BYU-I College Democrats

Let's get this party started!

2008-11-08T13:26:00.001-07:00

Any BYU-Idaho Dems out there?

Is anyone still alive out there?

2007-12-03T00:47:00.000-07:00

Post a comment if you want this blog updated regularly? If so, I'll make an effort to do so, though I don't attend BYU-Idaho anymore and I don't even live in Idaho. I do live in New Hampshire and am on the front lines, so to speak.

So long!

2007-07-01T20:24:00.000-06:00

It's been fun, but I've decided that it is time for me to bring my involvement with this blog to an end. I'm grateful to all those who so kindly reminded me when my spelling and grammar got away from me, and to the College Dem's for giving me a chance to speak my mind.

My decision started sometime around March, and gradually grew until I knew for sure it was time. I wish the club the best, and I hope that they do well. I'll see you all around campus!

Why I support Mitt.

2007-05-11T10:40:00.000-06:00

This is in response to the rather immature comment made to one of my previous posts.

Billy G. asserted that I was a flip-flopper. I am. I am a flip-flopper. I've stated it in other posts, I'll state it again. If I am presented with compelling evidence, I am completely open to be convinced and persuaded to change my mind.

With that flip-flopping, I'm also accustomed to saying that I'm probably wrong about a lot of things. I really don't have any qualms with admitting things when I'm wrong and then immediately moving forward to make things right.

So, that's that. But, that still doesn't answer the question of why I openly support Mitt Romney, especially considering that I'm a Democrat.

I support Mitt in the context of: If I were voting in the Republican presidential primary (which I am not), I would vote for Mitt. So here are the reasons, in no particular order:

1. I know people who know Mitt personally. The personal stories they have told me about him have engendered me to him.
2. Religious bias. I'm a Mormon, as far as I know, Mitt is a Mormon in good-standing, I think he is a positive role model for my faith.
3. He's flexible. Mitt Romney has shown throughout his professional and educational career that he is keen, innovative and amiable. He's a very smart guy and Republicans should be proud to have such a strong candidate. His universal health care plan in Massachusetts is one great example of his ability to innovate and compromise.

So, that's that for now.

BTW, does anyone know who the new BYU-I College Dems Prez is? I'm in Portland and I would be back in the Burg till August.

O'Reilly debunked again.

2007-05-02T21:48:00.000-06:00

The following is a MUST READ link.

It's a study by Indiana University about Bill O'Reilly: "BLOOMINGTON, Ind. -- Bill O'Reilly may proclaim at the beginning of his program that viewers are entering the 'No Spin Zone,' but a new study by Indiana University media researchers found that the Fox News personality consistently paints certain people and groups as villains and others as victims to present the world, as he sees it, through political rhetoric.

The IU researchers found that O'Reilly called a person or a group a derogatory name once every 6.8 seconds, on average, or nearly nine times every minute during the editorials that open his program each night."

Editorial by business school professor

2007-04-28T10:23:00.000-06:00

The following is a link to an interesting article by Warner P. Woodworth, a professor in the Marriott School of Business at Brigham Young University.

I think the following quote from the article expresses an important sentiment: "BYU is not — nor should it ever become — an LDS seminary experience. BYU is a facility for higher learning and the receiving of a genuine liberal education. Many Mormons who are pro-Cheney would prefer that no Democrats ever be allowed to speak at BYU. They have largely had their way when one reviews the disproportionate number of conservatives who have dominated campuswide speeches over the decades."

More evidence

2007-04-28T00:59:00.000-06:00

Former CIA director George J. Tenet is about to publish a book that claims the Bush administration was looking for a fight in Iraq. Here's the story.

Why do I bring this up? Because I am suspicious as to whether the Executive Branch, the sole provider of pre-Iraq war intelligence, purposefully pushed to convince Congress to go to war.

Here is a site I found that has interesting information. While I fully acknowledge that the site is biased, the information provided can easily be corroborated with reliable, and less biased sources.

So, the question is: Does Mr. Tenet's word mean anything? If so, what will be the impact, if any? If not, why not?

The eye on Rove

2007-04-25T10:27:00.000-06:00

I think it's important that media of all brands, even partisan media, show restraint in reporting and making comments regarding ongoing investigations. Most of us are aware of the potential impact media can have on criminal investigations.

Here is a story about the special investigations on Karl Rove and the current White House Administration.

I think this investigation is great! It will either exonerate Rove and the administration, or it will clearly show that the current White House has engaged in dishonorable political practices.

If it's the latter, as I suspect, I wonder how many will admit that they had misplaced their trust. It's really not important to me to hear those confessions, that would be prideful, but I would hope that it serves to create a more humble political atmosphere.

A dark day for America

2007-04-16T13:41:00.000-06:00

I would like to encourage all members of the College Democrats, as well as all visitors to this website, to keep those involved in the Virginia shootings in your thoughts and prayers. May the Lord comfort the victims of this tragedy, be they students, faculty, family, friends, or the millions of sorrow filled hearts around the world.

All politicians smell fishy v. 2

2007-04-13T10:29:00.000-06:00

The following is a portion of a story put out by CNN:
Here's an update on the story.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The White House "screwed up" by not requiring e-mails from Republican Party and campaign accounts to be saved and is trying to recover any documents that may have been deleted, a spokeswoman said Thursday.
The admission came after the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee accused the White House of trying to hide messages related to the firings of eight U.S. attorneys, which has stirred up a hornet's nest on Capitol Hill.
Congressional investigators have questioned whether White House aides used e-mail accounts from the Republican Party and President Bush's re-election campaign for official government business to avoid scrutiny of those dealings.
"You can't erase e-mails, not today," said Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vermont. "They've gone through too many servers. They can't say they've been lost. That's like saying, 'The dog ate my homework.' " (Watch Leahy compare e-mails to Nixon tapes )
White House spokeswoman Dana Perino told reporters that the e-mails from those accounts should have been saved, but said policy has not kept pace with technology. She said computer experts were trying to retrieve any records that have been deleted.
"We screwed up, and we're trying to fix it," she told reporters.

For those unfamiliar with the context of this story visit this link which gives a brief summary on the controversy revolving around the firing of 8 republican U.S. attorneys.

I mention this issue as one example to contradict the occasions I've had to speak with those who believe the Bush administration to be a strong moral authority. While these conversations have been primarily with Latter-day Saints, there is a continuing propaganda republicans to appear to be on a high moral ground.

Luckily, six years of republican governance has disproved this pseudo-moral authority to nearly all except the 90% of LDS who voted to re-elect President Bush.

A level of gentleness

2007-04-01T05:27:00.000-06:00

The New York Times has an interesting article about a former Bush confidant. It should be noted that while I am not a Bush supporter, I am not a Bush-hater which brings me to the title of this particular post.

The article is a puff piece about Matthew Dowd who, in 2004, was the President's chief campaign strategist. Who he is, and how he feels about issues is not the reason I reference him and the article. I bring him up because of his thoughts about "a level of gentleness" in American politics.

Anyone who has met me knows that I am always available for a good debate. There's certainly nothing wrong about being passionate about issues that affect the nation and society. However, time after time, I find that it's all too easy to become victim to the sin of pride, hubris. And, when this hubris is combined with politics we all suddenly seem to become less saintly.

Case in point, I think Jessica's most recent post to this blog was not taken in the spirit in which it was given. To me, the post seemed clear: She, like many of us, fell accustomed to the habit of stereotyping, and her post indicated a change of heart.

I also couldn't help but nod my head in agreement with JamesP's reply to Jessica's post about labeling. Enemies of the Church us the moniker "Mormon" to deride it. On the other hand many, including myself, wear that name with pride. But, regardless of the usage, that name cannot explain the deeply intricate details of a person's testimony.

Yes, I am a liberal, but I am much more. Blake is conservative, but he is much more.

Labels, as useful as they are, are probably best left to differentiate canned goods and food storage.

Lastly, thanks to everyone who maintains a gentle tone of voice on this blogsite. To those who continue to spread inane and hateful rhetoric: I'LL GET YOU! AND YOU'RE LITTLE DOG TOO!

Thoughts? Comments? Share.

Don't stop thinking about tommorow...

2007-04-01T00:15:00.000-06:00

I would like to take this opportunity to say that I have had a complete ideological change of heart. Having examined the issues and candidates running in the 2008 Presidential election, I have come to the realization that there is only one choice in who will lead our country next.

I feel that the only rational choice for President would be Senator Hillary Clinton. Some may say that she is power hungry, verbally abusive to friends, family, and security details, and a southern carpet bagger who’s only interest in New York was establishing a Presidential springboard. But if they are willing to look beyond such trivial details, they would find something very special; a true 21^st century woman with a heart of gold and a smile that could rain sunshine on a cloudy day.

Bringing the compassion that only a mother knows, she can lead our country through these difficult times of partisan division. Remember, anyone can care, but not everyone can Hillarycare.

Eight more years in '08!

Of Liberals and Conservatives

2007-03-19T08:37:00.000-06:00

--cross-posted at my personal blog--

Does this blog title make any sense? Anyhow, for the past few weeks I have spent more time than usual with some Republicans. Though I live in Idaho, most of my friends and acquaintances are Democrats, a few are Socialists, and a few are independents. Unfortunately, this has made it far too easy to demonize Republicans. Without having multiple human faces to attach to the Republican ideology, I've caught myself, far too often, strongly disliking Republicans (except for family members and a few friends who I love and adore). I have forgotten that there are Republicans who care about the poor, who don't advocate torture, who are concerned that the War in Iraq was a big mistake, who aren't happy with George W. Bush, etc...and many of these Republicans I've spent time with even voted for some Democrats in November!

I've been thinking lately about a small transformation that has taken place the last few weeks as I've spent more and more time with some great Republicans. I've found myself less hardened-meaning when someone tells me they are a Republican, I won't automatically write them off as stupid, because many Republicans aren't stupid. Hell, I was a Republican for 21 years and while I feel that I am more informed, more mature, and more educated than I was as a Republican, many Republicans are far more informed than I, their maturity exceeds mine by leaps and bounds, and I can't even begin to approach their intelligence and education.

I guess what I've learned is that it is important that we try to surround ourselves with diversity. Not just a diversity of race/ethnicity, sex and gender, religious preference, sexual orientation, educational levels, socioeconomic status, and anything else we can imagine, but political beliefs.I've found this keeps me more honest, more focused and in a place where I continually analyze what I believe and why I believe it.

So, my Republican friends, I thank you.

"Mankind will endure when the world appreciates the logic of diversity."
Indira Gandhi

Lessons Learned While Fleeing Utah

2007-03-11T23:29:00.000-06:00

First of all, to all those who love to make fun of my poor spelling and grammar, I again offer you a chance to contribute to the blog. Enjoy!

Second, this will be a fairly conservative post. To all the Democrats on this site, I try to not turn this into my personal conservative forum. But, from time to time I reserve the liberty to indulge.

I spent the weekend at a friends wedding, and due to the extended periods of driving involved, I had the opportunity to take a break from my daily routine and think about other things. I decided that (as Joe pointed out) since I haven’t written anything for sometime, I would give a few highlights here.

First, I don't think that Nancy Pelosi was a wise choice for Speaker of the House. When the Republicans won control of Congress, Newt Gingrich demonstrated effective leadership of the Party while in the minority does not necessarily translate to effective leadership when in the majority. While the Democrats had some success during their "first 100 hours", their recent actions are showing significantly less coordination and, quite frankly, leadership.

Last Friday the Washington Times published this article, detailing the internal confusion about the most recent piece of legislation concerning Iraq. Of course people make mistakes, not every Congressman can always remember every detail of a particular piece of Legislation. But this is a major piece of legislation with major policy implications, one would think that the Democratic leadership would have made sure that their members were both informed, and supportive of the Legislation. This little tirade raises the question: if they couldn't get a nonbinding resolution passed, how do they expect to pass the current bill to force a troop withdrawal?

I personally think that the Democrats in Congress are falling apart. Now that their campaign promises are out of the way, they are beginning to factionalize, and their majority is only significant if they vote as a block. With minimal effort the Republican's can block most of their legislation, and will continue to do so until the Democrats prove that they can function as a group. All of the conservative accusations that the liberals had no alternative plan, but were demanding change simply to demand it are being proven right. For some of us this is a good thing, but if the Democrats want to maintain their hold, they had better get their act together.

I was overjoyed to hear the news from Washington D.C. While the issue will be appealed, I was happy to hear of this victory for responsible citizens everywhere. I am of the personal opinion that any weapon short of landmines, rocket launchers, and chemical/biological/nuclear weapons should be legal for law abiding citizens to own and use. I hope the higher courts will uphold this preservation of rights, and strike down similar laws in other parts of the country (I'm looking at you San Francisco). Hopefully the aforementioned disorganization by the Democratic Congress will bring about a swift end to this little number.

Causes and effects of global climate change

2007-02-27T12:30:00.000-07:00

There has been a change in this weeks meeting format. Bro. Holyoak will be speaking at 7:30 p.m. instead of 7:00. We will be meeting in the TAYLOR BUILDING room 130, rather than the MC.

This will be a great presentation. Please invite as many of your friends as possible!

Apology

2007-02-23T10:23:00.000-07:00

Disregard my last post. I had googled this site to get to it, and for some reason it kicked up an old page with a bunch of peoples comments from last year. This is why I have Scott and Blake around, so that I don't make a fool of myself. The comments are fine; keep posting.

Again, check out the Darfur link.

The Intent of this Blog

2007-02-23T09:48:00.000-07:00

About once a week, I try to log on to this site to see what individuals have been posting. Today, I saw what seemed to be a conversation in a chat room between a few fourth graders. Let me remind the few who sign in here that every effort is being made to increase our public image this semester. I and the rest of the BYU-I College Dems presidency are working overtime to try and get quality speakers, organized meetings, and good PR so that as the semesters roll on we will further the work of our group. If you don't have something to contribute to this effort, then, please, don't add impertinent, or, worse, regressive, commentary to this site. We are an organization for college students interested in intelligent politically debate. Let's act that way.

Now, to other things. I encourage everyone to go to the link above and check out what it has to say. We may be dedicating a meeting to this subject.

Soul[farce]?

2007-02-22T10:24:00.000-07:00

I received an email the other day from BYU-Idaho which stated that a Gay and Lesbian political organization would be staging an event at the university.

This is just silly.

The group's name is Soulforce and they made a similar visit to BYU in Provo last year. Suffice it to say, the news media reported that it was they, Soulforce, who caused a disturbance, NOT BYU. The following statement is from a recent edition of the Salt Lake Tribune, Utah's "liberal" newspaper:

Soulforce Equality Riders were allowed on BYU's campus last year to speak with students individually, but administrators warned they would be escorted away if they attempted to assemble and use the campus as a public forum.

Several Equality Riders let administrators know they intended to break school policies and subsequently were arrested for civil disobedience.

BYU administrators said Monday they will not allow a repeat performance.

I think it's incredibly disrespectful for them to set aside BYU's courtesy in allowing them to come onto campus. I think that their attempt at "civil disobedience" probably lost them ground instead of moving them forward. What are they trying to do?

As far as I know, neither BYU nor BYU-I holds anti-gay rallies. They don't teach hate or discrimination.

While I have some respect for the gay movement, the respect comes from the American mantra that people should be allowed to live their lives according to their own desires without fear of retribution. If the gay movement is asking for tolerance, why then, are they intolerant of religion? Soulforce's mission, according to their website, is:

[T]o open a dialogue about the painful consequences of discrimination and the religion-based prejudice that sustains it.

To me, this basically says, "To force a dialogue, by flouting rules and showing no respect, about how religionists are bigots." How can the gay and lesbian community ask for tolerance, while at the same time showing no respect for the way the way in which the religious community wishes to live? Plus, as a liberal Mormon, I'm offended at being called a bigot.

I'm a convert, and at no point has anyone asked me to be homophobic, bigoted, or discriminatory. In fact, I've been taught the opposite: I've been taught to love, to feel compassion for, and to treat all people the way I want to be treated. So, if this ethic is inherent in the Church, why is Soulforce coming? They are coming because we teach that homosexuality is a violation of God's plan for His children. We teach religious doctrine, not political activism. We teach people, that, if they believe the principles of our Church are true, then they have the choice to follow those principles — one of which is to live a heterosexual lifestyle.

I've been attending BYU-I for a while now, and it has been my experience that the vast majority of religion professors teach religious principles, not discrimination, hate or bigotry. Any experiences contrary are surely to be rare and in the minority.

Let me conclude this tirade: I'm not asking Soulforce to tolerate inequality, discrimination or hate. But, I do ask Soulforce to allow me to live my religion. Just as homosexuals feel that their sexual orientation is not something they practice — it is something inherent within them; my faith is who I am.

I won't trade my faith for their sexuality. I will gays and lesbians just as I treat hetero's, with a little 'bit of sarcasm and spite.

Slight Schedule Change

2007-02-15T15:16:00.000-07:00

On Wednesday the 21st, we will be meeting in MC 375 instead of MC 320. We apologize for any inconvenience, but due to some scheduling issues and the extra time needed to show the film, our hands are tied in the matter. After the 21st we will be back to our normal meeting location in MC320.

Upcoming Meetings

2007-02-13T15:03:00.000-07:00

Okay, I have some great news for the next couple of weeks. First of all, there is no meeting this coming Wed. (14th). That's not the good news. The good news is on Feb. 21st we'll be watching "An Inconvenient Truth," Al Gore's documentary and on Feb. 28th Bro. Alan Holyoak will be coming to present "Current Effects of Global Warming." Bro. Holyoak is a member of the biology department and was the director for environmental studies at Manchester College for 10 years. Then, on March 7th, Bro. Stuart from the English department will present the topic of "Trends in Europe," a discussion about the direction in which Eurpoean politics is going. And on March 14th, Bro. Gerald Hanson from the PoliSci and Religion departments will host a discussion entitled "Geopolitics and Iran." So, mark your calendars, invite your friends, and we'll see you all at the College Dems!

Obama on Daily Show

2007-01-30T10:25:00.000-07:00

I suppose this just goes to show how much self-control I have, but I couldn't help myself. Here it is:

The poop is flying, will it hit the fan?

2007-01-20T10:06:00.000-07:00

A CNN story reports that Hillary Clinton has announced her bid for the Presidency.

Let me admit from the start that I do not know a thing about Hillary Clinton. Let me also begin with the premise that I do not believe that her husband's presidency should be an automatic, overshadowing factor in determining her own merit.

However, I do know this: if she is nominated, she will be a lightening rod for all that is considered by conservatives as ultra-liberal — whether it is true or not. In my mind, Hillary, is less likely to receive conservative votes than any other democratic presidential candidate.

My main concern is another Florida 2000. I'm happy that the nation overwhelmingly elected a democratic congress. One of the reasons is because it was a "clear win". The nation wanted to move left and we did. But, the last two presidential elections have been less decisive. I trust the people, and I want a unified nation who clearly selects one person. No more of this 51 - 49 stuff. I'd like to see a clear presidential win, like during the Bill Clinton years and the Reagan years. I think it will be good for the country.

I'll keep an open mind to Hillary, although, my heart goes to Obama, John Edwards and Mitt Romney. I love these three candidates. They rock my world. I'm equally split between them. I'm excited to see what will happen.

100 Hours Update

2007-01-18T20:53:00.000-07:00

During the past election House Democrats advertised a "100 hour" laundry list of legislation they intended to enact as soon as they took office. Now, with 57 hours left on the clock (I had thought they meant 100 hours total, but apparently they meant 100 working hours) they are announcing the fulfillment of their promise.

However the Legislation still needs to make its way through the Senate. How long it will take and in what form they will emerge is still up for debate (get it? Debate? Ahh... my jokes are lame). I must admit though, I wasn't sure if it was going to fully come through, and certainly not in the amount of time it took them.

Fox news (a seven letter "four letter" word for many, yet I read it none the less) has an article about it, as well as some criticism about how things are being handled. It can be found here.

Living together

2007-01-18T10:21:00.000-07:00

As a member of the Church in good standing I do not believe that unmarried couples should be doing anything that would lead them to breaking God's law of chastity. President and Sister Clark's inspiring devotiona l spelled it out simply. I felt the Spirit's touch as I read their talk (I'm currently in Portland and I was unable to attend).

However the following story has me conflicted. In this situation, I do not believe government should be telling folks how to live, yet, I believe EVERYBODY, Latter-day Saint or not, should be chaste.

On the other hand, I believe N. Dakota has a right to do what they want. If they don't want unmarried couples living together than they can enact a law — I would hope that it goes to a general vote however. In this case, the citizens of that state definitely need a chance to weigh in.

Any thoughts?

At heart, I feel this law infringes on a person's basic right to make decisions about their own life. Also, I believe marriage is a purely religious institution and the secularization of it takes away from its importance. People shouldn't get married just because the law tells them they should. They should get married because of their love for each other and their love for God. I don't think God cares for a couple who gets married just to legally live together and then get divorced when they're done.

Perhaps the ideal situation is to have government stay out of things, and to have individual citizens, churches and communities work with each other to create societal contracts.

Apparently we're cowards.

2007-01-17T13:49:00.000-07:00

I found an interesting comment made by an anonymous source here.

I'm going to make a huge leap and assume this anonymous comment was made by a BYU-Idaho student. I'm going to make an even bigger leap and say it was made by a College Republican. If those two leaps are true, my assertion is this: it is this sentiment that causes needless friction and unkindness in society — and it can be seen everywhere.

On a different, yet related note: debates.

No, the BYU-Idaho College Democrats have not debated the BYU-Idaho College Republicans. We've received one invitation from the CR's more than a year ago for a debate which we refused and have not received one since. The Scroll attempted to host a debate, but was unable to put together the logistics of one in time.

I have mixed feelings about having a debate. More than anything, I do not want to deter from the stated mission of BYU-Idaho. I feel an obviously partisan debate at an unofficially partisan university has a higher possibility of deterring from its' mission. Of course, under ideal circumstances, this would not happen, ideally it would be an educational discussion worthy of an audience seeking an academic experience. However, and correct me if I'm wrong, I believe the more likely outcome is that it could become a contentious argument. I don't like that.

Nearly a year ago, I would have been completely against a debate. Today, under certain circumstances, I would be completely for a debate. But then again, it's not really up to me anymore.

To me, BYU-Idaho, with it's moral atmosphere and friendly spirit, has always been an ideal testing ground — to see if two fundamentally different political ideals can work together to produce something great. I'm not certain a debate could move us in this direction.

FISA takes action

2007-01-17T13:19:00.000-07:00

UPDATED STORY HERE:
---
As reported in 2006, the Bush administration secretly began monitoring both domestic and international phone calls under the terrorist threat rationale. This monitoring has been taking place, until recently, without warrants issued or court approval.

The Associated Press reported today that phone monitoring will now be monitored by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

What disturbs me is that the Bush Administration "gave" the power to the courts. Does this mean the Executive Branch can also "take away" that power? Can anyone shed some light on this?

I understand that in a democracy, there must be an inherent amount of trust — but to what extent? To me, the checks and balances created be the framers of the constitution, is a principle that must be preserved at all cost. Is this phone monitoring business another example of the Executive and Judicial branches becoming close bedfellows? Thoughts?

The state of things, part: 2

2007-01-08T21:33:00.000-07:00

Previously, I wrote about a select few problems that the BYU-Idaho College Democrats need to overcome. Now, I offer a few solutions.

First, I believe the College Dems MUST be more bold. That is, they must be more forward and proactive about creating and advertising their solutions to the state's and country's problems.

Thus far, we have struggled to exist and be accepted. Now, forget about being accepted and simply show that we have a REASON to exist. I believe the BYU-I populace has just accepted and forgotten our existence, now we need to make sure that we are visible at all times. I suggest a week by week issue campaign. A different issue for every week. We should be so consistent that people begin to ask, "I wonder what the Dems are advertising this week."

I'm talking posters, flyers, discussions etc. Every week until the end of the semester should have a theme, and that theme should be executed to its fullest. We must be bold.

Second, I think we should bring things down a notch. We need to educate students and tell them why things are the way they are, how things will be and how things should be. Talk of national politics and world affairs is important, but if it doesn't mean anything to the casual voter it won't stick with them. Students have plenty to worry about, when we deliver a message, it needs to be simple, it needs to have urgency and it needs to encourage an action.

Lastly, I think it's time to start charging dues. I don't want to get into the details of how to do it, but I will say why:

We need to put value on being a Democrat.
It could cause members to feel that they are contributing to something good.
It will help pay for expenses.
It could increase commitment.

These are just a few solutions I had. What are your thoughts? Good spirited comments only please.

First Meeting of the Year!

2007-01-08T16:37:00.000-07:00

The first meeting of the Winter Semester will be this Wednesday, 7:00 in the MC 320!

We will be conducting some minor business issues, and then be having an ideological compass activity. Bring yourself and a friend!

President Ford is dead.

2006-12-28T19:59:00.000-07:00

What will be his legacy? Is it, as the media says, one of healing the nation after Watergate? Not being a big history buff, and certainly not being one who paid as much attention to Ford as I could have, I would have to say that certainly seems to be his legacy, at least according to the "liberal media".

However, I don't know if I agree with the assessment that he healed the nation, or at least helped heal the nation. A few things stick out in my mind when I think of this healing that apparently took place. One is a comment I read on a liberal blog, wherein the person commented that you can't heal something that hasn't been cleansed. The cleansing that never took place was Nixon accounting for his decisions, at least accounting for them by serving time.

When I was in Young Women's, I remember reciting the Young Women's values. One of which was choice and accountability. I don't think the Church, or Christ, intends for our accountability to be the most minimum we can get away with. I think accountability means accounting for it in the fullest possible way. This didn't occur because Ford pardoned Nixon. Which brings me to the next thing that crosses my mind when I think of Ford's legacy...

I was at my dad's house last night for dinner. Keep in mind my dad is a Republican. Solid Republican. He said Nixon belonged in prison and should've gone to prison. It was said in one article I read that Ford pardoning Nixon cost Ford the election.

Now before everyone gets to thinking that I despise Ford and Nixon, let me state that I wasn't alive during this difficult period in America's history. Let me also state that I do not possess any psychic abilities. I cannot say that had Ford not pardoned Nixon and Nixon went to prison if this country would have been better off. Perhaps pardoning Nixon was the best thing for this country. I don't know. Is any of this making any sense?!?

Let me end by saying that what President Ford did as President, aside from pardoning Nixon, was what this country needed. What was it exactly? It was not being Nixon! Though Nixon did some good things as President, which is a whole other topic for another post.

Merry Christmas!

2006-12-25T14:55:00.000-07:00

Merry Christmas! I wanted to post a link to my new blog. I hope everyone stops by and posts some comments. Any feedback is deeply appreciated!

First Moves?

2006-12-19T22:06:00.000-07:00

I posted my thoughts about the election results and a few people were surprised I was so horrified. Let me state again that I am more than pleased with how Democrats did nationally, but I am still sickened with the statewide results.

BYUI Dems blog commenter jamesp, wanted proof that Tom Luna was going to single handedly destroy public education in Idaho. I can't provide that proof and if I had that proof available, I would have shared it with everyone who would listen to ensure Luna wouldn't win the election. My opinion is still that Tom Luna will be a disaster for public schools and will seek to undermine public schools, but let me share some type of proof, in my opinion, that might lend credence to my opinion.

I would like to give thanks to the Royal Mountain Valice's blog for sharing some information about some of Luna's first moves as incoming Superintendent:

"The incoming superintendent, Tom Luna, has begun the process of restructuring the Department by firing 19 top level administrators, including key Bureau Chiefs and Coordinators. In addition to the 19, 8 more have resigned. Outgoing Superintendent Marilyn Howard identified the 27 in a memo sent out Monday to Idaho Superintendents, Principals, Business Managers, Charter School Directors, Title I Directors, Special Education Directors, Testing Coordinators and Technology Coordinators. According to Howard, this is just the 'first wave of firings.'"

Lastly, I would like to publicly announce my intentions to start my own personal blog that will be politically centered though not solely about politics. I still would like to blog here, if I am allowed, but would like the freedom to venture into other subjects. Thank you!

The state of things, part 1

2006-12-17T10:02:00.000-07:00

It's been awhile since I've had anything to say. After November 7th, I had a lot of thinking to do and I so a took a personal sabbatical from the political world. I figured, if I want to say things intelligibly, I had better make sure that I've got things together before I say them.

I was both delighted and saddened by the events of Nov. 7. I was delighted that on the federal level, liberals were able to take control of congress. I was saddened to watch Idaho elect such strange candidates.

However, I see no point in anymore brooding -- it's time to move on.

Here are the state of things: the BYU-Idaho College Democrats are weak.

It pains me to to say it, but it's true. When I first started all of this, my intention was to usher in a new political utopia at BYU-I. Despite what my actions and mistakes may have said, my intention was to see what a two party system on a campus with BYU-I's demographic would be like. Here's what I was hoping:

I hoped that at BYU-I, students would be able to be different than the world when approaching politics. It appears to me, that many view politics as useless, corrupt and dirty. I hoped that by virtue of the applied faith at BYU-I that it would be different. What I found was this: if it was different, it was manifested with apathy. Otherwise, it was politics as usual.
I hoped to make friends of the BYU-I College Republicans. Through a series of mistakes by both groups, this hasn't happened. I envisioned friendly debate, I envisioned cooperation, I envisioned bi-partisanship, I wanted pure intelligence.
I wanted to extinguish the apathy I believe was caused by the the lack of political diversity.

None of these things have happened to my satisfaction. Granted, we are only a little more than a year old, but our foundation is weak and I continue to see more and more cracks forming.

Here are the reasons I believe this has happened:

While we are Democrats, and we are liberal, we are not gay baby killers. We have not convinced anyone of this.
My strength of will has snuffed out potential leaders. Thus far, I have been the force keeping the College Democrats together. This isn't acceptable, and it shows just how weak we are. I wonder sometimes what would happen to the College Democrats if I disappeared. While this comment seems egotistical in nature, I have yet to see evidence of the same commitment from any other College Democrat, with the exception of a few, and I mean a few.
We are lazy. I KNOW there are many like minded students on campus. Yet, we have been unable to inspire those students to participate. This is our greatest weakness. There is no point in having a political party without support from it's members.

I still have hope that these things will improve, but I will address solutions in another post. I'd like to change gears and address something different.

I believe both parties have failed America, both have deceived in a myriad of ways it's members, and that there is a changing tide.

I spurn anyone who has blind allegiance to their party. I personally could never be a zealot for the Democratic party. I am a free thinker, I don't believe either party has all of the answers or the resources to come up with those answers. I don't believe the barrage of rhetoric and promises that come from both parties and I'm amazed at how many people fall for either party's propaganda -- myself included to some extent.

Blake, if you believe that the Democratic Party could use someone of your conservative persuasion, I hope they don't kick you out. While I'm confident that the BYU-I College Democrats will fully accept you and listen to you, I'm not certain of your future on the national scale -- if you seek that. You are a true conservative and I respect that. I believe and hope that you can have great positive influence on the Democratic Party, I just hope the Democratic Party can deal with you.

With my experience in this past campaign, my conservative leanings were met with intelligent consideration from the Brady for Idaho campaign. I hope that this attitude is being infused into the National Party. In this past election period, a whole slew of "conservative Democrats" were elected to Congress. This tells me that perhaps the National Party has realized that they cannot hope to have influence while also exclusively catering to the far-left. I wish the Republican Party would quit wooing the neocons.

Let me wrap up this boring blog. Blake, you have a great mind. You are moral and you are realistic. In my opinion, if you want a safe political career, you should follow Joe's advice. But be prepared to be passed over as many paleocons have been.

I'm not saying that you have an opportunity to make the Democratic Party conservative. I don't want you to. But, there are a variety of issues where the Dems could be more effective by being more conservative one those issues. Lastly, I now believe that one of the biggest myths is that issues are either left or right. The truth is, the vast majority of issues are neither liberal nor conservative.

Just food for thought... could be junk food though.

A Random Sampling From My Brain

2006-12-15T23:31:00.000-07:00

First I must apologize for the long delay in my posting but I've been overwhelmed with personal things, work, and school. While politics hasn't been in the forefront of my mind, it has certainly been on my mind. It just wouldn't be a normal day if I didn't visit some of my favorite liberal Idaho blogs and visit DU. With that in mind I present a random sampling of what's been on my mind!

I did a class presentation on presidential scandals. I chose the topic, so does my topic choice mean I am just a dumb American who is too intrigued by the scandalous behavior of our elected leaders and not concerned enough with really important matters? Nah. The topic was more than the details of Watergate, Whitewater, Iran-Contra, and Monica Lewinsky. It included some statistical tests that predicted the chance of a presidential scandal occuring and what conditions need to be present for it to occur. It was fascinating!

I think many of us are waiting to see how the situation with Senator Johnson's health plays out. My best goes out to him and his family. The situation certainly brings to light the idea of a Governor choosing a replacement when a Senator, or other elected official, has to resign. To me it can fly in the face of the will of the people, but I am not just saying this because the Governor of South Dakota is a Republican. I don't know that there are many other options that would seek to fulfill the will of the people in a timely and fair fashion.

I was born and raised in the Seattle area and my hometown is currently without power. All 90,000+ citizens in the entire city, plus approximately 1,000,000 more. My mom had to call me to pay her house payments earlier today and had me check a few websites to see when they will get their power back. While perusing the Seattle Times website I came across a story about the Governor of Washington, Christine Gregoire, a Democrat, seeking to put a cap on the tuition increases at Washington colleges. Living in Idaho, I forget that some states are fortunate enough to have Governor's who do something about the increasing costs of attending college. I was also pleasantly surprised to see a quote from a Washington Republican legislator who said Governor Gregoire wasn't doing enough to keep college affordable for Washingtonians. WOW!

Which reminds me of a program Washington has that every state should have, Running Start. In Washington, you can attend a participating community college for free as a high school junior and/or senior. I say "participating" because I can't be sure every community college participates. You basically pay for a parking permit, if needed, and books and supplies, if needed. You pay no tuition, no fees, nothing. I knew a few classmates who graduated with their Associate's degree while simulaneously graduating with their high school diploma. I only took a few courses as a senior but it was a worthwhile experience that gave me a head start when I started at Ricks College. Certainly Idaho could benefit from such a program, though there is no statewide community college system, the state could send students to ISU, BSU, EITC, UofI, etc...

Tom Luna, the recently elected State Superintendent of Public Schools in Idaho, has gotten into trouble for lying on his resume. He will also fire 20 employees at the State Department of Education. No comment!

Lastly, I was again pleasantly surprised to see Nancy Pelosi selected as the most fascinating person of 2006. You may disagree with her politics, but you must admit that what she has accomplished and will accomplish is noteworthy and fascinating.

Wait, I can't end without admitting something. I recently discovered Arrested Development, the genius show that was cancelled by Fox. If you have satellite tv, you can catch daily reruns of this brilliant show on the G4 channel.

Still My Hero

2006-12-01T17:46:00.000-07:00

One of the candidates who ran this year is a personal and professional hero of mine. Personal because she exudes so many of the qualities I desire to have as a woman and human being, and professional because she has not only been successful in her career, but has made things better through her actions. I don't just want a career, I want to leave the world better because of what I have been able to do in my career and personal life-I want to leave my mark in this world.

I saw my hero yesterday (the first time since the election) and she looked positively amazing. I don't know why this surprised me, she is the type of person who, when she falls, gets back up and keeps pressing forward. But let me state that I don't believe she fell, she was pushed down because voters chose a lesser candidate. But still, she had clearly brushed herself off and continued her ways. I also learned that I was right when I assumed that the type of person she was on the campaign trail was the type of person she was all of the time; kind, concerned for others, selfless, intelligent, and so many other great things. She leaves me in awe that one person possesses all that is good in society!

I guess what I might be trying to say is that sometimes we focus on the negatives in politics and in politicians. We, often times, only remember the Tom Delay's, the Watergate's, etc...and forget there are people, like Jana Jones, who represent traits and demonstrate actions that are not only admirable but desperately needed in this world.

You are still my hero, Jana.

The Real Mid-Term Elections

2006-11-30T08:33:00.000-07:00

As some of you may know, next week the BYU-I College Democrats will be holding officer elections for next semester. Over the last month or so I have been asked numerous times, both by members of the club and by others, whether or not I was going to run for a position.

My answer has consistently been the same, I would be happy to serve in any way the club members would like me to, but I will not nominate myself for any positions. I would like to take this chance to explain why I feel that way.

It’s not an issue of commitment. I have attended just as many, if not more, meetings this semester as any other member (and I include the current officers in that category). I am the only active member of the club who contributes regularly to this blog (Peter has been so busy this semester with other obligations that he can rarely make it to the meetings anymore, which no one blames him for, but the fact remains). I don’t think anyone could rightly question whether or not I would fulfill the responsibilities of any of the offices.

However, the club doesn’t just need someone who will “do the job”. While it has survived its first year back on campus that is no guarantee that it will survive it’s second. What the club desperately needs right now is leadership. It needs leaders who can build it, guide it, and forge it into a lasting presence here on campus. Anyone can manage it, but it needs dedicated people who are committed to the Democratic ideals to make it great.

That is where the problem lies. No matter how active I am, no matter how many submissions I contribute to this blog, the fact remains that I am neither a Democrat nor a liberal. I don’t know that I can contribute the level of energy, enthusiasm, and leadership that the club needs. The club needs people who truly believe in liberalism, and the Democratic party to build it, while I am happy to help in any way I can, I don’t think I am what it needs or requires.

That being said, if in a week the members decide they want me to fill an office, then I will do so to the best of my ability. I just hope that people more qualified than I will step to the plate first.

I Am Thankful

2006-11-22T00:25:00.000-07:00

I am thankful to live in a country where we have leaders whom we elect, and some who run but aren't elected, who desire and strive to improve our communities, our state, and our country.

I am thankful that we have colleges and universities where we can go and learn more about ourselves, our world, and learn that the only limits that exist are those that we create in our own minds.

I am thankful that I attended Ricks College and BYU-Idaho for three years. It was at Ricks/BYU-Idaho where I grew up and started to overcome my demons. It was at Ricks/BYU-Idaho where I was taught that it is not only okay to think outside of the box, but thinking outside of the box is necessary in order to believe in the teachings of the Church.

I am thankful for professors at BYU-Idaho and Idaho State University who believed in me and made me believe in myself. These professors have changed my life and I shall never forget them.

I am thankful for my teachers in elementary school, junior high, and high school who overlooked my many shortcomings to reach out to me and care for me. These teachers were bright spots in what was often times for me, a very dark world.

I am thankful for the ISU College Democrats club. This is a club that provided an avenue to meet some of the greatest people I have known. It is an honor and a privilege to serve as President.

I am thankful for my friends and family who love me despite my imperfections, shortcomings, and horrible personality traits. Though I try to be a good person who is sensitive to the feelings of others, I still come up short far too often. I make a promise here and now to work hard every single day to be a better person.

I am especially thankful for my best friends, because they are the ones who I lean on when I am struggling, weak, and totally insecure.

But I am most thankful for Jesus Christ. There have been friends who have come and gone, but He always remains, our constant friend. He understands us better than any other person could.

What are YOU thankful for?

I couldn't resist

2006-11-10T13:45:00.000-07:00

Yeah, figure out your own rationalization for this on a political blog. It's too cool!

Utterly Horrified

2006-11-09T14:20:00.000-07:00

I am proud that people across this country elected so many Democrats and we now have control of the House and the Senate.

I am utterly horrified that Jana Jones has lost. If you have a child in an Idaho school, be prepared, Tom Luna is a danger to public schools.

I am proud that Pocatello voters, in District 29, elected Diane Bilyeu and James Ruchti to office. I am deeply saddened that Allen Anderson lost. I would love for a Ken Andrus supporter to tell me what makes Ken Andrus a better representative, because there isn't one reason I can think of. I was at the Bannock County courthouse all night awaiting results that didn't come until around noon. I was able to help "count" ballots at 9am because the voting machine was rejecting some ballots still. It was awesome having an advance knowledge of what precincts had just been counted, were being counted, etc...and I happily reported this knowledge to Diane Bilyeu throughout the morning. Being next to Diane when she found out she won, though there will be a recount, was an honor and I shall never forget it. I will also remember congratulating Radene Barker with a hug as she won the Treasurer's race. Democrats swept the county races here in Bannock County and NO ONE predicted that, all of the Democrats won their respective county races by at least 1000 votes.

As happy as I am for James, Diane, Radene, and for the many Democrats across this great country, I mourn for my state because we didn't seize the opportunity to better Idaho by electing the better candidates, and every Democrat running at the state and federal level in Idaho was better.

Jana if you read this, and I hope you received my email, you did Idaho proud with your 32 years of service to education. Your service, dedication, knowledge, and kindness is second to none. I am not sure what your plan was in case voters elected the unqualified Tom Luna, but I wish you the best of luck in your future endeavors. 215,905 knew you were the best candidate. That number will only increase as Tom Luna begins his destruction of public education.

Let us be humble in victory, and gracious in defeat.

2006-11-08T16:08:00.000-07:00

With my party no longer in power in Congress (I don’t think anyone really expects for the GOP to pull a victory out of Virginia), I find myself in an interesting situation. This is the first time since I started to pay attention to politics that I can remember the Democrats controlling Congress (I didn’t pay attention to politics until ’95). While I do not have previous personal experience in the matter, here are a few thoughts of mine on the situation.

First, I don’t think that this is really going to change much in our country. While taxes may fluctuate, student loans and minimum wage may increase, and gun control may again rear its head, I really don’t think things will be drastically different. I have heard members of my party lamenting of the stupidity of people in voting the Democrats into office, and of the impending doom that it will bring to America. That seems silly to me, much of my childhood (’84 until ’94) was spent under a Democratic Congress’, and it really wasn’t that bad. I don’t expect this one to be any worse.

Second, I think that this could be a very good thing for both parties. I say that with two reasons in mind. I think that this will give the Democratic Party the leadership experience they need if they are going to take the White House in ’08. Regardless of whether one wants them to, I think we can all agree that it is better to have people leading and running for office who actually have leadership experience.

Further, I hope that Democratic control over Congress will spark change in the Republican Party. The Republican Party has wandered far from the ideals of small government, responsible spending, and states rights that it championed not so long ago. I hope that this will act as a catalyst for a back to basics conservatism, and party leadership reform.

Finally, I hope that both sides realize the situation they are now in. If the Republicans do not work with the Democrats and vice versa, there will be gridlock. Neither party can now enact legislation without some measure of cooperation from the other. This means that either nothing will get done, or they will be forced to compromise. While I don’t expect the rhetoric to lessen, or for both sides to go on back packing retreats and hot dog roasts together; I do hope that some of the bridges that have been burned by partisan politics might be rebuilt.

Really, we will just have to wait and see, but I faith in what this country can accomplish if we really want to.

Getting desperate

2006-11-04T20:29:00.000-07:00

Below is the latest tactic Republicans in Idaho have been using to "Get out the vote". This is a release from Brady for Idaho Governor.

---

BOISE, Idaho -- According to a healthcare professional in the Boise area, local Republican campaigns are using unethical voter coercion tactics to gain votes in local senior care facilities.

The healthcare professional, who wishes to remain anonymous for fear of professional fallout, says he/she has witnessed Republican campaign volunteers entering senior care facilities—including the Boise Samaritan Village—and distributing Republican literature, verbally coercing mentally unfit seniors into voting for candidates, and even filling out absentee ballots with or possibly for these patients. She first heard of the activity in early October.

The healthcare professional was alarmed to hear from patients who had voted absentee—including a 95 year old woman suffering from dementia—despite not knowing who the candidates were prior to voting. The patients expressed confusion as to what had happened or who they had even voted for.

The healthcare professional pointed out that there are adult protection laws in Idaho that prevent just this sort of coercion and exploitation of seniors. Democratic party officials are currently investing the legality of these tactics and will be releasing a statement.

And now for something completely different.

2006-11-03T20:22:00.000-07:00

While this doesn't really have anything to do with state, local, or federal politics; I saw it and thought it was hilarious. I justify it being posted by attributing it to office politics. Yeah, that's it...

here

BRADY TAKES THE LEAD!

2006-11-03T09:49:00.000-07:00

I think values like the ones expressed in this commercial is what has put Jerry in the lead in this governor's race.

A recent poll commissioned by the Idaho Business Review and KTVB has Jerry in the lead by five points with a margin of error of +/- four points.

Brady gets the nod from conservative paper

2006-11-01T16:21:00.000-07:00

The Times-News, a notoriously conservative paper, has endorsed Democratic candidate Jerry Brady for Idaho Governor. Read the story here.

This endorsement is symbolic of the fact that people of all political ideologies are moving towards Jerry. He's not pro Republican or Democrat. He really is for Idaho.

"Idaho governor candidates square off"

2006-10-31T10:59:00.000-07:00

Here's an interesting news article from a newspaper that has been rather tough on Jerry this election season.
---

Idaho governor candidates square off

Betsy Z. Russell
Staff writer
October 31, 2006

It was Democrat Jerry Brady – not GOP Congressman Butch Otter – who garnered the sole outburst of applause during the final debate in the race for governor of Idaho on Monday night.

In a partly filled auditorium at the College of Southern Idaho in Twin Falls, the two, along with third-party candidates Ted Dunlap and Marvin "Pro-Life" Richardson, shared their views on everything from environmental regulation to taxes to their political heroes.

But a question about air quality regulations, an hour into the 90-minute debate on KTVB-TV, prompted the enthusiastic outburst from the audience. Otter responded first, saying he'd trust the Idaho Legislature even if it defied the Environmental Protection Agency's regulations.

"I believe that the state Legislature probably has a lot more wisdom on what happens in Idaho and should happen in Idaho than any bureaucrat in the EPA sitting on Independence Avenue in Washington, D.C.," Otter said. "My trust is with the Legislature, and I would work with them to maintain a standard whether or not it fit the federal government mold. I believe we can do what we want to in the state of Idaho."

Brady responded by citing a proposal by an out-of-state energy company to build a coal-fired power plant in the Magic Valley. "A California utility came here, said, 'We want to bring Wyoming coal into this valley, we want to burn it, we want to pollute your air, pollute your water, leave all of our ash behind, and ship the electricity out to the West Coast.' I opposed it," Brady said. "My opponent supported them, took their side, and took $6,000 from them."

The Legislature supported Magic Valley residents who pushed for a moratorium to block the coal plant, Brady said, but then, when a federal program threatened to allow more mercury emissions in Idaho – the very issue that raised concerns about the coal plant – the Legislature didn't respond.

"I said no, Gov. (Jim) Risch later said no, but the Legislature said yes," Brady said. "Now, I do not believe we can be sure that the Legislature will make the right decision without a governor who is committed to keeping mercury out of our state."

The room erupted in applause.

It was a key moment in a campaign that's become increasingly tight as the election approaches. An independent poll sponsored by the Idaho Statesman newspaper and KIVI Channel 6 TV in Nampa, released on Sunday, showed the governor's race in Idaho a dead heat, with Otter leading Brady by a single percentage point, 44-43, with 12 percent undecided.

Jasper LiCalzi, a political scientist at Albertson College of Idaho, said the mercury issue went to the heart of the message Brady's been pushing in his campaign, that he'd be more diligent than Otter in protecting Idaho's quality of life. That's embodied in Brady's campaign slogan, "Idaho is not for sale," which refers back to Otter's sponsorship of legislation in Congress to sell off Idaho public lands, which Otter dropped and apologized for after criticism from Brady and others.

"That's the strongest piece he's had all along," LiCalzi said, "and he keeps on using it." The issue is somewhat reminiscent, he said, of the issue Cecil Andrus first rode into the governorship, when he opposed a mining operation in the White Clouds mountains.

Otter took on the land sale issue head-on in the debate, saying, "I did make a mistake and I admitted that mistake. I think when you're in politics your burden is even heavier – when you make a mistake you stand up and say so."

He followed that up with digs at Brady, accusing Brady of wanting to "tear out the dams" and let wolf populations go unregulated, "let 'em run, let 'em howl." Brady denied both, and also rejected as false an Otter jab suggesting he favored amnesty for illegal aliens.

LiCalzi said, "What was surprising to me was he (Otter) was much more negative than Brady was."

Otter came out with a major new proposal on property taxes that he hasn't mentioned in recent interviews, saying he now favors freezing assessed value and allowing it to rise only at the rate of inflation until a home is sold. "I believe we can do that," he said. "I've talked to a lot of legislators about it."

But Libertarian candidate Dunlap said he lived in California when that state's Proposition 13 froze values until sale. As a result, he said, he paid $2,800 a year in taxes while his next-door neighbor, who had a bigger, fancier home, paid only $500. "That's the sort of inequity that develops when you do this sort of meddling with the property tax," he said.

Idaho's state constitution requires that like property be taxed alike, so any such change would require amending the constitution.

Constitution Party candidate Richardson offered an opening prayer instead of answering the first question posed to him, and later said if people keep turning to government for health care and other services that he believes churches should provide, "We're going to wind up in hell."

Brady and Dunlap were debating for the second night in a row – on Sunday night, they faced off in the traditional League of Women Voters-Idaho Press Club debate broadcast live on Idaho Public Television. Otter declined to participate in that debate on what he called "government television," but he clearly watched it – when Brady said his political hero was Abraham Lincoln, Otter pointed out that the night before he'd also mentioned Jimmy Carter. He didn't mention that Brady also had mentioned Thomas Jefferson, whom Otter named Monday night as his own political hero.

Otter said, "The strength of this state is in the families, I would do nothing, nothing to interrupt that great strength, in fact I would do everything I could to encourage that great strength, because I truly believe that Idaho can become what America was meant to be."

Brady said, "I talked in this campaign not just about me, but about we, how we can do things together, how we can bridge Democrat and Republican and do what's best for Idaho down the middle. I intend to bring balance back to our state."

The election is on Tuesday.

"One of a kind"

2006-10-30T18:52:00.000-07:00

This homemade YouTube video cracks me up: Especially the part at the end where the narrator says in a menacing voice, "FOR SALE BY OTTER IDAHO!"

Makes me giggle every time I see it.

"Why Mormons should vote Democratic"

2006-10-29T11:55:00.000-07:00

Why Mormons should vote Democratic
By Fred Voros
Salt Lake Tribune
Article Last Updated:10/28/2006 03:55:02 PM MDT

"Principles compatible with the gospel may be found in the platforms of all major political parties," declared the First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. This is certainly true of the Democratic Party.

Mormon descriptions of a just social order read like a Democratic manifesto. The Book of Mormon decries a society in which every man prospers according to his genius, and every man conquers according to his strength (Alma 30:17). It condemns those who ignore the plight of the hungry, needy, naked and sick (Mormon 8:39).

This brother's-keeper principle animates government programs pioneered by Democrats. In 1937, Franklin Delano Roosevelt saw "one-third of a nation ill-housed, ill-clad, ill-nourished" and acted.

LDS scripture warns incessantly against economic stratification: " . . . it is not given that one man should possess that which is above another, wherefore the world lieth in sin" (D&C 49:20). Yet Republican tax cuts on one end of the economic spectrum and aid cuts on the other have widened the gap between rich and poor. Thanks to our Republican Congress, the world lies a little more in sin.

LDS scripture also calls us to "renounce war and proclaim peace" (D&C 98:16), and condemns offensive wars (Alma 43:45-47; Mormon 3:8-16). Yet the Republican administration misled America into invading Iraq, a nation that had not even threatened the U.S. Nor does LDS teaching justify the administration's fall-back rationale that the invasion was justified by our attempt to impose democracy.

In 1942, Church President David O. McKay declared, "Nor is war justified in an attempt to enforce a new order of government . . . however better the government . . . may be."

Astoundingly, the Republican Congress is borrowing money - from China, Saudi Arabia and federal trust funds - to cover the war, lavish tax cuts and their own profligate spending.

Even on abortion, the Democratic position is friendlier to LDS Church teachings. Mormonism does not teach that life begins at conception. President Gordon B. Hinckley declared that abortion inevitably brings "sorrow and regret."

Yet Church policy makes allowance where pregnancy results from rape or incest, where the life or health of the mother is in serious jeopardy, or where the fetus suffers from fatal defects. In such cases, Latter-day Saints are to consult with priesthood leaders and seek confirmation of their decision in prayer before proceeding.
The 2004 Democratic national platform says Democrats uphold Roe v. Wade; "strongly support family planning and adoption incentives"; and believe abortion "should be safe, legal and rare." This position grants Latter-day Saints freedom to follow the prophet.

The Republican position does not. The 2004 Republican platform declares that "the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed." In other words, it would prohibit all abortions. Consequently, a Latter-day Saint's decision to seek an abortion may be allowed by church policy, approved by priesthood leaders, confirmed by the Lord in prayer, but forbidden by the Republican Party.

We need both parties. As the First Presidency foresaw in 1891, "The more evenly balanced the parties become the safer it will be for us in the security of our liberties; and . . . our influence for good will be far greater than it possibly could be were either party overwhelmingly in the majority."

This will never be achieved in Utah, however, until Mormons see the light and vote their values. By which I mean, of course, vote Democratic.
---
* FRED VOROS is a lawyer living in Salt Lake City.

Homebrew Brady Ad

2006-10-26T21:00:00.000-06:00

A supporter of Jerry's made this YouTube video. It's pretty funny and fun!

Stay the course

2006-10-25T10:43:00.000-06:00

This is the new DNC ad poking at the White House changing their catch phrase.

Here is the text of the interview that should put this ad into perspective.

My opinion on Iraq? Probably the same as everyone else's. I don't like the rationale we used to go in. I think that now that we're there we have to stay to help stabilize the region. I don't believe our current course/strategy/plan is effective.

I haven't seen the Democrats offer an alternative. However, I do believe Democrats would be able to have greater influence on the international stage and be able to put together a stronger coalition.

Stem cell research

2006-10-24T20:12:00.000-06:00

What does everyone think about the federal government funding embryonic stem cell research? Many scientists say that stem cell research could be the tool used to cure many diseases.

I admit, I'm not particularly knowledgable about stem cell research and it's relationship with the federal government. What that also means is I have not made up my mind. This is your chance to bring me to your side.

Here's an interesting website that pretty much sums up what I know. It's not particularly reliable, but it articulates this subject well. If you visited the website, the idea that I know little about stem cell research should be solidifed.

Here are some thoughts to consider when presenting what you know about stem cell research: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, of which I am an active and faithful member, does not have a stance on this issue.

As far as I know the Church does not have an official position on when the soul enters the body. Although, elective abortion at any stage of pregnancy is considered a sin.

Can a petri dish or a test tube get pregnant?

I cannot find a reliable source on the Church's opinion on in vitro fertilization, if such an opinion exists.

After 8 weeks, an embryo ceases being an embryo and becomes a fetus. A pregnancy typically lasts 40 weeks.

I don't know why, but I think it's worth mentioning that President David McKay said that an abortion is not the same as murder: "As the matter stands today, no definite statement has been made by the Lord one way or another regarding the crime of abortion. So far as is known, he has not listed it alongside the crime of the unpardonable sin and shedding of innocent human blood. That he has not done so would suggest that it is not in that class of crime and therefore that it will be amenable to the laws of repentance and forgiveness."

That statement should not be used to downplay the sin of abortion.

What role will adult stem cell research play?

Please do not take anything on this post as my personal feelings on stem cell research or abortion. There will be times that I will play "devil's advocate". The only people who know how I feel about abortion are my wife and the Lord.

On a different note, Rush Limbaugh accused Michael J. Fox of acting in this commercial. I think Rush went too far. The commercial was made to take advantage of Fox's celebrity status and his disease. This is evident.

However, I can't judge whether Fox was acting or not. So, I'm going to show sympathy and say he was not acting. Rush went too far.

Larry Grant's recent ad

2006-10-23T16:50:00.000-06:00

Even though I'm not in Larry Grant's district, I've been following his campaign with some interest. As far as I can tell, his opponent, Bill Sali, is barely supported by his own party. It's interesting to me, that in Idaho, the Idaho Republican Party would have put up such a weak opponent.

Just from working for Jerry Brady, I heard that the latest poll numbers were 42 Grant (D) and 44 Sali (R)

Santorum reinforces position that crazies really do have a place in the U.S. Senate

2006-10-20T08:45:00.000-06:00

Rick Santorum, the junior Senator from Pennsylvania, has really out done himself this time. And having out done himself is no small matter, considering this is the man who said that it was "no surprise" that the sexual abuse scandals involving Catholic priests occured in Boston, considering its liberal culture. Any how, here's an excerpt from a recent interview with Pennsylvania's Bucks County Courier Times:

Embattled U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum said America has avoided a second terrorist attack for five years because the “Eye of Mordor” has been drawn to Iraq instead.

Santorum used the analogy from one of his favorite books, J.R.R. Tolkien's 1950s fantasy classic “Lord of the Rings,” to put an increasingly unpopular war in Iraq into terms any school kid could easily understand.

“As the hobbits are going up Mount Doom, the Eye of Mordor is being drawn somewhere else,” Santorum said, describing the tool the evil Lord Sauron used in search of the magical ring that would consolidate his power over Middle-earth.

“It's being drawn to Iraq and it's not being drawn to the U.S.,” Santorum continued. “You know what? I want to keep it on Iraq. I don't want the Eye to come back here to the United States.”

Holy crazy. A three-term United States Senator folks. And coming up next, we'll hear from vice president Dick Cheney as he likens Kim Jong Il to the stinky cheese man.

Unexpected

2006-10-12T13:30:00.000-06:00

I think that we can all agree that Fox News has a conservative bias to it. So I was caught off guard when I read this article, which was linked to from the Fox main page. It is an opinion article about Ann Coulter, and it is an extremly negative one at that. While this does not sway my opinion about Fox's leanings, it was the last thing that I expected to find on it today.

Dragging it back up

2006-10-10T08:43:00.000-06:00

I found what I thought was an interesting analysis of the Clinton/Wallace spat that aired on Fox. Here it is. Thoughts? Comments?

An Interesting Read

2006-10-03T16:24:00.000-06:00

While reading the recent edition of The Economist (a London based buisness and politics magazine) I came across an article that should be of interest to all members of the Church. It discusses how Mitt Romney would be an ideal Republican candidate for President, but questions whether or not being a Mormon will prevent that. The article can be found online here, or can be found in a September 30th-October 6th editionof The Economist.

Lesson in Credibility

2006-10-01T22:46:00.000-06:00

(I was going to post this as a comment, but just to make sure that everyone gets the point I’ve posted it here.)

To all, but especially Jensen and Cameron,

HERE IS YOUR LESSON ON SOURCE CREDIBILITY:

I’m sure that all of us here have written at least a handful of research papers in our academic careers. And in writing those papers, I’m sure our teachers told us that in citing information we must only use credible sources. No matter which way you may consider their political leaning, the most credible sources in news reporting are the NY Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, LA Times and most major metro papers. Here are some sources that ARE NOT credible: Newsmax, TownHall.com and The Drudge Report.

So in the same sense that you wouldn’t use a quote from a blog on MySpace in a research report, please don’t use any of the above mentioned sources to support your claim on this blog. Just because something is written on the internet, or even in print, doesn’t mean that we can just take it at face value for fact. And Jensen has been so kind to have given us our first example of why we shouldn’t believe everything we read…

In one of his previous comments, he gives a link to an article written by Dick Morris on TheHill.com to support his claim that Clinton is and was nothing but a terrorist-loving, crazed, lunatic. However, if you knew the history behind Dick Morris you’d know that he has about as much credibility writing about Clinton as Hitler does writing about Judaism. You see, ol’ Dick here was a former Clinton advisor who had to resign in 1996 after getting caught in a long-time extramarital affair with a hooker who he had shared classified information with and had allowed to listen in on calls to the President. After resigning, he basically sold his soul to Fox News, where he is a constant guest (more than 400 times in a single year) often speaking out against both Bill and Hillary Clinton. In fact, Morris’s hatred for the Clintons goes so deep to have written three (yes, three) books criticizing them (one of them includes an account, which he later contradicted, about Mr. Clinton attacking him and Hillary having to desperately pull him off). Sounds like someone has some sour grapes about ending his own career after desperately seeking the approval of a prostitute.

So knowing Dick Morris’s past, a past in which he basically made a living Clinton-bashing, you, Jensen, want to quote him as a credible source to discredit former president Bill Clinton? I’d suggest that next time you check your source before you make your claim. And that goes for everyone (here’s the public service announcement): ALWAYS do a little research before you tout something out as your smoking gun.

There Is A Reason

2006-09-30T15:08:00.000-06:00

There is a reason Republicans win over and over again in Idaho. Well...there are lots of reasons, but one reason keeps smacking me in the face everytime I turn around. Democrats in Idaho are not helping the Democrats running for office get elected. Today I canvassed one of the more Republican areas in Pocatello. I didn't speak to that many people but the ones I did speak with had so many misconceptions about Democrats, even the conservative Idaho Democrats, I didn't even know where to begin and I really couldn't begin. I was at their door for Allen Anderson, James Ruchti, and Diane Bilyeu, I wasn't there to educate them on why I am a former (recovering) Republican and why I believe the Democratic Party is the better party for members of the Church, even though the national party supports a woman's right to choose and even though most non-Idahoan Democrats don't care if gay people get married or not.

I was elected in April as the Vice President of the ISU College Democrats. Due to a busy schedule, the President of the club recently quit. Essentially I have been running the entire club on my own for the last few weeks. There are hundreds of Democrats that attend ISU, and I would venture to say that most of the professors are Democrats and a fair number of the faculty/staff. But how many people are we getting at our meetings? A handful. The club has lots of friends on myspace and facebook, we have lots of people who say they are "College Democrats," but they don't attend meetings and they don't volunteer to help Democrats get elected. Democrats can't get elected-the party can't grow, unless we go out there and help these Democrats get elected. I firmly believe that when we fail to help a Democratic candidate get elected, we are only helping the Republican get elected. That is fine, for Republicans, but that isn't fine for Democrats! The very future of education is in jeopardy if Jana Jones doesn't win on November 7th. Yet I am not seeing Democrats out there hitting the pavement, knocking doors, and persuading voters. I have spoken to many voters, even Republicans, who fear for education if Tom Luna is elected, but these same voters aren't doing anything (besides voting, which is the most important thing to do, I KNOW!) to ensure that Tom Luna doesn't win.

So I say to my fellow Democrats, lets start working. The election is only 5 weeks away and the candidates need our help desperately. Find some candidates that you believe in and help them win. This isn't just about the future of education, this is about the future of Idaho. So get to work!

Clinton slaps Fox News UPDATED

2006-09-23T15:10:00.000-06:00

Sept. 26—This is an update from the post I wrote below. Here is a link provided by Jensen. It will take you to a WSJ editorial written by the person who authored the TV miniseries "The Path to 9/11". It's a pretty good editorial.

As I read more and more about 9/11 I'm convinced that this attention President Clinton is receiving is nothing more than a midterm election diversion. This whole, "It's Clinton's fault" is a way for conservatives who are tired with the Iraq war to displace their feelings on someone other than this current administration.

This website, Media Matters, expresses my sentiment by showing how Fox News has tried to cover up for Mike Wallace. While they are much too far to the left for my taste, they've done some excellent analysis on this subject.

While some dispute the facts behind President Clinton's statements on Sunday's interview, I think only God will know what really happened.

I have never had much love or malice for the former President, I feel that on this issue, he is right—he is being picked on, unfairly.

Well, "boo-hoo" right? Unfortunately, that's politics. Hopefully, folks will see through this smokescreen. Many will fall for this diversion, many won't, but it's never that black and white is it?

Here is a link to the Fox News Sunday broadcast of the interview. I don't know if it was truncated or not, I haven't compared it with the text of the broadcast below. Also, don't trust Fox News when it comes to written transcripts, they have a history of changing their typed transcripts from what was actually broad-casted and said. Here is an example.

Olbermann also adds his two bits to this whole drama. He goes way overboard in a lot of his rhetoric, but his overall point is correct. Here's what he had to say about the Clinton interview.

--------------

Sept. 23—I'll probably get into trouble for having a "positive" post about fmr. President Bill Clinton, but, this is a MUST READ interview.

The text of the interview is still rough and hasn't been cleaned up for spelling.

I was too young (I'm currently 24) to really understand and follow the Clinton administration. I also haven't done much reading on what he has done. However, I am an avid reader on 9/11 events, Iraq and Afghanistan. Whatever mistakes Bill Clinton may have made during his presidency, the trendy headlines asserting that Clinton did not do enough to catch Bin Laden are misleading and unfair.

I cannot help but think whether all of this attention towards Clinton is a political ploy using displacement to drag attention away from current events in Iraq and terrorism.

2006-09-19T23:28:00.000-06:00

The problem with preserving and protecting our God given civil liberties is:

1. There always seems to be groups of people who want to take them away.
2. People do not tend to trust government.
3. Civil liberties and national security do not always mix.

It's a hard balance to keep. Here is an article on the subject that I found interesting.

Conformity

2006-09-17T23:17:00.000-06:00

As a disclaimer for the following article, I would like to remind everyone that my opinion does not necessarily reflect that of the College Democrats, Church, or BYU-I. Any disagreements are to be directed at myself.

It all started over the summer when I viewed a message board comprised of BYU-I students. The subject of politics had come up and opinions were flying. I noticed something however that bothered me quite a bit. By the time I got up here for school this semester I had largely forgotten about it, until the issue raised its head again in a class room discussion (carried out over a several day stretch). It is on it that this article is about.

The issue is conformity.

More specifically, at what point do we as Latter-Day Saints exchange our personal views for those conforming to what the Church has said? We as Saints feel very strongly about agency, the right to choose, and about acting on what we feel is right. Some I feel have taken these principles too far though. In the discussions there were some who expressed that they felt that women should have the right to get an abortion anytime the wanted. There were some who felt that gays should be allowed to marry. There were some who felt that communism was the best form of government.

These conversations raise the issue: “While the Church doesn’t require us to vote a certain way, when our opinion on political matters differs from what the Church and its leaders have expressed, should we forsake our way of thinking?”

I say we should.

One of the primary reasons for our being here is to learn to trust in the Lord, and to bring our thoughts, actions, and desires in line with His. He has called Prophets in our day to guide us not just spiritually, but in a very real, physical way. We are expected to forsake false teachings that the world expounds for the truth that scripture and revelation teaches. False teachings are not regulated to matters relating to the proper mode of baptism, or the necessity of authority. They exist in science, medicine, philosophy, psychiatry, sociology, and politics (just to name a few).

When our ideas or the wisdom of the world is in opposition to what the Scriptures say, or what the Prophets (note the plural) have said, it is our obligation as Disciples of Christ to think as he would have us think. When it says, “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints favors a constitutional amendment preserving marriage as the lawful union of a man and a woman” what right do we have to say “I think the Church is wrong” and still call ourselves faithful members? We have none, and we stand as hypocrites.

We have an obligation to seek out the Church’s stance on every issue. Where it has taken none we must do our best through prayer and wise judgment. But where it has taken a stance we should stand by it, for no amount of false teachings or false revelation on our part will change the truth. As Elder Maxwell once said, “There didn’t seem to be any problem with conformity the day the Red Sea opened.” (http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll?f=templates$fn=default.htm)

Americans falsley believe in in Iraq WMDs (AP)

2006-09-10T22:19:00.000-06:00

NEW YORK Do you believe in Iraqi "WMD"? Did Saddam Hussein's government have weapons of mass destruction in 2003?

Half of America apparently still thinks so, a new poll finds, and experts see a raft of reasons why: a drumbeat of voices from talk radio to die-hard bloggers to the Oval Office, a surprise headline here or there, a rallying around a partisan flag, and a growing need for people, in their own minds, to justify the war in Iraq.

People tend to become "independent of reality" in these circumstances, says opinion analyst Steven Kull.

The reality in this case is that after a 16-month, $900-million-plus investigation, the U.S. weapons hunters known as the Iraq Survey Group declared that Iraq had dismantled its chemical, biological and nuclear arms programs in 1991 under U.N. oversight. That finding in 2004 reaffirmed the work of U.N. inspectors who in 2002-03 found no trace of banned arsenals in Iraq.

Despite this, a Harris Poll released July 21 found that a full 50 percent of U.S. respondents — up from 36 percent last year — said they believe Iraq did have the forbidden arms when U.S. troops invaded in March 2003, an attack whose stated purpose was elimination of supposed WMD. Other polls also have found an enduring American faith in the WMD story.

"I'm flabbergasted," said Michael Massing, a media critic whose writings dissected the largely unquestioning U.S. news reporting on the Bush administration's shaky WMD claims in 2002-03.

"This finding just has to cause despair among those of us who hope for an informed public able to draw reasonable conclusions based on evidence," Massing said.

Timing may explain some of the poll result. Two weeks before the survey, two Republican lawmakers, Pennsylvania's Sen. Rick Santorum (news, bio, voting record) and Michigan's Rep. Peter Hoekstra (news, bio, voting record), released an intelligence report in Washington saying 500 chemical munitions had been collected in Iraq since the 2003 invasion.

"I think the Harris Poll was measuring people's surprise at hearing this after being told for so long there were no WMD in the country," said Hoekstra spokesman Jamal Ware.

But the Pentagon and outside experts stressed that these abandoned shells, many found in ones and twos, were 15 years old or more, their chemical contents were degraded, and they were unusable as artillery ordnance. Since the 1990s, such "orphan" munitions, from among 160,000 made by Iraq and destroyed, have turned up on old battlefields and elsewhere in Iraq, ex-inspectors say. In other words, this was no surprise.

"These are not stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction," said Scott Ritter, the ex-Marine who was a U.N. inspector in the 1990s. "They weren't deliberately withheld from inspectors by the Iraqis."

Conservative commentator Deroy Murdock, who trumpeted Hoekstra's announcement in his syndicated column, complained in an interview that the press "didn't give the story the play it deserved." But in some quarters it was headlined.

"Our top story tonight, the nation abuzz today ..." was how Fox News led its report on the old, stray shells. Talk-radio hosts and their callers seized on it. Feedback to blogs grew intense. "Americans are waking up from a distorted reality," read one posting.

Other claims about supposed WMD had preceded this, especially speculation since 2003 that Iraq had secretly shipped WMD abroad. A former Iraqi general's book — at best uncorroborated hearsay — claimed "56 flights" by jetliners had borne such material to Syria.

But Kull, Massing and others see an influence on opinion that's more sustained than the odd headline.

"I think the Santorum-Hoekstra thing is the latest 'factoid,' but the basic dynamic is the insistent repetition by the Bush administration of the original argument," said John Prados, author of the 2004 book "Hoodwinked: The Documents That Reveal How Bush Sold Us a War."

Administration statements still describe Saddam's Iraq as a threat. Despite the official findings, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has allowed only that "perhaps" WMD weren't in Iraq. And Bush himself, since 2003, has repeatedly insisted on one plainly false point: that Saddam rebuffed the U.N. inspectors in 2002, that "he wouldn't let them in," as he said in 2003, and "he chose to deny inspectors," as he said this March.

The facts are that Iraq — after a four-year hiatus in cooperating with inspections — acceded to the U.N. Security Council's demand and allowed scores of experts to conduct more than 700 inspections of potential weapons sites from Nov. 27, 2002, to March 16, 2003. The inspectors said they could wrap up their work within months. Instead, the U.S. invasion aborted that work.

As recently as May 27, Bush told West Point graduates, "When the United Nations Security Council gave him one final chance to disclose and disarm, or face serious consequences, he refused to take that final opportunity."

"Which isn't true," observed Kathleen Hall Jamieson, a scholar of presidential rhetoric at the University of Pennsylvania. But "it doesn't surprise me when presidents reconstruct reality to make their policies defensible." This president may even have convinced himself it's true, she said.

Americans have heard it. A poll by Kull's WorldPublicOpinion.org found that seven in 10 Americans perceive the administration as still saying Iraq had a WMD program. Combine that rhetoric with simplistic headlines about WMD "finds," and people "assume the issue is still in play," Kull said.

"For some it almost becomes independent of reality and becomes very partisan." The WMD believers are heavily Republican, polls show.

Beyond partisanship, however, people may also feel a need to believe in WMD, the analysts say.

"As perception grows of worsening conditions in Iraq, it may be that Americans are just hoping for more of a solid basis for being in Iraq to begin with," said the Harris Poll's David Krane.

Charles Duelfer, the lead U.S. inspector who announced the negative WMD findings two years ago, has watched uncertainly as TV sound bites, bloggers and politicians try to chip away at "the best factual account," his group's densely detailed, 1,000-page final report.

"It is easy to see what is accepted as truth rapidly morph from one representation to another," he said in an e-mail. "It would be a shame if one effect of the power of the Internet was to undermine any commonly agreed set of facts."

The creative "morphing" goes on.

As Israeli troops and Hezbollah guerrillas battled in Lebanon on July 21, a Fox News segment suggested, with no evidence, yet another destination for the supposed doomsday arms.

"ARE SADDAM HUSSEIN'S WMDS NOW IN HEZBOLLAH'S HANDS?" asked the headline, lingering for long minutes on TV screens in a million American homes.

It's long, but it's a must read

2006-08-31T21:51:00.000-06:00

The demonization of dissent is tiring to me. Recently, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld carried on the political tradition of using ad hominem attacks against those who dissent.

Read his speech here.

I have no false image that this tactic is reserved to only Republicans. No, Democrats have been guilty of this poor behavior. But this administration has been particularly vehement in labeling dissenters as traitors.

It's one thing to agree with the Bush administration's policies, it's another to agree with their "below the belt" tactics of demonizing the alternative view. True learning and understanding can only occur in an environment that is safe and welcome.

Keith Olbermann recently wrote a piece about Rumsfeld's speech that is stirring. He emphasizes the importance of respectfully listening to the minority opinion and to beware of arrogance. To watch it, follow this link. The link also includes the full text of broadcast.

Jackie Groves Twilegar

2006-08-31T11:21:00.000-06:00

This morning I had the pleasure and honor to sit with Jackie Groves Twilegar and discuss her campaign. Jackie is running for State Controller. I have been impressed with Jackie since I heard her speak at a lunch for her campaign during the Democratic Convention in June in Idaho Falls.

Before I begin, I want to give a quick overview of what the position of Controller entails:

-Handle the state's accounting and annual financial report.
-Manage the payroll for over 26,000 state employees and pay all the state's bills.
-Oversee the State Computer Services Center and data processing for most state agencies.
-Hold a seat on the Land Board responsible for stewardship of Idaho's public lands benefiting public education.

What is impressive about Jackie is not only her education and experience, but her life story. Jackie exudes integrity and the type of values Idahoans value-family, faith, and community.

After Jackie was widowed and had two children to take care of, she created a business that allowed her to work from home so she could still take care of her children. While pursuing her MBA, she worked two jobs to put herself through school. Jackie has served her community by being active in schools and her church as well as participating in volunteer work.

Many candidates talk a good game and they make themselves sound impressive in person, on tv, the radio, and through their campaign literature, but the best way to really gauge a candidate is not by the words they speak, but the actions they take. Jackie's actions demonstrate leadership, intergriy, and strength.

One last thing I wanted to touch on is something that goes beyond partisanship. As a Democrat, I want to see Democrats elected. But more than seeing Democrats get elected, I want QUALIFIED people to get elected, whether Democrat or Republican. When someone who is not qualified gets elected, I feel it reflects poorly on the party itself. I refuse to elect Democrats to office who lack the qualifications needed to properly, effectively, and efficiently serve the people.

Jackie is the only candidate for Controller who is qualified for the position. Vote for Jackie Groves Twilegar on November 7th and show candidates that Idahoans elect qualified people, whether Democrat or Republican.

Science and technology

2006-08-22T08:43:00.000-06:00

This Friday, Gov. Jim Risch will try and pass his special interest tax shift during an expensive special session of the Idaho Legislature.

The tax shift would essential give an 18% tax break for all property owners, while at the same time raising the sales tax by 1 percentage point or 20%. This means big businesses get a break, and homeowners get the shaft.

This disturbs me on so many levels.

In Idaho, as in many other states, property tax goes to pay for education. So, under this new tax plan, financing education in Idaho would put a greater demand on sales tax.

Idaho has some of the lowest tax burden in the U.S.
Idaho has some of the lowest paying jobs in the U.S.
Idaho is one of the worst educated states in the U.S.
Idaho's tech industry is almost non-existent with the exception of Idaho National Laboratories, Micron and HP.
There are 140+ employees in Idaho government who work to assist agriculture based business. There is 1 employee dedicated to promoting science and technology.

Why do I bring all of this up? I mention these things because we should be paying more into education in Idaho! Instead, we tout our beautiful state as the state where businesses can come to use up our water, air, and land, but pay the lowest taxes. Not only that, but they don't have to pay their employees worth squat either.

Even with our ridiculously low tax burden, we still don't attract high tech industries because we don't generate a populace smart enough to work in those industries.

Under the proposed Democratic tax plan, which Gov. Risch refuses to consider, only homeowners would receive a property tax break. Under the Democratic plan, homeowners would see a larger break than under the Republican plan. Under the Democratic plan, school funding would be secure.

GOP pays to sign up recruits

2006-08-19T18:07:00.000-06:00

My last few blogs have been anti-Republican themed. After this post, I'll move to more pro-Democrat type posts.

Blake Roberts, a regular contributer to this blog sent me the article which is listed after these comments.

The story is basically about how the GOP in Arizona are is paying 10 dollars a head to register folks to vote as Republicans. While I recognize dirty tactics are probably used in both parties, I have to come out against this tactic. Paying people to register is only one step away from paying people to vote a certain way.

This seems to me to be counteractive to the spirit behind democracy.
-------
East Valley Tribune

The Arizona Republican Party has put a bounty on the heads of voters this year - and their hired guns are cashing in. Republicans are spending $10 for every person GOP organizations and paid strategists recruit to join the party as it looks to increase its registration edge over Democrats. So far this year, the GOP has doled out more than $300,000 to register nearly 22,000 new members, said Matt Salmon, chairman of the Arizona Republican Party.

Although party officials have characterized the effort as a way for the state party to financially help local GOP organizations, it's been the political operatives that have really benefited.

Salmon said nearly two-thirds of all the money spent has gone to political operatives like noted Republican strategist Nathan Sproul.

Sproul, who is playing a major role on high-profile campaigns such as Len Munsil's gubernatorial race and the effort to ban gay marriages, was unavailable for comment late Friday.

But Salmon said Sproul - who was hired for similar work in the past - was the only professional he was aware of hired by the party to boost registration numbers, which he believes was necessary.

"Had we not done this, I really think we would have been overtaken by the Democrats," he said referring to state registration numbers. "And studies show that if you register someone, they will vote that year."

The latest figures from the Secretary of State's Office show there were 1,042,420 Republicans and 890,861 Democrats registered.

But with less than 82 days left until the November general election, the GOP has upped the ante for new members. About two weeks ago, it started offering $10 a head for every new voter brought into the party. That's up from $2 when the party started its efforts in the spring.

But that doesn't mean anyone who successfully recruits a new member will be paid.

Garrick Taylor, a spokesman for the Republican Party, said only official GOP organizations like legislative districts or Republican clubs can receive the money.

"We're not going to be giving money to organizations called 'Republicans for Janet Napolitano,' " he said. However, he did say they are talking about paying individuals who recruit members.

Taylor also rejected any notion that the strategy of paying professionals to register members was a sign the party is in trouble. The money is a way to drive local Republican groups into the streets and increase the size of the party during a pivotal election year, he said.

This year Republicans are trying to unseat popular Democratic Gov. Janet Napolitano, as well as defend a U.S. Senate seat held by Jon Kyl from his well-funded challenger Jim Pederson.

Michael Fries, who is in charge of the Democrats' campaign efforts, said his party doesn't hire professionals to recruit new members. He said volunteers are the ones who recruit new members.

Fries also said he wasn't concerned by the concentrated effort of Republicans to increase their edge in registration.

"This is a campaign about talking to voters day in and day out," he said. "(Republicans) are trying to come up with a strategy that works because they don't have a good message."

Church endorsement

2006-08-18T18:16:00.000-06:00

I was exploring the Church website when I, again, came across the following statement:

"Candidates for public office should not imply that their candidacy is endorsed by the Church or its leaders, and Church leaders and members should avoid statements or conduct that may be interpreted as Church endorsement of any political party, political platform, or candidate. In addition, members who hold public office should not give the impression they represent the Church as they work for solutions to social problems."

Bart Marcois, a former Bush official and member of the Church, said the political homogeny among church members negatively effects the Church's political influence.

This also causes me to recall a recent statement from the Church that said, "Principles compatible with the gospel may be found in the platforms of all major political parties."

Not to mention the many statements by various Church leaders that one can be a worthy member of the Church and a Democrat.

I bring all of this up partly to justify my party. But, I mostly bring it up because I have found that many Republicans justify their political party based upon their interpretation of the teachings of the Church.

This is in direct violation of the Church's statement asking us to, "...avoid statements or conduct that may be interpreted as Church endorsement of any political party, political platform, or candidate."

One positive, and admirable example is Congressman Mike Simpson of Idaho. He's a member of the Church and he refuses to connect his decisions with the Church. In fact, if you call his office, they have a statement prepared about his feelings about the seperation of Church and state, and his belief that his politics are not a characterization of his faithfulness.

I also ask Democrats to stay away from using faith as a justification for thier political leanings. For the benefit of the Church, we should try our hardest to keep politics with politics, and faith with Jesus Christ.

Judge nixes warrantless wiretapping

2006-08-17T18:58:00.000-06:00

The AP today reported that a federal judge has ruled the NSA's wiretapping program unconstitutional.

I have conflicting feelings on this.

On the one hand, I don't feel government should be expanding itself to the point where it monitors our phone calls. Yet, on the other, I have to admit that it is probably an effective method of finding and preventing terrorists and terrorism domestically and abroad.

I think that part of the program that bothers me most is the data-mining. Supposedly, the program operates by having criteria entered into a computer that would then search for suspicious business. This kind of behavior smells of "police-state" activity.

Like I said, I feel conflicted. I believe when it comes to terrorism, the federal government is the best way to prevent and protect. But, I'm not sure if giving up basic rights is worth it. Will I sacrifice safety for principle, or principle for safety?

It's probably not even as simple as that.

More stories about NSA wiretapping can be found here and here.

Voters must beware of Republicans' terrorism trap

2006-08-14T18:19:00.001-06:00

by Susan Estrich

LOS ANGELES —

This is not about the war in Iraq.

It has nothing to do with Joe Lieberman.

This is the Republican trap.

Don’t fall in.

“They have tried to keep it together -- they have to make it one in people’s minds in order to cover the strategic error of Iraq,” says James Webb, Democratic Senate candidate from Virginia, and former member of the Reagan administration.

From the very beginning, the Republican slip of hand has been to convince people that the war in Iraq was the answer to 9/11.

It wasn’t. It isn’t. It never was.

It isn’t the answer to British hijackers either.

This really has nothing to do with the war in Iraq. It needs to be said over and over.

It’s the distraction from focusing on airline safety, on Usama bin Laden, on America’s true enemies. It’s one of the reasons we are so hated around the world.

“The war in Iraq had nothing to do with the war against international terrorism, or very little to do with the war on terrorism,” Webb says in interviews. “It has distracted our attention, it has pulled our forces in, and we are now in a situation where we have 135,000 on the ground, which affects our ability to do a lot of things that we would be able to do otherwise.”

Being anti-war has nothing to do with being soft-on-terrorism or ready to lead the world in dangerous times.

Being anti-war means having the resources we need to fight terrorism effectively.

No party is in favor of taking bombs on airplanes. As to whether either party is better at keeping them off, we are likely to hear more about that than we care to.

The Republicans have only one minor advantage left in the polls. They are now trailing on everything – starting with the war in Iraq, and then continuing on with the economy, the environment, health care, foreign policy-- in some cases well into the double digits-- with the only exception being terrorism. And their lead on terrorism is quite small.

So what do you do when you’re leading on exactly one issue?

What do you do when you have a slight winner and a loser. The loser, of course, the big loser, is the war in Iraq. You marry them, of course.

This is the August surprise. It’s what they have to work with, and they will try to milk it for all it’s worth.

They will try to connect Lieberman’s defeat with the attempted hijackings and say that the Democratic Party is being hijacked by the anti-war, anti-defense (pro-terrorism) crowd. Have you ever heard of anyone who was pro-terrorism? Who wanted to spend less on airport security? Who thought planes were too safe? What could be more ridiculous? But that will be the line.

What Dick Cheney started on Wednesday, saying that Lieberman’s defeat suggested the Democratic Party was not prepared to lead in dangerous times, was just the beginning.

Who is going to let them get away with it?

Say it ain’t so, Joe. Wouldn’t that be a classy gesture? You know it’s not true. They’re saying this about your colleagues of decades standing. Joe Lieberman himself should stand up to that kind of talk. If he fails to, he will continue to lose the respect of his former colleagues and supporters, voters included.

This is what happens when you turn your back on your party. Then others attack your party and they come to you and ask you what you think. And moments like these will define Joe Lieberman as much as his run for the vice presidency did.

His decency is on the line now as much as it has ever been. He knows better. This is another occasion for Lieberman to distance himself from his fellow Democrats, another step in his losing his Senate seat.

Susan Estrich is currently the Robert Kingsley Professor of Law and Political Science at the University of Southern California and a member of the Board of Contributors of USA Today. She writes the "Portia" column for American Lawyer Media and is a contributing editor of The Los Angeles Times. She was appointed by the president to serve on the National Holocaust Council and by the mayor of the City of Los Angeles to serve on that city's Ethics Commission.

All things old are new again.

2006-08-09T23:49:00.000-06:00

A small debate raged across my mind today concerning what topic this post would be about. I had two in mind, I settled on this one. Since I am absent from Idaho for another three weeks, I apologize if my posts stray at times from more traditional or local democrat topics. I do my best, I can only try harder.

I’ve had to face the sad realization over the last ten months that my political ideology is on the way out in this country; indeed, in the world. The National Republican Party is moving further and further into the sphere of the neo-conservatives, for which I weep. Gone are the discussions of reduced government spending, state’s rights, individual responsibility, and government minding its own business. Republicans now are doing the exact same thing they once accused democrats of, pandering instead to business then tree huggers, and offering just as many entitlement programs.

The worst part of it is that this is what the people want. For me, the true dawning point was the backlash towards the executive branch over Katrina, with the nation angry for their slow action in a situation that I feel the President had no authority to be involved in (send the hate mail, I don’t care).

But, there is a silver lining on these dark clouds, one that flirts of a future that may or may not be. It is no secret that the Democratic Party is the progressive party. They seek for change and growth, while Republicans seek to uphold the status quo (which has now shifted so far from what my ideal is that they are liberal to me). One says things are broke and need fixing, the other says they are broke because of unneeded fixing. It is for that reason that I wonder if the Democrats will one day be the new Republicans.

If society continues to grow and change, with the Democratic Party continuing to be “progressive” and the Republicans continuing to uphold the status quo, then it is possible that one day the Democrats will clamor for change towards smaller government, while the Republicans cry for standing by the current system. We know that political parties change ideology over time, the question is, do they move in a never ending line or in a circle? If it is a circular pattern, and the Democrats remain the flag bearers of change, then it would be they who would arrive there first. Just as the original colonists who rebelled from Britain were considered to be radically liberal for overthrowing the established order of things in favor of the smaller government we once had, perhaps they will call for that change again (hopefully without bloodshed this time).

It would not likely happen until long after I’m gone, if it does at all. But the hope glimmers for me; maybe one day I will find reason to be a democrat.

Otter grilled for lack of leadership

2006-08-08T17:34:00.000-06:00

With the Central Idaho Economic Development and Recreation Act (CIEDRA) and the Owyhee Initiative (OIAA), two bills which help protect Idaho public lands, Butch “C.L.” Otter has been absent from some of the most important debates facing Idaho. After his initial silence, Otter revealed his objections to any public land protection. In the past week, Idaho newspapers have not overlooked Otter’s weak leadership on the issues. “Butch” Otter.

From the Idaho Falls Post Register (08/03) :

Whatever it is, he’s against it by Marty Trillhasse

“Butch Otter tends to keep his mouth shut, apparently hoping to cruise to election victory this year on the strength of his Republican credentials. With good reason. When he speaks, he gets into trouble. Last week, he lobbed a political hand grenade at fellow Congressman Mike Simpson’s Boulder-White Clouds wilderness bill just as it passed the House.

Otter may not like wilderness as a general rule. So it’s no surprise he came out against it (even though he missed the vote). What counts is how he opposed it. Boulder-White Clouds is Simpson’s signature bill, not some obscure budget measure. So you’d think Otter would tell his partner in the House early and forthrightly if he had problems with the legislation.

Presumably they’d find a way to agree — or at least an agreeable way to disagree. Instead, Otter waits until the eve of the House vote — July 23 — to tell a Custer County audience he’d oppose it.

Simpson found out the next day and the voters were told a few days afterward.”

Congressman Simpson published his response to Otter’s opposition to protecting wilderness in the Spokesman Review on 08/06 and in the Post Register on 08/04:

Excerpts: “With the U.S. House passage of the Central Idaho Economic Development and Recreation Act (CIEDRA), Idaho is one step closer to realizing the benefits of the most important piece of public lands legislation proposed in the last 25 years. Having authored this legislation, I feel compelled to respond to comments made by… Rep. C.L. "Butch" Otter to clear up any misunderstandings about CIEDRA.”

“In a recent editorial printed in the Idaho Statesman (July 27), Otter's staff was quoted as stating that one of Otter's concerns is including "release language" for lands that aren't included as wilderness. This statement is difficult to understand since 131,600 acres of wilderness study areas are released from their current status and put back into multiple use. Moreover, under CIEDRA, there will not be a single acre of land in the Boulder-White Clouds managed as wilderness study area.

As for the Sierra Club's and Otter's concerns for the fate of traditional users, they should read the bill.

CIEDRA does not create a motorized playground and it does not eliminate motorized use. CIEDRA locks in motorized use on almost all of the trails and snowmobile areas used today. It comes as close as possible to maintaining the status quo for future generations to use and enjoy. CIEDRA has garnered the widespread support of local and statewide officials including the Custer County and Blaine County commissioners, East Fork ranchers, Sen. Mike Crapo, Gov. Jim Risch, former Govs. Cecil Andrus and Dirk Kempthorne and former Sen. Jim McClure. They understand the importance of passing CIEDRA so that Idahoans, rather than the courts, decide how our land is managed.”

“This legislation is anything but a "rush job." It has been in the works for more than six years and written in bill form for more than three. I can understand that some people are unwilling to compromise and respect their reasons for that position. I am open to criticism of CIEDRA and the constructive dialogue that criticism can generate. But I'm not going to sit back and just listen when I hear… a congressional spokesman make accusations that are inconsistent with reality. To do so would be a disservice to the public and future generations of Idahoans.”

Lastly, Congressman Otter seems unable to work with Republican colleagues in resolving his concerns about protecting Idaho wilderness lands. From the Statesman and the AP (08/04):

“Crapo's bill (Owyhee Initiative) is the second Idaho land-use measure to be put before this session of Congress, joining a House-passed measure sponsored by Rep. Mike Simpson that would create 315,000 acres of new federal wilderness in the Boulder-White Clouds Mountains in central Idaho. Rep. C.L. "Butch" Otter hasn't read the Owyhee bill yet, but said Thursday that he's already expressed his concerns to Crapo. One of which is to ensure the bill is explicit that any land released from wilderness could not be redesignated. A spokesman for Sen. Larry Craig said the senator hasn't seen the bill and has not been involved with its development. Gov. Jim Risch and Rep. Mike Simpson said Wednesday they support the initiative.”

Former Governor Andrus characterized Otter’s absence on protecting wilderness when he said: “Congressman Otter has never shown the grit for real leadership. He’s never tackled a complicated issue or done the hard work of compromising and working out what’s best for Idaho.”

“Jerry Brady is the man I trust to protect Idaho’s heritage,” Andrus said.

Jana Jones-The Right Choice For Idaho

2006-07-28T14:57:00.000-06:00

There is one candidate running for office this year that has my full support and dedication and that person is Dr. Jana Jones.

I hear it happens every now and then…you fall in love with a candidate running and this person restores the faith and trust you should have in your elected officials. This faith and trust has been all but destroyed the last several years, for me, and many others.

Now this post isn’t meant to disparage any other Democrat, or Republican, running for office. There are many wonderful candidates running for office. Some of my other favorites include Jackie Groves Twilegar who is running for State Controller in Idaho, Jim Hansen who is running for Congress in Idaho, and Allen Anderson who is running in District 29 (here in Bannock County). These four candidates represent the best of the best that Idaho Democrats have to offer. I am honored and privileged to call myself a Democrat because of these four people.

I wasn’t always a Jana Jones supporter. I live in Bannock County which Bert Marley represented in the Idaho Senate for several years. Bert Marley and Jana Jones ran a tough primary against each other and upon hearing of Jana Jones’ intention to run, I, mostly because of where I lived, chose to support Bert Marley. I made a rookie mistake, a mistake I hope never to repeat. Never start supporting a candidate until you know about the person they are running against! I don’t personally know Bert Marley too well. I have attended functions that he has attended and I have met him a few times. He is well-respected by both Republicans and Democrats. But after meeting Jana Jones for the first time, and after seeing her at many other events, I was impressed by her graciousness, the way she paid special attention to each person she met, I was just impressed by who she was as a person. Now many will say she was simply playing the candidate. No, this is just who Jana Jones is as a person, end of story.

This is a woman all women should model themselves after. Educated, knowledgeable, kind, full of integrity, always taking the high road, and possessing a level of concern about Idaho schools, teachers and students that cannot be exceeded. This is a woman who has spent her entire career bettering education.

I support Jana Jones for Superintendent not just because of who she is as a person, but because of what she will offer to Idaho both professionally and personally. Jana knows the position of Superintendent inside and out, Jana knows Idaho schools and programs inside and out. This is a sampling of what Jana will bring to this position;

-Bachelor and Master degrees from Utah State University in Special Education.
-Education Doctorate degree from Idaho State University in Educational Leadership.

-Certified educator in Idaho:
Generalist (Education Handicapped) K-12
Early Childhood Special Education
Supervisor/Coordinator of Special Education
Director of Special Education
Principal
Superintendent

-Currently the Chief Deputy Superintendent of Public Instruction with the State Department of Education.

-Worked as the Deputy Superintendent, Bureau Chief of Special Education, and Regional Special Education Consultant for the Department.

-Worked as the administrator for Early Childhood programs in the Governor’s Office for Children for Governor Cecil Andrus.

-Worked as a planner for the Infant Toddler Program in Region VII.

-Owned, operated and taught kindergarten at Progressive Day School in Idaho Falls.

-Taught special education in Idaho Falls School District #91.

-Served on several councils, including the Governor’s InfantToddler Interagency Coordinating Council, Developmental Disabilities Council, Idaho Council on Children’s Mental Health, Early Childhood Professional Development Consortium, CCSSO Special Education Task Force.

-Member of Idaho Association of School Administrators, Council for Exceptional Children, Deputy Leadership Commission.

It is my personal opinion that no other candidate, in the history of this position, has been more prepared and more ready to take on this monumental responsibility. She will take it on and she will succeed and we will all benefit. If you still aren’t convinced, visit her website for more information and send Jana an email with any questions.

Vote for Jana Jones on November 7th. Vote for education.

Shame on Otter for missing crucial vote

2006-07-28T13:09:00.000-06:00

This is yesterday's editorial from the Idaho Statesman, Idaho's largest newspaper.
---
Idaho Statesman Editorial – 07-27-06

Our View: Shame on Otter for missing crucial vote

Is C.L. "Butch" Otter running for governor, or running from controversy?

The 1st District congressman was a no-show Monday on the most important Idaho public lands vote to hit the House floor in his six years on Capitol Hill. He missed the vote on 2nd District colleague Mike Simpson's bill to protect 312,000 acres of wilderness in Central Idaho's Boulder-White Clouds mountains — which passed, no thanks to Otter.

Two days later, Otter finally took a stand, but only after the Statesman asked. He said he would have opposed Idaho's first wilderness bill in 26 years — but refused to say why.

For a guy who markets himself, rather successfully, as a plain-talking, straight-shooting cowboy congressman, that's weak. Voters deserve some clear like-'em-or-not-answers from the Republican nominee for governor.

Instead, voters will have to settle for a saga of logistics — and a cryptic statement — from Mark Warbis, Otter's spokesman. First, the logistics.

Otter spends most weekends in Idaho and flies back Monday mornings. His itinerary usually puts him back in Washington, D.C., by 4:30 p.m., and allows him to get to the Capitol in time for any recorded votes, which aren't scheduled before 6 p.m.

The Boulder-White Clouds bill — while a milestone for Idaho, and vitally important to communities such as Stanley, Challis and Ketchum — didn't merit a recorded vote. Some lawmakers criticized the bill, but no one demanded a recorded vote, somewhat to Otter's surprise. So on Monday afternoon, the bill passed on a voice vote, while Otter was on a plane.

Otter could have tried harder to be there. He'd booked his Monday flight about a week ago, before Simpson's bill was on the agenda, Warbis said. While Simpson's bill moved quickly — House leadership suspended its normal rules to pass the bill and move it to the Senate — leadership put out word Friday that Simpson's bill was on Monday's agenda. Changing flight plans to vote on an important Idaho issue was hardly out of the question.

So anyway, how would Otter have voted? "I don't know if I have heard a definitive answer on that," Warbis said Wednesday morning.

Five hours later, Warbis issued a less-than-definitive statement from his boss. "Had we followed the normal process with a recorded vote, I would have opposed the Boulder-White Clouds wilderness bill," Otter said. "While I admire and respect Congressman Simpson's effort, and it generally reflects great progress over previous wilderness legislation, there are elements of the compromise to which I cannot agree."

Which elements? New wilderness, off-limits to off-roaders, nearly half the size of Ada County? A motorized vehicle trail between the Boulders and the White Clouds? Federal lands that Custer County and Stanley can sell to bolster a slender tax base?

Otter won't say. His chief of staff, Jeff Malmen, listed several of Otter's general concerns last week, including release language for lands that aren't included as wilderness, water rights, and the fate of traditional uses in the area.

On Wednesday, Warbis said Otter has discussed his concerns with Simpson and Sen. Larry Craig, but doesn't want to get into a public debate about a bill that remains a work in progress. But because this is a work in progress, it's precisely the time for an open, public discussion.

Among many tasks, the governor sits on the state Land Board. Otter's Boulder-White Clouds position is an important harbinger of the approach he would take to public lands issues.

Otter is on the wrong side of a solid bill that protects wilderness, helps local governments meet the demands that follow wilderness use and balances competing interests in the Sawtooth Mountains. It's bad enough he didn't fit this vote into his schedule. But his evasive non-answer — to all Idahoans — is offensive.

This week, the man who could be Idaho's next governor has been a no-show, no-tell congressman.

Let the people decide

2006-07-27T08:53:00.001-06:00

The following is an op-ed written by Jerry Brady
---
During these days of Governor Risch’s fast-paced and temporary leadership, I’ve been thinking of the words of Winston Churchill who said, "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen."

Listening seems to be a lost art in politics. In a world of red and blue, of Democrats and Republicans, partisanship has thwarted true dialogue about the common good. Talking with and listening to one another has been replaced by televised shouting matches.

As governor for a short time, Risch has made some bold moves. Some have been smart, but many have been hasty and misguided. In the upcoming special session he has called, Governor Risch has his heart set on shifting taxes onto those who can least afford to pay them.
No one doubts the seriousness of the property tax problem we face. However, his plan has not benefited from truly listening to many people, or at least to many people outside the Boise political establishment.

Risch’s tax shift would raise the sales tax by 20 percent, thereby pinching the average homeowner with each trip to the grocery store. Conveniently, second home owners, special-interest businesses, and corporations pay comparatively little in sales tax and will enjoy a tax reduction of $156 million. Risch would rather raise our sales tax than tell special interests they can’t have a tax cut, too.

Some legislators have a different idea. This alternative plan would target homeowners for the tax cut. They would use $l04 million of the state’s $200 million surplus to replace the homeowner’s share of school support without increasing the sales tax. This supports schools but also gives relief to those who need it most: homeowners.

Every year more of the property tax burden falls on homeowners. Why is that happening? Home values are based on market value, which have been going through the roof. Other classes of property are not based on market value and are relatively stable or declining.

This isn’t the only example of a lack of listening by our temporary governor. Governor Risch failed to listen when appointing candidates to the Fish and Game Commission. Sportsmen groups, that have long asked to be included in the nomination process, were ignored even though they pay nearly all of the Fish and Game budget.

As governor, I will listen. I’ve been doing that for the last 16 months and have learned a lot. I am currently traveling to all 44 Idaho counties in 44 days. I’m listening to the people of Idaho and learning what they want from their leadership.

These decisions are too important—and a hasty solution too potentially damaging—to leave to an interim governor. Risch’s plan is not without merit, but it seems obvious he had his mind made up some time ago. He should encourage debate on the two plans. We should let the people decide which plan they prefer. Both options should be put before the people on the ballot this November.

The art of doing jumping jacks on thin ice.

2006-07-22T00:39:00.000-06:00

Last August I suddenly fell ill, and within hours I had to be taken to the emergency room where pneumonia was diagnosed. I was given a prescription for both antibiotics and an extremely heavy pain killer. I quickly discovered that the pain killer made me sicker then what I actually was before; previously I only had a pain in my side, the drug gave me nausea, fever and several other problems I won’t mention. I immediately stopped taking it, and I quickly recovered. I will never, ever, take that medication again.

I learned that day that not everything the doctor tells you is beneficial. While the antibiotics did wonders, the pain medicine was awful. It’s not their fault, they did the best they could with the excellent training that the American health system gives. I still trust doctors, but I now feel more confident to speak up when I question their treatment, or to terminate it when I find it doing more harm then good.

Unfortunately, one Virginia family no longer has that option. Story Here

You can read the story for yourself, but here are the highlights. A 16 year old in Virginia is undergoing cancer treatment. His parents and himself were not satisfied with the results of the treatment he had received for a year, so they collectively decided to seek alternative treatments in Mexico. A court ruled that the parents were negligent of their child’s health, and ordered him to report for mandatory treatment at a designated hospital, while awarding partial custody of him to the county.

Words can hardly express my anger at this, but I will try.

While I feel that the choice to go to Mexico for herbal treatment to be a poor judgment, I feel it was their right to do so. Parents have a legal, moral, and spiritual duty to protect their children to the best of their knowledge and ability. Further, an individual has a right to decide what goes on with their body (I’m not meaning this as a right to choose abortion). If they weighed it out, and they all felt that it was the best option available to them, what right does a judge have to say otherwise? They are not denying him treatment against his will, nor are they ignoring the problem, they are seeking the best solution they know how.

Further, if they are legally required to seek state approved methods of treatment, are they no longer able to choose what hospital they wish to be at? Further, who is financially responsible? It is a private hospital, so are they required to pay for service that they do not want, at a private business that they did not choose? If the county now holds partial custody, does the state pay for it (if that were the case, this could easily be interpreted as a loop hole for unlegislated socialized children’s medicine)?

Would the state then have the right to seize a child if it disapproves of the doctor the parents are using? Does it have the right to seize a child if the parents want to use organic baby food that isn’t enriched with extra vitamins that a panel of doctors and social workers feel all babies should have extra of? What if the doctors prescribed treatment that went against the parent’s ethical (but not necessarily religious) views? What if the doctors are wrong? If he dies as a result of state ordered medical treatment, who is responsible?

I hope that the judge took these concerns into account (by which I mean the principles behind the examples), but I wonder if he realizes the dangerous precedent he has set. He may have saved the kids life, he may have killed him, time will only tell. But parents (and potential parents) everywhere should take note of this. One day their choices may be questioned, their rights as parents suspended, and their child potentially endangered. For one family in Virginia, that day is now. We must ask oursleves, how far should the government be allowed to determine proper parenting? How little is too little, how much too much?

Thousands flee as Iraq violence deepens

2006-07-20T23:52:00.000-06:00

I agree with President Bush when he said that hindsight is not wisdom.

I pose three questions:

When considering our influence in Iraq and that region of the world, has our involvement produced more good than bad?

Regardless of the previous question, and keeping in mind the recent developments in Lebanon, what will be our outcome in Iraq?

What should we be doing that we're not doing in Iraq, or are we doing everything we can, or should be have not gone into Iraq?

Read this story: http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=1055972006

Dems taking page from GOP manual

2006-07-20T12:22:00.000-06:00

Following my comments is an editorial from The Coeur d'Alene Press.

What bothers me about the Republican plan is that it's not tax relief for the average homeowner, it's a tax shift. The plan mostly benefits large businesses who don't have the financial burden that regular "Joes" up in Coeur d'Alene do.

Right now, property tax in Idaho pays for education. Under the Republican tax plan, property taxes would get cut, but then be shifted over to sales tax. This would take money away from education AND raise the sales tax burden on Idahoans.

Under the Democratic tax plan, Idaho homeowners (not special interest and vacation homeowners) would desperately receive property tax relief. Then, under Proposition 1, there would be a 1 percent sales tax increase, the revenue from which would go strictly to education funding.

Idahoans and Idaho businesses have some of the lowest tax burden in the U.S. This is great. However, educational funding in Idaho is so low that industry experts are saying it keeps many high-tech and agricultural tech firms away.
---

One front-page photo showed two politicians sitting at a table outdoors, calmly discussing their party’s proposal for property tax relief. Like a tall glass of lemonade on a hot summer day, that plan seems refreshing, without the bitter aftertaste of raising one tax to ease another.

The photo directly beneath it relayed a far less tranquil image: a resident, arm raised and mouth open wide, shouting at organizers of a taxpayer rally. His party’s plan is riding a rough sea of clashing ideas and ideals, including a sales-tax hike to offset rising property taxes. It is a tall glass of lemonade without any sugar, and the photos don’t go with the parties you’d normally suspect.

It is the state Democrats, not the fiscally proud Republicans, who have tendered what appears to be the more palatable of two property-tax proposals. It is the Republicans, not the Democrats, who have embraced the concept of higher taxes as a greater good.

Both parties aim to reduce property taxes by an estimated 20-percent for Idaho homeowners. Democrats would use just over half the state’s $200 million surplus to pay for public school’s maintenance and operations – one of the biggest slices of homeowners’ property tax pie – and continue to pay for it in the future through the state’s ongoing growth.

A key part of the Democrats plan is this: If your property qualifies for the homeowner’s exemption, you get the property tax relief. Out-of-state property owners or those with additional homes would not receive the tax relief. In other words, those who need the relief most would get it, without the burden of additional sales tax.

Republicans, meantime, are moving toward a special session of the Legislature that likely will include a 1-percent sales tax hike to provide roughly 20 percent property tax relief for Idaho homeowners. This is the same, overwhelming majority party that is looking for a special session because it was unable to adopt a meaningful property-tax plan in regular legislative session.

Adoption of the Democrats’ plan wouldn’t necessarily mean the state’s sales tax will remain at 5-precent. With broad support from that party, educators have placed Proposition 1 on the November ballot, seeking a 1-cent sales tax increase to support schools. That makes the Democrats’ property-tax proposal even more politically expedient; perhaps they can provide property-tax relief where it’s needed, yet still get a sales-tax increase approved and generate $200 million in additional schools revenue each year.

With a special session likely on or around August 25, we urge participants to throw partisanship out the window for the benefit of all taxpayers. The best property-tax relief plan should find favor no matter which party has more fingerprints on it.

President Bush's first time?

2006-07-19T10:46:00.000-06:00

For the first time, President Bush used a veto to put down a stem cell research bill.

In a recent Gallup poll, 61 percent a respondents said that embryonic research was morally acceptable.

The same poll also showed that 43 percent of respondents believe that abortion is morally unacceptable.

The vote in the Senate was 63-37 in favor of the bill. The House passed the bill 238-194.

What's interesting, is that I personally called the offices of the five Mormons who sit in the Senate and 4 out of those 5 senators voted in favor of federally financing stem cell research. I'm also in the middle of calling the offices of mormon congressman and so far 4 of the seven that I've called voted in favor of the bill.

Here are two links on the recent developments.

CNN
FOX

Also, from the LDS website:

"The First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has not taken a position regarding the use of embryonic stem cells for research purposes. The absence of a position should not be interpreted as support for or opposition to any other statement made by Church members, whether they are for or against embryonic stem cell research."

Choosing between wallets and kids

2006-07-18T15:21:00.000-06:00

The column below was written by a guest writer named John Kotek. Kotek is the former deputy manager of the U.S. Department of Energy’s Idaho Operations Office.

Kotek's article is timely in many areas. One, a diversified high tech industry has stayed away from Idaho because of our poor educational results in the areas of math and science.

Next to that, Idaho ranks very low in terms of quality education.

Now, the question is: What should Idaho do about an estimated $200 million dollar surplus. Do we take some of that and invest it in our future? Or do we give it back to the hardworking people of Idaho? This article address the issue well.
-----
Choosing between wallets and kids
by John Kotek

Few states have taxes as low as Idaho. Few spend as little money on education. Idaho’s $200 million surplus presents an opportunity to upgrade public schools, writes John Kotek.

Encouraging reports out of Boise show the state of Idaho is in great financial shape, running an estimated $200 million budget surplus. The governor knows what he wants to do with the extra money and has called for property tax relief paid for using both the surplus and an increase in the sales tax. But is this really the best way to invest Idaho’s surplus?

A few months ago, I wrote a column applauding the State Board of Education for trying to improve Idaho’s math and science education. I cited extensively from the report “Rising Above the Gathering Storm” by the National Academy of Sciences. The report makes a series of recommendations aimed at “vastly improving K-12 science and mathematics education.”

Recommendations from the report could easily be implemented using part of Idaho’s surplus. For example, to address a chronic shortfall in qualified math and science teachers, the academy proposes establishing four-year teacher scholarships. An Idaho-based program could require a five-year commitment to teaching in Idaho schools after graduation, and could include an extra incentive for teachers willing to serve in rural school districts.

The academy points to statewide specialty high schools as a way to “foster leaders in science, technology and mathematics.” Battelle — the lead contractor for Idaho National Laboratory — is already working with Ohio State University to launch a math- and science-focused high school in Ohio. Wouldn’t now be a great time for the state to approach Battelle about co-funding one or more similar high schools? And given that high-tech jobs are Idaho’s No. 1 source of income — contributing more to Idaho’s economy than agriculture, mining and timber combined — there should be other employers around the state willing to chip in.

I know some of us would like to see the entire surplus returned to the taxpayers. But remember, Idaho already has one of the lowest tax burdens in the U.S. — we were ranked 42nd in overall tax burden by the Tax Foundation. We also spend less on our students than almost any other state — Idaho ranks 47th in spending per pupil. In this low-tax, low-spending environment, our legislators and state officials amassed a $200 million surplus. As a result of their success, we’re presented with a dream scenario — we can invest in our future while still keeping our overall tax burden low.

Although we all like the sound of property tax relief, shifting the burden of school funding from the property tax to the (increased) sales tax doesn’t do anything to improve the quality of Idaho’s schools. In this time of flush state budgets, we should consider investing at least part of Idaho’s surplus in our children and in our future.

Kotek is the former deputy manager of the U.S. Department of Energy’s Idaho Operations Office. You can write to him at 1025 Thomas Jefferson St. NW, Suite 530 East, Washington, DC 20007.

Brady calls out Risch

2006-07-17T17:45:00.000-06:00

The following is a press release from Brady for Idaho Governor. I think that this release is impressive for the following reasons:

1. It shows that Jerry Brady can look beyond partisanship and see the real issues.
2. Jerry isn't overwhelmed with whether someone is Republican or Democrat, he wants someone who is qualified.
3. Jerry is a sportsman. He cares about hunting rights, and he wants the hunters of Idaho to be recognized.

---
Boise—Jerry Brady, Democratic candidate for Governor, directed a statement today at Governor Jim Risch, addressing the process Risch has used for recent Idaho Fish and Game Commission appointees.

On Monday, Risch appointed Democrat Robert C. Barowsky, former Payette County Sheriff, to the Idaho Fish and Game Commission Southwest Region and on July 7, he appointed Republican Randall Budge of Pocatello as the Commissioner for the Southeast Region.

Barowsky’s nomination raised concerns among many who noted his limited qualifications. When questioned by the press on Monday, Barowsky admitted to not holding a hunting or fishing license and that he has not held any wildlife licenses since 1990. According to Wild Idaho News, Barowsky does not regularly attend Fish and Game meetings and is not up to speed on the issues.

Governor Jim Risch told the press that Barowsky “was the absolute best candidate.”
Brady does not agree. “Robert Barowsky’s career in Idaho law enforcement is impressive and admirable but does not qualify him to represent the hunting and fishing community,” Brady said. “If Mr. Barowsky had been appointed Drug Czar, that would have been fine, but now he’s in the wrong job, and he was chosen by the wrong process. This is not what’s best for our wildlife,” he said.

The issue for Brady is not a partisan one but is an issue of open process.

“It doesn’t matter to me if the appointee is a Democrat or a Republican,” Brady said. “What’s wrong here is that the sportsmen and women in Idaho have no voice.”

Brady has said that, if elected Governor, he will appoint Fish and Game Commissioners based not on politics, but on candidates endorsed by regional nominating committees composed of sportsmen and women.

“The Governor ought to be consulting with the people who buy the permits and licenses and the people who pay the fees to hunt and fish,” Brady said. “This is taxation without representation.”

Thank You Elder Oaks

2006-07-16T17:06:00.000-06:00

I am a new contributor to this wonderful blog. While I am not a current member of the BYU-Idaho Democrats, I am a recent alumnus of BYU-Idaho and Ricks College. I was a Republican for all but one semester at Ricks/BYU-Idaho. It was one class and one professor that converted me to the other side. For this one class and professor, I am eternally in debt. There are few things for which I am more grateful. Thank you.

There is a quote from Elder Oaks which holds a special place in my heart:

“Those who govern their thoughts and actions solely by the principles of liberalism or conservatism or intellectualism cannot be expected to agree with all of the teachings of the gospel of Jesus Christ. As for me, I find some wisdom in liberalism, some wisdom in conservatism, and much truth in intellectualism—but I find no salvation in any of them.”

This is one thing that always tells me there is wisdom in politics that seeks moderation. And as liberal as I am, that is something incredibly hard for me to admit.

Yes, there are issues which demand a strong stance, a stance in which you cannot meet in the middle. However, there is a need for balanced politics for many issues.

There are few things I enjoy doing more than helping Democrats get elected, especially in Idaho. Idaho is currently dominated by the Republican Party. My disdain for this very thing is not only rooted in my own political ideology, but it is rooted in a fear I have of a party, any party, dominating any politics, whether at a local, state, or national level. Do I want a Democratic majority in Idaho and in the United States? Yes, of course. But this majority must be met with strong Republicans. And, I find a significant difference between a majority and domination.

The reason I want strong Republicans in this country and even in Idaho is for one big reason. As a liberal, it is profoundly important that I constantly re-evaluate where I stand on issues. For over 20 years, I was a Republican and I believe I stood on the wrong side of issues for far too long. I never want to be found on the wrong side again. This isn’t just a want, it is an obsession. Therefore, it is imperative that I spend a lot of time reading up on issues. What are the pros and cons of Affirmative Action, minimum wage, war, “equal rights,” unions, welfare, etc...?

As important as reading is, there is a need for discourse. Democrats need Republicans to keep them balanced. This balance can only be attained through a healthy discourse. Not only do we need Republicans to keep us balanced, we need them to remind us why we are Democrats! Anytime I get frustrated with the Democratic Party, it only takes a few minutes of reading to remind me of why I am a Democrat. I am a Democrat and I am a liberal because I am Mormon, not despite the fact that I am Mormon.

Lastly, Elder Oaks’ quote, the most profoundly moving part, states, “…but I find no salvation in any of them.” As much as I love politics, and if you know me, you know how much I love it, this quote gives me some perspective. When this world has come and gone, when we find ourselves in the after-life, our political affiliations won’t be this divisive cancer that distances us from each other, it won’t even matter. In the end, politics won’t save us, Jesus will save us. It is okay to work in politics, to enjoy it, and to spend time studying it, but never forget that there is one thing that towers above it all, our Lord and Savior.

Jerry Brady Introduces Marriage Protection Plan

2006-07-13T20:49:00.000-06:00

Today, Jerry Brady announced his plan to encourage and strengthen traditional marriage in Idaho.

To read the entire story visit this link. This story was also covered by many other news outlets in Idaho including The Post Register and Local Channel 3 News.

Brady’s Marriage Protection Plan will utilize funds from President Bush’s faith-based initiatives for families and marriages.

“Faith-based initiatives provide great potential to strengthen our families,” Brady said, adding that he believes that voluntary marriage education workshops could eliminate thousands of divorces in Idaho within the next ten years," said Brady.

I've had the chance to see Jerry and his wife, Ricki, together on a few occasions. It's really encouraging to see that the two of them still have that special spark that they probably began their marriage with.

Although it wasn't always easy, Jerry did say that his marriage, like many others, took a lot of work.

Jerry's plan would empower faith-based groups and other qualified institutions to teach the skills needed to have a successful marriage. After that -- it's up to the newlywed couples to work together to forge a lasting union.

Anyhow, read the article yourself. I think that it really shows that Jerry is in touch with what is truly important in life.

Another secret US intelligence program?

2006-07-10T20:17:00.000-06:00

The following is a story found on the Christian Science Monitor.
---------------------------------
Another secret US intelligence program?
House Intelligence Committee only briefed after whistleblower alerts chairman.
By Tom Regan | csmonitor.com

The Republican chairman of the House Intelligence Committee said the White House briefed his committee on another "significant" intelligence program only after it was brought to his attention by a government whistleblower.

The New York Times reports that Rep. Peter Hoekstra, (R) of Michigan then pressed President Bush to tell him about the program.

"We can't be briefed on every little thing that they are doing," Mr. Hoekstra said in an interview on "Fox News Sunday." "But in this case, there was at least one major – what I consider significant – activity that we had not been briefed on that we have now been briefed on. And I want to set the standard there, that it is not optional for this president or any president or people in the executive community not to keep the intelligence committees fully informed of what they are doing."

The White House declined to comment on the issue Sunday but said last week that it would continue to work closely with Mr. Hoekstra and the intelligence committees.

The briefing came after Mr. Hoekstra wrote a "strongly worded letter" to President Bush about not being briefed on the program. Hoekstra would not comment on the nature of the program, or whether it involved domestic or international surveillance.
Although he has been a critic of whistleblowers in the past, and has even called for tougher legislation when whistleblowers give classified information to the media, he said "This is actually a case where the whistle-blower process was working appropriately." The Washington Post reports that while Hoekstra appeared to be "mollified" by the briefing he received, he said the government is still falling short of its legal obligations "to brief key congressional members on significant intelligence operations."

Steven Spruiell reports in National Review's MediaBlog that the whistleblower who may have tipped off Hoekstra was Russell Tice, the ex-NSA employee who also says he was a source for The New York Times story earlier this year about domestic eavesdropping by the NSA. Mr. Tice said in May he planned to tell congressional staffers about undisclosed illegal programs being run at the NSA during the time when Gen. Michael Hayden (now the head of the CIA) was in charge.

Congress Daily reported on May 12, according to Mr. Spruiell, that the programs "involved the illegal use of space-based satellites and systems to spy on US citizens." It was a few days later that Hoekstra sent his letter to President Bush.

Conservative blogger Tom Maguire, in his blog JustOneMinute, says there was a fairly significant passage in Hoekstra's letter that largely ignored by the media – that the chairman believes that there is a "a strong and well-positioned group within the Agency intentionally undermined the administration and its policies." Hoekstra's letter indicates that he is concerned about the appointment of Steve Kappes as deputy director of the CIA, as Hoekstra says Mr. Kappes may have been a part of this group. He cites the enthusiastic response of Democrats to Kappes' return as further proof of this suspicion.

In a recent column, however, columnist Paul Krugman of The New York Times wrote that he believes that "the Bush administration and the movement it leads have been engaged in an authoritarian project, an effort to remove all the checks and balances that have heretofore constrained the executive branch." And Mr. Krugman wrote those who disagree with the government's use of secret intelligence programs are often portrayed as "traitors" by supporters of the administration for voicing dissent or exposing possibly illegal programs. But he said it doesn't have to be this way.

For I think that most Americans still believe in the principle that the president isn't a king, that he isn't entitled to operate without checks and balances. And President Bush is especially unworthy of our trust, because on every front – from his refusal to protect chemical plants to his officials' exposure of Valerie Plame, from his toleration of war profiteering to his decision to place the CIA in the hands of an incompetent crony – he has consistently played politics with national security.

Finally, in another issue involving a controversial administration program, Newsweek reports that the White House was strongly advised by State Department laywers in January 2002 that not giving Al Qaeda and Taliban prisoners even the basic protections of the Geneva Conventions was inviting an "enormous backlash" from both foreign allies and US courts.

"Even those terrorists captured in Afghanistan ... are entitled to the fundamental humane treatment standards of ... the Geneva Conventions," William Howard Taft IV, the State Department legal counselor ... wrote in a Jan. 23, 2002, memo obtained by Newsweek. In particular, Taft argued, the United States has always followed one provision of the Geneva Conventions – known as Common Article 3 – which "provides the minimal standards" of treatment that even "terrorists captured in Afghanistan" deserve.

Now that the Supreme Court has in effect backed the position of the State department lawyers in its recent Hamdan vs. Rumsfeld ruling, it could also call into question the legality of other administration programs, including the NSA's domestic surveillance program, the creation of secret prisons in other countries, and perhaps other programs such as the one mentioned above.

Newsweek reports that the administration is split into two camps over how to deal with the setback dealt by the court's decision. One group, headed by National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley and Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice "want to use the decision as the basis for a wide-ranging 'fix' that would accept a role for Congress and the courts on detainee issues." The other group, headed by hardliners such as Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, David Addington, "want to nullify the court ruling by rewriting portions of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and granting the president the powers the court rejected."

"Do me proud son."

2006-07-06T15:49:00.000-06:00

I found myself in a bank today (something that I feel that I do much too infrequently), and they happened to be showing CNN on their televisions. While I waited I watched part of an interview with the Iraqi Prime Minister. As many of us know, there have been recent allegations and charges of a rape and the subsequent massacre of an Iraqi family by U.S. soldiers. The Prime Minister was discussing how American troops in Iraq cannot be charged with a crime by the Iraqi government, any charges must be brought forward by the United States. He spoke against this immunity, and how he felt the soldiers should stand trial there.

I don’t mean to debate the issue of the immunity (I am personally in favor of keeping it), that isn’t the point that I found interesting.

What I found great about this interview, is the spirit that it brings. Here was an elected official of Iraq, speaking out for change. While some may call them (those that agree with him) ungrateful for what we have brought to their country, what he was doing is what we brought to their country. We brought free speech and democratic process.

The actions of the prime minister show that the new Iraq government isn’t going to be a simple American puppet. They aren’t going to be a “Vichy” government. Even though his desire will likely not be fulfilled (for better or for worse), it is a spark of national spirit and independence, that shows a willingness to speak out about national interests. At some point the Iraqi leadership needs to become leaders, and the fact that they are willing to speak up about something that they feel needs to be changed is a great first step.

While there is certainly much ground to be won and many obstacles to overcome, I find the future promising. The old phrase comes to my mind, “I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend tot eh death your right to say it.” I may not agree with what he said, but I am grateful that he has a chance to say it.

Newsworthy: A Definition?

2006-07-02T22:19:00.000-06:00

Recently, the Bush Administration has been attacking The New York Times for a story revealing a method of tracking terrorists involving the monitoring of American bank transactions. For more about this, visit the following link.

I bring up the subject, not as a criticism of the Bush administration, but to discuss the role of media in America.

Let me preface with this thought: the war on terror is a new kind of war. While elements of it can be seen in past conflicts, protecting America from a seemingly invisible enemy is untrodden terroritory. While I am no proponent of President Bush, I do sympathize with the difficulty of governing a post 9/11 America.

However, I am surprised at the reaction and attitude many have about media news outlets. While the treatment of this new type of war is new territory for government, it is the people's right to know what government is doing. The press help to do this.

In a sentence, I'm surprised that many accuse media of being "liberal" while heralding Fox News as being "fair and balanced."

While The Progressive is an extremely left-wing machine, there is an article there that helps to articulate a portion of my point: that media helps us to keep government in check.

There has been more coverage about whether The New York Times was wrong to print the story than there has been about the process of making the decision. Why is this? Because a story of the process is not "newsworthy".

Few readers know what "newsworthy" means, and unfortunately, many more think they know what "newsworthy" is. For a brief definitions visit this link.

I am proud American media is professional enough to apply the same standards they use for government on themselves.

While it is certainly true that not all media are professional, it is completely wrong to accuse all media of being liberal. In fact, I think it's wrong to even say that media is mostly liberal. If media uses the definition for newsworthy that I listed above, than media cannot be liberal or conservative.

The reporting of NSA wiretapping was accused of being liberally biased. The reporting of the NSA phone database was accused of being liberally biased. Now, the reporting of the government monitoring bank transfers is being called by some, liberal undermining.

This is not a discussion on whether the recent controversial report by the NYT was good or not. It is the defense of an institution that helps us watch government. While there certainly needs to be a balance, if I had the ugly choice of a press that was censored by government or a free press, I would choose the latter.

We Know Who Brady is, Who is Otter?

2006-06-15T16:28:00.000-06:00

Sure, that picture of Butch Otter looks good, but he's missing a beak and some feathers. That's right, I'm calling Butch Otter a chicken.

Before the Idaho Republican primary, Otter had the chance for a televised debate with his Republican opponent, Dan Adamson. This was a planned event that Otter had agreed to show up to. Days before the event, Otter backed out. What a chicken.

Here's what the Brady campaign had to say about it:

"With a choice between debating the issues important to Idahoans or hosting a cocktail party for special interests, we now know where Butch Otter stands. When Butch Otter backed out of his previously scheduled Thursday Idaho Public Television debate with Dan Adamson, he was given three alternative dates: Saturday, Sunday, and today. He claimed he had important votes and Mother’s Day to keep him from debating. The reality is that at 5:30 p.m. today, he is hosting a cocktail party for special interests on top of the Hoff Building in downtown Boise, no more than three miles from the proposed site of the debate."

Here is what I think about Otter and his recent attitude about running for governor:

1. The majority of Otter's money has come from out of state? What investment do out of state interests have in Otter?

2. Otter knows he couldn't hold his own in a debate against Adamson or Brady. He's playing the politics of ignorance. He knows as long as he doesn't have to say anything of real substance than he'll still have his Republican home court advantage. What a chicken.

3. Go to Otter's website. It obviously has not been updated in a while. This is the age of information! Otter! Update your website and tell us what you think! Voters deserve to know who you are!

What's on his website right now? It's a thank-you letter. That's nice right? Well guess what? Otter raised 10 times more than his primary opponents and yet he only got 70 percent of the vote! And then, instead of being in Idaho to accept his nomination HE CALLS IT IN! If that's not a kick in the pants, it's at least a kick in the shins.

On the other hand, go to Brady's website. You can tell that Brady cares about keeping voters informed. He wants voters to know what you get when you vote for him.

Obviously, this is because Brady's going to have to work harder to get votes in a state that traditionally votes Republican. Citizens of Idaho, please, look past the "R". Is Otter a Republican? Yes. But, he wants to sell out Idaho to special interest groups!

Who is Jerry Brady? Brady's family has been in Idaho almost nearly as long as the Mormon Pioneers.

Brady loves Idaho. There's no question about it.

To find out more about Brady, visit his website. Even though it's still under construction, it's still gives you a better idea of who Brady is. Otter's website on the other hand is just the same old Republican mantra that we've heard before. Butch Otter, who are you? Are you just a drone from the Republican party, or are you actually a person?

For a look a fair look at how Otter dropped out of the debate, visit this link.

Death of the Repeal

2006-06-11T20:04:00.000-06:00

This week Republicans tried to repeal the Estate Tax. Thank goodness it completely failed. If you don't know what the estate tax is visit these two links for a good run-down:

Fair Economy
Factcheck

The timing for a repeal of the estate tax is uncanny. It's no coincidence that it's being brought up during an election cycle. According to a recent Gallup Poll, Gallup polled Americans on what should be the top priorities for government. The results showed 42 percent said the war in Iraq should be the top priority. This is followed by fuel or oil prices at 29 percent and immigration at 23 percent.

So, if Americans feel that the top three priorities for government are Iraq, fuel prices and immigration, why are we spending time on repealing a tax that only effects two percent of the wealthiest Americans in the nation?

We're spending time on it because it's a political ploy by Republicans to appease their conservative base.

Read the Washtingon Post's coverage for a fair look at the subject.

Brady Declares “Idaho is Not for Sale!” in Primary Victory Speech

2006-06-06T16:22:00.000-06:00

The following is a press release from Brady for Idaho
------------
Brady Declares “Idaho is Not for Sale!” in Primary Victory Speech - 5/23/2006

Boise, ID—After winning by an impressive margin in today’s primary, Democratic candidate for governor Jerry Brady declared to a rally in Boise, “Idaho is not for sale!” Brady’s general election opponent Butch Otter won a narrower victory over his primary opponent Dan Adamson. With the primary election at an end, Jerry Brady voiced excitement at the clear choice Idahoans face this November.

When Congressman Otter went to Washington to try to sell off 5 million acres of Idaho hunting and fishing grounds, Jerry Brady stood up with Idaho sportsmen and women and declared that Idaho is not for sale.

While Otter hosts cocktail parties for special interests like Sempra Energy, which tried to pollute Idaho air and water and sell its energy to the West Coast, Brady stood up for the people of Magic Valley and Idaho.

Brady’s campaign has energized the Democratic Party with his willingness to stand up for middle class, working Idahoans. A partial text of his speech follows:

“Here in this place tonight, I tell you we can win! Here in this place tonight, I tell you we WILL win! Idaho is waiting for us to say in a clear voice, ‘Idaho is not for sale!’

I ask you, will we allow the Idaho we knew and loved as children, or adopted as our own, to be sold off bit by bit or will today be the day we draw the line?

Is this the day when we stand up to the special interests in D.C. and Boise and declare to the world that…our land is not for sale? Our clean air is not for sale…our clear water is not for sale…our wildlife is not for sale…our children’s future is not for sale…our seniors’ security is not for sale…our jobs are not for sale to the lowest bidder…our government is not for sale to the highest bidder…Idaho is not for sale! I’m Jerry Brady, and I’m not for sale either!”

Ravings of an Elephant #3

2006-06-01T22:51:00.000-06:00

As I pondered today about my views on Canada, I realized that I haven’t posted anything in some time. Rather then let the belief circulate that I had dogmatized even further to my conservative leanings, I thought I should give an update post haste.

While driving today, I perused the AM stations for an interesting listen, and came across the Sean Hannity show. I am normally a fan of his, so I stopped to listen, and became especially excited when I found that they were about to have a discussion with Oliver North about the recent allegations concerning a possible civilian massacre by Marines in Iraq. The other guest was a spokes man for a human rights group and former Pentagon information specialist, whose name eludes me.

Mr. North and Hannity were of the opinion that since we don’t have all the facts yet, the media should not discuss the incident, as it would just give the terrorists more anger and incentive, and divide the people (while possible tainting our view of Marines who may very well be innocent, and are so until proven guilty). Of course, the conversation was more in dept, and their reasons more fleshed out, but time prevents me from going into further detail.

I consider myself conservative. If asked, I believe the other members of the society (that know me) would agree. But, to this comment by a conservative icon I could not give my support.

Certainly, journalistic restraint should be used in order to provide a moral, moderate, objective coverage of information. But, it is or societies ability to look our problems in the eye that gives us strength. The result of this openness will either

A) Show the world that our solders are doing what’s right, and that we have such faith in them that we will allow their actions to be examined. Or:

B) Show that we are willing to speak out before mistakes become atrocities.

As a people and nation, we should be seekers of truth. If we don’t discuss things, then the truth can be all too easily substituted for that which is easier to watch, happier to put into history books. While I personally do not feel that the Marines did anything wrong, we have a duty to talk about it for the sake of those who died. If we don’t who will? We also have a duty to talk about it for the Marines sake, if they are innocent; we owe it to them who fight for us to show the world that they are honorable.

Attention merits attention. Our attention to it brings the attention of those who can determine what happened. Then can the truth be known and healing begun.

Reagan's Navy secretary takes on new fight with Senate bid

2006-05-29T15:50:00.000-06:00

Here's another great story that's worth a read:
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

Reagan's Navy secretary takes on new fight with Senate bid

By BOB LEWIS
AP Political Writer

ARLINGTON, Va. (AP) _ Thirty-seven summers ago, in the swelter of An Hua Basin, Marine Lt. James H. Webb saw more bloodshed and death than most people see in a lifetime.

Since his decorated tenure in Vietnam, Webb has added hitches as President Reagan's Navy secretary, an Emmy-winning journalist and author of best-selling, military-suspense novels to his made-for-the-movies biography.

Why, then, suddenly run this year as a Democrat to unseat Sen. George Allen, a Republican former governor whom Webb endorsed just six years ago?

``When I look at where this administration has taken its own party, I cannot help but think about the pendulum of history,'' Webb said. ``The pendulum has swung, I think, as far as it can swing given the principles this party had once espoused.''

Webb says Allen is part of an arrogant Republican majority in Washington bent on repeating in Iraq the blunders that killed so many of his buddies in Vietnam a generation ago.

He accuses President Bush, whom he backed in 2000, of betraying conservative fiscal governance by pushing the federal debt toward $9 trillion. He claims the GOP, his former party, and Allen in particular are Bush's eager accomplices.

``We really need to get back to a time when the members of Congress will stand up to an administration that is abusing its constitutional privileges,'' Webb said.

Allen campaign spokesman Dick Wadhams dismissed Webb's criticism with a chuckle, a rhetorical question his only reply: ``So is Jim Webb still a Democrat today, or did he switch back over to being a Republican?''

Just three months into his first run for elected office, Webb is still learning how to be a candidate. He can seem ill at ease in a crowd; anger sometimes flashes through.

After the taping of a contentious television talk show in Norfolk with Webb and his rival for the Democratic nod, former technology industry lobbyist Harris Miller, reporters asked each if he would support the other as the nominee. The primary is June 13.

As Webb began his response, Miller interrupted. Webb glared at him.

``Harris, if you'll shut your mouth, I'll answer the question,'' Webb snapped. ``If you win, I will support you.''

Webb, 60, is powerfully built and square-jawed with a close crop of thick auburn hair, a mischievous grin and intense gray eyes. In a deliberate counterpoint to Allen's trademark cowboy boots, Webb always wears buff-colored desert combat boots like those his son will wear as a Marine rifleman in Iraq this fall.

If he defeats Miller, Webb brings a credible challenge on the deadly Iraq conflict into the fall campaign against Allen, whose 2008 presidential ambitions could be ruined by a poor showing this November.

In Vietnam, Webb commanded a Marine rifle company in 1969 in some of the war's bloodiest fighting. He was awarded two Purple Hearts, two Bronze Stars, the Navy Cross and the Silver Star.

``Thirty-seven years ago this week, over a two-week period of time we were in about 12 battles and lost a lot of guys,'' said Michael ``Mac'' McGarvey, a radio operator in Webb's unit who lost his right arm to enemy fire. He's now Webb's wheel man, driving his camouflage-painted Jeep sport utility vehicle.

In 1984, Reagan made Webb an assistant secretary of defense. The Naval Academy graduate became secretary of the Navy three years later, but quit in 1988 rather than sign off on a budget-cutting move to downsize the Navy fleet.

Webb's experiences informed six novels, including ``Rules of Engagement,'' which was adapted into a film starring Tommy Lee Jones and Samuel L. Jackson. In 2004, his first nonfiction book, ``Born Fighting,'' detailed the history of America's Scots-Irish, including his own soldier-ancestors who fought on both sides in the Civil War.

Allen has no military service, but he's prepared to take on Webb's record if necessary. A top Allen adviser, Christopher J. LaCivita, was the mastermind behind Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, a group of Vietnam veterans who made unsubstantiated allegations against Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry's claims of wartime heroism.

Webb entered the race late _ in February _ betting that his portfolio, his shiny military record and his populist views would bring middle-class conservatives back to the Democratic Party.

It's comparable to the path popular former Gov. Mark Warner charted in 2001. The Democrat sponsored a NASCAR car, supported gun owners and promised jobs for downtrodden mill, mining and tobacco towns to win areas Allen and Bush dominated in 2000. Warner is exploring a 2008 presidential bid and the architect of his gubernatorial triumph, Democratic strategist Steve Jarding, now runs Webb's campaign.

Webb's first challenge, however, is to win over more Democratic insiders and activists in the primary than Miller, 54, a 30-year party loyalist with deep ties to many key state Democratic leaders. Webb clocks his time as a Democrat in months.

Black Democratic legislators endorsed Miller, citing columns Webb wrote criticizing affirmative action. Retired Gen. Claudia Kennedy, the Army's first three-star female general, endorsed Miller because of Webb's long-ago writings and comments questioning women's fitness for combat.

But mostly, Miller assails Webb's Republican past, his endorsement of Allen over Democratic Sen. Chuck Robb and his criticisms of President Clinton.

``What didn't Jim Webb like about the Clinton presidency, the peace or the prosperity?'' Miller asks at almost every Democratic gathering.

Miller appeared to be closing in on the nomination until Webb got some outside help on May 11.

Five senior Senate Democrats, including Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, had just endorsed Webb. Eleven of Robb's former top aides forgave Webb for backing Allen and endorsed Webb. Warner hosted a $125,000 fundraiser for Webb.

Warner has also raised money for Miller and is neutral in the primary, but his appearance with Webb was a critical signal to Virginia Democrats that Webb is one of them.

Circumventing the Constitution?

2006-05-21T23:15:00.000-06:00

The following is a column written by a retired district court judge. I wish that he had cited his sources better, however, if his claims are true, than this is extraordinary.
------------
Bush governs in dictator style
Robert L. Black Jr.

The investigation by Congress of the surveillance of domestic telephone and emails calls is an absolute necessity, because the greatest threat at this time is not so much to our "security" as to the preservation of our constitutional system of government.

The underlying question is whether we will discard the checks and balances of the Constitution in favor of some sort of mythical guarantee of our security.

President Bush's approval of domestic surveillance is just the tip of the iceberg. The Boston Globe on April 30 (and the New York Times on May 12) reported that President Bush claims authority to disobey more than 750 laws enacted since he took office.

He has used statements made in writing at the time he signed the laws (known as "signing statements") to state his position that he need not enforce specific provisions of the act. His assertion is that he thinks they are unconstitutional because they encroach on his inherent powers as president. In brief, his position is that he alone can decide what is constitutional.

An outstanding example is the one he issued after the torture law was enacted placing clear restrictions on the use of torture. He had agreed to the wording of the law during the legislative process. In the signing statement he basically repudiated the whole act by claiming he could decide when the law would be enforced and when it would not be enforced.

The Constitution says that the president must enforce congressional enactments without exception.

Bush has implicitly defied the Supreme Court's ruling that Congress could legally give certain executive branch officials (such as, a special prosecutor) the power to act independently of the president or the executive branch. He has said that the Constitution gives him control over all executive officials regardless of what Congress enacts.

The leadership style is hierarchical, with the top guy able to make any decision he pleases basically without any approval from any quarter. It is the style of a dictator. It is 100 percent subversive of our Constitutional framework.

Are we read to discard our Constitution because we are afraid of Osama bin Laden?

Robert L. Black Jr. is retired judge for the Ohio 1st District Court of Appeals.

Scroll Editorial

2006-05-17T12:19:00.000-06:00

The following is an editorial that I wrote for Scroll.
----
If you are deluded enough to believe the government can be trusted with your privacy then you are the same type of person who believes the government should be given more money, that government is a better parent than you are and that, overall, government does a better job at running your life than you do.

USA Today revealed a story on Thursday, May 11, 2006 that claimed the National Security Agency had been building a database of phone call records made by tens of millions of Americans since as early as September 2001. Sources, quoted by USA Today, said, “It’s the largest database ever assembled in the world,” and its goal is “to create a database of every call ever made” within the nation’s borders, this person added. (Refer to front page for more info.)

Kent Marlor, of the political science department said, “It ([NSA] spying on Americans) is repugnant to the Constitution. The events of 9/11 don’t justify the actions of the NSA one whit. It doesn’t even really surprise me and I don’t agree with it. We have these amendments in the Constitution to protect us from government.”

According to the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause.”

Not to mention that the 1974 Foreign Intelligence Surveillence Act requires that there be court authorization for just this type of thing. As far as we know, in this instance, there has been no court approval, and there have been no warrants issued.

This NSA program violates American principle. Have you ever had someone read your journal? Have you ever had someone ea vesdrop on an intimate conversation? Privacy wouldn’t matter if everyone held respect for each other, but that’s not reality. Being able to reserve thoughts and actions to oneself is inherent in the American doctrine and spirit.

Many argue, “If you have nothing to be guilty of then you should have nothing to hide.” That is naive and insulting. It is nobody’s business how much money you make, who you voted for or who you worship. And it’s nobody’s business who you call on the phone. Do any of these activities warrant guilt? No, of course not. They are guarded and personal. They are private.

According to the Constitution there must be “probable cause” in order to do a search or seizure of someone’s property. Is the White House trying to tell us they have probable cause to believe “tens of millions” of Americans are somehow linked to terrorist groups?

Even more insulting to Americans is a quote by Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, who said, “To suggest that there’s some sort of cover-up is not correct, and the motivation of those who would suggest otherwise is obvious. We need to be conscious of what’s at stake: the security and safety of the American people. That should not fall prey to petty, partisan politics. One of the reasons the administration doesn’t tell more members of Congress about such programs is because Congress leaks.”

Is Sen. Cornyn suggesting that Congress is not trustworthy? If the White House and the NSA are not accountable to Congress or the courts, then why do we bother having a system that checks and balances each other? Should we just throw the Bill of Rights out the window?

Our most basic rights are slowly being undermined under a subtle, crafty and fear-mongering message of security.

Is security important? Yes, but at what expense? The essence of humanity? If you believe security is more important than preserving the divine laws of nature then you should take a closer look at the former Soviet Union. During that time Russians, in the name of “security,” had no privacy, government had all power and if there was any accusation made toward you about loyalty, you could be carried off in the middle of the night to prison.

If the security of Americans is under such great danger that it warrants wiretapping and phone call collection, then perhaps it would be quicker if we would just resurrect Sen. Joseph McCarthy and ask him to haul people in for questioning.

This should be alarming to all Americans regardless of political party. President Bush said, “The government does not listen to domestic phone calls without court approval.” And, he said, “The privacy of ordinary Americans is fiercely protected in all our activities.”

Don’t take his word for it, don’t take the government’s word for it, don’t take your grandmother’s word for it.

Readers should write in to their representatives at all levels and urge them to hold investigations and hearings to be sure the rights of Americans are being protected.

We should commend civil servants like the Republican chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, who called for more congressional oversight to monitor the NSA program; and said he would call the phone companies that handed over the phone records to appear before a panel “to find out exactly what is going on.”

It is every loyal citizen’s responsibility to be skeptical of government and every citizen should request the government to show how the collection of private phone records is not an infringement on privacy.

Don't Read Too Much into a Quote

2006-03-20T21:13:00.000-07:00

A few Sundays ago the First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints issued an interesting statement. From The Salt Lake Tribune:

From pulpits around the state on Sunday, Mormon bishops and other local leaders read a statement urging members to participate in next week's neighborhood political caucuses, and reaffirming the church's neutral stand toward candidates and parties. But the statement, which is traditional in general election years, had this added twist that excited Democrats:

"Principles compatible with the gospel may be found in the platforms of all major political parties."

More can be read on this statement by clicking on the link above or by going to a similar article by BYU's NewsNet.

Also, for an excellent opinion on the issue, read this article that's also by the Salt Lake Tribune.

I take issue with these types of articles because it seems as though many Mormon Democrats take too much validation from statements like the one given by the First Presidency of the Church. While it is certainly encouraging, it shouldn't just be encouraging to Democrats because it certainly wasn't meant just for Democrats. The Church takes a neutral stand on politics, therefore the statement was obviously meant for Republicans as well as Dems.

Other than this, perhaps it will be a wake-up for some few Republicans who believe that the Democrats are all Satan worshippers. Perhaps it will be a wake-up for some few Democrats who believe that Republicans are a bunch of heartless bullies.

Beyond this, I believe that it's time that both parties stop politically capitalizing on moral issues. When politicizing morality happens people will often become too emotional therefore abandoning reason. This sort of "reasoning" is very common in politics and it serves as the basis for a large portion of modern advertising. Most political speeches are aimed at generating feelings in people so that these feelings will get them to vote or act a certain way.

In short, rhetoric that incites the emotions can be meant to cause the target audience to abandon reason.

A Change in the Disclaimer

2006-03-16T11:19:00.000-07:00

In the comments to the post "Great Job Hannah," Joe Strickland accuses me of "spinning the truth". To me, I feel like I've been called a liar. So, in order to be more responsible I've added a line to this blog's disclaimer basically saying that although we try our hardest to provide accurate information, these blogs are only opinions and that it's up to readers to confirm the information presented.

Also, Joe had a great suggestion for us, that we voice our stance on issues a little more. So, in an effort to do that I've decided to post a bi-weekly issue oriented subject. I think that Joe's right, this will be a great time for us to really evaluate what we believe and stand for.

Great Job Hannah!

2006-03-14T16:31:00.000-07:00

Today, Scroll, the BYU-I campus newspaper, published a side by side comparison of the two major political parties represented at the university.

I thought that Hannah did a great job of representing our group. I was also quite pleased that she did not feel the need to negatively refer to the College Republicans. I was also glad to note that she refered more to us as a group than to the national party. Although the National Party does great work, we as a local group have our own identity and we do not march mindlessly to the drum of the National Party.

I also feel that Hannah's article did a great job in showing that we are incredibly hopeful for the future and that we have a great willingness to "reach across the aisle". I would also like to mention that it has been 31 days since I have formally extended an invitation to the leadership of the College Republicans, through email and this blog, to have dinner with us and we have not yet received a response.

I will make only one mention of the College Republicans article. I believe that it was poor form for them to constantly refer to abortion and gay marriage as though those two issues are the only ones that keep the Democratic Party around. It's poor form because it perpetuates a myth about Democrats. Also, it's important that when you make comparisons that you compare ones best to someone elses best, not ones best to someones worst. Hannah could have easily mentioned some "Republican 'dirty laundry'." I'm glad that she didn't. I could go on, but if you have more questions on how I feel you can email me.

The Great War

2006-03-09T14:31:00.000-07:00

Perhaps because it was so ugly, we as a society spend little time thinking about the First World War. Of all the wars fought by modern man, it was perhaps the most chilling. Tens of thousands would die in massive battles. One such, the battle of Verdun, lasted ten months at the cost of 700,000 men dead. There were many reasons for this immense slaughter, one of which was because both sides had entrenched themselves so well. Using massive trenches, the two sides would watch each other. Between them was the “no man’s land”. Should any one venture into this land, the other side would promptly use artillery fire, machine gun rounds, chemical agents, barb wire, and snipers to exterminate them. Tens of thousands would be massacred in suicide stampedes against the other trench, all for the gain of a few hundred yards, which were often lost a short time later from a counter attack.

Looking back, it is easy for us to wonder how supposed civilized cultures and people could allow themselves to act in such ridiculous behavior. It absolutely boggles the mind that men could behave in such a way, that no one ever thought “there must be a better way”. And yet, in a not so far future those same questions will be asked about our day, about our time. The issue this time isn’t a physical war, but an ideological.

The two parties of our system have been increasingly at each other’s throats for the last decade, and it doesn’t seem to be getting any better. Both camps have drawn lines in the sand, and are striving to rally support to them. In discussions with both sides, the ideas that one can by size, influence, or public image “crush,” “defeat,” or deal a “death blow” over the other is rampant.

There are some few that try to stop the madness, they venture into the “no man’s land” between the two goliaths and are promptly cut down (politically). Those few who survive (usually by sheer name recognition) find themselves not really part of the group they were reaching out too (other wise they would be one of them), but alienated by their former colleges who consider them as “softies”, “traitors”, or “fence sitters”.

This “them or us” mentality is causing event he most basic of legislation to be inflamed by partisan rhetoric and bias, and the political process is suffering. When the line between healthy debate and bitter close mindedness is crossed, any legitimacy that existed is extinguished. One of the best pieces of advice I’ve been given said, “it’s not a matter of who is right, but what is right.” No one needs to give up their party or belief, just be open minded.

The point behind having two parties isn’t so that they can fight it out, and whoever wins is right. That’s like saying that the CEO of General Motors will wrestle the CEO of Ford, and who ever wins has the best car. The true measure of civility, of nobility, and of character isn’t which side can man the machine guns the longest, it’s which one is willing to let go first. When the trenches are abandoned, only then can progress be made.

Spring Cleaning

2006-03-02T14:32:00.000-07:00

While many people say they have skeletons in thier closet, I actually do. They are from a 1987 british expedition that went in to cataloge indigenous wildlife, and never made it back out. I still find pit helmets from time to time. My closet isn't really that bad (they all made it back alive), but I always thought it was funny how in my home everything would be nice and clean except for the closet and the garage.

It was odd, we had a living room, family room, and a kitchen that would be spotless; but the closet and garage would give a fire marshall night terrors. The answer for why is really a simple one: company doesn't go into the closet. They don't look in the garage. Since no one would see it we made no effort to manage it, and any previous attempts at order and civility quickly were overrun with the ease of irresponsibility; since the mess was already there, no one felt worse for adding to it. If we had glass walls, I 'm sure it would never have gotten that bad, we would have been too ashamed of it.

Unfortunitly, this same attitude has taken root in our country. There seems to be growing sentaments that actions taken in the war on terror need to be kept out of sight of the world. Secret prisons, unwarrented wiretaps, withholding the right of habeas corpus, these are things that we are now threatend by. Are they truly neccesary? Are they worth it?

The beauty and tragic flaw of our society is our openess, liberty by nature provides an opportunity for evil men to do evil things. But of all the flaws for a society to have, few, like this openess, are more noble. We have an opportunity to show the world that even when we are threatend, we can respond with the same values, concerns, and integrity that we have shown throughout our history.

By drawing a black curtain over what we do, by blanketing our efforts against terrorism in secrecy, we cut ourselves off from our greatest strengths, accountability. While certainly there are some secrets that need to be kept (how to build bombs, security around vital installations, etc.) the more open we are, the better job we will do. Why? Becuase if we as a people, and the world at large, see how we treat our citizens and how we treat enemy combatents, we will work far harder to be more responsible and more accountable.

Honestly, were they not required to report numbers, how many people would be home taught each month? How many would do homework if the teacher never collected it? How much time would you spend preparing for the day if you KNEW no one would see (or smell) you?

The government derives it's power from the people, and so, we the people are responsible for it's actions. We have a duty to ask questions, we have a duty insist that the higher ground is taken. Just like a garage that keeps getting more stuff piled in, the longer we let this go, the harder the task and bigger the mess we will have to clean up. And no one will be to blame but ourselves.

here
here

Brady Seeks Interns

2006-03-01T21:16:00.000-07:00

Jerry Brady visited the BYU-I College Democrats today and I'm happy to report that he is a great and humble man. I just had to put this post on, but I'll report more about his meeting with us later.

John Gibson Gets it Right

2006-02-23T17:36:00.000-07:00

Although I consider Fox News, and other cable news channels, to be more "newstainment" than actual "news" they do at times provide excellent content.

I'm not a big fan of John Gibson, but he recently expressed his opinion about the controversy involving the purchase of six ports by the United Arab Emirates and he actually made sense. Although I have not yet made up my mind about this story, I have to admit that Gibson's article expresses my still undecided point of view.

Also, the Christian Science Monitor (A world reknown newspaper) reported on the issue citing a fact from the 9/11 Commission Report that two of the hijackers were from the UAE and that, "The vast majority of the money funding the Sept. 11 attacks flowed through the UAE."

Also, to me, this issue seems to be bringing out the best in our government. It is a great example of the need and use of checks and balances and that the U.S. presidency cannot overlook the power of Congress wherein rests the power of the people.

It's not "legal" or "illegal" anymore.

2006-02-21T14:30:00.000-07:00

I believe that most people would agree that things tend to be either illegal or legal. I mean imagine trying to determine if something was only "kind of" illegal- then we would be walking backwards into the days when President Clinton said, "It depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is.

The Progressive, an extremely left magazine, has an article that humorously gets across the idea that open discussion is essential to the spirit and growth of democracy. I would suggest that everyone read it, it's nice and succinct.

In the article, the author asserts that the Bush Administration is using fear-mongering to squelch discussion about the merits and pitfalls of the NSA wire-tapping program. While I do not agree entirely with the author as to the extent of the fear-mongering, I do feel that an unfair amount of it does exist. In order for democracy to flourish we must not only provide laws that will punish people for violent intolerance, but we must also create a society that encourages the civil discussion of issues in an environment that is safe. After all, who wants to speak up when they think that they'll be abused for it.

The article also brings up a good point regarding the congressional investigation of the NSA wiretaps:

"If Bush’s effort to stifle the Congressional investigation fails, he’s hoping to cover his misdeeds with a retroactive get-out-of-jail free card.

Designing that card is Mike DeWine, Republican of Ohio, who has introduced a bill that would authorize the warrantless wiretapping that Bush has already engaged in.

That’s like someone who is caught going 100 miles an hour getting the policeman to go back and change the speed limit signs."

Why would the Bush Administration need a bill that makes the NSA wire-tapping legal if it wasn't already? Was the wire-tapping only, "kind of" legal? I don't know, I'm not a legal expert, but the issue does bring questions into my mind.

In regards to civil debate and discussion, ironically, The Progressive tends to be obnoxiously intolerant of the neo-conservative agenda. There was a time when debate and discussion were synonymous with honor and academia. I wonder if there's anyone alive today who remembers that.

Newstainment Is Ridiculous

2006-02-16T16:10:00.000-07:00

With all that's going on in the world I'm completely surprised at how the news media is completely obsessed with Dick Cheney. Listen, he made a mistake. I'm certain that he feels horrible. Move on!

The news media must have a purpose beyond trying to embarrass Cheney. Or, at least make it something that involves more people than him and the poor person he shot. How does his mistake affect me? It doesn't! Leave the humor to the comedians, they're much better at it.

This focus on Cheney is symptomatic of many issues that I will try to list:

1. There is only so much news. With the invention of "Newstainment" the 24 hour cable news stations are desperately trying to hold onto viewers. Remember, the news media is a business like any other. They care about the bottom line as much as any other business.

2. By and large, Americans do not tend to be internationalists. Pick up a newspaper in a different country, the people in those countries not only like to know what goes on in their country, but they also like to know what the world is up to. Not us, we tend to only read the international news as it effects us. And to that credit there is A LOT that goes on in America.

3. Learning about other countries requires an attention span that is quickly dwindling in the United States. Watch the news, you'll see a lot of flashing lights, you'll hear a lot of one liners and you'll see a lot of quick statistics and polling. Hey, it keeps my attention.

Here's my message to the news/entertainment industry: Leave Dick Cheney alone! Or, at least report something that has to deal with the greater public at large. A man has been seriously injured, it was a mistake. Plain and simple.

Ben Stiller in Meet the Parents

2006-02-11T09:35:00.000-07:00

A few days or weeks ago I inappropriately posted an email onto this blog that I had addressed to the President of the College Republicans. The email's content was basically my poor and inaffective attempt to extend the "olive branch".

I feel like Ben Stiller's character from the movie "Meet the Parents". In the movie Ben Stiller, despite his motives and intentions, can't seem to do anything right. And that's been my experience with trying to do something good.

I think my first mistake was printing my views about Iraq in Scroll. I still feel that my comments in that editorial were tame incomparison to what has been written about Iraq, however, I did fail to recognize who my audience was and that was a BIG mistake.

My second mistake was to start the College Democrats while publically claiming to be a registered Republican in Oregon. I should have just kept that part to myself. See, the thing is that I've never voted for a Democrat and until I came up here to Rexburg I had never ever considered being a Democrat. So was I lying and trying to make a show? Please believe me when I say that I was not. Was I wrong to make the claim of being a Republican? When considering my audience, yes.

My third mistake was not immediately replying to the College Republicans when they invited us to attend their State of the Union party. I didn't open the email until late that night and I forgot about it. Also, while it did come into mind I knew that I couldn't respond without first consulting the actual Democratic Leadership. That on top of communication errors led to us not replying. I know of at least one College Republican who seemed to me to be upset that we seemingly snubbed them. This can be seen at his website. This wasn't our intention at all. And I seriously regret our error.

My fourth mistake was to not make it blatantly and obviously clear that the poor attitudes towards the College Democrats on campus and at BYU-I was not officially, nor unofficially endorsed by the College Republicans. In news articles about me, or in posts or in anything that I've said what I have really meant is that the experience of the College Democrats is that we get an unfair shake from a lot of people. This unfair and mean attitude is not something that is taught by the College Republicans and the people portraying this attitude are not necessarily even members of the College Republicans. It was my mistake for not making that perfectly clear. However, let me now relate publically that many members of the College Democrats have been poorly treated because of their political affiliation. To deny this would be uncharitible and unrealistic and I personally feel that Joe Strickland's post entitled "College Democrats Continue to Widen the Divide" does not acknowledge nor condemn this unfair treatment.

My fifth mistake was to post an email that I had written to the President of the College Republicans without first asking her permission. I'm not making an excuse for my sin but please let me at least give a reason. I thought that the email was official and already public. I had CC'd the email to many people which she would have seen and it was written in an official manner. Regardless, it was poor manners to not ask her if she had any objections about my posting the email I wrote to her. I once again seriously regret this most recent mistake.

This is my public and deep apology for what I feel has been a series of preventable misunderstandings.

I do feel that Joe Strickland's post was an angry and emotionally charged reaction to my mistakes, but I cannot place too much blame on him. I wish that I would have done so many things differently and I also wish that Joe's post about me and the College Democrats wouldn't have been so assumptuous about our motives and intentions.

We've made many mistakes and unfortunately we'll continue to make more. I have especially made many mistakes, but they have not been intentional. What can I say? I'm Greg Focker.

I will state this however, when we have made mistakes, we own up to them.

Lastly, this is also my offical and final invitation to the College Republicans to meet with the Democratic Leadership in a private, intimate and friendly meeting. This invitation will always be open and it's in their ballpark now. I sincerely and literally pray that this unfortunate tension between our two groups will end.