorial or the letters that were written in support of the Spectrum crowd.  The Herald Journal did not argue that the Spectrum fans behavior was acceptable because “because that’s the way basketball is played in other places.”  Far from it.  The Herald Journal correctly contrasted the behavior in the Spectrum from that which is found elsewhere:

USU fans are generally pretty tame in terms of their language. While other college basketball fans around the country sport chants that are vulgar and profane, Aggie fans’ chants are — while loud and structured — mild. Fans don’t throw objects onto the court or at players or officials. None of the organized chants include swear words. And there is rarely, if ever, violence at the Spectrum.

Simply put, the Herald Journal correctly noted that Aggie fans are less vulgar but louder and more organized than then norm in college basketball.  That is very different than saying it’s ok because everyone else does it.  Frankly, it’s pretty awesome that our crowd is both louder and less vulgar.  We should all be proud of that.

I don’t take exception with the accuracy of the statement that the crowd is loud because Stew encourages it.  This is absolutely true.

The editorial’s third contention implies that the Herald Journal advocates compartmentalization of ethics.   Again, this is not what the Herald Journal argued.  This comes down to an unfamiliarity with college basketball.  Here is what the Herald Journal argued:

In general, student fans know the difference between game-day behavior and everyday behavior. The trademarked cheers and heckling start when they enter the Spectrum and end when they leave the Spectrum.

This is not arguing that different ethics are appropriate for the Spectrum.  It’s arguing that we behave differently in different venues.  The way you behave at a BBQ, for example, is different than how you behave at Church.

Building on this theme, the editorial compares college basketball to the Winter Olympics:

Let me ask you: We just finished with the Winter Olympics in Vancouver, Canada. Would this kind of behavior be acceptable at the Olympics, winter or summer? Is that the kind of competition you would want American athletes to be part of? If American fans harassed teams from other countries, is that something you would want (possibly it would increase our athletes’ chances of winning)?

Mr. Eastmond assumes that heckling and racous behavior is inherently inappropriate. As I noted previously, this is completely false.  Our opponents love the hostility in the Spectrum.  Year after year our opponents lavish praise upon the same fans that heckle them.

Our opponents praise the Spectrum and Aggie fans because they understand what the editorial doesn’t- that heckling, loud crowds and organized chants make for great environments for both teams.  Each opponent would love nothing more than the glory of being the 14th team out of nearly 200 to beat Stew Morrill in Logan.  What a huge honor that will be!

I only included a few quotes in my letter to the Herald Journal because I was limited to 450 words, but believe me, there is a limitless supply of quotes by the opposition of how much they love the Spectrum.  For many players, the chance to win in Logan is the highlight of their season.

Mr. Eastmond tells the unfortunate story of a graduate student who sat behind the visitors bench and was heckled:

I brought this topic up in a class I taught on campus yesterday and heard sentiments worth repeating. (These were graduate students, not undergrads). One student from another country told how he had been invited to attend an Aggie basketball game, with tickets supplied by a Canadian Christian university. Because of the generosity of the hosts, he had sat in their section. He felt that the Aggie fan behavior directed toward him was aggressive, insulting and offensive, just because of where he was sitting.

This is truly unfortunate.  If it really is common place, it needs to stop. However, to impute the behavior of one or two people on 10,270 is ludicrous.  Though the visiting team was generous, this was probably not fair to the student to sit him behind the bench.  It is probable that this would have happened at any venue in America.  At the very least, the grad student should have been given a warning that it was a possibility.

Finally, the editorial wraps up with the “won’t someone puh-leeze think of the children” argument:

The second [foreign graduate student] recounted how he had taken one of his children to a game and later, when playing a game of basketball with the child, had to correct the language to state emphatically that “you suck” and “stupid” were not appropriate language on a neighborhood basketball court.

If you really think that the non-vulgar crowd at the Spectrum has the potential to corrupt your kids, you are incredibly naive.  First, your kids hear things that are ten times worse every day at school.  Hell, it might even be your kid that’s saying the stuff that’s ten times worse!  If you are worried about your child being corrupted by vulgar influences, the Spectrum really ought to be somewhere like #459 on your list.

Finally, it is not the duty of the entire world to conform their public behavior to the particular preferences of your individual parenting.  Indeed, there is an old Buddhist saying which is an appropriate response to the editorial’s “think of the children” argument:

Instead of avoiding the pain of stepping on thorns and pebbles by paving the entire planet with a smooth and soft surface, one can instead put on shoes.

In other words, if in public, you see behavior that you don’t think your kids should emulate, use the opportunity to be a parent and teach your kids.  Use it as a teaching moment.  Explain to them that in your family you don’t say “you suck” or “stupid” and why. Explain that how you behave in your family is different than how college students behave at Aggie games.

Anyway, my fear with these people remains the same. That we have a bunch of people making public complaints about something that they don’t know anything about.  My fear is that the officials at USU would capitulate to this handful of individuals and ruin something that is really special and unique.

Finally, it’s astounding to me that in one of the greatest seasons of Aggie basketball, there are still people who manage to hone in on negativity.  Seriously, that’s ridiculous!  We are Conference Champions! Relax and enjoy the ride!  Seasons like this are uncommon!

GO AGGIES!

Marijuana: From Reefer Madness to Fast Times at Ridgemont High, it is imbedded in our culture and has come to mean different things to different people. However most treatment of Marijuana, Hemp or just plain THC seems at least loosely entrenched in myth and emotion.

Probably the most notable and oft sited myth stems from the notion that Marijuana is particularly and unreasonably harmful to one’s health and to society in general. By comparison to alcohol (black marketing aside) the harm Pot causes to society, the physical body or state of mind is minimal.

Reefer even holds real medicinal value. This is not a myth revealed by a grassroots movement to pervasively bring about legalization through some backdoor. Marijuana truly IS useful in treating side-effects associated with certain cancer or tumor treatments. It holds value as a pain killer. As a non-physically addictive psychotropic it can be used as a treatment for depression or anxiety disorders. It reduces symptoms of conditions such as Glaucoma. In fact, evidence exists that Pot smokers tend not to get cancers of ANY kind.

http://www.alternet.org/drugs/142271/smoking_marijuana_does_not_cause_lung_cancer/

One common myth-based argument against its legalization is the consideration of Marijuana as a ‘gateway’ drug that leads to other MORE harmful behaviors. While there is truth that Pot can lead to other behaviors, I postulate that it’s only a ‘gateway’ drug BECAUSE it’s illegal. Once one crosses the line into illicit drug activity, the barriers to cocaine, meth, LSD and heroin break down. If MJ were off the list of illicit drugs, the gateway effect would largely subside.  The ‘gateway drug’ myth is hardly a legitimate argument for keeping Weed illegal.

On the other hand, advocates often perpetuate the myth that legalization of Marijuana will alleviate society of all ills associated with the substance.  I think hasty legalization would bring with it a certain set of societal ills some old and some new. I think we are far from prepared for the consequences of all out legalization.

Perhaps the greatest burden to our society brought on by Marijuana stems from black market sales and all obvious associated pitfalls therein. One hurdle to overcome before legalization can realistically occur is the handling of Pot as a free-market competition and tax issue. Marijuana is very easy to grow. It would be relatively easy for a Weed farmer to grow enough Pot to supply the entire neighborhood whereas  a brewer of beer would have to set up quite an operation to supply large portions of a population. By comparison to sharing one’s latest crop of tomatoes and peppers from the garden for a pittance at the Gardner’s Market, one could make a decent living growing only Weed in a small room or back yard lending allure to black market tax evasion made easier by society-wide acceptance of use.

Legit entrepreneurs would have to face regulations and liabilities similar to those faced by distillers of alcoholic beverages but bootleggers might undermine the finer points of free-market treatment for THC with little effort. If growing Weed is legalized without complicated regulation, the market remains underground and this is a bad thing.

Perhaps regulation could involve offering grow permits for a fee per plant, per year. To reduce the enticement for bootlegging, stiff penalties for growing without a permit and for black market sales are in order.

Regardless, with legalization the ATF becomes the ATMF or some such acronym inclusive of  THC representation and none of it will happen until the challenges associated with sobriety measurement are met. It’s difficult now to chemically detect how much time has passed since THC ingestion by an individual though technology is getting better. This has relevance to DUI enforcement and workplace management.

In conclusion, my experience has been that realism lacks from the perspectives of each side of the Marijuana legalization movement.  Once the true value associated with this plant is realized and once the true pitfalls associated with a Libertarian-style free-for-all on the substance are acknowledged, Prohibition of THC and Hemp as marketable products might find its end.

Tonight:

Club for Growth has moved into Utah in the hopes of unseating Senator Bob Bennett (that liberal!).  Tyler, Jon and I will will discuss what drives this movement.  Has Bob Bennett betrayed his ideology, or is this just a band wagon attached to a purity test that will boost Sam Granato’s chances?  We’ll discuss.

And in one of our last few (sniff!) Legislative Limelights, we’ll speak to Senator Allen Christensen (District 19) about the $1 increase to the state’s cigarette tax.  Christensen has fought for this two years running, and it looks like this year, it’s a go.  We’ll hear the latest from the Senator himself at 5.

We’ll also tackle health care, a visit from the Deputy Agriculture Secretary, and Scott Matheson Jr.’s [Jim's Bro] appointment to [insert big important legal title] by President Obama.

Tune in, or Log in.

Your calls are welcome.

Podcasts of this and previous shows are available here.

Tonight:

“Hella.”  A movement actually exists to get this introduced into the official English lexicon to define something that is “really, really, big.”  We’ll discuss.

And we were emailed an announcement that a local organization plans to push Logan City to adopt a non-discrimination ordinance.  Mormons for Equality and Social Justice (MESJ) would like to see the city adopt protections for residents against discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity in housing and employment.  The LDS church has endorsed such city based efforts.  What do you think?

And Mark Shurtleff’s HB 150 is being criticized as unconstitutional, and (by me) really, really stupid.  We’ll discuss the why’s and the why not’s, and ask where all the Defenders of the Constitution scuttled off to on this one… (PAGING CARL WIMMER!  PAGING CARL WIMMER!).

Tune in, or Log in.

Your calls are welcome.

Podcasts of this and previous shows are available here.

As a Democrat, I fully endorse Mark Shurtleff’s endorsement of Club for Growth’s endorsement of the biggest wingnut candidate available to knock the strongest candidate for Utah Senate out of the race.  (Go Eagar!  Heh)

Via “Mark Shurtleff for Senate 2010″ on Facebook:

Subject: Please sign this Pledge for a real fiscal conservative

Sign the Pledge today, it's time to replace Senator Bennett with a real fiscal conservative.
Go to http://www.facebook.com/l/931d7;www.stopbobbennett.com

Since Utahns last sent Senator Bob Bennett to Washington,
he voted to bail out Wall Street with taxpayer money,
voted for billions in wasteful spending like Alaska’s bridge to nowhere,
and even joined with liberals supporting big government health care every bit as bad as ObamaCare.

Had enough? Then join thousands of other Utahns to replace Sen.
Bennett with a real fiscal conservative on Tuesday, March 23.
Take the pledge to help stop Bennett before he spends again.

I pledge to help stop Bob Bennett’s nomination as the Republican candidate for Senate
by attending my Republican neighborhood caucus meeting on Tuesday, March 23, 2010 at 7pm
and only vote for state delegates to the Republican state nominating convention who will:

   1. Stay at the convention and vote in all ballot rounds for United States Senate,
   2. Support only fiscally conservative challengers to Senator Bob Bennett, and
   3. Not at any time cast a vote at convention for Senator Bob Bennett.

As always, thank you for your support!

Mark Shurtleff

And as a progressive, let me say the implication that Bob Bennett isn’t a conservative is just short of funnier than Sarah Palin’s Facebook page. Almost.

Tonight:

Logan City Police Chief Gary R. Jensen is still residing in Farmington, waiting to for his home to sell before moving to Logan officially.  Local news story reports a tally of 15,000 miles, and $2,000 in fuel costs.  Issue,  non issue?  We report, you decide.

Tuesday means it’s Mero Moment time, with the latest musings from uber-conservative think tank president Paul Mero.  Today Paul wants to talk “Undercover Boss.”  Always a good time when Sutherland Institute goes “infotainment.”  Not one to miss.

And continuing our FTP Legislative Limelight (Tues and Thurs, 5pm), we’ll have another special guest from Capitol Hill to fill us in on the latest lawmaking festivities from lawmakers themselves.  Brought to you by Ric Cantrell, The Senate Site, and my iPhone Facebook App.

Tune in, or Log in.

Your calls are welcome.

Podcasts of this and previous shows are available here.

Given that this will likely cost vast sums of money in legal battles for Utah (that will probably be fruitless)…What are Utahns thoughts on this aggressive move ?

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory?id=9949293

For those who have missed them (please provide a reasonable excuse in the comments), here are links to the podcasts from the FTP Legislative Limelight segments aired so far this session.

• February 9th – Sen. Dan Liljenquist (R – District 23) on Retirement Reform.
• February 11th – Sen. Peter Knudson (R – District 17) on Chief Justice bill.
• February 15th – Sen. Stuart Adams (R – District 22) on the 10th Amendment.
• February 18th – Sen. Lyle Hillyard (R – District 25) on the final budget numbers.
• February 23rd – Sen. Dennis Stowell (R – District 28) on Utah’s water shortage.
• February 25th – Sen. Ben McAdams (D – District 2) on bipartisanship and initiative signature bill.

More to come, and again a big thanks to Ric Cantrell and The Senate Site crew for making this happen every Tuesday and Thursday @ 5 forever and ever it will never stop until the 2010 session wraps on March 11.

If you want to keep up on the legislative session even more, I recommend loitering at The Senate Site itself, sifting fine details at le.utah.gov, or scouring the Utah Bloghive a few times a day.  If you want even more than that, well, I recommend the Utah State Archives, where you can read legislative session minutes as far back as 1882.

Tonight:

Jon has noticed a frightening (Geek!) trend in Cache Valley, and has a special PSA announcement for fellow (Geeks!) residents.

A report on child pornography arrests in Utah has been released by the Attorney General’s office.  The results are more than a little troubling.  What gives?  We’ll try to find out.

Forging onward with our Legislative Limelight series, we’ll speak to the latest involuntary victim, er… guest legislator on the latest goings on on the Hill.  Was there arm wrestling?  Rock/paper/scissors for who gets to pass their bill?  We’ll find out.  As always, who the guest is remains a mystery until closer to 5, but that’s what makes this exciting!

This an more, tonight at 4.  (<—- rhymes!)

Tune in, or Log in.

Your calls are welcome.

Podcasts of this and previous shows are available here.

Tonight:

A lot to discuss from today’s legislative festivities. Retirement reform, using school trust funds for suing the Fed’s, a really, really, really strange conversation between Reps. Herrod and Seegmiller on parents smoking in cars (which Tyler and I may just re-enact for your entertainment), and much, much more. What are you hearing that we might be missing?

And live, in studio, we’ll welcome members of Sky Views “We the People” team. What is that?  Read on:

We the People the Citizen and the Constitution High School Level Simulated Congressional Hearings is a federally sponsored program for students. Those at the High School level have the opportunity to compete for district, state, and then national competitions. For the fourth year running, Sky View’s team has taken the …state title, meaning that the team proceeds onto the national level in Washington D.C.

They are fundraising for the trip.  We’ll get the deets.

And finally, Attorney General Mark Shurtleff wants to sniff through your email without a warrant or even a hint of judicial review, anytime he needs to.  We’ll discuss the AG’s assault on the 4th amendment in a segment we’ve loving titled “Thank You, Patriot Act!”

Tune in, or Log in.

Your calls are welcome.

Podcasts of this and previous shows are available here.

Last week, Utah lawmakers honored Senate Site mastermind Ric Cantrell for his work opening the legislature to the public.  It was an overdue show of respect for the work they do at the site.  Today, “intern in exile” Krystle Whitney, a new addition to The Senate Site crew, provided a real insider’s look at what makes the Hill work.

Meet the people you speak to when you call to yell at your Senator (with Video!):

Commenting that they too are in Exile, the Operators spent time with me to explain what they do for the Senate. Tucked away in the East Senate building, Becky, Vicky and Ellen shared valuable tips and insight for the public:

“Call the House (operator) and ask for Betty!” they said (joking). “If not that, email your Senator… and please learn their name first.” Working directly with all of the Senate staff, they are often the first people reached by the public. “We take the calls from the public and try to get them as much information as we can,” Vicky said about their position.

Click here for the podcast.

It’s a refreshing reminder that there are actual human beings in the law making process we often only hear about in headline formats.

Call. Call often. Yell, if so are inclined. But not until the friendly operator transfers you to your Senator.

I say “outsider” because I am most definitely not a part of any group of people that even by accident served up this batch of candidates.  In other words, a Democrat.  But that’s not to say I haven’t been paying very close attention, for entertainment’s sake.  Here are a few thoughts I have on each of the candidates hoping to grab the GOP nom, and the race itself.  I don’t claim to be an expert (I just play one on the internet) but I’ve had a chance to talk with all of them either on air here, at events around the state, or in some cases personal interviews.  So, in no particular order:

Bob Bennett: I know it’s trendy in many circles to hate the man as a “liberal,” but take it from a liberal; he ain’t .  And he has gigantic piles of money to run this one through.  If he can survive the convention — and having known Bobby for a while, I think he will — this one’s in the bag for him.  As he told me himself last time I heard him speak at a business conference, “this isn’t my first rodeo.”  I think Bennett is holding his cards, smartly.  And if his campaign slogan (“The Fight is Now!”  Huh?) is any indicator, he’s not exactly feeling threatened.

Cherilyn Eager: Eager’s campaign tactics have been the most impressive to me so far.  She’s running a very aggressive ground game, but isolated to the areas she knows she’s strong with the assumption if she becomes the nominee, she gets Cache and Washington Counties just for being an R.  She’s combining that with one of the most persistent social media campaigns Utah has yet to see.  For that alone I could support her.  If she wasn’t crazy.  I’ve run into Eager twice now, and both times I’ve found her quite condescending, and, frankly, a bit entitled.  Probably because she once brought two aspiring and a double shot of Wild Turkey to Phyllis Schlafly at some dark arts event in the hey dey of the religious right, or because she knows someone who knows someone who knows someone who once bumped elbows with Reagan.  And Joe the Plumber.  Inside Utah County, popular.  Outside Utah County, electoral mustard gas.  End of story.

Mike Lee: Probably the most irritating of the candidates.  A lawyer, and son of someone or other that had something to do with BYU — a fact his campaign staff, if not the candidate himself, never hesitates to bring up — Lee jumped into the race in what I call the “wussy” phase.  This is the time when a candidate jumps into a race after they’ve judged, upon the work of others, that it’s going to become a real race.  Lee is the most demagogic — which is saying alot, considering the woman above him in this list — and seems to be campaigning on rhetoric alone.  When I asked him on air what he would have done instead, when he brought up Bennett’s TARP votes, his vague “blah blah blah deficit” answer seemed obtuse.  When I read he’d involved himself with this, I gave up on his credibility.  Mark Shurtleff wannabee.  Car salesman opportunism and all.

Tim Bridgewater and “The Other Guy”: Not much to say here.  Tim and James both seem like very sincere, well intentioned people, but being a cynic, if they aren’t going to campaign seriously, I’m not going to seriously consider them candidates.  No offense, guys.

All said and done, I still give the nomination to Bennett.  What I see and read from both supporters and staffers of all the respective campaigns is a lot of “bubble” mentality.  This usually leads to an emotional support of a candidate (evidenced most with Lee and Eager supporters) without consideration for political realities.  Eager supporters, for example, remain unaware that her receiving the nomination would be like an early Christmas for Democratic candidate Sam Granato.  Again, she’s toxic outside of Gayle Ruzicka’s Mordor Utah County.  And just last week, I followed along as a Mike Lee campaign staffer wrote about when and where Bennett did and didn’t use the word “conservative” in his campaign literature and website.  Seriously, people?  Yeah, seriously.  Unfortunately.

Lee would be much more of a challenge for a Democrat in the general election, but again, where’s the consideration for judgment?  It might be fun to hear heated rhetoric at rally’s, and feed anti-Fed mentality at fundraisers, but when the ballots are cast, Senators — as I understand it — have to then do… you know… Senator stuff.  Lee seems completely oblivious to a real world outside of the Tea Parties.  Check out what passes for his “Issues” page if you’d like an example.  Those aren’t issues, those are Glenn Beck scripts!  That’s something party leaders — with just as much influence over delegates — have to take into account, even if candidate supporters don’t.

But no one should assume Bennett is as safe as Bennett seems to be assuming he is.  If it were a simple ballot decision, these clowns serve up no viable threat.  But Bennett could fall to the same insider wheelin’ and dealin’ that snuck up on Chris Cannon in 2008.  Again, I’d assume the state party leadership has learned there lesson there as well.

How it turns out won’t say as much about Utah at large as it does the Utah GOP specifically.

And no matter what, it’s going to be fun to watch.

…as I am. I found this interesting though, and the book that is referenced in it.

Is the nexus of the Universe (Kramer reference!) when politics, morality, science and philosophy meet ? See for yourself…

http://s.nyt.com/u/zDR

An audio update from Sen. John Valentine on the ethics bills moving quickly through the house:

SJR3 and HJR15 are companion bills that will create an independent commission to investigate accusations of unethical conduct by members of the legislature. In this Hesterman Report, Senator Valentine explains the role of the commission and why it should be enshrined in the Utah’s Constitution. Listen here. (MP3)

And a statement from Utahn’s for Ethical Government on the issue:

On the other hand, one measure, HJR 15, approved by more than the two-thirds vote needed, is directed at reducing citizen input into ethics reform. The resolution would allow voters to decide whether to create a legislative ethics commission by amending the Utah Constitution. The proposal sounds better than it really is.

UEG believes the rights of Utahns to effectively respond to legislative abuses by enacting ballot initiatives would be eroded by the amendment. The speaker of the House said as much today when responding to a question from another member of the House. HJR 15 is clearly intended to override certain provisions in UEG’s citizen initiative that provide for an ethics commission.

“It’s pretty clear that our representatives do not want to share lawmaking power with the people of Utah,” said Kim Burningham, chair of UEG.

Where do you stand?  I’m encouraged by the efforts of the legislature to respond (FINALLY!) to public support for ethics reform and an independent commission, but I’m also weary of the fine details.  “Independent Commission” sounds good in every form, but in the current bills coming from the legislature, it still leaves a lot of appointment and enforcement control within the body itself, and also leaves large gaps in transparency.  With most legislators pushing the message “If we’re unethical, just vote us out!” meme in the UEG public meetings I witnessed in 2009, I still pose the question: How can voters vote you out for being unethical if you can still hide the fact that you’re unethical from those voters?  Huh?  (No one every answers that one…)

Tonight:

We’re going “Meta,” and spending our entire first hour talking “political identity.”  What is means, what it doesn’t mean, the difference between being “independent” and being “moderate,” and… well, everything surrounding the topic.  We want your calls.  Where do you put yourself on the political map and why?  And we’ll wrap the hour up with the latest installment of Sutherland Institute President Paul Mero’s “Mero Moment,” and hear Paul’s thoughts on the same topic.

It’s also time for our latest Legislative Limelight.  The Senate Site crew will be sending us the latest headline slash law maker directly from the Hill to give us the latest on what your legislature is doing for you.

And in the same vein, we’ll hear from AARP Utah’s Tom Hogan on the AARP Legislative Listening Day coming up Saturday at the court house, and why you should make time to be there.

Tune in, or Log in.

Your calls are welcome.

Podcasts of this and previous shows are available here.