The Bailout

In considering the wisdom of the federal bank bailout scheme, remember this: the same fools who created the problem are now proposing the radical solution – on the fly – without changing the underlying philosophies and organizations that spawned the problem in the first place. In other words, the incompetent doctor who cut your spinal cord during surgery now wants you to “trust him” to perform remedial surgery.

Many in Washington, D.C., (including the Queen of Fools, Pelosi) want to cast partisan blame. I think Americans know where blame sits – with the Washington, D.C. political establishment, as an incompetent whole. A pox on both their houses. Some actors might have been worse than others, but it is silly to talk in relative terms when referring to cockroaches or congressmen.

Our current economic crisis is not difficult to understand. The fools in Washington, D.C. enacted social-engineering policies to encourage lenders to give money to anybody walking through the door. No credit or bad credit? No down payment? No job? No problem! Does Uncle Sam have a deal for you!

Now, surprise of surprises, when the economic cycle turned downward, we were shocked to learn that lots of those uncredit-worthy borrowers couldn’t pay their mortgages. Congress manipulated markets, and the markets delivered a reckoning. The housing market that was floated to ridiculous heights, because of the ease of credit, returned to earth, as defaults flooded the market and lenders were forced to retreat. Lenders’ portfolios capsized – as collateral-backed indebtedness was revealed to lack sufficient real backing.

Why did this happen? Simple. Congress long ago stopped governing and, instead, chose to focus solely on pandering. It is incapable of doing anything else. As Alexander Tytler is purported to have said centuries ago:

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largess from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.

Here, loose fiscal policy – the result of pandering – seems to be leading to unprecedented federal aggregation of power.

Last week, the Republican and Democratic members of the Utah Legislature went into special session to work together to get our budget in balance. It was hard, but we did it. Though it is hard every year, we do it. We are elected to do hard things.

The fools in D.C. are elected to do hard things. Only, they never actually do. If it is hard – think immigration and unfunded entitlements, for example – they take a pass. Instead, they busy themselves with the work of the states – education, welfare, and transportation, for example.

In this instance, they cashed check after check after check from Fannie Mae. But, they did not bother – any of them – to truly dig into the practices (or even scratch into the practices) of this government-sponsored political behemoth that kept the game afloat by supposedly backing trillions of dollars of mortgages while operating with the discipline of Delta House. Now that the house of cards has crashed, the feds are on the job with a proposed fix – details to be provided sometime in the future.

I don’t trust those people at all. They don’t have a clue about fixing this mess, because they don’t understand the root cause of it: that is, that they caused it. They are the problem. Rather than give them another $700,000,000,000 to fritter away, I’d like to get bids for a good bug sprayer who promises to rid us of them, the vermin that now run our nation – run it straight into the ground, that is. Government assistance might or might not help matters, in theory. But, in our present reality, those fools can’t fix a thing. Let them leave town and explain to their constituents why they should be returned to their posts.

UPDATE (later): Jeffrey Miron observes, "The fact that government bears such a huge responsibility for the current mess means any response should eliminate the conditions that created this situation in the first place, not attempt to fix bad government with more government."

He continues, "The right view of the financial mess is that an enormous fraction of subprime lending should never have occurred in the first place. Someone has to pay for that. That someone should not be, and does not need to be, the U.S. taxpayer."

Divorce American Style

Alec Baldwin has written a book on divorce. In an interview, he stated, "The longer you hold out for what should be the right of every parent, the more expensive and painful the process becomes." Not commenting on any particulars regarding Baldwin's divorce, his observation is correct.

Dr. Helen notes, "But it makes me think that if Baldwin had such problems with the system with all his fame and money, what chance does the average joe have?" The answer: not much chance.

I serve on the Board of the Southern Utah Community Legal Clinic, and I volunteer time to low-income people who come in for help. That experience ratifies what I already knew: family law is in dire need of reform. People's supposed rights are trampled routinely on the basis of money.

Most Utahns and Americans cannot afford a lawyer -- and never will be able to. Why, then, if we claim to care about justice, do we mandate that only lawyers can provide legal help in family law issues? By so doing, we mandate that most people receive no legal help at all -- effectively teeing them up for spouses who can afford legal help. As a result, family law proceedings often magnify existing inequities in relationships, based on who controls the money. Whoever controls the money gets the legal help and comes out better.

Rather than mandating that only lawyers can help (when most people can't afford lawyers), wouldn't it make more sense to license non-lawyer providers who meet licensing requirements regarding expertise and ethics?

Live Blogging: Special Budgetary Session

The Utah Legislature is meeting to cut the state budget, so that expenditures will match declining revenues. Because this affects people and programs that people count on, this is a difficult task. But it is a necessary task. (Also, very unfortunately, in my opinion, we’re also addressing exemptions to high school performance testing requirements.).

I’ll live blog the progress of the session.

September 25, 2008

I met this morning with House Republican leadership at 7 a.m.

At 8 a.m., I met with the Education Interim Committee (audio here), to consider Sen. Stephenson’s Student Achievement Testing Exceptions. Brad Last and I were the only “no” votes. To me, this is not a special session issue. It requires more discussion/consideration in a general session. Because this should be a budgetary session, I won’t clog up this post discussing the bill. I’ll discuss it in the post below.

12:30 p.m. – Legislative leadership has been meeting with the Governor, to set a general pathway for deliberations to proceed. To make up a projected shortfall of $275 million, we’re looking to cut agency budgets 3-4% ($175 million), cut building and road funds ($65 million), cut AR&I on buildings ($15 million), and repeal a health care tax cut that has not yet gone into effect but has been accounted for on the balance sheet ($18 million). A series of internal reallocations and bonding is proposed to get to those final amounts, but that’s where discussions are headed.

Sub-Appropriations Committees are meeting to hear how Department heads propose to address the 3% cuts. I’m in Health and Human Services. (Audio here – look at “What’s Happening Today”). Here is some commentary on the Human Services proposals from the Director.

Listening/absorbing the info makes it very hard to blog. Strikes me that our system would be much better, if handouts from agencies were posted online.

Lunch – caucuses are meeting to see where Reps/Senators are heading.

We'll reconvene sub-approps committees at 2:30.

3:50 p.m. -- We're wound around the stem a bit, but it looks like we are going to adopt the Departments' recommendations. I am arguing that, if committee members vote against adopting those recommendations, that each should explain his/her preferred way of getting to the 3% (which is the task at hand) -- and, after so doing, having the opportunity to more globally address how the overall budget should be addressed.

4:00 p.m. -- We did adopt the Departments' recommended cuts, but we're really struggling to get our arms around the data in such a short time. The HHS budgets are some of the more complex budgets, because of all the various programs. We're now looking for one-time cuts of 3%. We look at money in terms of on-going (planned to be repeated every year, unless changed) and one-time (once spent, it will be gone).

I have a House Republican leadership meeting, and after that a joint Republican leadership meeting with the Senate. We'll see where the HHS committee lands, but I think we need another meeting, to give members and the Departments a night to digest what we've done and come up with a few more ideas.

UPDATE (9/29/08): Rep. Holdaway posts his thoughts on the special session.

UPASS Exemptions

The Education Interim Committee met this morning, to consider Sen. Stephenson’s Student Achievement Testing Exceptions. Rep. Brad Last and I were the only “no” votes. To me, this is not a special session issue. It requires more discussion/consideration in a general session. If problems exist with Utah Performance Assessment System for Students (“UPASS” – the test that high school students have to pass, to demonstrate that they learned the things they should have), then let’s comprehensively address those problems.

I really like Sen. Stephenson’s push to move toward online assessments; if done properly, online assessments with adapting testing could be much better than what we currently do. Also, I have great respect for the Sevier County School District, which is pushing for the exemption. Motives here are pure; people are looking for ways to do things better. But, this bill is too general.

Though not the intent, it effectively would do away with UPASS. If passed, any district or charter school that wants to avoid UPASS (for reasons good or bad) can simply submit something to the State Board that says it provides “online assessment” – whatever the details of that program might be – and the State Board would decide, with no guidance from the Legislature, whether the proposed substitute flies or doesn’t. Let’s wait and address UPASS as a whole, rather than creating some blanket exemption with all details to be figured out later. We should be better than this.

Alas, given the greased-skids nature of special sessions, I’m afraid I’m Sisyphus on this issue. Grrr.

How Your Government Works (Or, At Least, How It Should)

As a member of the Health and Human Services Sub-Appropriations Committee, I just now received an email from Lisa Michelle Church, Director of Human Services.

Director Church believes in her programs. She is dedicated to providing excellent services to Utahns who need help. Running an efficient Department and seeing great need for and benefit from the services her Department provides, I'd imagine she doesn't want to cut a dime. But, representative of the quality we aspire to in Utah government, she professionally addresses the task at hand of matching expenditures to revenues. I want to share her points -- exactly how she shared them with me. Though this came out too late for tomorrow's papers, I have little doubt that it would be covered as anything other than a doom and gloom litany of all the vital services that are about to fly out the window. Of course, Director Church does not present it as such. She presents it as options that policymakers need to consider. Hard options, granted, but simply options at this point.

She succinctly gets in her points -- that her programs already are lean and that they have incurred increased costs each year (e.g., materials and fuel) that have not been funded -- but she performs her hard task in professional fashion. She writes:

Rep Urquhart

I thought you might find it useful to know the process I used in approaching the budget cuts for the special session. This is a summary and I can answer more specific questions. I will finalize my lists when I testify on Thursday at subcommittee.

Lisa-Michele Church
Executive Director

Process Used in Budget Reduction Analysis

1. Review all 75 DHS programs.

2. Review cuts already made to DHS in 2002-2004 cycles: some cuts were 20% administration and not restored (total GF admin cut $4,645,000), plus program reductions from 1.86% to 8.67%.

3. Review efficiencies already achieved through regular management such as Recovery Services centralizing its Intake function and reducing staff by 20 agents; leaves less overhead to be cut.

4. Review cost increases in materials, fuel, utilities, leases and other supplies, none of which has been the subject of a building block appropriation; these have had the effect of cuts each year.

5. Prioritize DHS programs in terms of value. Higher priority programs are those that are a) required by law, b) provide services to those in acute need, c) bring in revenue or defray expenses, d) protect immediate health and safety, e) have a proven track record of quantifiable outcomes, f) provide direct services to people, and g) have federal or other funding match. As a result of this analysis, several DHS programs were protected from further reduction analysis.

6. Those DHS programs that remain subject to the reduction analysis were then analyzed according to the following steps:

a. Are there further administrative cuts to be made, while still protecting accountability to the taxpayers and contract monitoring functions?
b. Are there organizational efficiencies (i.e., consolidations) that can be made to reduce costs?
c. Is there funding for services that are not yet being provided we can cut?
d. Is there funding for people in preventive services that can be partially cut? If so, will a cut shift costs to another department, a local agency, a provider, or impact state revenue?
e. Is there funding for people in services that can be partially cut? If so, will a cut shift costs to another department, a local agency, a provider, or impact state revenue?
f. Is there funding for people in services that can be totally cut?These steps are roughly the inverse of the steps we look at when we determine whether or not to request a building block.

7. We performed the above analysis for cuts at the following levels:

2% of total GF DHS budget: 7,806,600
3% of total GF DHS budget: 11,709,900
5% of total GF DHS budget less JJS: 18,078,600

8. At the 2% level we were able to accomplish the cuts with a) administrative cuts such as delaying computer replacements in DCFS, b) reorganizations like consolidating the FCCRB into DHS and reducing staff, c) freezing entry into programs such as disability services for people waiting, d) narrowing preventive services in DCFS family preservation services to focus on only court ordered cases, e) partially cutting critical services such as mental health and substance abuse in 2010, and f) eliminating a few programs altogether such as the parental visitation grant or the senior citizen center renovations. We could also use some non lapsing carryover balances.

9. At the 3% level we were required to go further into cutting services as the administrative and reorganization savings were already achieved, and the people not yet in services were already accounted for. Therefore, we may add cuts to programs such as adult protective services, substance abuse prevention, child abuse investigations, prison substance abuse treatment, and disabilities ombudsman. People being served in these programs will no longer be served. All of these cuts will be painful and may shift costs from one area of state government to another.

10. We were asked by the legislative fiscal analyst to go even further than the 3% reduction to a 5% reduction. At the 5% level, substantial services will be cut. We no longer have small increments to work with and must find an additional $4 million in reductions. Therefore we could be required to cut general fund in such areas as DORA, a portion of meals on wheels, some services at the developmental center, and other difficult decisions.

As I responded to Director Church, we'll get through this.

I had the chance to sit down today with former Governor Norm Bangerter -- who saw his fair share of downturns and tough turns while in the House and as Governor. It's always reassuring to get the take of sailors who've navigated the rough seas. I have now seen a complete economic cycle, while in office. We got through the downturn of 2001, and we'll get through this one. If we do our work well in the Special Session, we can help position Utah to be one of the first states to climb out of the trough. That's the goal -- last in, first out.

Scarcity as a Policy Planning Tool

I’ve heard people say that $4/gallon gas is good and that we should do something to make sure gas prices don’t “slip too low.”

Scarcity regularly is the preferred planning tool of elitists. They can still get whatever is scarce, but others will have to change their ways. This has the added bonus for elitists that they won't have to mingle with commoners when they get it, because commoners will no longer be in line.

A mature political dialogue benefits from options. But, some who know that their preferred options will lose in the democratic process, prefer to have their choices elevated to the top by default -- through scarcity, high cost, or regulatory fiat.

High-cost gasoline clearly will encourage exploration of alternatives. Exploration of energy alternatives is a great thing for many, many reasons. Americans are embracing that reality. But, the advocates of scarcity need to realize that scarcity and high costs also will encourage some exploration that I’d have to think they aren’t too keen on.

We will make huge environmental progress when we accept the fact that humans reach for improvement and advancement. If we set a progressive goal on the horizon and lay out the superior case for its adoption, society will move in that direction. But, if we attempt to mandate that people should pay more and expect less, it will cause gridlock. Goals have to be about tomorrow, not yesterday.

Utah's Budget

Governor Huntsman has called the Utah Legislature into a special session this Thursday, to pare the State budget to match the economy. Every February, based on economic projections, the Legislature creates a budget for the next July-June fiscal year. When we budget, we use conservative projections, to try to undershoot the revenues that we actually bring in later; that is why Utah typically runs a “surplus” – meaning that actual revenues simply exceed the amount that we conservatively projected and appropriated. We typically spend those surpluses on one-time expenditures (e.g., books, roads, buildings, pilot projects).

This year, though, we overshot actual revenues by $300 million – so far. (Before anyone gets too partisan about it, though, it should be noted that we project our revenues on a non-partisan basis and, then, adopt those revenue projections on a bipartisan basis.).

Here we are, 3 months into the fiscal year, and we’re telling agencies that they will get less than they budgeted. For the most part, they’ll get more than last year, but less than anticipated. That creates a difficult situation. Our revenues come from Utahns (through taxes, of course). Our shrinking revenues simply reflect the fact that the people’s incomes are shrinking and, likewise, their spending is down. Hopefully, Utahns will appreciate that we don’t go about our task lightly. As they tighten their belts, it seems they should expect us to tighten ours. As I wrote last week, the point is to make sure that state government continues to backstop the efforts of our people.

Fortunately, the Legislature used conservative numbers to set the budget (or so we thought) and, even then, we squirreled away money in various rainy-day funds. But, as Robert Gehrke points out, “The problem is that those pots of money will not be replenished. Once the money is spent, it is gone, so they can only provide a one-year patch to a budget hole.” Using that money to shore up on-going balance-sheet problems would be a huge gamble. Were revenues to continue sliding after this year, we’d have to, later, make deeper cuts that could disrupt the economy further.

People logically ask, “What’s the value of a rainy-day fund, if it isn’t spent?” First off, my prediction is that we will spend most of it by the end of the next General Session. But, I’ll do my best to fight against that, and I’ll tell you why.

The money serves several valuable roles sitting in the rainy-day fund: (1) it is there, as opposed to, well, not there; like a family in a pinch, we don’t know how deep this downturn will be; though we think we need the money now, we might really need it later; let’s keep a cushion; (2) credit-rating agencies value rainy-day funds; Utah’s AAA bond rating saves us tens of millions every year when we build roads and buildings; let’s protect that bond rating; (3) tapping the easy money is undisciplined; it’s like a family in a pinch immediately draining the savings, instead of cutting back expenditures; and (4) there is fat in government; we won’t ferret it out, if we simply tap the rainy-day funds.

As we go through this exercise of sound fiscal management, I’d suggest recognition of 2 things. First, Governor Huntsman gets kudos. To spot the problem and, immediately, invite the Legislature in to deal with it, is brave. It is a showing of the extremely good working relationship that he and Legislative leadership have crafted. Of course, President Valentine and Speaker Curtis share credit for that favorable situation. It should go without saying that our people are counting on us to work together to find effective solutions. We will.

Second, the Legislature’s commitment to public education cannot be legitimately questioned. Though the UEA is in full campaign mode, and – as a functional arm of the Democratic Party – will have nothing nice to say about Republican leadership whatever we do, the budget adjustments would be simple to make – were we not absolutely committed to public education. In the past 3 years, we have increased public education funding more than $1,000,000,000 – over 40%. However, we won’t touch any of that money that ends up in the classroom; that’s half of our budget – meaning that cuts to all other areas of the budget will be double what they would be, if education funds were on the table. Believe me, other agencies and state employees notice that fact; but, somehow, the UEA never does. Such is life. We have worked hard to increase public education funding. And, we will work even harder to shore up those gains.

Thank You, Gov. Huntsman

Gov. Jon Huntsman has called the Legislature into a special session, to address projected shortfalls in Utah’s 2008-09 budget. That is the kind of leadership Utah needs right now.

Only the Legislature can set/modify agency budgets. Outside of the annual 45-day general session, however, only the Governor can call the Legislature into session to do that. In the fall of 2001, the economy was headed south. The Legislature wanted to address the budget, but Gov. Leavitt would not call us in. Instead, he incorrectly opined that the downturn was V-shaped (quick down/quick up). The several-month delay getting into session and adjusting the budget meant that deficits had to be absorbed over fewer months in the fiscal year (5 months, instead of 9), thereby making the cuts steeper. (If we need to cut the budget by X, that amount is easier to swallow the longer period over which it can be spread).

Though national and international factors mostly drive the economy, states can do a lot to help their citizens. Utah has worked hard to build a stable, efficient state government. Our goal is for the State to provide reliable services and infrastructure and to allow citizens to keep more of their own money. The quicker we match our budget to the realities of the downturn, the more likely we are to achieve that goal and make sure that Utah is one of the last states to enter the downturn and one of the first to pull out of it.

No doubt, especially deep into an election cycle, we’ll catch grief for anything we do to solidify the budget. But, that’s how it goes. Some lead, and some criticize. Right now, struggling Utahns need the backing of a solid state government. That requires a governor who is willing to lead. So, thanks, Gov!

Dixie State College

Higher Education Commissioner Bill Sederburg visited Dixie State College yesterday. It was great to have him on campus to discuss DSC's status and future. I believe that Commissioner Sederburg will be a fantastic leader for Utah's colleges and universities -- creating more of a system, instead of the disjointed conglomeration of schools we've had for years. It is amazing, the impact he has made in Utah since landing in the state a few short years ago.

Today's story about that visit incorrectly reports that DSC Interim President Steve Nadauld has been offered a permanent post as President. The current discussions on the table concern wooing Interim President Nadauld to extend the term of his contract from 1 year to 1 1/2 or 2 years -- which I hope he will do. As my loyal readers know (both of them), I'm not shy about engaging the media on its errors. Though this is an erroneous report, I'm sympathetic to the paper in this case. It heard a rumor (probably about the same time I did), and it apparently tried to clarify it with the Commissioner's Office. Unfortunately, (likely because people were caught so flat-footed by the rumor), the reporter was given some pretty lame responses by the Commissioner's Office that seemed to verify that the paper had the scoop.

To select a new president, a full-blown search will be conducted. I'm in SLC today, but, based on the communications I've had, I'm sure members of the faculty and community are extremely concerned (and rightly so) to think that such a decision would be made with no input. Again, that's not the case at all. It didn't happen. I have solid commitments that it won't happen; the process will be open and involved.

Probably, a good thing at this point would be for the Commissioner's Office to clarify the issue. I'll work to have them do that. Fortunately, this is toothpaste that can be put back in the tube.

Communications. Communications. Communications. Always a challenge.

Media On Media

Jon Friedman (granted, the “Eddie the Eagle” of legacy media) warns that the same media that built up Sarah Palin will bring her down. The media that built her up? Is that the media discoursing about Trig, the faux book banning, Todd’s 1986 DUI, and Gov. Palin's “mission from God” prayer that wasn’t a “mission from God” prayer? That media?

Okay. Facts be damned, we’ll run with the premise that the media built her up.

So, what are Jon’s key indicators that the once-fawning media now is turning a jaded eye toward Gov. Palin?

Criticism from the New York Times, Slate, and Jake Tapper. Understating his case, Jon the Eagle doesn’t even mention the turning of other former McCain-Palin backers Lindsay Lohan and Matt Damon.

Friedman muses, “I'll be interested to see how Palin – not to mention McCain and the Republican campaign machine – reacts when the media's disillusionment sets in for real. Their actions may determine the course of the 2008 race.”

This could be bad. I worry that a disillusioned media might ignore significant issues, like possible treason, and focus instead on trivial issues, like possible sharp elbows on a hockey mom who body checked the establishment on her way to the top of the manliest of states.

UPDATE (9/16/08): Perhaps I'm wrong about Tapper being in the tank for Obama. Today, he points out that Sen. Obama is making up supposed political accomplishments.

Gov. Palin Pretends to Be Woman

College Professor Wendy Doniger professes: "Her greatest hypocrisy is in her pretense that she is a woman."

Professor Doniger, of course, is referring to the mother, moose hunter, governmental reformer, and Republican VP pick.

This is a tough one. Prof. Doniger is an expert. If only we had some proof!

I know! At the VP debate, if Gov. Palin breaks a heel and weeps until Joe Biden lifts her and dabs her tears with a pressed hankie, she's a woman. If, at that debate, however, Biden leaves his own party weeping because Gov. Palin finds the Gaffe-o-matic's on-switch, then she is THE MAN!

UPDATE: Prof. Doniger is the one pictured to the left.

Campaign Discipline

Threatened by Gov. Palin’s ascendancy, Sen. Obama is lashing out, calling her a “moose shooter” and, seemingly, “a pig.”

Meanwhile, the more disciplined Republican ticket somehow manages to ignore Sen. Joe Biden as if he were a non-entity.

Sarah Palin Is Perry Mason

Sarah Palin is more effective at uncovering the truth than Perry Mason. The Left has always claimed to be the champion of women. Backed up by the testimony of the media, it has been an unchallenged story.

After a week and a half of Sarah Palin, many on the Left are now singing like canaries, admitting their core belief -- that women have value only as long as they conform to a certain mold.

Michelle Cottle, Sr. Editor at the New Republic, notes (disapprovingly), "Feminism seems no longer to denote a particular set of values or ideological agenda; it is merely a label appropriated to proclaim that one is committed to the best interests of women--whatever one believes those to be."

As Ms. Cottle confesses, many on the Left are not concerned with the best interests of women. Instead, they are committed to an ideological agenda. If any woman, including Gov. Sarah Palin, does not embrace that agenda, she is to be disrespected.

Read the whole amazing article and this little jewel, equating Gov. Palin to the crazies who blow up buses and slam planes into buildings. They provide a candid, National Geographic-like peek into the stunning mores and taboos of an insular subculture that exists apposed to a broader, more-advanced civilization that it regards jealously and angrily -- much in the manner their ancient predecessors must have regarded their cousins who permanently lifted their front legs from the muck and mire.

UPDATE: Camille Paglia. Genius. And you too, Susie Tomkins Buell, you go girl. The Left would do well to amplify these strong feminist voices, not the politicized victimology of Gloria Steinham and Michelle Cottle that spits on non-liberal women. Let's strongly debate policy; that's what great elections are all about. But, let's agree that -- regardless what Cottle and her crew believe -- we should be "committed to the best interests of women."

Neighborliness?

I just saw Sen. Obama explain how lifting money from some people and giving it to others is not wealth redistribution. Instead, he explained, it is "neighborliness." I kid you not.

That, my friends, is socialism.

Charity is neighborliness. Taxes are, of course, compulsion. If you do not agree to be "neighborly," you will, of course, be jailed. That's how taxes work.

Best Cheese Ever

The family of one of my high school buddies belonged to a cheese club. (My family belonged to the Kraft club). They were very classy, kind people, and were always very happy to share with me things they enjoyed. From their club, they'd get all sorts of terrific cheeses, and it was heaven to indulge. I've been a cheese fan ever since.

Wonderfully, one of my daughters shares the passion. Today, we found the best cheddar ever -- Beecher's Flagship Reserve. Beecher's is based at Pike Place Market in Seattle. If you go to Pike Place, you've gotta try a Russian pastry at Piroshky-Piroshky.

Sara, if you're reading this, I have a little Christmas hint.

Sarah Palin Shattered the Glass Ceiling on 9/3/08

Until the day I die, I will remember a sprint relay race I saw in Laredo, Texas, when I was just 10-years old. In the small schools division, Lampasas High School trailed badly after 3 legs. The batons were handed to the anchors. Ten seconds later – I don’t doubt but that it might have been 9 seconds later – other runners crossed the finish line far behind Lampasas High’s Johnny Jones. My brother, my dad and I knew that we had just seen greased lightning. But, no human being alive, much less a high school kid from Lampasas, Texas, could run as fast as we just saw Johnny Jones run. It had to be an illusion. He must be fast, but those other small school runners must have been really slow.

Two months later, in a larger venue in Montreal, Quebec, 18-year old Johnny Jones won an Olympic gold medal as a member of the United States sprint relay team. A few months after that, he ran a world record time that would have stood untouched for the next 15 years, but for a glitch in the official timing system. We had seen greased lightning in Laredo, Texas.

Last night I saw greased lightning in St. Paul, Minnesota. I will remember that powerhouse speech as long as I live. With her first “hello,” Sarah Palin transformed the highest stakes, hardest fought contest in the world. But, I think something even bigger happened last night. The glass ceiling shattered.

At times, the vanguard of a movement stands in the way of the movement. With a fundamentally misogynistic perspective, Womyn’s rights groups lately have been guarding the glass ceiling. Listen to the vile contempt Sarah Palin faces from them. The elitist, yapping class derisively tells Sarah Palin that she belongs in the kitchen, that she – and all women like her – have no business trying to perform in this man’s world. Without apology or equivocation, the professional womyn’s movement broadcasts that most women (all non-liberal women) are to be held in contempt as dull, backwards creatures. Sarah Palin, as seems to be her way, just cut straight through that nonsense. She questioned whether it should be a man’s world and answered her own question with an emphatic, but distinctly feminine, “No.”

Sen. Obama apparently commented today, “I assume that she wants to be treated the same way that guys want to be treated.” Wrong. That’s the pre-Palin, misogynistic view that it is a man’s world – with female participants and female fellow travelers. It is the view that a woman must choose between the sidelines of the man’s world or forfeit something to enter the man’s world and, then, be treated like a man. Sarah Palin made the solid case that women are not guests or pretenders in a man’s world. Sarah Palin has changed the rules. She is a woman, she doesn’t need anyone else’s permission or approval for her choices, and everyone else had better deal with it. She expects to be treated like a woman. Liberals’ confusion comes from their belief that “woman” is synonymous with inferior, less capable and victim.

UPDATE: This, as the article describes, is the woman that womyn are saying is not qualified. Please, someone tell me anything that Sen. Obama has ever done in office to compare with it. You simply can't.

Cliff Lyon's Huge Hammer

I posted a call for depoliticized scientific inquiry (as it applies, for example, to the Right’s desire to muddle science with Divine Design and the Left’s desire to shut down scientific inquiry into global warming).

Cliff Lyon demands (in the comments) that I recant or face an Internet inquisition. (Cue Announcer: "In tonight’s production of Fear of Scientific Inquiry, the part of Pope Urban VIII will be played by Cliff Lyon").

Cliff warns:

I'm challenging you Steve. Retract this shameful post or we will be forced to take a special interest in your re-election.

When I ask him to engage in some scientific curiosity with me, he threatens:

Last chance Steve. You of all people should appreciate the power of blogs.I suggest you just delete the whole post. Certainly such a tactic lacks integrity, but not as much as parading around as an expert in Climate Science while deceiving Utahns in order to pander to the oil and gas industry (hmmm, Iol & gas, St George, hmmm)When I have questions about things I know nothing about, I refer to experts. And Mr. Urquhart, unless I'm missing something, you are no expert on climate science.If however, you have any questions about the real power of blogs, please feel free to call. I'm listed in Holladay.

Not an expert. Just a guy with some observations and opinions. Mr. Lyon, then, clarifies:

OneUtah is a hammer with a huge Utah audience (in case you weren't paying attention.

Ya, I guess I wasn’t paying attention, though I have enjoyed watching OneUtah rally tens of people to protest BUSHITLER in Salt Lake.

The real power of blogs is to advance discussion, not for some ninny like Cliff Lyon to shut it down with threats. So, sorry, Cliff. The post stays up. Let that huge hammer drop.

By the way, though, once you've rallied your huge audience, see if any of them can explain how the significant cooling since 2000 fits the doctrinal canon of anthropogenic global warming.

UPDATE: This is just too funny to be true. I believe that public-oriented blogs should allow all comments and have a publicly accessible site meter. That's just my preference; if you don't agree, fine. I checked my site meter at the end of the day (available at the bottom of the blog for all to see), and I saw a referral from Cliff's blog. Apparently, this afternoon he posted a warning to me on his blog. As far as I can tell, his post and link sent me ONE reader.

Maybe the huge hammer claim is relative to really small nails.

Breaking News: VP Change

Liberals are speculating whether there will be a VP change, in light of revelations that Sarah Palin's 17-year old daughter is pregnant.

I just saw Gov. Palin's convention speech. It is clear that there has to be a VP change.

Biden will be gone by Friday.

Newsflash: Sun Affects Earth’s Climate

Regardless how many lemmings are willing to jump off the same cliff, there is much about this amazing planet that scientists and politicians don’t understand. Science should be allowed to freely explore those mysteries. But, as it has for centuries, politics walls off huge swaths of scientific research.

I have fought divine designers from forcing a political agenda on science (and will continue to do so as long as there is a god in heaven). With equal gusto, I fight zealots of anthropogenic global warming (“AGW”) from forcing their political agenda on science.

To deny AGW today is to have denied God a few centuries ago. Though an AGW denier might not be burned at the stake, there are those who seemingly wish it were otherwise. Such zealotry likely will change, as scientist reluctantly admit that – brace yourself – the Sun affects the Earth’s climate.

Sunspots strongly appear to affect the Earth’s climate. Less sun spots, the Earth cools. And, this is where it gets controversial: more sunspots, the Earth heats up.

Ice ages and mini ice ages correlate with less active sunspot cycles. Less sunspots; the Earth cooled. That’s an undisputed fact. Not believing in forcing science, I’m not going to say “cause/effect” – just direct correlation.

It’s also a fact that the period between 1940 and 2000 marked the most active sunspot cycles in over 1,000 years. So, maybe – just maybe – those active sunspot cycles had something to do with the run up in temperatures the Earth experienced during that period. But, it has been heresy, to even suggest that hypothesis. Why? Because it cuts against the theory of AGW. And AGW is a fact. Rather, a FACT! (Scientific facts are lowercase, since they are always subject to question and critique; political FACTS are all caps, since they are not subject to question and critique.).

It seems that more people are willing to admit that AGW is not a fact. It’s a theory. Yes, yes, I am aware that lemmings continue to unquestioningly leap off the AGW cliff. People’s devotion to their gods should never be doubted. But, for those interested in science, let’s give the AGW theory a quick test.

A good experiment would be to (1) turn off sunspots, (2) leave atmospheric CO2 alone, and (3) monitor the effect on global temperature. If temperatures continue to rise, sunspots can be ruled out as a cause of global warming. But, if temperatures drop . . ..

Around 2000, sunspot activity began to subside. Now, the sun is dormant. After the record level of sunspot activity ended, global temperatures began dropping. Now, they are plummeting. (Remember: carbon dioxide levels remain a constant). This year, we’ve seen the greatest drop in global temperatures ever recorded. –O.7 Celsius.

So much for AGW being the end-all, be-all of the story. Because AGW does have theoretical validity, it should be studied – as we require of all other scientific theories. And competing theories should be studied also. These things are complex. Nature is rarely as simple as simpletons would have it be.

To tell you how simplistic our current knowledge is, we don’t even know the mechanism by which sunspots affect global temperatures. Yet, some people want to say that their favored theory is FACT and that we should reorder society to accommodate it?! We are an interesting breed.

UPDATE: Exactly my point. In the comments, Cliff Lyon breaks from his war against BUSHITLER to demand that I retract my call for depoliticized science. Apparently, scientific inquiry into doctrine is irresponsible. The more things change, the more they stay the same.