Rocky's attack on Matheson: A conspiracy?

Both deny mayor's sniping is part of a secret agreement to boost their careers
By Rebecca Walsh The Salt Lake Tribune


Jim Matheson Attacked for being Bush-friendly

No one would expect Jim Matheson and Rocky Anderson to be buddies. Anderson is a royal blue Democrat; Matheson's political philosophy puts him closer to powder on the political color spectrum. Salt Lake City's mayor takes on the president. More often than not, the congressman votes with Bush on the big issues. Anderson has never been one to worry about political fallout from his liberal views. And Matheson is the ultimate political pragmatist, transforming himself in six years in office into what a reporter for The Nation called a "Bush Democrat." So it's no surprise that Anderson has started criticizing Matheson - on his radio show and in television and newspaper interviews. He's even suggesting Utahns should vote for Bob Brister, the Green Party's 2nd Congressional District candidate. "Just because somebody has a 'D' after their name doesn't make it so," said Anderson. "It doesn't seem like we have a real Democrat in this race." Anderson's shots at the congressman are unusual. It's considered bad form to take on another member of your own political party - particularly an incumbent in the middle of an election year. But the mayor is unapologetic and uncensored. He doesn't plan to stop. And Republicans are taking note. Some wish the mayor would just shut up, figuring his criticism can only help Matheson with conservative voters. But one Republican leader claims the spat between two of the state's top Democratic officeholders is a conspiracy, a secret deal between Matheson and Anderson to increase their own cachet with different constituencies. Salt Lake County Republican Party Chairman James Evans believes the mayor is "auditioning" for a job with a liberal think tank and the congressman is trying to lure more Republican voters into his camp. "I think it's coordinated with Matheson's campaign. He's helping Matheson win re-election," Evans told a University of Utah communications class this week. "It's another cynical ploy. It's vintage Rocky. He operates like [he's playing a game] in three-dimensional chess." Both Matheson and Anderson dispute the conspiracy theory. "That's crazy talk," Matheson said. And Anderson called Evans "paranoid and looney." But Evans' comments reveal the political implications of the spat. Conventional wisdom would say that anything the mayor does or says boomerangs outside of Salt Lake City. If he advises "Don't vote for Matheson," conservative Utah voters might give the congressman a second look. Rather than pushing voters toward Brister, Anderson's criticism of his fellow Democrat could pull voters away from Republican candidate LaVar Christensen and guarantee a Matheson win. Anderson knows that's a possibility. But he says he feels compelled to take on the congressman. And if liberal voters actually take his advice and jump from Matheson, leading to Christensen getting elected, so be it. There's little difference between the Democrat and Republican in this race anyway, he says. He notes that Matheson voted for the Bush tax cuts and war in Iraq, for a federal constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, to limit so-called partial birth abortion, for free trade with Central America and to keep Terri Schiavo on life support - all initiatives opposed by many Democrats. The mayor brushes off Democrats who complain he's setting up Brister to be a spoiler. He says the 2000 presidential election, when Green Party candidate Ralph Nader siphoned off some of Democrat Al Gore's voters, is not comparable. Anderson says he's angry at Nader for spoiling that race because there were significant differences between Gore and Bush. But with Matheson, "in terms of a voting record, it can't be worse [with Christensen]," said Anderson, who ran unsuccessfully for the congressional seat in 1996. Matheson has only confronted Anderson indirectly, having a staff member call after the mayor criticized the congressman at a Human Rights Campaign dinner at gay-rights leader Bruce Bastian's home earlier this summer. And Matheson spokeswoman Alyson Heyrend says the congressman is comfortable with his support among Democratic voters, which the campaign gauges at more than 90 percent. "People know Matheson. They know Matheson's approach. They know Matheson's philosophy. They judge Matheson on Matheson," she said. If an anti-Rocky backlash results, former Salt Lake City Mayor Ted Wilson says, it will be organic. The longtime Democrat and Anderson adviser says Republican conspiracy theories are "overreaching." He believes Anderson's comments are more about the mayor "feeling his oats" as he heads out of office. "It is almost more about Rocky than it is about Jim," Wilson said. "Rocky's deepest conviction is that we're all too timid in what we say. There's a tendency in Rocky to say whatever's in his mind. He's the most unfiltered political leader I've ever known." State Democratic Party Director Todd Taylor dismisses the back-and-forth as a media phenomenon. Still, party Chairman Wayne Holland called Anderson after the mayor suggested voting Green this year in a television interview on KSL. Taylor said Holland did not, and probably could not, ask Anderson to be quiet. "It's Rocky being Rocky. What's the point?" Taylor said. "We weren't happy when he endorsed [Republican] Mitt Romney for Massachusetts governor. We weren't happy when he endorsed [Republican] Keith Christensen for mayor. But he has a right to do what he wants to do." For his part, Brister will take all the help he can get. He says Matheson doesn't represent a big chunk of his constituency. He calls the congressman "anti-environment, anti-labor and anti-gay." "I'm not delusional. I don't expect to move to Washington D.C. in January," Brister said. "But people have a right to vote for people who represent them. I'm filling a vacuum on the left side of the political spectrum." walsh@sltrib.com

Push for 4th seat has its detractors

Ex-lawmaker cites constitutional issues
By Deborah Bulkeley and Suzanne StruglinskiDeseret Morning News
As Utah's governor and the state's entire congressional delegation push for a fourth seat in the House of Representatives, a former state lawmaker is pushing an online petition against the idea, citing constitutional concerns. Matt Throckmorton said his concerns surround a bill, HR5388, which would create an additional at-large seat for Utah, and create a seat for Washington, D.C. Throckmorton said the Constitution reserves congressional seats for states. So, Throckmorton recommends a constitutional amendment, similar to the 23rd Amendment, which gave the District of Columbia a presidential vote. "Anything worth doing is worth doing right," said Throckmorton, who served two terms in the Utah House and unsuccessfully challenged GOP Congressman Chris Cannon in 2002 and 2004. The bill "sets a very uncomfortable precedence. ... If we amend the Constitution without amending it, where do we stand?" The petition, online at www.amendnotbend.com, had 126 signatures as of Monday, including a couple of current and past state lawmakers, and former Salt Lake County District Attorney Neal Gunnarson. While a few of the signers had opposed the idea of the Washington seat in general, most comments echoed Throckmorton's constitutional concerns.

State Rep. Margaret Dayton, R-Orem, said she signed the petition even though she believes Utah deserves a fourth congressional seat. "We were gypped unfairly out of that fourth seat," Dayton said. "My concern, however, is we are not following exactly the constitutional direction for doing so." The constitutional issue was among those addressed at a congressional hearing Thursday, at which Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. testified in favor of the bill. And supporters say the constitutional questions have been addressed. "Gov. Jon Huntsman, who testified at yesterday's hearing on the Utah-D.C. vote bill, the three Utah House members, and I have done our due diligence on the constitutional issues and on the views of the people we represent," said Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton, who represents the District of Columbia in Congress. "The opinion of constitutional experts is that Congress is fully authorized to give an additional seat to Utah and to the District of Columbia." David Marin, spokesman for Rep. Tom Davis, R-Va., added that "any and all public debate" is welcome, as is the attention to the issue. "In this case, however, we're pretty confident in the rigorous constitutional analysis the bill has received from our staff and outside experts like Ken Starr, Viet Dinh, and Adam Charnes, among others." The idea behind the bill is that granting a seat to Utah, which would likely go to a Republican, and another to heavily Democratic Washington, D.C., wouldn't upset the balance of power. Utah fell 857 people short of a fourth congressional seat following the 2000 Census. Utah's politicians have long said Utah was denied the seat only because the state's residents living abroad weren't counted, largely the population serving missions for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The state also unsuccessfully challenged in court a counting method by the U.S. Census Bureau that Utah contends violates the Constitution. Demographers have said Utah's growth since the 2000 Census will almost certainly result in a seat in 2010. The bill, as written, would create an at-large seat until the 2012 election, after which boundaries for four congressional districts would be drawn. Throckmorton said he's not opposed to the idea of a fourth seat, he's just opposed to the process. Throckmorton said he and a handful of Republican delegates set up a petition as a way of letting lawmakers know not all Utahns support the bill. He's not targeting any specific lawmakers and acknowledged he likely wouldn't be able to change any Utahns' minds. "The issue is not giving Utah a fourth seat or giving 600,000 people (in Washington) a seat," he said. "We'll get there." But Charles Isom, spokesman for Rep. Chris Cannon, R-Utah, said while he appreciates the petitioners' opinions, it makes sense to create Utah's fourth seat sooner rather than later. Isom said if Utah waited until 2012 to get its new seat based on the population taken after the next Census, it would miss out an having a member that would gain seniority between now and then.
E-mail: dbulkeley@desnews.com

White House offers revised CIA interrogation plan

By Vicki Allen Mon Sep 18, 6:53 PM ET
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Seeking to quell an uprising over its legislation on the treatment of foreign terrorism suspects, the White House on Monday offered a revised plan to three Republican senators who charge that its bill would subject suspects to abusive interrogations and unfair trials.
"Our commitment to finding a resolution is real and that's why we're going to be sharing some language because we are eager to find a resolution," White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said.
Republican Sens. John Warner, John McCain and Lindsey Graham were to get the latest proposal on
President George W. Bush' name=c1> SEARCHNews News Photos Images Web' name=c3> President George W. Bush's bill, and were expected to comment on it on Tuesday, said John Ulyott, Warner's spokesman.
While the senators had several differences with Bush's plan, an administration official said the new proposal dealt only with the main sticking point of Bush's demand that Congress more narrowly define protections for prisoners under the Geneva Conventions.
Bush insists this is necessary to get information from "high-value" detainees, while the senators said it would allow interrogations that violate international standards.
Meanwhile the House of Representatives postponed to next week a vote on Bush's bill as Republicans tried to avoid a showdown that could derail Republicans' efforts to depict themselves as stronger than Democrats on fighting terrorism before November 7 congressional elections.
Bush, who has come under fire for harsh treatment of detainees at the Guantanamo prison and abuses at
Abu Ghraib' name=c1> SEARCHNews News Photos Images Web' name=c3> Abu Ghraib prison in
Iraq' name=c1> SEARCHNews News Photos Images Web' name=c3> Iraq, needs Congress to approve a system to try suspects mostly picked up in the
Afghanistan' name=c1> SEARCHNews News Photos Images Web' name=c3> Afghanistan war after the Supreme Court struck down his original plan.
HOUSE WAITS
The House put off floor action to next week on Bush' bill "only because the Judiciary Committee requested an opportunity to review the criminal code provisions and habeas corpus provisions," said Kevin Madden, spokesman for House Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio.
But other Republican House aides acknowledged the delay improved chances that the White House could reach a compromise and avoid a potentially ugly fight on the Senate floor in which a group of eight or 10 Republicans joined by Democrats could defeat Bush's bill.
"We continue to look for a way to resolve differences between the two approaches," Ulyott said.
Senate Republican leader Bill Frist of Tennessee said he expected the issue will be on the Senate floor next week as Congress struggles to complete pending business before breaking at the end of the month to campaign in elections that will determine control of Congress.
Warner of Virginia, chairman of the
Senate Armed Services Committee' name=c1> SEARCHNews News Photos Images Web' name=c3> Senate Armed Services Committee, and committee members McCain of Arizona and Graham of South Carolina contend the latest plan would deprive defendants of basic rights and would permit
CIA' name=c1> SEARCHNews News Photos Images Web' name=c3> CIA interrogations using harsh methods that violate the Geneva Conventions' requirement for humane treatment.
The committee last week passed its own bill that, unlike Bush's plan, would give defendants access to classified evidence being used to convict them. It also would set tighter limits on use of testimony obtained by coercion.
The committee's bill also offers CIA interrogators some legal protections from charges of abuse, but rejects the administration's plan to more narrowly define the Geneva Conventions' standards for humane treatment of prisoners.
The three senators along with Maine Republican Susan Collins and all of the committee's Democrats voted for it, against the remaining Republicans who supported Bush.
Since then, Republicans Sens. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska and Olympia Snowe of Maine have gone on record backing the committee's bill, and several other Republicans have not committed to backing Bush.
(Additional reporting by Tabassum Zakaria)

Iranian leader urges more papal protests

By LEE KEATH, Associated Press Writer 18 minutes ago
CAIRO, Egypt - Al-Qaida in
Iraq' name=c1> SEARCHNews News Photos Images Web' name=c3> Iraq warned
Pope Benedict XVI' name=c1> SEARCHNews News Photos Images Web' name=c3> Pope Benedict XVI on Monday that its war against Christianity and the West will go on until Islam takes over the world, and
Iran' name=c1> SEARCHNews News Photos Images Web' name=c3> Iran's supreme leader called for more protests over the pontiff's remarks on Islam.

Protests broke out in South Asia and Indonesia, with angry Muslims saying Benedict's statement of regret a day earlier did not go far enough. In southern Iraq, demonstrators carrying black flags burned an effigy of the pope.
Islamic leaders around the world issued more condemnations of the pope's comments, but some moderates in the Middle East appeared to be trying to put a damper on the outrage, fearing it could spiral into attacks on Christians in the region.
On Sunday, Benedict said he was "deeply sorry" over any hurt caused by his comments made in a speech last week, in which he quoted a medieval text characterizing some of the Prophet Muhammad's teachings as "evil and inhuman" and calling Islam a religion spread by the sword.
Benedict said the remarks came from a text that didn't reflect his own opinion, but he did not retract what he said or say he was sorry he uttered what proved to be explosive words.
The
Vatican' name=c1> SEARCHNews News Photos Images Web' name=c3> Vatican on Monday sought to defuse the anger, ordering papal representatives around the world to meet with leaders of Muslim countries to explain the pope's point of view and full context of his speech.
Roman Catholic leaders stepped forward to defend the pontiff. At an Italian bishops' conference, Cardinal Camillo Ruini underlined the bishops' "total closeness and solidarity to the pope" and said they deplored interpretations of the pope's comments "which attribute to the Holy Father ... errors that he has not committed and aim at attacking his person and his ministry."
Few in the Islamic world were satisfied by Benedict's statement of regret.
"The pope's words have caused a deep wound in the hearts of Muslims that won't heal for a long time, and then only after a clear apology to Muslims," Egypt's religious affairs minister, Mahmoud Hamdi Zaqzouq, wrote in a column in the government daily Al-Ahram on Monday.
An influential Egyptian cleric, Sheik Youssef al-Qaradawi, called for protests after weekly prayers on Friday, but maintained they should be peaceful.
Extremists said the pope's comments proved that the West was in a war against Islam.
Al-Qaida in Iraq and its allies said Muslims would be victorious and addressed the pope as "the worshipper of the cross," saying "you and the West are doomed as you can see from the defeat in Iraq,
Afghanistan' name=c1> SEARCHNews News Photos Images Web' name=c3> Afghanistan,
Chechnya' name=c1> SEARCHNews News Photos Images Web' name=c3> Chechnya and elsewhere. ... We will break up the cross, spill the liquor and impose the 'jizya' tax, then the only thing acceptable is a conversion (to Islam) or (being killed by) the sword."
Islam forbids drinking alcohol and requires non-Muslims to pay the "jizya" tax, though those who convert are exempt. The tax, sometimes called a head tax, has not been imposed in Muslim nations in about 100 years, though Islamic militant groups have tried to force non-Muslims to pay it on a local level in some countries.
"You infidels and despots, we will continue our jihad (holy war) and never stop until God avails us to chop your necks and raise the fluttering banner of monotheism, when God's rule is established governing all people and nations," said the statement by the Mujahedeen Shura Council, an umbrella organization of Sunni Arab extremist groups in Iraq.
Another Iraqi extremist group, Ansar al-Sunna, challenged "sleeping Muslims" to prove their manhood by doing something other than "issuing statements or holding demonstrations."
"If the stupid pig is prancing with his blasphemies in his house," the group said in a Web statement, referring to the pope, "then let him wait for the day coming soon when the armies of the religion of right knock on the walls of Rome."
In Iran, supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei used the comments to call for protests against the United States. He argued that while the pope may have been deceived into making his remarks, the words give the West an "excuse for suppressing Muslims" by depicting them as terrorists.
"Those who benefit from the pope's comments and drive their own arrogant policies should be targeted with attacks and protests," he said, referring to the United States.
The anger recalled the outrage earlier this year over cartoons depicting the prophet published by a Danish paper. The caricatures, which Muslims saw as insulting Muhammad, set off large, violent protests across the Islamic world.
So far, protests over the pope's comments have been smaller. However, there has been some violence: Attackers hurled firebombs at seven churches in the
West Bank' name=c1> SEARCHNews News Photos Images Web' name=c3> West Bank and
Gaza Strip' name=c1> SEARCHNews News Photos Images Web' name=c3> Gaza Strip over the weekend, and a nun was shot to death in Somalia.
Some 200 Khamenei loyalists in the Syrian capital, Damascus, held a protest Monday at an Islamic shrine, dismissing the pope's apology. "The pope's sorrow was equivocal," read one banner.
Dozens protested outside the Vatican Embassy in Jakarta, Indonesia, and schools and shops in the Indian-controlled section of
Kashmir' name=c1> SEARCHNews News Photos Images Web' name=c3> Kashmir shut their doors in protest.
"His comments really hurt Muslims all over the world," Umar Nawawi of the radical Islamic Defenders' Front said in Jakarta. "We should remind him not to say such things which can only fuel a holy war."
Islamic countries also asked the U.N. Human Rights Council to examine the question of religious tolerance. Malaysia's foreign minister, Syed Hamid Albar, said Benedict's apology was "inadequate to calm the anger."
In Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood said the anger should not be allowed to hurt ties with the Middle East's Christian minorities. But worries among Christians in the region are high.
Guards have been posted around some churches, and the head of Egypt's Orthodox Coptic Church, Pope Shenouda III, disassociated himself from Benedict's statements.
The Dominican mission in Cairo also criticized Benedict's words, saying he chose a text for his speech that "revived the polemics of the past."
"These comments, seen by many Muslims as hurtful, risk encouraging extremists on all sides," it said in a statement, "and put in danger all the advances in dialogue made in recent decades."

Get real - vote 'political correctness off island'

By Star ParkerScripps Howard News Service

"Survivor" has played the race card. The CBS reality show now creates teams selected by race to compete with each other. White, black, Latino and Asian. Horrible and tasteless, you say. Exploitive and reaching for ratings by appealing to our worst instincts. In the name of the Almighty Dollar, CBS, critics say, sets back our lofty goals of racial harmony, divides our nation along racial lines and promotes the very racial stereotypes we've tried so hard to bury. But, really, what's all the fuss about? What's new here? We've been living this reality show for 40 years. Been to visit Congress lately? We've got the Congressional Black Caucus (the black team) to represent allegedly black interests. We've got the Hispanic Caucus (the Latino team) to represent allegedly Hispanic interests. We've got the Voting Rights Act (which you might say serves the equivalent of the "Survivor" production staff) to guarantee election of blacks and Latinos so that we have caucuses, teams, to compete for the political prizes. I read that some corporations have pulled advertising dollars from "Survivor" so that they are not associated with this tasteless outrage. But each one of these corporations, in all likelihood, has diversity officers who oversee programs to ensure that blacks and Latinos get hired by different standards than whites. The goal? No, not equality under the law. Diversity, as an ideal end in itself. Ethnic teams. The NAACP sends surveys to these corporations to find out how many are on their black teams. And we wonder why, after all these years, we still have racial divides and pronounced racial consciousness. When I go to a corporation to seek support for my organization, in all likelihood, because I am black, I wind up shunted to the diversity officer who, in all likelihood, will hate what I do. His or her job is to get the ethnic teams hired. My goal is a society in which all aspire to the ideal of one law of one nation under God. I remember getting my home loan, when the loan officer sheepishly asked if she could write down that I'm black. I understood that they need to compile the data so they can report how many Negroes they've lent to, in order to avoid hearing from the race police. It's pretty sad what has happened and how the Rev. Martin Luther King's message has been turned inside out and on its head. King's point of contention was not with the words of our founders, that "all men are endowed by their Creator ...with unalienable rights." That "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal." His point of contention was that we weren't living up to these standards and that without them, everyone, black and white, was in jeopardy. He exhorted the nation to live up to its own unrealized ideals. But, instead of a nation, under God, with one law, where all are judged by character and not by skin color, we created a nation of teams. A reality show that makes skin color the standard and character incidental. Regarding the new racial wars on "Survivor," one black journalist frets that the stereotypes that the black team might generate will have nothing to do with her own reality. Yes, and what does the left-wing agenda of the Congressional Black Caucus have to do with me and millions of other conservative black Christians? Corporations, allegedly to help blacks, pour millions of dollars into the NAACP to promote an agenda that is anathema to these same millions of black Christians. The sad state of affairs is evident in an article in this month's Harvard Business Review called "Rethinking Political Correctness." The authors, after extolling the achievements of diversity laws over the last 40 years, share with us a groundbreaking conclusion of their research that political correctness cannot solve all problems in the workplace. "Our work suggests that high-quality relationships cannot be mandated." No kidding. Praise the Lord for the Harvard Business School. The article goes on to report behavioral guidelines the authors recommend, from their research, that individuals can use to contend with "tensions" that emerge from "diversity-related dilemmas" in the workplace. Children once learned civility at church and at home. Now it's not a matter of right and wrong, but of "constructive engagement." I think CBS has done us a favor by holding a mirror up to the country. We just need to decide if we want a reality show or a great nation. The former may be good for CBS's ratings. I'd prefer living in the latter.
Star Parker is president of CURE, Coalition on Urban Renewal and Education (http://www.urbancure.org/) and author of the new book "White Ghetto: How Middle Class America Reflects Inner City Decay."

Realigning would be fair, Huntsman says

By Suzanne StruglinskiDeseret Morning News
WASHINGTON — Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. told a U.S. House subcommittee Thursday that Utah would take a "fair and objective" approach in drawing new congressional districts for the state, if required to do so to gain an extra seat in the House of Representatives.

Jon Huntsman Jr. A pending bill would create an at-large seat for Utah until the 2010 Census is completed and would give the District of Columbia a House vote. But a key lawmaker wants to change the at-large element for the Utah seat and instead create four districts for the state. Huntsman told the House Constitution Subcommittee that he prefers the at-large seat as it stands in the bill now. The measure would create a fourth seat for Utah that would represent the whole state until the 2012 election. "I consider that a significant benefit, because redistricting — which is always a difficult, time-consuming and politically costly process — would be especially undesirable at this point in time, less than four years before the next decennial census," Huntsman said. House Judiciary Chairman James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., is likely to offer an amendment taking away the at-large status and calling for four districts in Utah. His spokesman, Jeff Lungren, said the chairman wants Utahns to each have only one representative, like residents of other states, and creating the at-large seat would give each Utahn two representatives. Huntsman told the subcommittee that the bill would give Utah the additional House seat it "should have received" after the 2000 Census. The measure "rights the wrongs that were committed in the 2000 Census, benefits those who suffered most as a result of those wrongs, and does so in a way that makes sense," he said. The governor briefly outlined the state's problem with the 2000 Census, when the federal government failed to count Utah residents living abroad, most on missions from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Utah fell 857 people short to get a new congressional seat.

The census also used a counting method that the state believes violated the Constitution. The U.S. Supreme Court rejected the state's arguments in a 2002 decision. Huntsman said the court's decision diminished representation among Utah's three congressional districts, cheated the state of additional committee assignments and resulted in a loss of seniority that would have been gained had the seat been created after the 2000 Census. Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton, D-D.C., asked Huntsman whether Utah would be able to handle redistricting into four districts. Huntsman said he could not speak for the state Legislature, but some maps left over from redistricting after the 2000 Census included a possible fourth district, and could be used. Rep. Chris Cannon, R-Utah, pointed out that the state has changed since the last census, so he would hope those in charge of redistricting could use updated numbers. And if the state had to reassign districts, he added, "there is not much that can be done" to squeeze out Rep. Jim Matheson, D-Utah. "How do you draw a district in Utah that is more Republican than the one that he has?" Cannon said. House Government Reform Committee Chairman Tom Davis, R-Va., said the bill could not pass Congress without the Utah component in it. Davis and Norton gained Republican support for the bill by adding the seat for Utah, which would more than likely bring a Republican seat to balance out the District's almost certain Democratic vote. Davis said Huntsman made clear that he "doesn't want to play any games" with redistricting, if it were required. But three other witnesses at Thursday's hearing had problems with the bill. No one objected to the District getting a vote in the House, but they questioned whether creating a House seat for D.C. would violate the Constitution. "The central premise that Congress can by simple legislation create a representative for the District is wrong," said John C. Fortier of the American Enterprise Institute. "The Constitution, not Congress, has determined that the House and Senate will be made up of representatives of states and states alone. Congress can no more change the Constitution on this matter by simple legislation than it could repeal the First Amendment or allow 16-year-olds to serve as president." Fortier said the only way to truly grant voting rights to the District would be to admit it as a state, make the District part of Maryland, or amend the Constitution to allow the District to retain its current status but also grant it representation in Congress. The bill "has its heart in the right place, but it will not pass constitutional muster," Fortier said. Jonathan Turley, the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at the George Washington University Law School, said the at-large element of the additional seat for Utah is also problematic, because it would bring disproportionate representation in Congress for Utahns, compared to residents of other states. "House members are expected to be advocates for this insular constituency," Turley said. "Here, residents of one state could look to two representatives to do their bidding, while other citizens would limited to one. Given racial and cultural demographic differences between Utah and other states, this could be challenged as diluting the power of minority groups in Congress." Despite criticism from the witnesses, Huntsman said he thinks it might be just a matter of weeks until the bill goes through the House and the Senate, before Congress adjourns for the year. "I sense that there seems to be an emerging coalition of the willing," Huntsman said. "By and large people are converging around this getting done."
E-mail: suzanne@desnews.com

Huntsman urges House panel to back 4th seat for Utah

Huntsman urges House panel to back additional seat for Utah
By Suzanne StruglinskiDeseret Morning News
WASHINGTON — Utah has been one voice short in Congress for the past six years, Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. told members of a House subcommittee Thursday as he urged them to support a bill that would grant the state an additional seat in the House of Representatives. The pending bill permits a House vote for the District of Columbia and creates an at-large seat for Utah until the 2010 Census is completed. The bill's authors had wanted representation for the District and gained support for the measure from Republican lawmakers by adding the provision for an additional seat for Utah, which would more than likely add a Republican seat to balance out the District's almost certain Democratic vote. While Huntsman expressed his support for the bill, constitutional experts at the hearing had problems with the bill, saying Congress cannot just create a new voting position in the House. The majority of the witnesses' problems revolved about the District's vote. No one maintained that the District's residents should remain without a vote in Congress, but they disagreed with the means of getting the vote to them.

document.writeln(AAMB6);
document.write(''); "The central premise that Congress can, by simple legislation, create a representative for the District is wrong," said John C. Fortier of the American Enterprise Institute. "The Constitution, not Congress, has determined that the House and Senate will be made up of representatives of states and states alone. Congress can no more change the Constitution on this matter by simple legislation than it could repeal the First Amendment or allow 16-year-olds to serve as president." Fortier said the only way to truly grant voting rights to the District would be to admit it as a state, to make the District part of Maryland or to amend the Constitution to allow the District to retain its current status but also grant it representation in Congress. The bill "has its heart in the right place, but it will not pass constitutional muster," Fortier said. "It too easily glosses over the numerous textual references in the Constitution that grant representation only to the people of states." But the at-large element of the additional seat for Utah also would be problematic, according to Jonathan Turley, the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at the George Washington University Law School. Turley said the at-large seat would add an additional representative of each resident of Utah, allowing them more representation than the people of the other states. "House members are expected to be advocates for this insular constituency," Turley said. "Here, residents of one state could look to two representatives to do their bidding, while other citizens would limited to one. Given racial and cultural demographic differences between Utah and other states, this could be challenged as diluting the power of minority groups in Congress." House Judiciary Chairman James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., supports Utah getting a seat but is likely to offer an amendment to the bill that would make it a real District seat, not an at-large seat as the bill now specifies. Sensenbrenner's spokesman, Jeff Lungren, said the chairman wants Utah residents to only have one representative, in order to be equal to all the other states. It is not clear when a House committee would vote on the the bill or Sensenbrenner's amendment. Lungren said it largely depends on the House floor schedule. Despite criticism from witnesses, Huntsman said he thinks it might be just a matter of weeks before the bill would go through the House and the Senate before Congress adjourns for the year. He said before he arrived in Washington, it was about even, but after speaking with House members on Thursday it is "better than even money" that the bill will pass. He said there is a real "can-do attitude" among the members involved on the bill that "gives me a great sense of hope" it will get through. "I sense that there seems to be an emerging coalition of the willing," Huntsman said. "By and large people are converging around this getting done."
E-MAIL: suzanne@desnews.com

Major Victory for Property Rights

Volokh has a good summary of the recent Ohio Supreme Court case Norwood v. Horney.

http://volokh.com/posts/1153959401.shtml

Excerpt:

The Ohio Supreme Court's decision in Norwood v. Horney - A Major Victory for Property Rights:
The Ohio Supreme Court's unanimous decision in Norwood v. Horney, issued today, is an important victory for property rights. It is probably the most important judicial decision on eminent domain since Kelo v. City of New London. Perhaps the most significant element of the decision is the fact that the Court went beyond banning "economic development" condemnations of the sort permitted by the U.S. Supreme Court in Kelo, and also suggested that there are state constitutional limitations on the governments' power to condemn property that is designated as "blighted." The Ohio Supreme Court has also become the 11th state supreme court to ban Kelo-style condemnations under its state constitution, a decision which largely negates the shortcomings of Ohio's woefully inadequate post-Kelo "reform" law.

Six More Years for Orrin

Originally Posted by Scott Hinrichs
Thursday, May 05, 2005

Another Six Years For Hatch?
27 years ago I walked up the steps of the Capitol building in Washington, D.C. as part of a group of Explorer Scouts from Utah. There we met with Senators Jake Garn and Orrin Hatch. I don’t remember much of what they said, but I do remember being impressed at having the opportunity to shake hands with two very powerful politicians.Fast-forward 27 years. Jake Garn has long since retired from the Senate, but Orrin Hatch is still there. He is preparing to run for another term in that office. By the end of that term he would have served in the Senate 36 years. Is he angling to become the next Robert Byrd or Strom Thurmond? Career politicians always say the same things when they run for re-election. They need our support so that they can continue their important work, they have unfinished business, etc.Blogger Mark Towner at Utah Politics wrote, “On Saturday at the Salt Lake County convention [Senator Hatch] asked us for 6 more years to accomplish what he has not been able to accomplish in the past 30, is that likely?” He suggests that Senator Hatch’s arguments against Senator Frank Moss 30 years ago are more than applicable to Hatch today. He has served well, but he’s out of touch with the average Utahan. It’s time for him to retire and time for some new blood. Moss then. Hatch now.Towner notes that Newt Gingrich eloquently stated (in the heat of a climate that clamored for term limits) that the longer one breathes the rarified air inside the D.C. beltway, the more one becomes co-opted into the bureaucracies against which they once campaigned. They become attuned to the realities of political deals and compromises. I think it goes further than that. They begin to feel that the preservation of liberty-inhibiting institutions is actually the best way to serve their constituents.Like universities, power in the Senate derives from tenure. The more senior one becomes the more power one wields. Thanks to the kerfuffle with Arlen Spector (R-PA) becoming chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee after the last elections, much has been said and written both pro and con about the Senate’s seniority system. Regardless of how we feel about that system, there is little chance that it will change because it provides predictability and stability, and it is the major factor upon which senators (who would have to vote to change the rules) base their careers.Since the senatorial equation seniority = power is here to stay for now, Utah is best represented by having the most senior senators possible, right? I mean, if seniority is everything in the Senate, Utah would be best served by sending Hatch back for another term, right?Towner would say that’s wrong. He says, “Senator Hatch is conflicted. Too many deals and too many years in Washington make it impossible for him to actually do what he knows to be right, but instead goes along with what will pass in the Senate.” In other words, what good does seniority do if the views of the constituency are being poorly represented? While seniority is the most important thing to a senator, it is not the primary consideration for a voter, whose first priority is how his or her concerns are being addressed.Seniority-is-everything ideologues that argue for keeping Hatch are short sighted. Towner points out a likely scenario where Senators Bennett and Hatch will retire in 2010 and 2012 respectively, leaving Utah with two freshman senators. He notes that given the average age in the Senate (and therefore the impending retirements there), Utah would be best served by sending a freshman senator now to begin gaining status for a potential leadership position instead of being left doubly low on the totem pole down the road. Towner suggests that if Orrin were more interested in Utah than in his own career he would retire next year.Is there a possibility that Utah won’t re-elect Senator Hatch? I don’t think so unless he miraculously steps aside. If you survey Hatch’s fundraising and behind the scenes preparation you can see that he’s fully prepared to mount a serious campaign. He’s not thinking at all about retiring soon.Many have argued that Hatch won 29 years ago because Senator Moss underestimated his young punk challenger, and that another young challenger could do the same to Hatch next year. I think, however, that Senator Moss failed to appreciate the change in Utah’s political landscape that took place during his tenure in the Senate. Utahans fled the Democratic Party in droves during the 60s and 70s as the party allowed itself to be taken over by secular extremists that challenged traditional morality. When Hatch argued that Moss was out of touch, it was easy for Utahans to see how Moss’ party had lost touch with their values. When Hatch offered an alternative, it was easy to dump Moss because of his party affiliation.During Hatch’s almost three decades in the Senate, Utah has become more Republican. Hatch has several factors in his favor including being Republican, incumbency (with all of its associated benefits), being active in the LDS Church, and having a weak Democratic party that is unable to offer a viable opponent. It’s not like Moss who was facing a candidate from an ascending Republican Party.Hatch is working to fend off any serious challenge from within the Republican Party. Any serious candidate needs to be doing a lot of heavy lifting now to prepare for a campaign next year. Is there anyone out there doing that? Are there any major financiers out there helping to mount a campaign against Hatch? Can anyone wrest the party’s commitments and resources from Hatch?It’s not that Utah lacks viable potential senators; it’s just that Hatch is working to clear and prepare the field so he can reap a bountiful harvest come fall 2006. I think Hatch would have to do something degrading or suffer a serious decline in health for someone to have a chance of bringing him down. Let’s face it, Utahans know and understand Orrin Hatch’s style. Many respect him and few think that he merits dumping, even if he is getting somewhat out of touch with his base. He has become a human institution of sorts.My personal preference would be to elect a new senator to replace Hatch next year. Is that likely to happen? Probably not, but I’d be happy to take a look at anyone willing to give it a serious try.

How Congress can protect our SSN# from identity theft.

For those of us who use the internet to pay bills, order pizza, and balance our checkbooks (ok I admit it, I never balance my account, I just look to see what checks have cleared, add the outstanding amounts, and hope there is enough to clear all the checks) we all are familiar with the security code or PIN.

My suggestion for congress is to create a SSN# pin creation that will allow each social security card holder add a personal PIN to their number. Then whenever an authorized request is made for this number, you must also know the PIN. Without the PIN, the number is useless. Banks and credit cards use PIN’s all the time and folks have gotten used to the practice. College students requesting student loans must apply for a special PIN to electronically sign their applications.

I would encourage the Congress to get this solution implemented ASAP, so the millions of vets and other workers of America can feel safer about their personal, private information.

Contract OK'd for 60 new F-22A Raptors

Hatch hails vote; planes to be serviced at HAFB
By Suzanne StruglinskiDeseret Morning News
WASHINGTON — The government will be able to use a three-year contract to buy 60 new F-22A Raptors, which would be serviced at Hill Air Force Base, thanks to an amendment approved Thursday by the Senate. Entering into a multiyear contract changes the normal annual procurement the government follows, and supporters say buying the planes in bulk will help save taxpayers up to $335 million. The Senate approved the change 70-28. Utah' Sens. Orrin Hatch and Bob Bennett, both Republicans, co-sponsored and voted in favor of the amendment. Hill maintains the planes. "It's common sense that you shouldn't pay more for an acquisition than you have to," Hatch said. "Everyone agrees that the Air Force should have these 60 Raptors, and we'll save millions by buying in bulk now." Hatch said the additional planes will bring more jobs to Hill Air Force Base. "The Air Force knows that when they want a job done right, they need to come to Utah," Hatch said in a statement. "For depot maintenance, no one comes close to Hill."

Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., offered the amendment. Lockheed Martin, the prime contractor for the plane, has a final assembly plant Georgia. The Air Force has committed to buying 122 planes. So far, 72 planes have been delivered, according to Lockheed Martin. "This is not about spending money, it's about saving money, and it's about good acquisition practices and policy," Chambliss said on the Senate floor. He said the savings could be reallocated to other programs in the Defense Department or returned to the taxpayers. He said the government knows it is going to buy the 60 planes over the next three years but the question is how it will buy the planes. He said he expects a high standard for a multiyear contract and that this contract would save the same amount of money as other multiyear contracts Congress has approved in the past. The Government Accountability Office came out with a report Tuesday saying "the Air Force has not demonstrated the need or value for making further investments in the F-22A program" and suggested delaying any further purchase of planes. It estimated the multiyear contract would cost $1.724 billion. Chambliss said the GAO report contains "frankly false factual information" and said the multiyear contract satisfies the requirements needed to be approved. Opponents, including Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John Warner, R-Va., said it was not the right time to enter into multiyear contracts.
E-mail: suzanne@desnews.com

A Victory for Anonymous Blogging?

Recent Events have brought this issue to the attention of Utah Bloggers. In all cases to this point that have been litigated, the person who sought the identity was a public figure. Does your right of free speech allow you to attack the credibility, or allow you to slander a non public person. Should you be able to slam your neighbor, or anyone else for that matter and call it free speech? Several test cases that may answer these questions are in the works. Below is an article by Daniel J. Solve that seems to address the issue for public elected officials.

October 08, 2005
A Victory for Anonymous Blogging
posted by Daniel J. Solove
Anonymous bloggers received a great victory this week in a case decided by the Delaware Supreme Court -- Doe v. Cahill (Oct. 5, 2005). The case involved John Doe, who anonymously posted on a blog statements about Patrick Cahill, a City Councilman of Smyrna, Delaware. Doe, in criticizing Cahill’s job performance, noted that Cahill had “obvious mental deterioration” and was “paranoid.” Cahill sued Doe for defamation.
Doe was anonymous, but his IP address could be linked to his postings, and Cahill sought to obtain Doe’s identity from Comcast, Doe’s ISP. Comcast notified Doe that Cahill was seeking his identity, and Doe immediately went to court to prevent the disclosure of his identity. The case reached the Delaware Supreme Court, which concluded that Cahill should not be permitted to obtain Doe’s identity.
The issues in this case are very important. Many of you comment here anonymously; and many comment anonymously on other blogs. Some have anonymous blogs, such as the person pretending to be Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers on a blog or the pseudonymous “Article III groupie,” who maintains the famous blog, Underneath Their Robes. EFF has produced a manual about how to blog anonymously.
What if your identity – and those of the Miers impersonator and Article III groupie -- could readily be unmasked?
The First Amendment provides for a right to speak anonymously. It does so because without anonymity, people might be chilled in saying certain things. But what happens when anonymous speakers defame people or invade their privacy? Those injured people should be able to sue. This issue has been a difficult one for courts, which have tried to balance a person’s free speech rights to speak anonymously with the injured plaintiff’s rights to proceed with a lawsuit.
Many courts have adopted a heightened pleading standard before a plaintiff can learn the identity of an anonymous speaker. The prevailing standard is that the plaintiff must be able to present a strong enough case to survive a motion to dismiss, but that standard is relatively easy to satisfy. Only really frivolous cases will fail.
The Delaware Supreme Court adopted a different balance, one that I applaud. It requires that a plaintiff, suing for defamation, must satisfy a summary judgment standard in order to unmask the identity of the anonymous speaker. In this case, Cahill was a public figure, and to prevail in a defamation lawsuit, he had to prove that (1) Doe made a defamatory statement (damaging to Cahill’s reputation); (2) the statement was concerning Cahill; (3) the statement was published (disseminated to others); (4) others would understand the statement to be defamatory; (5) the statement was false; and (6) Doe made the statement with actual malice (he either knew it was false or acted in reckless disregard of the truth).
The Court concluded that Cahill must satisfy the summary judgment standard relating to most of these elements. That means that Cahill must show that there’s a genuine issue of material fact about these issues. In other words, he must show enough evidence to justify why he should proceed to a jury on these issues.
The Court made an exception to this rule for the sixth element – actual malice. With the other elements, they can readily be proven without knowing the identity of who said the statement. But the actual malice element depends upon the motivation of the speaker – and it is here where knowing the speaker’s identity is essential in order to determine whether the speaker had actual malice or not.
This approach strikes me as a very sensible way to balance protecting anonymous speech and allowing plaintiffs to pursue defamation lawsuits.
Posted by Daniel J. Solove at October 8, 2005 12:30 AM

Protect and Defend our Borders

I posted this in 2004. It's still revelant today, and would actually solve several issues. Now with our National Guard doing this job, it makes even more sense.


Identification — I have been pondering recently about the Immigration proposal presented by President Bush, and how this does little to protect our southern boarders. Additionally we need the creation of a National ID / Work Card / Drivers License for all non US citizens. This would eliminate the practice of illegal aliens getting Driver’s Licenses in Utah, then moving to another state and getting a drivers License there using the Utah License as ID. Any non US citizen when pulled over for a traffic citation would present their ID card and this would alert the police that this person is not a US citizen, and they should do a little more checking before just writing a citation and letting them go. As for driving, when they can demonstrate in the state of their jurisdiction the ability to pass both a written and practical test, their ID cards would be embossed with driving privileges from that state. This must be accomplished in 90 days upon arrival to the US. This would allow tourists visiting the US to be able to rent cars while here in the US without this restriction.

Border Security — I would propose the creation of a "USA Foreign Legion" run and administered by the US Marine Corps. This force would recruit foreign nationals to enlist for 4 years. After successfully completing the normal Marine Corps Training program (failure of this training program would return them to the country of origin) they would be trained for a new Horse Calvary unit that would be stationed all along the southern border. Although fully armed for any situation, these forces would be specially trained to intercept, and control border incursions using high tech non lethal measures. Those illegal aliens intercepted would be photographed and fingerprinted, then after processing they would be immediately flown by Chinook helicopter back over the border to a deportation base in Mexico. Utilizing the old US Army training manuals for the upkeep of the animals, feeding, grooming, etc will keep these troops fairly busy. After successfully serving a 4 year stint in the legion, they would be given fast track status for US citizenship. They could choose to re-enlist into the regular Army, or continue with this force. This force also could be deployed anywhere in the world for peacekeeping proposes, reserving our shock fighting forces for quick deployment. Coordinated ops with military helicopter units along the boarder directing the cavalry forces to the locations of incursion, these forces by utilizing infrared and other Military technology would finally secure our southern boarder. The benefits to the US would be a bilingual force that is familiar with the region, creates an avenue to US citizenship, and they are trained soldiers who are proud to be part of the US military. Upon honorary discharge they could enter the US civilian status with the education and tools to be successful in life.

Mark

Our Delegation had better say no to a fourth seat

Our Delegation had better say no to a fourth seat!

I may be cynical but I’m not stupid. What the heck is congress thinking about? A voting seat for Washington DC would be a total disaster, even if Utah was given a carrot of a 4th seat early. That’s right folks, Utah will get a 4th seat anyway maybe even a 5th if growth continues in Washington county.

In 2012 after the 2010 census we will get 4 anyway so what’s the hurry. I know, I know seniority right, but who would that likely new Representative be? An average joe like Rob Bishop, not likely. We are talking about a state wide race here (at large) and this will make the field very small who can afford a pre-convention state wide race for the GOP nomination.

Because lets face it folks, who ever wins this nomination, after the 2011 redistricting that the Legislature will orchestrate will be set for life. The districts will be redrawn to try again to remove Matheson, but the other 3 will be solid GOP until the Millennium.

But what really troubles me is this is totally UNCONSTITUTIONAL! One of the best explanations comes from


Government & Constitution
Why D.C. Representation in Congress Is Unconstitutional
by Rep. Candice MillerPosted Jun 12, 2006



Congress' Exclusive JurisdictionThough well-intentioned, this legislation is, above all, unconstitutional. The Constitution explicitly declares that representation in Congress can be granted only to states. Article 1, Section 2 states that "Representatives ... shall be apportioned among the several states..." Accordingly, the District of Columbia is currently represented in the House of Representatives not by a member of Congress, but instead by an elected delegate who can participate in debate and vote in committee but cannot vote on the House floor. The same goes for other American non-state territories that are comprised of American citizens, including Puerto Rico and Guam.Becoming a state is the only means by which the District of Columbia could gain a seat in the House of Representatives, and in order to pursue statehood, D.C. would first need the Constitution to be amended. The District of Columbia is unique among all other non-state territories, because Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution gives Congress exclusive jurisdiction "in all cases whatsoever" over the District of Columbia. Congress would need to be relieved of all responsibility for the district in order for the district to pursue statehood, and until such an amendment to the Constitution is passed, there will always be a question as to the constitutionality of a potential D.C. representative.

So should this issue come up for a vote in either body of congress, I expect all the Utah delegation to vote this down. If not, you are not upholding your oath to protect and defend the constitution of the United States.

Mark

Anonymous Blog Owners and Anonymous Blog Comments should be ignored!

I read with great interest the following article from Charley Foster’s Blog http://utahbeehive.blogspot.com/ . Since my wife is a 3L at the University of Utah Law School we both find his blog informative and more importantly fact based. As many of you know who read the papers, I have been involved in some legal issues that hopefully will be settled this coming week. Unfortunately the other party involved felt it necessary to involve the media in this matter and that has drawn the interest of several blog sites who have chosen to post articles and allowed anonymous comments that have been totally false or pure speculation.

From Charley Fosters Blog
Friday, June 02, 2006

"bloggers not liable for anonymous comments on their blogs

...at least in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Some time ago I wrote that the pre-emption clause of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act ought to block such claims, and here the U.S. District Court held exactly that, saying the act overrides the traditional treatment of publishers under statutory and common law". - Dimeo v. Max (pdf)

Two local blogs in particular http://utahconservative.blogspot.com/ and http://www.slcspin.com/ have chosen to post false information or pure speculation and allow anonymous comments full of lies and innuendo that have been hurtful to both myself and my family to be posted on their sites.

In my opinion no Blog owner should be anonymous. Why should someone who posts articles about other persons or public policy hide behind a cloak of secrecy? In the case of Ethan Millard’s slcspin the pure garbage that is posted on this site should be taken to the dump and buried.

A recent post from The Fly http://www.flyonthewall.us/blog/index.php on the slcspin site has caused a real firestorm within the GOP leadership.

I find it interesting that Steve Devore has finally come clean and admitted his involvement with this site. I really think the owner of Utah Conservative should do the same.

What I find most interesting with Steve Devore’s The Fly Blog is one of his most recent posts.

"No More Anonymous CommentsThe Fly has allowed anonymous comments on his blog. As he has read the comments, many of the comments have been somewhat scurrilous in nature and some have been downright untrue. Effective immediately, the Fly will require people who want to make comments to identify themselves with their full names and e-mail addresses. We’ll follow the same letter-to-the-editor principles of the major newspapers that require the writers to identify themselves.
If you want to provide anonymous tips for investigation, you can still do so. These tips are the lifeblood of the Fly. These tips will not be published but will be investigated and then reported if there is something there. The tipsters will never be identified."

This is the exact reason why my Blog site does not allow anonymous comments. If you are not brave enough to use you real name when you post a comment or own a Blog site, of what real value are your postings?

I would say worthless

Mark E. Towner
Proud Owner and Identified Poster always of the Political Spyglass

Victims of Crash Praised

Weather may have led to deaths; recovery efforts to resume today

By Sara IsraelsenDeseret Morning News
PROVO — The three Utah County men who died when their plane went down in Utah Lake Thursday night were men of integrity who lived their lives to the fullest, friends and family say.

Keith Johnson, Deseret Morning News
Standing near a recovered piece of plane, Cynthia Clements holds her husband, Eric, at Utah Lake State Park Friday. Thursday's plane crash killed three men, one of whom was a co-worker of Clements. Bad weather has hampered search efforts. Meanwhile, efforts were to resume today to recover the bodies of pilot Blaine Pugmire, 31, Springville; Alpine's Harold "Les" McGuire, 35; and Ray Hooper, 35, Mapleton. And investigators said they will continue to piece the "puzzle" together to determine a cause for the crash that occurred long after the Provo airport control tower had shut down for the night and in an area where radar coverage is poor. The loss of the three men is a huge blow not only to family members but the community in general, said Kyle Nelson, who worked with McGuire and Hooper in their financial consulting company, Producer Revolution, as well as other business ventures, including Engenuity. "If any men were to be part of the news, (these) are men with honor and integrity and a message that could save the world," said Nelson, executive vice president of Engenuity. "The intellectual property they have — their contribution to society can't even be measured." The men worked as financial educators, teaching skills for creating profitable, productive lives, Nelson said. Pugmire, an experienced pilot, had been hired to take the men to and from speaking engagements. The three friends were returning from a conference in St. George Thursday night when their plane went down near the Provo airport. The Utah County Sheriff's Office suspects weather might have been a factor in the crash. "We are taking so many things into factor," Utah County Sheriff's Sgt. Dennis Harris said. "It's like putting a puzzle together." Storms blew in across the county Thursday night and Friday, with heavy winds, patchy rain and ominous clouds. Bad weather continued to be an issue in the recovery efforts, as searchers were pulled off the lake several times Friday because of high winds and waves. The effort was suspended Friday evening and was expected to resume this morning around 6 a.m., Harris said, when searchers will begin investigating several points of interest identified Friday.

The Federal Aviation Administration and National Transportation Safety Board are also conducting parallel investigations, hoping to find a cause for the crash. Their investigation might take weeks, possibly even months, said William Hughes, an FAA inspector who was on site. The air control tower at Provo Municipal Airport is only manned between 7 a.m. and 9 p.m. The last contact with the plane was made by Salt Lake Center Air Control, which received word from Pugmire that the plane was on final descent about 11:30 p.m. Radar coverage in Utah County is limited, as there is no radar system at the Provo facility and the radar in Salt Lake City cannot pick up objects lower than 8,000 feet in the Provo area, according to the FAA. The first indication of trouble came when Pugmire's wife, Nicole, called Provo police around 3:50 a.m. Friday. She was worried because her husband was hours late checking in with her, which he always does, family members said. The call was transferred to the Utah County Sheriff's Office and they tried to find a signal from the plane. When they couldn't find one, they began searching Utah Lake around 6 a.m. with personal watercraft and later with dive teams and sonar-equipped boats. All three men had young families. Pugmire has three children under 4, and his wife is expecting the couple's fourth child next month. Pugmire's family described him as a wonderful father and husband and a stickler for flying perfection. "(Flying) was his passion, this was his love," said Pugmire's uncle, Rex Pugmire. He said his nephew had accumulated more than 2,000 flying hours, had flown commercially and was a corporate pilot. "We know where Blaine's at," said Rex Pugmire, crediting the family's faith for the peace they felt. "It's unsettling to see a plane coming in in pieces, but at the same time we're reassured."

Keith Johnson, Deseret Morning News
Friends and co-workers of the three men who died in Thursday night's plane crash grieve at the Utah Lake State Park marina during search efforts Friday. Underwater sonar equipment helped searchers find crash debris, but stormy weather hindered visibility. The same storm that might have played a role in the crash kept the water churning Friday, making visibility difficult for rescuers from the Utah, Summit and Wasatch County Sheriff's offices as well as individuals from Utah State Parks and Cross International Diving. But with the underwater sonar equipment, officials continued to bring in red- and gold-painted chunks of the Lance Air single-engine turboprop, including the tail piece and a wing. By Friday afternoon, the debris field had grown to nearly a mile and a half in each direction from the center — located about 2 miles west-northwest of the Utah Lake State Park and the Provo Boat Harbor, Harris said. The Red Cross arrived late Friday morning bringing comfort to the family and friends in the form of pizza, burgers and drinks — all donated by from local businesses. "Food is a comfort," said Katrina Pope, director of emergency services for the Provo Red Cross. "(It also shows) the community cares about them."
Contributing: Jeremy Twitchell
E-mail: sisraelsen@desnews.com

List of Hot Utah Bloggers

Aaron Toponce: PThree.org
Brandon Dayton: Merril Brandon
Charley Foster: The State of the Beehive
Christer Edwards: Development Blog
Clint Savage: Nitwit Circus Tracks
Corey Edwards: zmonkey.org - Those crazy monkeys
Dan Hanks: Brainshed Blog
Dave Fletcher: Dave Fletcher’s Government and Technology Weblog, v. 2.0
Dave Smith: Dave’s Blog
Dax Kelson: Dax’s Blog
Democracy for Utah: Democracy for Utah
Derek Carter: Goozbach’s Tech Tips
Doran Barton: FozzilinyMoo.org
Elijah Newren: Elijah’s Blog
Erin Sharmahd: TuxGirl.com
Gabriel Gunderson: gundy dot org
Gary Thornock: Gary Thornock’s Weblog
Hans Fugal: The Fugue
Harley Pig: HarleyPig’s Stall On The Web
Inside Utah: InsideUtah.com
Jacob Fugal: Jacob’s Blog
Jared Smith: jsmith’s blog
Jason Hall: [ jayce ] RSS Feed
Jeremy Votaw: Jeremy Votaw
Jesse Stay: Stay N’ Alive
Jim Knowlton: Beehive Donkey
JMD: Utah Centralist
John Dougall: Dynamic Range
Jordan Gunderson: Jordy Blog
Joseph Hall: blog.josephhall.com
KCPW’s Midday Metro: KCPW’s Midday Metro
Ken: Oblogatory Anecdotes
Kevin Tew: Entrepreneurship: Life Long Learning
Kyle Brantley: Boredom
Lamont Peterson: Peregrine
Lars Rasmussen: Musings from Lars
Lee Jensen: Serenity Now!
Liberty for Utahns!: Liberty For Utahns!
Lonnie Olson: Kittypee
Marc Christensen: Mecworks
Mister E: AgoraCart & E-commerce News, Updates and More - Mister Ed’s Corner
One Utah: One Utah
Pat Eyler: On Ruby
Paul Rolly: GenRolly Speaking (Paul Rolly)
Pete Ashdown: Pete Ashdown’s Campaign Journal
Peter Bowen: Peter A. Bowen
Phil Windley: Phil Windley’s Technometria
Richard K. Miller:Richard K Miller dot coooooooooom
Rob Latham: Rob Latham’s blog
Rob Merrell: Robdor The Burninator
Rob Miller: The Utah Amicus
Scott Morris: SUSE Linux Rants
Scott Paul Robertson: Spr — The Ramblings
Stephen Shaw: Decriptor’s Blog
Steve Dibb: steve’s blog
Steve Spigarelli: spig.net
Steve Urquhart: Steve Urquhart
Stuart Jansen: Stuart’s Blog
Tristan Rhodes: The Open Source Advocate
Utah Conservative:Utah Conservative
Utah Senate: The Senate Site
Von Fugal: Blog von RSS

Could us Guy's Survive this episode of "Survivor"

Six married men will be dropped on an island with one car and 3 kids each for six weeks. Each kid will play two sports and either take music or dance classes. There is no fast food. Each man must take care of his 3 kids; keep his assigned house clean, correct all homework, complete science projects, cook, do laundry, and pay a list of "pretend" bills with not enough money. In addition, each man will have to budget in money for groceries eachweek. Each man must remember the birthdays of all their friends and relatives, and send cards out on time. Each man must also take each child to a doctor's appointment, a dentist appointment and a haircut appointment. He must make one unscheduled and inconvenient visit per child to the Urgent Care (weekend, evening, on a holiday or right when they're about to leave forvacation). He must also make cookies or cupcakes for a social function. Each man will be responsible for decorating his own assigned house, planting flowers outside and keeping it presentable at all times.The men will only have access to television when the kids are asleep and all chores are done.There is only one TV between them, and a remote with dead batteries. Each father will be required to know all of the words to every stupid song that comes on TV and the name of each and every character on cartoons. The men must shave their legs, wear makeup daily, which they will apply to themselves either while driving or making three lunches. Each man will have to make an Indian hut model with six toothpicks, atortilla and one marker; and get a 4 year old to eat a serving of peas. Each man must adorn himself with jewelry, wear uncomfortable yet stylishshoes, keep their nails polished and eyebrows groomed. The men must tryto get through each day without snot, spit-up or barf on their clothing.During one of the six weeks, the men will have to endure severe abdominal cramps, back aches, and have extreme, unexplained mood swings but never once complain or slow down from other duties. They must try to explain what a tampon is for when the 6-yr old boy finds it in the purse. They must attend weekly school meetings, church, and find time at least once to spend the afternoon at the park or a similar setting. He will need to read a book and then pray with the children each nightwithout falling asleep, and then feed them, dress them, brush their teeth and comb their hair each morning by 7:00. They must leave the home with no food on their face or clothes. A test will be given at the end of the six weeks, and each father will be required to know all of the following information: each child's birthday, height, weight, shoe size, clothes size and doctor's name. Also the child's weight at birth, length, time of birth, and length oflabor, each child's favorite color, middle name, favorite snack,favorite song, favorite drink, favorite toy, biggest fear and what they want to be when they grow up.They must clean up after their sick children at 2:00 a.m. and then spend the remainder of the day tending to that child and waiting on them handand foot until they are better. They must have a loving, age appropriate reply to, "You're not the bossof me."The kids vote them off the island based on performance.The last man wins only if...he still has enough energy to be intimate with his spouse at a moment's notice. If the last man does win, he can play the game over and over and over again for the next 18-25 years...eventually earning the right to be called Mother!

Deseret News Correction

Correction: Mark Towner

Former GOP state Senate candidate Mark Towner said he did not seek a restraining order against former U.S. Senate candidate Mike Ridgway to keep Ridgway from attending the State Republican Convention. Towner was misquoted in a story that ran May 12.

No Way Day

Why we must Stop PFS Now

Had the Industry been allowed to develop new reactor technology and recycling of spent fuel rods like what is done in France and other European Countries, we would not be having this discussion.

So why must we not allow PFS to start temporary storage of thousands of casks of spent fuel rods on a concrete slab just a few miles upwind of the major metropolitan center of Utah. Because if this is allowed to start, #1 temporary will become permanent, but more importantly Congress will again skirt the real tough issue of energy independence.

If the President of the United States were to direct the Congress to remove the roadblocks to new technology development for Nuclear Energy, and stipulate that we need to build these plants on the coasts so they can convert Seawater into hydrogen, we could within the next decade have both coasts using 100 percent hydrogen/electric automobiles.

The reprocessing of spent fuel rods by Energy Solutions would be the fuel for these new reactors, making the PFS storage unnecessary.

We must now apply the pressure on our elected officials and turn up the heat on the BLM and get this project stopped. To help make this happen please click on the following link http://www.deq.utah.gov/Issues/no_high_level_waste/index.htm and follow thru by emails, faxes, or letters.

Let’s stop this now, and obtain energy independence.

Other Blogs Today on this issue:The Senate Site blog, SLCSpin, Part of the Plan, Utahnia, Jen's Green Journal, The Utah Amicus, JuniperWest, Reach Upward, Dee's 'Dotes, Media Relations,
Obiter Dicta by Steve, Eric Hamilton's Reality Check, Josh Ewing, Wilf Sommerkorn, Rural Blogging, Utah Conservative, This Divided State, and Charley Foster

Mark E. Towner

We Must Never Forget The Sacrifice for Freedom

When 2nd Lt. James Cathey's body arrived at the Reno Airport, Marines climbed into the cargo hold of the plane and draped the flag over his casket as passengers watched the famil y gather on the tarmac. During the arrival of another Marine's casket last year at Denver International Airport, Major Steve Beck described the scene as one of the most powerful in the process: "See the people in the windows? They'll sit right there in the plane, watching those Marines. You gotta wonder what's going through their minds, knowing that they're on the plane that brought him home," he said. "They're going to remember being on that plane for the rest of their lives. They're going to remember bringing that Marine home. And they should."

The night before the burial of her husband's body, Katherine Cathey refused to leave the casket, asking to sleep next to his body for the last time. The Marines made a bed for her, tucking in the sheets below the flag. Before she fell asleep, she opened her laptop computer and played songs that reminded her of 'Cat,' and one of the Marines asked if she wanted them to continue standing watch as she slept. "I think it would be kind of nice if you kept doing it," she said. " I think that's what he would have wanted."

Interview with U President Young

I spent part of the day up at the Hinckley Institute taking advantage of the Hinckley Forum “Religious Freedom and Human Rights in U.S. Foreign Policy", The Guest was President Michael Young, President, University of Utah. He was talking about the problems with Religious restrictions and human rights problems in countries that the United States and other Western countries have monetary, strategic, or energy trade agreements. This was the first time I had any interaction with President Young and I came away very impressed. The University of Utah was truly blessed to snatch this find from GW Law School. The mp3 stream should be available on KUER FM90 podcast later this week at http://www.kuer.org/2005Hinckley.html .

After speaking on the subject for nearly 30 minutes he opened up the session which was filled with Political Science students and members of the media including myself. One of the first questions asked was “What can the US and the other Western countries do to stop this” and President Young’s response was very non political, and straight from the hip “nothing really”. He said trade sanctions don’t work, and the UN is a mess that need’s total reorganization, and for all practical purposes most of these countries would simply sell their goods to other middle man countries that would simply repackage and resell to those countries that were embargoing in the first place. How refreshing to get an honest answer for a change. I wish our elected Federal officials could be more forthright when asked direct questions on issues of Immigration, national security, and the war against terror in Iraq and elsewhere in the world.

After his talk I spoke with him privately for about 20-30 minutes. I asked him about such subjects as the accreditation inquiry at BYU, and the involvement of Law School Professors in the Legacy Lawsuit. He indicated that BYU has nothing to worry about as this issue is settled Law. Concerning the Law School Professors, he supported their actions in as much as any citizen can become active in an issue that concerns them. He said as long as University staff or equipment is not used, any Professor should be able to be involved outside of the classroom. He also mentioned that there have been about 65 briefs submitted from the U Law Professors to assist the State in Legal battles.

I asked if he was concerned that the Law School had fallen out of the top tier of School’s in the US and now currently ranks 57th. He indicated that the rankings will be one of new dean, Hiram Chodosh’s top priorities.

In conclusion I found President Young to be very engaging and without puffery. His credentials speak for themselves, and his knowledge of Asian culture is remarkable. But the best thing I can say about him is character. Never did I get that feeling during his presentation, or when taking questions from the students, or even from this reporter that he felt superior in intellect.

I will conclude by saying the U got the deal of a lifetime, I just hope he can patch some of the animosity with the Legislature, and move the University forward to great things.