I've been reading a lot of frustrations at the Dems in congress on blogs these day. I saw a post on One Utah tonight about how the Dems aren't willing to do what it takes to get us out of Iraq. I read on deadbeatwriter's blog her frustrations with the similar positions that the Dems have to Repubs and the secret deals the Dems are making with the White House.

The momentum that swept the Dems to the majority last November is going to evaporate by the next election if they don't get to work and start to act like an opposition party to the Repubs.

I heard a statistic this past weekend that I think is relevent here. According to Dan Jones, 49% of Utahns are Repub, 18% are Dem, and 33% are independent. That 33% is very telling. It means that there's a growing number of people who don't feel represented by either party.

On the nationaly level, the Dems keep trying to paint themselves as an opposition party to the Repubs, but as the years go by they look more and more like the Repubs. If you are craving the color yellow and the only choices you are given are black and charcoal grey, how long before you stop picking the charcoal (just 'cuz it's slightly closer to what you want) and insist that you get a yellow option or you aren't playing anymore?

The sad thing is that the Dems do have a few really good people playing on their team. But those are the people who will get marginalized by the national party. Case in point: Dennis Kucinich. He's by far the best Dem that's running for president, but you likely haven't even heard that he's running; and the nomination will most likely go to Hillary Clinton -- who's probably the most center to right of any of the Dems running for president.

From Kucinich's website:

"End Fake Politics . . .

The American people want this war to end and the troops to be brought home. Why then is this house preparing to capitulate to the Bush White house and let the war continue?

We learned today that the democratic compromise with President Bush is to make withdrawal timetables "non-binding" (meaningless). We have the power to end the occupation now. It is time support our troops by bringing them home by enacting HR1234, the most comprehensive plan to secure Iraq and stabilize the region.

US presence in Iraq is fueling the insurgency. High level officials estimate the HR1234 transition of US, out international peace keeping and security forces in, is possible within three months of Congress cutting funds."

Last year's Military Commissions Act of 2006 was a disgrace to the values we claim to hold in this country. Congress, including our own "Democrat" Jim Matheson, voted to give King George  the power to imprison anyone, anytime for no reason whatsoever. Think you are protected because you are an American citizen? All King George has to do is declare you an "enemy combatant" and then you can be held indefinitely -- no charges brought against you, no trial, no opportunities to even see a lawyer.

Now that there is a Dem majority in Congress, it's time to reign in the excesses of power abuse by the executive branch and get rid of that law.

From True Majority:
"Tell your Representative to Restore our Constitutional rights to habeas corpus.

    http://action.truemajority.org/campaign/habeas_corpus
 
Maybe it sounds like a legal technicality, but the habeas corpus right is pretty simple, and pretty important. Keith Olbermann of MSNBC called it "the right of anyone who’s tossed in prison to appear in court and say 'Hey, why am I in prison?'."¹  Without that right, people get thrown into places like Guantanamo Bay for years with no evidence other than the say-so of a bounty hunter collecting his $5,000 fee.² And legal experts say the law is written so that anyone, U.S. citizen or not, could get that treatment if they run afoul of the President.³
 
It's hard to write about even the basic facts here without sounding overly-dramatic, but this is how it is. One of the reasons we fought the Revolution was so that a king could not imprison people without a court hearing. Taking away that right is not protecting America, it's dismantling it.
 
Congressman Nadler is trying to add language to an existing bill which would restore habeas corpus. If that fails, he promises to bring it up again, as an amendment. If that fails, there are new bills waiting which would undo the damage of last October's "Military Commissions Act." Send your message now to tell your Representatives to do what it takes to restore this cornerstone of American democracy.

Matt Holland
TrueMajorityACTION Online Director

1 - The death of habeas corpus - MSNBC.com

2 - The Shame of Guantanamo – Washington Post Writers Group

3 - Challenging the Military Commissions Act, Jurist, October 04, 2006

For More Information:

Article I, Section 9, Clause 2 of the Constitution of the United States:
 
“The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.” [italics added]

Who's Really Locked up in Guantanamo?"

Yes, Hillary is Pro-War. Yes, Hillary was wrong about Iraq as I witnessed first hand here

And for her, no option, including nuclear war with Iran is "off the table". Are we willing to elect someone who would use a nuclear weapon against innocent people just because she is a woman and a Democrat (in name only)? She was wrong about Iraq -- are we willing to murder hundreds of thousands for another mistake? Or is this beating of the war drums an attempt to win over the Repubs that dislike her so much?

The following very important piece was written by Anne Miller of New Hampshire Peace Action:

"I first heard Hillary Clinton speak some sixteen years ago when I was a student at Wellesley College. At that time, she was stumping for her husband’s first presidential campaign and also speaking passionately about the need to protect and nurture our most valuable resource: children. I liked her then (she was a Wellesley woman, after all), voted for her husband, and can still remember the sense of elation I felt on that Tuesday evening in November 1992 when Bill Clinton won the U.S. Presidency.

On Saturday afternoon, I pressed into the Concord High School gym with hundreds of others to see and hear what Hillary had to say about her own presidential vision.  As I found a seat I pondered an idea that could make any feminist giddy: For the first time in U.S. history, there could be a woman president!

During the program, she said some things I really liked.  She was adamant about keeping abortion “safe, legal and rare,” and mentioned the need for conservation twice during her speech. (That said, she had a black glossy SUV waiting for her outside that I’d bet gets less than fourteen mpg.)  However, she had nothing of substance to say about Iraq. And she did not commit to do the one thing that the Senate can do within its constitutional power to end the Iraq occupation – vote against the $100 billion supplemental budget request when it comes up for a vote later this spring.

Afterwards I joined the throng surrounding her – most were people who wanted books signed and pictures taken, for she really is like a rock star – to ask her about a statement she made last week about Iran in which she said “no options are off the table.”  I asked her how she could threaten nuclear genocide on another nation’s children. She told me that we cannot tolerate a nuclear-armed Iran, for it would be an “existential” threat to the U.S., and repeated that all options are on the table. When I tried to ask her about the very real role the U.S. is playing in spurring proliferation with our repeated threats and actual nuclear arsenals, she said she didn’t want to discuss it and turned away stiffly.

Now I’m really glad that I majored in philosophy at Wellesley, so I have at least a cursory grasp of concepts like “existential.” It’s interesting that Hillary used the word, because it’s not a term used much in American political vernacular.  It’s much more common in Israel, where the term is used to describe possible, rather than actual, threats. For instance, from Israel’s perspective, the whole Middle East is an existential threat.

Yes, Hillary, we do need moral leadership. We need candidates from both sides of the political aisle who are staunchly committed to solutions for international challenges grounded in diplomacy, international law, and human rights, instead of military power and the threat and use of nuclear weapons.  It’s not Hillary’s being a woman that is a problem - it’s her humanity.  Never again can the U.S. use nuclear weapons on another nation’s children. And we, the good citizens of New Hampshire, must not support any candidate who believe that the use of nuclear weapons can ever be an option."

 

The only Sundance Film I've been able to catch so far this festival is "The Ghosts of Abu Ghraib" a lucid and very important film.

I wait listed this film last Saturday, but you don't have to go to Sundance or wait too long to see this film, which will be debuting on HBO February 22nd.

Since our nation attacked another country, I feel it's the duty of every American to bear witness to the evil of this war. This film offers a glimpse of some of that evil. It shows us some of the damage that we do to ourselves and to others when we choose to unleash the evil that is war. It's also an exploritory look at how everyday people can commit such atrocities.

The film has interviews with many of the soldiers that have served time for their part in the atrocities of Abu Ghraib and interviews of some of Abu Ghraib's victims, mixed in with clips of Bush and Rumsfeld spouting off B.S. and the infamous photos of the tortured detainees.

The director, Rory Kennedy, was present at the screening to answer questions. One of the questions that came from an audience member was regarding an interview in the film of John Yoo, formerly of the Justice department and according to Jack Huberman's 101 People Who Are Really Screwing America a  "Counselor of War and Torture" (and also #35 on that list). Yoo gave the justification that the methods used in Abu Ghraib were justified because these people are terrorists who torture others (not taking into account that 75 - 90% of those held at Abu Ghraib at the time were estimated to be innocent). The audience member was concerned that there was nothhing to counter Yoo's argument in the film, which he believed is an attractive argument of the right-wing. Kennedy stated that she believed that the film in it's entirety countered Yoo's argument -- but then she went on to tell of another George's response to prisoners of war -- George Washington, who regardless of the brutatlity of the British on the American POWs, responded with a higher moral authority.  I found the story in greater detail here . The whole piece (written by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., brother of the director of this film, incidentally)  is worth reading, but the quote from Washington was recorded as this:

Treat them with humanity, and Let them have no reason to Complain of our Copying the brutal example of the British army in their Treatment of our unfortunate brethren.

Text of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (notice that this was given the number HB 6166 -- remove the "1" and you have the mark of the beast)

Peace Activists Beware: Homeland Security May Be Reading Your E-Mail, and Passing it on to the Pentagon

You can buy "See you at Gitmo" shirts here. I recommend the safety orange color.

Susie Day at Counterpunch has a guide to help you stay out of Gitmo.

If I suddenly stop posting and you don't ever again hear from me, I just may have been hauled off to Gitmo or one of the other detention camps that have recently been built to house those deemed enemy combatants.  That really bums me out as I look terrible in orange prison jumpers and I'm really scared of being hooded and electrocuted and water boarded.

No, I've never picked up a gun and don't even intend to use violence against anyone, but Bush now has unlimited authority to deem anyone an enemy combatant. Now I can lose any and all rights to a trial, to confront my accusers, even my formerly granted right to avoid cruel and unusual punishment (i.e. torture) all for being an enemy to the Bush agenda. I'm one of those dangerous non-violent peace activists that  scares the pants off Georgie and Rovey and Dickey -- because I can see throught their evil agenda and I will do whatever it takes to help to expose it.

If I disappear and don't get another chance to say it, I'd like to thank my Reps and Senators (all 5 of them) from Utah who made this possible.

One of the best commentaries on this.

Thanks to One Utah for the link.

There was a very un-American piece of legislation passed last week -- you may have heard about it. It's a piece of legislation that says that the U.S. can detain any non-U.S. citizen anywhere for any reason -- without any trial, any confronting of accusers-- potentially remaining in prison with who knows why kinds of conditions and torture until death.

Those of us who are U.S. citizens are supposed to be comforted that we will be protected from this kind of law -- at least for now. I wouldn't put it past Bushco. and any neo-con that follows him to change that as well. We've seen so much that used to be unbelievable and unimaginable come to pass in the past 5 years that I simply would not be surprised to see us sink more and more toward a facist dictatorship.

What you may not know is that many Democrats joined the Republicans in passing this law -- one of them our own "Democrat" Jim Matheson. I recently got into it on the One Utah blog, where someone mentioned that voting 3rd party or independent was a vote for the Republican. Another Utah Democrat joined in the debate after I talked about the "lesser of evils" saying that we in Utah had 4 good Democrats to vote for this election -- and he named Jim Matheson as one of those good Democrats. Yes, the Jim Matheson that voted to give Bushco. war powers, the Jim Matheson that voted for CAFTA, the Jim Matheson that believe that women do not have a say what happens to their bodies after impregnation.

I knew about this legislation being passed on Friday, and I was pretty sure that Matheson had voted for it, but I put off checking to see. Part of me really wants the Dems to be the good guys -- the Greens are new and struggling with infighting, and all the other progressive parties are so small that it will be a while before there's anyone who can replace the Dems as the opposition party. For the sake of the planet and humanity, we need the Dems to be the good guys -- and I'm sorry to my friends that are Dems, but so many of them are not. Sadly, I read that Matheson supported this plain as day on Nate Smith's post on One Utah.

Here's my comment to Nate's Post:
Wow — look at all the Democrats that voted for King George’s despotic legislation. Still think I should vote for Matheson over a 3rd party? I think this highlights perfectly why voting 3rd party or independent is NOT voting for the Republican, it’s voting against bad candidates, be they Dem or Repub. A vote for Matheson is a show of support for legislation like this. If Matheson is always safe in getting the lesser of evil votes, what motivation is there for him to change the way he acts in congress?

I’m perfectly willing to vote for good Democrats — the ones that believe in peace and justice, equality and rights for all people, and of course the well being of the planet. That’s why I’ve supported Rocky and Dennis Kucinich among select others– but apparently those that stand firm in the ideal sof peace, justice, equality and rights for all people are considered far too radical left for much of the Democratic party. What is so radical about those concepts?

It's time to boot out the Rubber Stamp Congress. Vote out anyone, Dem or Repub, that rubber stamps the corrupt laws that Bushco supports. Make it clear that going along meekly with a despotic ruler will lose you your seat in Congress.

Grist reported on the rumors that GWB may be changing his stance on the issue of global warming. It's hard to imagine that there is any honest or serious change going on here knowing Bu$h and Co.'s track record to date. Speculation on what kind of game or political strategy this might be can be found here.

One possible benefit from this might mean that those who refuse to believe anything said by anybody left of Bush might take the threat seriously now and attempt some lifestyle changes.

Going Green is becoming kinda trendy. That's why polluters for profit are trying to get in on the action. Buyer beware, however -- Archer Daniels Midland wants to produce ethanol by using coal-fired plants. Coal is "one of the dirtiest forms of energy".

Despite the company's attempts at green packaging, ADM is ranked as the tenth worst corporate air polluter, on the "Toxic 100" list of the Political Economy Research Institute at the University of Massachusetts. The Department of Justice and the Environmental Protection Agency has charged the company with violations of the Clean Air Act in hundreds of processing units, covering 52 plants in 16 states. In 2003 the two agencies reached a $351 million settlement with the company. Three years earlier, ADM was fined $1.5 million by the Department of Justice and $1.1 million by the State of Illinois for pollution related to ethanol production and distribution. Currently, the corporation is involved in approximately 25 administrative and judicial proceedings connected to federal and state Superfund laws regarding the environmental clean-up of sites contaminated by ADM operations.

ADM has a lot of influence on our government, so it's unlikely that they'll do anything to fight for our environement:

ADM and its signature project have never lacked friends in high places, despite a history of price fixing scandals and monopolistic misdeeds. The Andreas family, which has headed up the publicly-traded company for decades, has cultivated bipartisan support through generous donations to both Republicans and Democrats. Since the 2000 election cycle, ADM has given more than $3 million in political contributions, according to the Center for Responsive Politics: $1.2 million to Democrats and $1.85 million to Republicans. These donations may have helped sustain a multitude of government subsidies to ADM, including ethanol tax credits, tariffs against foreign ethanol competitors, and federally mandated ethanol additive standards.

Read the full article.

Former Emery County Clerk Bruce Funk talks about voting machine problems on Democracy Now!

BRUCE FUNK: . . .As a result of that, Black Box Voting had to let some initial findings out, because there were some hazards there, plugs that were easily knocked out of their sockets and exposing wires, and as a result, Diebold, their legal counsel, representatives, the state, who has bought into this program for so tightly -- I can't figure out what the reasons are. Their election office represented from lieutenant governors and their legal counsel held a special meeting with the Emery County Commission, their legal counsel, and they met together, and as a result of that meeting, I was left on the outside, but when I did have a chance to join them, and --

AMY GOODMAN: You were forced out of your job as County Clerk of Emery County?

BRUCE FUNK: Yes. And that's what it ultimately led to, is they -- somewhere in that meeting, something was worked out that if they could terminate me as the election official of Emery County, then they would recertify the machines. And so they changed my locks, effective April 1, and locked me out of my office.

Read the rest of the interview.

Welcome to 1984

Thank you AT&T, Verizon and Bell South for your loyalty to Oceania the United States.



Working Assets wanted for questioning by the Ministry of Love. Please focus your next 2 minutes hate on the following:

"It's not the people who vote that count. It's the people who count the votes." - attributed to Josef Stalin
_________
A few months ago, the League of Women Voters had a Diebold Voting machine at the Downtown Library to demonstrate the new machines that we would have to be using in this year's elections.

I'd read about many problems with the Diebold machines --  paper trail problems (they may have fixed that), easily hackable, Diebold being a major contributor to the Republican Party, and most disturbing of all, the fact that their machines' technology was to be protected as a "trade secret" -- in other words, no way to independently audit the machines.

I tried out the Diebold at the library. The LWV volunteer helped me through the process and showed me the compartment with the paper verification of the vote that people could check after voting. The paper version is locked away under a plastic screen and would only be used in the event of a recount. Mine reflected the results I had entered on the machine. I do know enough about computers to know that you can rig them to show one result, and record a compeletly different one. A machine could be programmed, for example, to record a vote for the hacker's/rigger's preference on every third or fourth vote for the opponent -- and no one any wiser unless a recall was ordered. The past two presidential elections have shown me how many roadblocks are thrown up to prevent an accurate recount process, from the prohibitive expense to legal manuevering from the opposition party or their supporters in the legal system.

I knew several people who attended public hearings to voice their opposition to the proposed machines, but the state had already made up its mind and pushed for counties to accept the new machines. Looks like they are rather strongly attached to these machines being used no matter what the problems and who presents them. One Utah has  a couple of posts about the brave Emery County Clerk who is being pressured to resign because of his opposition to the Diebold machines:
Elections Clerk Bruce Funk Being Pushed Out for Doing Job?
Showdown in Emery County

From One Utah:

"Bruce is one of only a few unique county elections clerks around the country who have spoken truth to power by standing firm on their oath to perform their jobs - in this case to insure fair elections.

Bruce Funk is under pressure to resign for bringing to light his concerns about 40 Diebold voting machines delivered to his office. He is a soft spoken man and a classic patriotic American in the Utah tradition. He has documented the shocking events of last night in which Utah State Officials came down to Emery County and excluded Bruce from a series of closed-door meetings with Diebold officials and county commissioners after which Bruce was encouraged to resign."
_______________

Kathy Dopp -- voting rights activist -- is running for Summit County Clerk under the Desert Greens ticket. The incumbent supported the use of the Diebold machines.

I'm going to be researching how to vote by absentee ballot a little later this year (before the primaries), which is the only way at this time that I feel my vote will be accurately counted. I'll be sharing what I find out on this blog for anyone else who feels the same way.

More information:

Utah Count Votes
Blackbox Voting

U.S. Found in Violation of Native Americans' Rights, Anti-Racism Treaty story from Common Dreams.

On Friday, the Geneva-based panel said Washington's claim to the land ''did not comply with contemporary human rights norms, principles, and standards that govern determination of indigenous property rights.''

The panel cited special concern over reported federal and legislative efforts to privatize ancestral lands, to turn them over to mining and energy companies, and to open a nuclear waste dump on tribal territory without consulting and over the objections of the Western Shoshone people.

It further assailed U.S. authorities for reportedly using arrests, hunting and fishing restrictions, grazing fees, and other measures to intimidate tribe members.

The Nevada Test Site and Yucca Mountain are both located on Western Shoshone lands.

Knowing the US government, and Bu$H & Co. in particular, this probably won't do much to stop the this country's determination to continue to steal land from the native people. Here are some organizations that I'm familiar with that are working for justice for the Western Shoshone people:

Western Shoshone Defense Project

Shundahai Network

Shamefully stolen from One Utah

"The Iraq war, our torture of prisoners, secret prisons, holding people without charges and snooping on citizens without court warrants were seen as immoral acts. They saw Americans as no longer free, trading freedom for a false security. America has immoral leadership and people unwilling to hold leaders accountable. Skillful politicians keep voters focused on private actions that the far right see as objectionable. The poor and needy suffer while wedge issues keep religious zealots happy."

This is how our "siblings" (Canadians, Australians, New Zealanders) view us. They also point out the hypocrisy of the religious right:

"Pilkington said the church is obsessed with cultural things that Christ did not address: homosexual behavior, sex before marriage, alcohol, sanctity of the family.

Pilkington argued that Christ taught brotherhood of man, not family unity. Jesus said he came to turn father against son. He said little about homosexuals, drinking or sex. Instead, he had a crazy obsession about helping the poor, the sick and the hungry. He taught that what people do to the least of humanity they do to him."

I've been listening to the Senate hearing on the NSA wiretaps today. I've been kind of disturbed that some of the democrats I've been listening to are more upset that they haven't been consulted than on the fact that this kind of illegal spying is going on. I've heard a couple of them say they would have cooperated with the administration if they'd been approached. Only a couple of senators seemed truly concerned about spying on the American people.

With situations where peace groups like the Quaker group in Florida, for example,  being labeled a "Credible Threat", it's obvious that this program is ripe for corruption. It's likely that this can be used as a way to punish those that are ideologically opposed to government policies as well as to catch terrorists.

Almost veryone knows that lobbyists exist, and that their job is to try to get legislation benefitting their organization/company/industry passed or to defeat legislation that negatively affects their organization/company/industry. I'm not sure how many people know just how much influence lobbyists have.

LaVar Webb from Utah Policy Daily wrote yesterday:

"In Utah, similar legislator-lobbyist relationships exist, although in state races no disclosures of who’s helping raise money are required. If people wonder why top lobbyists have such good access and influence, here’s why:  They don’t just interact with legislators during a session. They work closely with them year-round, raising money for them, providing strategy and support for their re-election campaigns, and even serving as campaign managers in some cases.

When the legislative session rolls around in January, the top lobbyists have cemented close relationships with many lawmakers."

Lobbyists have the resources and time (provided by the organizations/companies/industries they work for) to develop these relationships, most of the public does not.

Some of our legislators are lobbyists themselves. Some of them sponsor bills that blatently favor the industries that they own businesses in or work in the rest of the year.

When I see legislation that is against the public interest-- like SB 70 which would effectively make it easier to dump nuke waste, or SB 170 which would create sprawl and hurt property values (an issue both the left and right in this state can get behind) -- I'm pretty sure that something other than the well-being of the public is behind it.

I wonder if I could get my rep to sponsor legislation to ban our legislators from sponsoring, testifying  or voting for legislation that would benefit their own personal business interests. For example, any legislator that works in real estate or as a developer wouldn't be able to sponsor a bill like SB 170, and would have to excuse themselves from the vote due to conflict of interest.We expect those in the legal profession and the media to avoid and disclose conflict of interest, and we should demand it of our "lawmakers" as well.

One thing sticks out in my mind from the Ralph Nader film, An Unreasonable Man, I saw at Sundance. Nader was refering to those voting for Kerry as the Anybody But Bush vote. He pointed out that if Kerry had won the race, he wouldn't have any reason to listen to or care about the issues of the ABB group felt were important. Until a candidate can no longer count on your vote and has to earn it, he argued, they don't have to be accountable to you.

In much of this state, those running as a Republican in just about any given race are shoo-ins. This gives many of our legislators all the mandate they need to pass bad bills that negatively affect the people that voted for them. I'm not suggesting that the Republicans in this state start necessarily voting Democrat, but they could look at other parties, such as Constitutional Party or the Libertarian Party -- even the Green Party. One value in third parties is to let our elected officials and candidates know that they can't count on our votes, so they better start working FOR us.

As if we didn't have enough sprawl along the Wasatch Front, Senator Al Mansell (R-Sandy) wants more of it. S.B. 170 would make good urban planning a nightmare.

What the bill would do is explained in an email from Save Our Canyons:

"With cities largely unable to turn down proposals from developers, it means new houses could pop up on steep slopes above your house.  It means that the vacant lot in your neighborhood might be developed as a fast-food restaurant or an auto-body shop.  And if you, your neighbors and everyone else in town rises up and persuades the city council to ban that particular type of development, it tells the judge to void the council's decision because it was "based on public clamor." (lines 988-990)"

Excuse me? Public clamor?!? Hello Al, we're the public -- remember us? You are supposed to be working for us, or are you forgetting about us with all those persuasive lobbyists up there shmoozing with you?

This kind of development is bad. We can't count on the market to regulate itself -- it just won't do it. And environmentally we really can't afford more sprawl. The air quality in this state gets worse every year. We need responsible government that is committed to smart urban planning.

This type of planning needs more oversight, not less.

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

Background from Save Our Canyons:

BACKGROUND

The Property Rights Ombudsman Craig Call, a Utah state official, prepared a summary of this bill's impact.  Some numbered excerpts from that analysis are below.  To read the whole text, check out http://www.le.state.ut.us/~2006/bills/sbillint/sb0170.htm.

10. Removes aesthetics from the list of considerations to be included in preparation of the general plan, as well as the issues related to congestion and "sprawl."  Line 485-486.

12. Eliminates the provision that a general plan may consider regulation of the use of land on hillsides.  Line 568.

17. Nullifies temporary land use regulations (TZO or "moratorium") unless adopted by ordinance, and prohibits the delay of consideration or disapproval of an application due to a temporary land use regulation. Lines 653-655.

33. Prohibits the denial of an application on technical or scientific grounds if the applicant provides expert testimony to support approval and there is no equivalent expert testimony to support disapproval.  Lines 780-785.

56. Provides that municipal officials who violates a land use ordinance or the land use statute is guilty of a class B misdemeanor.  Lines 1054-0155.

_____________________

Call your Senator and tell them to say no to S.B. 170. You can find your senator's phone and contact info from the district maps at http://se15.utahsenate.org/perl/spage/distmapal.pl.

Here's a way to make this year's State of the Union Address bearable -- party games (courtesy of United for Peace and Justice).

• Track the Lies Tally Sheet

• State of the Union Liars Bingo (from Code Pink)

• you can play "Guess How Much the War is Costing our (state, city, county)?" if you have any guests over.

• Huffington Post has a few game ideas, including: Guess the Guest and Beat the Speaker

and for those either at home, staying over or with designated driver there's are a few drinking game ideas floating around the net.

The Bush Admin is at it again -- they've been issuing subpoenas to various search enging companies demanding records of searches. All the companies except for Google have complied with the subpoenas, there's no record of which companies have be subpoenaed.

Google Rebuffs Feds on Search Requests

Google Inc. is rebuffing the Bush administration's demand for a peek at what millions of people have been looking up on the Internet's leading search engine — a request that underscores the potential for online databases to become tools for government surveillance.

Mountain View-based Google has refused to comply with a White House subpoena first issued last summer, prompting U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales this week to ask a federal judge in San Jose for an order to hand over the requested records.

The claim is being made that this is to enforce child protection laws. I find it hard to believe that this is the only reason that they want this information. After all, the Bush administration is getting quite a reputation for being dishonest -- I can't count the number of lies I've heard from this government. Not only that, but this admin has shown that it doesn't take civil rights of it's own people seriously.

This looks like a gateway case -- start with something that people have a hard time arguing with, like the protection of children -- then chip away until you can data mine for citizens who are researching the crimes of the government in general and Bush & Co. in particular, or building files on folks planning peace events.

I say, go Google! Thanks for standing up for what is right. Keep up the good fight!