Flip Flop Fred

Fred Thompson, of course, was an Insider before he was an Outsider. Before he gets too carried away with the new Outsider role, though, someone should tell him that regular folks – real outsiders – are getting pretty good about checking facts.

Last week, the Outsider gave a rousing campaign speech on federalism – that 10th Amendment principle that burns bright in the hearts of Republican delegate-types who believe that the feds need to leave most governing up to states and cities. If the Outsider were sheriff, he suggests, things would be different.

Really? Name an example, Outsider.

The Outsider declares, “Perhaps the clearest example of federal over-involvement in state and local responsibilities is public education. It’s the classic case of how the federal government buys authority over state and local matters [and, then, messes things up].” Right on, brother! You’re getting my glasses all steamy.

The Outsider continues, “The No Child Left Behind law itself increased federal funding by some 26 percent, while creating 50 new educational programs nationally, imposing almost 7 million hours and more than 140 million dollars in compliance time and costs.” Hallelujah! from the Amen-corner!

But, wait a second. What did the Insider do to stop No Child Left Behind?

Um, well, the Insider actually voted for No Child Left Behind.

So, yes, Fred Thompson voted for No Child Left Behind, before he campaigned against it.

I’ve been in the statehouse battling against the big brother mandates of NCLB. Don’t try to act like you’ve been in the trenches with us, when you’re the guy who helped launch the attack.

One F for the big-brother vote. One F for hypocrisy. And one F for flat out trying to mislead on the issue. Three Fs. Flip Flop Fred.

Unhealthy Public Lands

Christopher Smart has a good article on cheat grass in the Tribune.

Cat Kills Patients

As if there were any doubt about the media's bias toward cats, we read this from the Deseret News:

Two or three days before the resident dies, Max will start sleeping at the foot of the sick person's bed and leave only to eat or visit his litter box.

I guarantee you, if -- instead of a cat -- Max were a construction worker, people would be asking questions.

Editorial Rewrite

Yesterday I commented on this editorial. Here is my rewrite. I don’t think I missed a bit of the message or the substance.

Don’t you hate rich people? They think they’re all that. Greedy pigs. We should take some of that money from them and spread it around. Ya, right, like Bushitler and the other Republicans would ever go for that. Halliburton.

American Government 101 – a Review

As we are instructed in our government classes, the federal government is a government of limited, specifically enumerated powers. While the states have plenary authority to address a broad array of issues, the people and the states established the federal government and specified a limited number of things it can do.

As students of the Constitution know, the job of the federal government is to regulate immigration, coin money, raise and support armies, define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and make rules for the government and regulation of the national basketball association.

[Insert Adjective] People Are Subhuman

Like most Americans, I am a taker. I receive more in government services than I pay in taxes. Far more.

I work hard at a really great job. And I grumble when I pay my taxes. But the amount I pay – like most Americans – comes nowhere near paying for the government services I receive. So, who pays my way? Who pays the way for most Americans? Rich people.

So, I’ve never understood the bit about the rich don’t pay taxes. They do. They pay lots of taxes, and people like me benefit as a result.

To those of you who pay to educate my kids, pave my streets, police my neighborhood, take care of my waste, feed and medicate members of my community, fight my enemies, judge our disputes and so much more – thank you. Those folks are performing great work, and I'm happy there are revenues to pay them. Hopefully things will go well for me and someday I’ll be able to pay my own way. But, for now, I sure appreciate the lift.

For a contrary viewpoint, this Trib editorial is truly amazing to me. Though it aggressively argues that rich people are mostly turds and should have more of their money taken, I think it really would like to advocate that rich people should be beaten with sticks until they confess. Nowhere does it contain the truisms that rich people (a.k.a. "robber barons") pay a lot of taxes and a higher percentage of taxes than most others.

I don’t really care one way or another about someone’s wealth. That fact alone does not establish or disqualify goodness or badness. Whether a grouping is based on wealth, race, religion, occupation, neighborhood, etc., some members of the group will be outstanding individuals, some members will be losers, and most will just be people.

I’m as quick as the next guy to jump on a group that is actively denying equal opportunities to others, but I don’t get the media’s fixation with demonizing rich people just because they are rich. Aren’t such generalizations just a form of bigotry?

Public Input and Public Policy

Getting nuanced public input on complex policy issues is difficult. The Internet could facilitate such input, but I don’t think it’s there yet. Effective models need to be created to involve people in the decision-making process in a more comprehensive way.

Is anyone aware of good models that exist to significantly involve the public in legislative decision making? For example, I’m looking for something (online or offline) where citizens are actively involved in defining pressing issues, delineating the variables and options concerning those issues, and putting together proposed solutions that could attract a majority of votes by decision makers. (I’m thinking these models might exist in smaller decision-making bodies, like towns, service organizations or homeowners associations).

In particular, I ask this in the aftermath of Congress’s dismal failure on immigration. I think the feds missed the relevant issues, the possible solutions and, of course, the comprehensive package. When their pre-baked solution got to the people, the people rejected it. The same might be said about Iraq; Democrats swept the elections, based on Iraq, but haven't done anything with the issue since they took power.

A good model, though, could apply to any issue under the sun, not just immigration or Iraq.

Thoughts?

Giuliani and Federalism

This LA Times article discusses Rudy Giuliani’s pitch to allow states to resolve many divisive issues, instead of the feds. On the one hand, that would be great. Power is supposed to be divided between the states and the federal government, with states handling most issues and the feds handling a few specified issues (like immigration and national defense). If allowed to operate, federalism fosters laboratories of democracy, where states can take different approaches and, by so doing, figure out best practices. Especially in a mobile, highly-networked age, federalism yields tremendous benefits. The trend, however, is for the federal government to involve itself in any and all issues and to diminish the autonomy of states.

On the other hand, a blanket “federalism” answer is something of a dodge, if it doesn’t discuss the effect of the “full faith and credit” clause, which would require states to recognize legal actions in other states, such as gay marriages. Perhaps Rudy does that; I don’t know. And, please, Mr. Mayor, if you’re even going to utter the word “federalism,” don’t say you support federal involvement in education.

In any event, it’s nice to hear some discussion of federalism on the campaign trail.

D News Makes Stuff Up

I hadn’t seen this D News editorial until today. Apparently, I’m an evil simpleton because I raise questions regarding the cost of educating illegal aliens.

First off, I’m not quite sure how they conclude that I’m a Johnny-one-note “throw-the-bums-out” on immigration. As far as I recall, I haven’t ever spoken with anyone at the D News about my ideas on immigration. My ideas actually are quite a bit more nuanced than “throw the bums out.” Though I do want to throw out bums (e.g., murderers, drug dealers, and other bad actors), I’d like to give law-abiding workers an honest path to citizenship. Did I ever suggest we stop educating children who are here illegally? No. Just that we inform Congress of the burden. So, I’d guess the D News wanted to attack a strawman, and just attached my name to it.

Second, I guess the editorial board can’t read or do basic research. Contrary to their assertion, the audit report we examined in committee clearly did mention the Texas study. The audit report stated that many governmental services are funded at the local level in Texas. By not analyzing those costs, the Texas study understated the costs associated with illegal immigration by $1.44 billion – a little factoid that a better editorial board would not have fudged.

Third, as the D News states, ITINs are issued to illegal immigrants. But, to get a job, open a bank account or establish credit, these same people often are asked to produce 2 forms of i.d. What does the D News have to say about where that other form of i.d. comes from? Nothing. The answer is that it often comes from identity theft, which adversely affects thousands of Utahns.

So maybe facts, financial implications and crimes relating to illegal immigration aren't important to the D News. Whatever. Everyone is entitled to an opinion.

The editorial concludes with this: “But then this argument isn't about taxes or education. The motives behind the hostility against school children, in fact, feel more angry and emotional than fact-based.” I’d agree that most of the “dialogue” on illegal immigration is “more angry and emotional than fact [sic] based.” To that end, I’d invite the D News to be a bit more cheery and to do a little research. True dialogue on a complex issue requires some sophistication of thought, not a bunch of hackneyed drivel slopped on paper.

The D News editorial board does not have moral superiority because it believes we should ignore the issue of illegal immigration. Board members simply have an opinion -- one that is simplistic and not tethered to a factual basis. My opinion is that illegal immigration is an important issue and should be addressed. How should we address it? I'm searching for options; that isn't accomplished by outlawing dialogue and inquiry.

Lack of Professional Courtesy

I'm sad to see that professional courtesy continues to decline in my profession.

FreeDumb of Speech

When our guys are talking, speech should be free. But, when your guys are talking, the Government should keep an eye on them.

When our guys regulate speech, it is a good thing. But, when your guys regulate speech, it is an assault on the First Amendment.

That seems to be the driving philosophy for many partisans. Leftists want to regulate speech on the radio, and this idiot wants to regulate leftist speech in the blogosphere.

Notice how this conservative commentary (against regulating blogospheric speech) highlights the vapid partisanship: “Granted, there is at least some wry amusement to be had in the fact that the liberals will someday bite their own rear ends with their unconstitutional, anti-free-speech campaign-finance-reform laws.”

Um, when you say, “unconstitutional, anti-free-speech campaign-finance-reform laws,” would that be the ilk of McCain-Feingold Act, sponsored by Republican Senator John McCain, signed by Republican President George W. Bush, and affirmatively voted on by then-Senator, now-will-he/won’t-he-run-(hmm-we-just-don’t-know) Republican Fred Thompson?

I’m not saying the Ds are any better, because they’re not. But, neither party can claim high ground on First Amendment issues. It’s mostly just a lot of mucking around in the low ground.

Darn That Barack Obama

Either Barack Obama is making sense or I’m developing a man crush on him. Believe me, I’m really scrambling for a third option.

Asked about nuclear power at the YouTube/CNN debate, Obama gave the grown-up response, Edwards gave the pandering simpleton response, and Clinton gave the all-politics-all-the-time-I-didn’t-inhale response.

Though Sen. Obama is too leftist for me, I do greatly appreciate that he is actually willing to tell the people where he stands. Like it or not. Those who criticize Obama for a lack of experience often just show an inside-the-beltway arrogance. As an Illinois Legislator, Obama did what other legislators do across the country – balanced budgets every year and put together comprehensive solutions to difficult problems. He comes from a political setting where people demand results and can actually reach the officeholder. Can Edwards, Clinton, McCain, Thompson, and the other D.C.-insiders say the same?

Hint: no.

(BTW, I’d argue that Romney, Richardson, and Giuliani can point to similar successes).

Frank Staheli also is impressed.

Speaking of Pulp and Paper . . .

While bazillions of people read their three-pound Harry Potter books, I did a little research on the pulp and paper industry. Actually, I started researching global warming (and deforestation and wildfires), and ended up locating a dear childhood friend who is busy saving the planet by redefining the international pulp and paper industry.

Lots of investment money is flowing to third-world countries to build pulp and paper mills. That practice has led to unprecedented destruction of rainforests. (Query: is this, in part, a result of the developed world offshoring environmental problems?). Being a brilliantly clear thinker and communicator, Chris Barr dug into the facts regarding the pulp and paper industry in Indonesia and wrote the seminal paper that helped changed lending practices and, at least to some degree, protects rainforests and promotes local economies. (lots of lawlessness in the world to contend with, though).

Chris revealed that there was no way the mills in Indonesia could do enough business to pay off international loans by just using legally-harvested timber supplies. Not even close. Stunning was the fact that the entities loaning billions of dollars never bothered to do any due diligence to determine whether legal supplies could supply enough feedstock for the mills. As a result of Chris's work, responsible lenders and paper purchasers now see that native forests are protected and that locals are willing to grow harvestable trees.

It’s wonderful to learn that Chris is in the thick of it.

Ten Best Movies

Cool Hand Luke
Raising Arizona
Life Is Beautiful
Rocky
Dr. Strangelove
The Deer Hunter
Hoosiers
Cinema Paradiso
Big Fish
Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid

Harry Potter Ending

Here’s how it ends: words stop appearing on the pages.

My daughter called a radio talk show, Bookmarks with Terry Hutchinson (a St. George attorney), and gave her opinion on how the series would end – and she won a free copy!

We’ll go to B. Dalton’s after midnight tonight to pick it up.

Be careful reading comments to this post: I worry some well-intentioned liberal will tell us the ending – believing that people should get the reward without the work.

And, no, it’s not funny to say that I need to be told the ending because Republicans can’t read.

Immigration: States Will Now Take the Reins

In the Education Committee yesterday, I suggested that we ask the federal government to reimburse Utah for the cost of educating children who are here illegally. (D News, Trib and Neil Cavuto – if anyone wants to grab that clip and email me it to me, steveu@infowest.com, I’d like to post it).

The Legislative Auditor estimates that Utah pays between 55- and 85-million dollars to educate children who are here illegally. That’s a lot of money for Utah (about 2 to 3 percent of the State’s expenditures for public education). According to federal law, Utah must educate these children no questions asked. If that’s the case, and if the federal government isn’t going to do anything about immigration, why shouldn’t the feds foot the education bill?

Now, I’m not holding my breath waiting for the check to show up, but I hope the conversation helps send the message that the states are going to move forward on immigration.

I have been one to encourage patience on immigration, reminding colleagues that the federal government has sole constitutional authority to deal with immigration. Like many state legislators, though, I have run out of patience with the ineptitude of our federal government on this issue. If they can’t deal with it, the States will.

States, after all, deal with most complex issues – education, crime, social services, transportation, etc. And, remember, every year (by what must appear to be powerful sorcery to our federal counterparts) states balance their budgets. Waiting on leadership from a group that can’t even balance its own checkbook is a tough thing for state legislators who year-in and year-out make the difficult decisions necessary to govern.

Given Congress’ recent failure to pass meaningful legislation – and fully realizing that Congress lacks the spine and/or ability to get back in the trenches and get the job done – I predict that most states will move forward on legislation to deal with impacts caused by illegal immigration. As Cavuto pointed out, it would be messy, if 50 states started doing their own thing on immigration. But, in my opinion, it’s probably better than doing nothing.

Suggestions?

Does Environmental Group Owe Carbon Offset?

Critics are saying that my 3rd-annual installment on cheat grass could be the summer’s runaway blockbuster! However, the acclaim is not universal.

Ed Partridge notes at Part of the Plan that it got a thumbs-down review from Heidi McIntosh.

One minor point I made (actually in a comment to this post) was that extreme environmental groups have sued to stop reseeding efforts (native grasses for flammable non-native grasses) after fires. I mentioned the Southern Utah Wilderness Association. Ed asked SUWA’s conservation director, Heidi McIntosh, about my claim. Heidi said:

SUWA has never filed a lawsuit to stop reseeding. Period. Urquhart has his facts wrong…

It’s so easy to throw baseless claims like this around; a throwaway reference to “lawsuits by extreme environmentalists” is red meat for those antagonistic to wilderness protection and an easy sell for Mr. Urquhart. But, to state the obvious, spreading false information undercuts the ability to have an intelligent public discussion and to generate sound policy to address these important issues.

Never. Period. Urquhart . . . wrong. Baseless claims. Red Meat. Easy sell. Spreading false information.

A casual reader might think that I’m a bad man. But, my faithful readers know that the words “Urquhart” and “wrong” are an awkward fit in the same sentence – except for something like “Heidi McIntosh is wrong to question Urquhart’s steel trap memory.”

The Bureau of Land Management (the federal agency that manages most federal land in Utah) has a nifty little document discussing the devastating Utah fires of 1996 and attempts to chain and reseed the burned areas to fight cheat grass. (Warning: if you haven’t read BLM’s 1996 Fire Season Case Study, I might spoil the ending for you). BLM says:

On March 19, 1997 the Southern Paiute Consortium and the Kanosh Band of Southern Paiutes sued BLM in Federal Court to stop further chaining, SUWA also filed an appeal with IBLA to stop BLM from further chaining. [editor’s note: hmm, I'd be very curious to know whose signature was on that legal document]

A ten day Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) was issued March 22, against BLM by a Federal Judge in Salt Lake City. All further chaining operations then ceased. In testimony before the Judge, BLM had indicated that the window of opportunity for successful rehabilitation would soon be lost if they were forced to suspend operations. The TRO meant that BLM had to issue suspension notices to several chaining contractors. At the end of the ten day TRO, BLM informed the Judge that the opportunity to conduct further successful operations was indeed lost. Given the late date, it was felt that seedlings would not sufficiently establish prior to the onset of the late spring and summer dry period. About 30,100 acres of chaining projects were not completed as a result of the suspension in operations.

Urquhart wrong? C’mon!

No doubt, fire-promoting cheat grass took over the area where the lawsuits stopped the reseeding efforts. If those areas burned this past week, does SUWA owe the world lots of carbon offsets?

Education. The Rich Get Richer. The Poor, Well, Who Cares?

Lee Davidson and JTC present an informative piece on differences between schools on the east (richer) and west (poorer) sides of Salt Lake County.

Teachers on the east side have more experience and higher degrees. Those are the two factors used to differentiate pay among teachers. Thus, the better teachers (districts’ criteria, not mine) – the ones with better options – prefer the richer schools. And, there, they deliver a superior product.

So, rich kids are offered a better public education than poor kids.

However, if the superior public education of the rich kids is not superior enough, their folks can afford to send them to private school. Good for them. It’s nice to have options.

But, if the inferior public education of the poor kids is not good enough for them, well, that’s just too bad. Let them eat school lunch.

This is why we need vouchers. Vouchers give options to people of limited means. Customers with options get better results. This is why I bristled at the Senate Education Committee when the good Senator from Holladay informed us that her constituents just don’t like vouchers. Good for them. It’s nice to be rich.

Prince Shakes It Up

Prince's Planet Earth went out today in the newspaper. And the music industry is in a dither.

As the Daily Mail reports, "With remarkable prescience, as far back as 1995 [Prince] told an interviewer: 'Once the internet is a reality the music business is finished. There won't be any need for record companies. If I can send you my record direct, what's the point of having the business? I don't even have a manager any more. Would you want somebody living off your work?'"

To celebrate, Prince went to Sadie Hawkins with Posh Beckham.

On Average, They're Average

Here are the world's tallest man and the world's smallest -- both from Mongolia. How cool!





Sara and I once bowled at the same alley as Shawn Bradley. Every few minutes she would say to me, "Stop staring!" I couldn't. He just kept going and going.

FEMA Rap for Kidz

Don Surber has a good post about all the stupid government mascots and campaigns that your tax dollars help create.

My favorite is the FEMA Rap for Kidz. Though I couldn't find "kidz" in Webster's, it apparently is simply an alternative way of spelling "kids," as in "children," in order to relate to today's youth. As I overheard one young man say, "That federal government is pretty 'fly,'" -- which, in today's vernacular, means "swell" (and not anything about moving through the air or a winged insect).

Wouldn't you just love to be in the meetings where these things are selected?

("It says, 'so your heart don't break;' that's not even proper English. It should be 'doesn't break.'"

"They know that, Bob. That's how kids talk today."

"Oh, okay. Come to think of it, I have heard talk like that. But, like I've said before, we really do need something in there about the importance of mitigation to the agency.")

The closest I've come to such as experience was when the State's ad agency unveiled the State's new slogan to House leadership. The year before, we had dumped a lot of money into economic development, and job one, economic development informed us, was to develop a killer slogan. I figured it had to stink, when they took forever walking us through the underlying reasons why what we were about to see was going to be awesome. "We focus grouped people on what characteristics they appreciate about Utah . . .." "We, then, focus grouped certain words and phrases . . .."

They pulled the cloth off the easel, and a poster, with a picture of mountains, proclaimed "Seek Higher Ground." I bit my tongue for a very long time, but no one else said a thing. Finally, I asked, "Why? Is there going to be a flood?"

It was all for naught, as it was later revealed to the advertising brain trust that the slogan for our neighbor to the east, Colorado, is "Enter a Higher State," and Colorado had already warned that it would send troops in to any state messing with their motto. Unfortunately for them, their press release said, "Don't mess with Colorado," which Texas took as a hostile act and immediately sent 10,000 skiers to snowplow down their mountains.

In order to maintain peace, and show that we are above the fray, we now have "Utah: Life Elevated."

Utah’s Contribution to Global Cooling

As a biology major and Legislator, I have a basic knowledge of science and politics. The global warming hysteria represents the absolute worst of both disciplines.

I do not have adequate data to make a conclusive determination regarding the effects of human activities on global warming – and neither does anyone else, no matter what degrees they hold or how many people they hold hands with in the echo chamber. Hypotheses, yes. Conclusions, not yet.

(Trust me; Utahns know about premature scientific conclusions.)

Global warming potentially is a huge deal; that being the case, we need to seriously study its causes – which means there needs to be plenty of room for scientists to hypothesize that human-induced warming theories are crap and to study other causes. That’s how science works. It is a very “hostile” discipline, where advances often are made by someone saying, “I think everyone else is dead wrong,” and, then, proving it. But the academy is snuffing out any “dissenting” research by the “deniers.”

Global warming is the Left’s evolution-issue – where the pre-determined conclusion dictates the data or even precludes data collection.

If they had their way, many on the Right would ban serious scientific study or political deliberation of evolutionary speciation. Why? Because – without adequate data – they (1) believe they know the correct answer or (2) are worried some other answer will be found.

Likewise, if they had their way, many on the Left would ban scientific study or political deliberation of human-induced global warming. Why? Because – without adequate data – they (1) believe they know the correct answer or (2) are worried some other answer will be found.

So, first off, people should take a deep breath, and let scientists study global warming from different perspectives. Okay, whatever; no one really cares what I think about that big issue.

But, here’s where I might have something substantive to offer. Regardless whether it is real from a scientific perspective, human-induced global warming is very real from a political perspective. For example, Gov. Huntsman met with Gov. Schwarzenegger and committed Utah to get on the eco-political bandwagon. This is troubling to legislators who are worried about the effect such measures could have on the State’s economy. (Note: while the article correctly identified that Sen. Stowell and Rep. Noel do some ranching and farming, it failed to mention that both have some pretty serious scientific backgrounds – a masters in chemical engineering for Dennis and PhD-level studies in biology, I believe it was, for Mike).

As noted here, Sen. Stowell and many others also are troubled by the unchecked invasion of cheat grass in the West. Cheat grass promotes fire cycles about 5 times more frequent than does native vegetation. Those frequent fires lead to more cheat grass, which in turns leads to even more fires, and on and on. Thus, if left unchecked, we can expect more-frequent and ever-bigger wildfires.

And that’s where the serious political solution might be found. If we aggressively go after cheat grass and re-establish native flora, we would:

1. restore the marvelous western lands to their rightful glory;
2. help animal species that rely on the native plant species;
3. greatly reduce the number and scope of western wildfires; and
4. reduce the carbon emissions from the unnatural fire cycle.

This would seem to be good from all angles.

This article states that the impact from wildfires equals 40% of fossil fuel emissions. This article argues that wildfire-related impacts are far greater than that. Why not look at reducing those emissions, in part, by restoring natural fire cycles in the West? Possibly placing the conclusion before the data collection, the first article surmises that global warming is leading to longer summers and, thus, more wildfires. Why not turn that around and consider another possibility? Are unnatural wildfires leading to global warming?

The start of the increase in atmospheric temperature coincides with cheat grass’s onslaught in the Western United States and with the slash-and-burn push of people into the tropical forests in other areas of the world. Add those things together, and you have an ugly suspect standing in the global warming lineup. Let’s take a closer look at that suspect.

Global Warming

According to the Tribune, "Huntsman's spokeswoman Lisa Roskelley, contacted Thursday in Salt Lake City, said climate change is an issue that shouldn't become overly political."

Say "Yes!"

The Utah Democratic Party is starting a new campaign: Say "Yes!"

I love it! Let's shout this from the rooftops for at least the next 4 months.

Say "Yes!" Vote "Yes!"

Yes! Yes! Yes! That's the word we love!

First, we'll say "Yes!" to vouchers, so that ALL children can have equal educational options. Then, we'll say "Yes!" to differential pay, so that we'll have teachers for math and science classes and so that the best teachers will be willing to teach in Title I schools. Then, we'll say "Yes!" to merit pay, so that the best teachers will be rewarded for the extra efforts.

We'll say "Yes!" to accountability, "Yes!" to opportunity, and "Yes!" to success!

Rocky – a Bigot?

Mayor Anderson says that Jenny Wilson should stay home and leave politics to the menfolk. The amazing thing is that progressives are shocked that Rocky could have such a bigoted opinion. What??? That’s his whole shtick. People who don’t do things the way he would do them have unacceptable opinions and need to drop out of the conversation.

On the issue of mothers and politics – you go, Jenny W. and any other man or woman who figures he/she has something to offer! We need to encourage more people to serve, not less. Politics is tough and very time consuming. But, I have no idea how Jenny Wilson’s marriage arrangement works; I have no idea how many hours of sleep she needs a night; I have no idea what other commitments she is juggling. But, I’m plenty willing to assume that she knows her situation better than I do, has thought enough about it, and has rightly concluded that she can pull it off.

In any event, Rocky would be a poor judge of how much time the position of mayor really takes. Most of the stuff he spends his time on has absolutely nothing to do with being mayor of Salt Lake City.

Eat This, Rep. Frank

Rep. Frank posted a video of him entertaining the kids by doing a handstand on a skateboard. Big whoop. Who can't do that?

Here's real talent (the first contestant is my daughter).

Western Fires and Extreme Environmentalism

Wildfires are destroying huge parts of Utah. And, yes, I use the word “destroying” intentionally, to suggest a long-term effect. Senators viewed the damage and direct some ire at environmental groups. That missive is creating its own fire storm in the comments section.

Hence, it’s time for my much-anticipated, 3rd-annual article on cheat grass! If you want to ace this year’s test, you’ll need to review the 1st and 2nd installments.

Fire has been an important part of rangeland ecology for millennia. However, during historic fire cycles, the period between fires was much, much longer (5- to 10-times longer) – allowing for far more heterogeneous speciation. Successional species were well adapted to those fires. Now, though, cheat grass – a 6’8”, 250-pound, tattooed, heavily-armed, escaped-from-death-row invasive species – has taken over the West and changed all that.

As I note in installment one – as you, my faithful reader, no doubt will recall – the ecologist from Yosemite (likely with sufficient scientific and environmental bona fides) points out that all rules are off when it comes to invasives. As Senator Peterson understands as well as anyone on the planet, cheat grass is an environmental catastrophe of the first order. Cheat grass promotes hot, frequent fires that wipe out any and all other plants and, thereby, promote growth of only one thing; you guessed it – more cheat grass. This, in turn, promotes hotter, more-frequent fires, which, then, promote . . .. You get the picture.

Extreme environmental groups, of course, did not introduce cheat grass. That likely was a function of pre-Taylor Grazing Act overgrazing. But extreme environmental groups invite further destruction by stopping reseeding efforts after fires. And they can be charged with fiddling while the West burns. If, for example, the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance cared more about the land itself than the money generated for its organization by engaging in high-profile battles over lesser issues, it would make cheat grass a high priority. But it doesn’t. Cheat grass does not have a high enough profile for fundraising campaigns. A cheat grass eradication campaign would be a positive pro-active, get-something-done campaign, instead of a reactionary and highly-lucrative stop-those-bad-capitalists campaign. Thus, the resources of our land management agencies are squandered on less important battles, while cheat grass inflicts wholesale destruction on western rangelands.

Obama and Merit Pay for Teachers

Senator Obama might be a different cut. He dared to suggest to the National Education Association that good teachers should be paid more than bad teachers. Heresy.

UPDATE: This link illustrates how dangerous it is for anyone on the left to even bring up merit pay for discussion. I got a kick out of the comment arguing that this proves Obama is just playing it safe.

Politics Is Fake

Robert Gehrke reminds us that vapid partisanship is alive and well:

The Saga of Scooter is all about accountability, and it's about time we start holding Bill Clinton accountable.

At least that's the story, according to Rep. Chris Cannon, who has had Bill Clinton on the brain for more than a decade.

Appearing on Fox News Sunday, Cannon said that the mistake that was made was not prosecuting Clinton for lying to the grand jury, which is the crime Libby was convicted of and sentenced to 30 months in prison.

"By not having prosecuted Bill Clinton, we have said people get a pass," said Cannon, who was one of the House Managers, the Republican members who made the case for Clinton's impeachment.

"I think that we've healed. And having prosecuted Scooter Libby, I think goes to some degree to vitiate the problem that we created by a president of the United States who lied and obstructed justice," Cannon said. "People now know that you actually could go to jail for those things, or at least have huge penalties."

"Right." You actually could go to jail for those things, "unless, you know, you don't because the president tosses you a "Get Out Of Jail Free" card.

It is a fascinating commentary on the political condition of our Nation, to see how the party affiliation of the perp causes a reversal of positions on the act of perjury.

Both Libby and Clinton committed perjury. When Clinton did it, it was a grave offense, to Republicans, deemed worthy by many of removing a President from office for the first time in the Nation's history. Pretty stiff medicine. But, then, perjury hacked at the pillars of justice. Democrats, to the contrary, argued that perjury wasn't that big of a deal, given the circumstances.

When Libby committed perjury, it was a very big deal to Democrats. Now, MoveOn.org is through moving on, figuring the Nation actually could use a good impeachment (of Cheney, that is, since impeaching President Bush would give Cheney a promotion). Republicans, to the contrary, are a lot less vocal about perjury's destabilizing impact on pillars of justice, given the circumstances. "On second thought, perjury threatens to leave bothersome scuff marks on the marbled floors of justice."

This is where we have arrived. Before we can determine whether something is right or wrong, we need to know the party affiliation of the perp.

Immigration, the Senate, and the People

Government was transformed this past week. As Robert Caro correctly notes (despite populist notions to the contrary), the United States Senate was designed to be immune from popular pressure: “to ensure that the Senate could protect the people against themselves, the Framers armored the Senate against the people.” As Edmund Randolph put it, “The object of this second branch (the Senate) is to control the democratic branch (the House).” Clearly, this week, the august body felt (and reacted to) popular pressure on an immigration bill that had been blessed by the leadership of both parties, the White House and the mainstream media.

Entomologists probing the cognition of bugs suddenly exposed to sunlight could study the soundtrack of Trent Lott and his colleagues for clues. Scripted to spring full grown from the dark recesses of Senate process to the Unites States Code, the immigration bill was stopped when people, using new media tools, abruptly flipped over the Senate’s rock. Angry and confused Senators scurried in all directions.

Citizens rewrote the script, recasting protagonists as foils and heroes as villains. NZ Bear quickly put the bill into (somewhat) manageable form for the people to review. Citizens, like Hot Air, cobbled together a few quick, cheap and effective videos (that left the Wall Street Journal asking, “Who are those guys?”). And citizens everywhere got involved in the debate. Rather than play out the revised script, the Senate meekly drew the curtain closed. When it was over, the people had stopped the Senate in its tracks.

This puts us in a moment of considerable disequilibrium. The people floored the Senate. And both sides know that it wasn’t a sucker punch. It was a solid, round-by-round, punch-by-punch, Ali v. Liston-like trashing.

Rather than step into that ring again, the Senate likely will do two things to restore the natural order. First, the Institution of the Senate will work to reclaim its advantage – by silencing its critics through restrictions on new media “for the good of reliable public discourse.” Second, the Senate will avoid the immigration issue like the plague. Both reactions are unacceptable and must be stopped by the people.

Magnanimous in victory, the people must do two things. First, the people should lift the Senate, help it dust itself off, and send it on the right path, by embracing Senators who engage directly with the people. It’s a new thing to them. Efforts should be generously rewarded. On the other hand, the first Senator who makes any motion toward silencing the dialogue should be stepped on immediately.

Second, a productive, result-oriented dialogue on immigration must be fostered. In politics, it is very easy to say “no” to any and all ideas. Every proposal can be not good enough. And every person can avoid responsibility by claiming a high ground of philosophical purity. The real work in government, though, comes in crafting solutions. Immigration needs a solution. And, if a solution is to be found, it is the people that will find it.

Congratulations, folks. Now get to work.

UPDATE: Thoughts by Mark Steyn.