KVNU's For The People

We’re experiencing a fight with technology today at the station.  When we’re back on the air, we’ll begin the regularly scheduled FTP.

You’ll know as soon as we do.

Tune in, or Log in.

Your calls are welcome.

Podcasts of this and previous shows are available here.

Tonight:

Salt Lake County Mayor, and gubernatorial candidate Peter Corroon kicks off his campaign tomorrow with a state wide tour.  But we’ve got him a day early!  We’ll find out what he’s about, tonight at 4:20.

Tuesday (as always) is Mero Moment day.  We’ll hear the latest political musings from everyone’s favorite conservative think-tank president, Paul Mero.

And an Ogden school teacher is raising questions about a “tattoo ban,” and administrators telling him his arm tattoos set a “bad example” for students.  Who cares about education and test scores when you got teachers running around with TATTOOS!!!!!!! (<—- !!!!!!!!!!!)

And we’ll wrap up with a recap from the political headlines… because there’s way too much to get to, and way too little time to get to it.

Tune in, or Log in.

Your calls are welcome.

Podcasts of this and previous shows are available here.

Rawstory:

ROME (AFP) – Around 50 left-wing municipal officials dropped their trousers at Rome’s city hall on Monday to call for the speedy passage of the Italian capital’s 2010 budget.

“Alemanno has reduced us to our underwear,” read one protester’s poster, referring to the city’s right-wing mayor Gianni Alemanno.

“Parks and gardens abandoned,” “Homeless people, empty homes,” others read.

Sandro Medici, the mayor of Cinecitta, the home of the city’s legendary movie studios, said Alemanno was dragging his feet over passing the budget “for electoral reasons, because it contains unpopular taxes.”

Poe’s Law states:

Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is impossible to create a parody of Fundamentalism that SOMEONE won’t mistake for the real thing.
Poe’s Law points out that it is hard to tell parodies of fundamentalism (or, more generally, any crackpot theory) from the real thing, since they both seem equally insane. Conversely, real fundamentalism can easily be mistaken for a parody of fundamentalism. For example, some conservatives consider noted homophobe Fred Phelps to be so over-the-top that they argue he’s a “deep cover liberal” trying to discredit more mainstream homophobes.

Cherilyn Eagar: The next U.S. Senator from Utah or the next cast member of Saturday Night Live?

Could go either way.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE MARCH 15, 2010
Contact: Brenda Chung
435-755-5135
info@loganpeace.org

LOCAL GROUP PRESENTS EVENTS ON 7TH ANNIVERSARY OF IRAQ WAR

LOGAN – Cache Valley Peace Works presents the following events in Logan, UT this Friday, March 19th, marking the 7th anniversary of the Iraq War.

Events will include a peace vigil, a peace walk and rally with speakers, music and a candle-light vigil and ceremony.

Friday, March 19

5: 30 p.m. to 6 p.m.
Peace vigil: park strip on east side of Main St between 100 N and Center St.

6 p.m. to 6:30 p.m.
Peace walk: from vigil to Historic Cache County Courthouse, 199 N Main St.

6: 30 p.m. to 7:30 p.m.
Peace rally at courthouse grounds: speakers, music, and a closing ceremony with a candle-light vigil.

This event is one of the many nation-wide vigils organized by the American Friends Service Committee (ASFC) marking this milestone. Raed Jarrar, AFSC’s Iraq consultant based in Washington DC, is available for telephone interviews by local media as a resource person. Raed can be reached at (510) 932 0346.

Raed Jarrar is an Iraqi-born architect, blogger, and political analyst. After the U.S.-led invasion, he became the country director for CIVIC Worldwide, the only door-to-door casualty survey group in post-war Iraq. He also established an NGO called Emaar, (meaning “reconstruction” in Arabic), a grassroots organization that provided humanitarian and political aid to Iraqi internally displaced persons. He maintains his own popular political analysis and news web-log and has been featured as an Iraq expert on many media outlets including CNN, Aljazeera, Al-Alam, BBC, Democracy Now, Pacifica, NPR, CBS, and Fox. For a recording of a recent briefing and Q&A featuring Raed Jarrar, go to http://www.afsc.org/middleeast/ht/display/ArticleDetails/i/86820.

But what about the children?  Garn is definitely all about the children:

In 1985, according to the Tribune, Maher, then 15, worked for the married Garn at his business. They got to know each other, and one night Garn and Maher were together, naked, in a Salt Lake City hot tub. In the following years, Maher struggled with pills, alcohol and mental health issues, something she attributes to that incident.

Garn told the Associated Press that the skinny-dip was a “spur of the moment” decision and that “we sat there and that was it.” He was 28 years old at the time.

From here:  http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20000350-503544.html

Nice Utah.  Once again our elected representatives shine.  Our proclaimed conservative and family values are out (after 25 years) for all to emulate.

“I can unequivocally tell you there was no physical contact, there was no touching, there was no intercourse, there was none of those things. It simply did not occur,” he said. “I’m not trying to downplay what did occur but I want to make it very plain.”

From here:  http://www.sltrib.com/utah/ci_14660754

Mr. Garn, I’m not trying to downplay this, and I want to make this very plain.  I would’ve unequivocally planted my foot in your ass if that had been my daughter.

I use Google Voice.  This means that if you call me and leave a voice message, Google sends me an email with the .mp3 and transcript of your voice message.  It’s a great tool.

Tonight Tim Bridgewater, who is challenging Senator Bennett for the Republican nomination, held a town hall meeting via telephone.  Somehow, I was on the list and was called.  Now, I didn’t recognize the number so I didn’t answer.  However, the call picked up and Google Voice recorded almost 2 minutes of the town hall meeting.

Mr. Bridgewater took questions from the audience as a part of the town hall meeting.  During the portion recorded on Google Voice, Mr. Bridgewater took a question from Chip.

The following is that exchange:

Chip: I’ve been a delegate before and I believe, agree as I think that Senator Bennett is well overdue for being removed from Washington I believe that the federal government is close to being beyond reform and my question to you is, that I would like to see is, would you support state nullification of federal laws that are unconstitutional, would you encourage that as a Senator and as you talk to the public?

Tim Bridgewater: Absolutely. [Emphasis added]. I’ve been around, as I mentioned to 29 counties, I’ve had meetings with over 400 delegates, um, and there is a big force both at our state legislature and among Republicans in the states across the country to return to states’ rights and and the nullification unconstitutional laws.   Right now you can see that the eminent domain law that Chris Herod has been working on is a good example challenging the federal government’s management of our public lands here in the state. I’m a big believer in multiple use of the public lands now to access them for the recreation and some of resource extraction. I myself in the energy extraction business working on Geothermal projects in the private sector and help another area where States or stepping up and saying, we will not allow a Federal Government mandate that is unconstitutional to force our companies and our citizens to buy health insurance.  I believe there is a growing movement.  And not only philosophically do I agree with you Chip…

Unfortunately, the call dropped at that point so I don’t have Mr. Bridgewaters full answer.  Perhaps his campaign would provide it to us.

I find this exchange very troubling.  The anti-Bennett campaign is driven largely by extremists.   The information they use is distorted and often lacks a basic understanding of the facts, or in this case, history and the Constitution.

Nullification is the theory that states have the right to overturn or supercede federal laws.  It was a very big issue in the early 19th Century that resulted in what is now known as the “Nullification Crisis.”   Long ago the issue of nullification was legally resolved.  In Prigg v. Pennsylvania, 41 U.S. 539 (1842), the Supreme Court ruled that states could not nullify federal law.  And whether you agree with that or not, that is the current state of the law.  The only way that Mr. Bridgewater could effectuate true nullification is by amending the United States Constitution.

Now, I don’t really think Mr. Bridgewater supports nullification.  I assume that a man who is running for the U.S. Senate is versed in the basics of American history and Constitutional law.   A more plausible explanation for his answer is that he wants the support of the extremists such as Chip.  After all, those are the people who can knock off Senator Bennett in Convention.  It is to Mr. Bridgewaters advantage to lead Chip and his fellow extermists along to believe that he actually supports nullification.  Mr. Bridgewater has no personal incentive to correct Chip’s misunderstanding of nullification.  Instead, he benefits from Chip’s ignorance and therefore chooses not to correct him.

At the same time, Mr. Bridgewater has maintained plausible deniability.  If we were to accuse him of actually supporting nullification, a truly radical position, he would point to the statements he made after “Absolutely.”  He would argue that those statements make it clear he is speaking of states rights generally and not nullification.

This is the problem with the anti-Bennett campaign.  Almost all of those challenging him are extremely literate people.  They know that a substantial amount of the anti-Bennett rhetoric is patently false.  Yet, because they benefit from the distortions and lies, they choose not to correct them.  Public discourse and the electorate suffer.  The are riding a fine line- on the one hand they can’t denounce the lies, but on the other they can’t afford to correct them either.

Anything to get power, I suppose.

Tonight:

A recap on my day at the capitol for the Legislative “Tweet Up.”

And it’s day 45 at the Utah Leg.  We’ll recap the bills, the budget, and all the things you never heard about during the 2010 session.  SUCH AS: A statement from Rep. Brad Daw, sponsor of HB150 — “Utah’s Patriot Act” — on how it’s the greatest thing evah! and not at all a complete thumb in the nose of civil liberties and that lil’ ol’ 4th amendment.

And everyone’s favorite thing to hate: Earmarks!  But could earmarks be a way to save Utah jobs?  And if so, should we cash those checks?

And in our final Legislative Limelight, we’ll speak with another lesser known group of people greatly effected by the 45 day session: the Legislator’s Spouse.  Three legislator’s wives have agreed to give us their take on the legislative session.

We’ll discuss, and ask for your thoughts.

Tune in, or Log in.

Your calls are welcome.

Podcasts of this and previous shows are available here.

This morning I’m off to the Hill to catch my favorite day of the Utah Legislature: the last day.

The last day is the best day.  Not because it’s over, and we don’t have to listen to Stephenson or Wimmer hate on the Fed’s while cashing their checks, or because public education only has to go avoid the chopping block for another 24 hours, but because it’s crazy busy.  People run everywhere on the last day.  Even interns! (Take that, Ryan, Jake, and Spencer!)

I’ll be loitering… er, engaging in the festivities all morning in the hopes of finding one — just one! — legislator who can explain why he or she voted for HB150, then attending at Legislative “Tweet Up” organized through The SideTrack (where you can track my day trip), and Twitter conversations with Holly on the Hill (any bloggers, tweeters, or just those aimless and bored should stop by the cafeteria at Noon to join in), then back to Cache Valley to prepare a report for the show this afternoon.

If all you hear at 4:05 is Bill humming show tunes, you’ll know Chris Buttars spotted me.  Send help.  And if you really want to follow along, The Senate Site has a great “how to do the final day” post up with links to all the audio, video, twitterin’, and trackin’ available.

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-polish 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: see fourth amendment (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.