Wednesday, December 31, 2008
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
News flash: Carlos is going to have surgery and sit on his behind a few more months. What a shock. I admit it; I hopped on the "dump Boozer" wagon a while back. I listened to my brother call him "Wusser," "[----]er," "Loozer," and "that lazy --------------." I learned that Paul "double double" Millsap was the lowest-paid player on the team. I answered the phone when my mother called mid-game to say, "The Jazz shouldn't let Carlos do color commentary. He doesn't even pretend that he wants to play."
I heard the jokes about the Zions Bank commercial: "They used still photos because Boozer couldn't make it all the way through a layup." "Slow mo? That's live action." "They couldn't show the whole film; Boozer signed with Wells Fargo before they were done making it." Etc.
I have struggled with the Jazz-ticket concept for years. Each year (except for a Brokeback Mountain boycott), I signed up for shared tickets, but would feel a twinge as I walked past a homeless individual or realized what the Humane Society or the Red Cross could do with the ridiculous sums of money I was forking over. Unfortunately, I love the Jazz. I tape games. I rewatch close ones (when we win). I time my jogging so I can do it while watching a game or listening to Hot Rod. I went to Sloan's first game while recovering from surgery.
But I am sick of the "Oh, I stubbed my toe, I'd better sit out for six weeks" vibe we get from even our own players now. As someone who watched John Stockton and Karl Malone play through dislocations and everything else, I have a hard time when Andre Kirilenko rides the pine because of a sprained finger tip. It's the same trainer that Karl and John had -- what could be the difference? You say advice from agents; I say wussiness.
What does this have to do with Utah politics? OK, nothing. But I feel better.
Our eyes met. "Glurp," it said. I looked around, to be sure that no one would see us.Yeah, I hear those NASA whiners. "There has never been a private lunar launch from Utah, nor could there be, because [scientific mumbo jumbo deleted]." "It is physically, geometrically, logistically, and scientifically impossible to get to the moon and back in one weekend, even if there is a holiday in there." "This seems nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt to procure sponsorship of a major soup manufacturer," blah blah.
Of course, I could not speak its language, but I had to try. "Do you want some soup?" I gestured with my hands. "I have some Campbell Extra Chunky Vegetarian."
First of all, who made NASA the know-all of space travel? Jealous much? Second, I resent the implication that I am just trying to make money off an important subject like space travel. However, this is not the final draft, and my memory is starting to become clearer, Campbell. As I think more about it, it may have been a Pepsi . . .
It seems silly for a Congressman to boycott an entire newspaper (and yes, I do consider the Weekly legitimate media) for three years for something that occurred before the new editor. But then I've been known to try previously disappointing businesses again when I see an "Under New Management" sign.
Mullen should have gone into more detail about what originally sparked the boycott. Midway through the comments, she provided a link to what she says is the tsk tsk article, but since the whole column was accusing Matheson of overreacting, she should have explored the cause of the alleged overreaction more.
Finally, Hey, Matheson, vote for any torture-indefinite-confinement bills lately?
Monday, December 29, 2008
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
Saturday, December 13, 2008
I'm sure the prospective parents are distraught, but I would be surprised if this result was really a surprise. There is a relatively clear, 30-year-old federal law: You have to have consent of the tribe to adopt a Native American child. This issue is usually not a close call, unlike, for example, the more complicated issue of whether an out-of-state biological father has met the statutory requirements for challenging an adoption.
While many adoption-related problems are created by adoption agencies who cut corners, lazy lawyers, and Johnny-come-lately biological fathers, some adoptive parents are also willing to subject a child to months or even years of fighting when they know they are likely to lose. (I'm not saying that these parents fall within that category; I have no idea what they were told or when.) Perhaps it is making lemonade out of a lemon, but at least this dispute was resolved in a matter of months, rather than years.
Note: Once again, the "law is the law" contingent on KSL.com are demonstrating that they don't really mean it. Yeah, it's a clear federal law. Yeah, it's been on the books since 1978. So what? We don't like this law; ergo, it need not be enforced.
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
* * * * * *
First, they addressed procedural issues, such as beginning each session with roll call and prayer:
Mr. VARIAN. Don't you mean “prayer and roll call?” Transpose that.
Mr. WHITNEY. No; I think the roll call should be first, because until the roll call, we do not know whether there is a quorum present.
Mr. VARIAN. The minority needs the prayer as much as the quorum.
Mr. CANNON. I would suggest that the prayer usually comes first.
Mr. WHITNEY. My impression is, the roll call should come first.
Mr. EVANS (Weber). Suppose we should have divine exercises and after that the roll were called and there was found not to be a quorum present, the question would be, would the prayer avail anything? [Laughter.]
More shenanigans ensued as they discussed the proposed state militia, defined as male citizens aged 18-45:
Mr. MACKINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out the word “male” in the section. [Laughter.]
Mr. CHIDESTER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the gentleman a question, who makes that motion? I want to ask if you belong to the militia?
Mr. MACKINTOSH. Now? Oh, no. I am exempt by the color of my hair.
Mr. CHIDESTER. I am going to say that if he did, for the purpose of improving the militia, I would support his motion. [Laughter.]
While most participants favored giving women the right to vote, Brigham H. Roberts was a staunch and persistent opponent. In truth, most of his humor appeared to be inadvertent, but this one was intentional:
Mr. ROBERTS. . . . I hold to the doctrine that each man who is married, in the exercise of his privilege of suffrage, is the representative in that act, not only of himself, but of the little group with which he is connected. He acts for his family, and gentlemen must not be carried away with the idea that they act independently of the influence of the wife in that case either. It may suit the fancy of man, it may be accorded by the shrewdness of woman to let him think that that is the case, but as a matter of fact, it is not the case. I think before I get through I shall be able to show you that women already have an influence in politics, and though indirect, it is none the less real, and that when a man who is married casts his vote, it is the expression of the mentality of the group with whom he is connected. The hobo and the bachelor may each for himself cast his ballot with no other consideration than how it affects him; but, gentlemen, the man who is a head of the family does not do it and he cannot do it, because there stands by his side a counsellor and he cannot escape hearing her. [Laughter.]
So was this witty rebuttal to Roberts' lengthy oratory against suffrage:
Mr. WHITNEY. . . . While he was speaking my mind scanned the pages of history in quest of some hero with whom to compare him. I thought of Horatius at the Roman bridge, standing single-handed and alone, beating back the Tuscan legions advancing to attack the Eternal City; and I fain would have compared my friend to that hero of antiquity. But I could not; because Horatius was fighting for freedom, and in my opinion my eloquent but mistaken friend was fighting against it. [Applause].
I went back farther into the past. I thought of Leonidas and his three hundred Spartans, defending the pass of Thermopylae against the overwhelming hordes of Persians, sweeping down like an avalanche upon his native land. I wanted to compare him to that hero_one of the noblest in history_but again I was met by the reflection that Leonidas fought and fell in a battle for liberty, and I was convinced that my friend from Davis County was taking part in no such engagement. [Applause.]
Then I remembered a little anecdote, one that is doubtless trite and common-place to you all. A bull was feeding in a pasture through which a railway track extended, along which an express train was advancing at lightning speed. The bull got upon the track and tried to prevent the train from passing. He did not seem to know what was coming, and “preferring his free thought to a throne” [laughter], planted himself squarely in the way of the invincible power that came rushing and roaring on. The bull, I say, did not seem to know what was coming, but the farmer, his owner, did [laughter], and with a gasp of astonishment, mingled with admiration he exclaimed: “Well I admire your courage, but d--n your judgment.” [Laughter and applause.]
But I did not like to compare my friend to a dumb animal; he had given convincing proof that he was not dumb; and though there was once an animal that spake [laughter], the property of one Balaam [renewed laughter], it spake by inspiration from on high, so that I could not compare it to the gentleman from Davis County. [Laughter and applause.]
And this one was just funny:
Mr. GOODWIN. May I ask the gentleman a question? If your amendment passes, suppose an emergency should arise in the Territory that the farmers throughout the Territory would need fifty thousand dollars to buy seed, wheat, and food, to carry them over until another harvest, how could they get the money if your amendment passes?
Mr. HALLIDAY. Get it out of the Tithing Office. [Laughter.]
Tuesday, December 09, 2008
We warned you, Moss. If you had just done your boondoggling duty, we wouldn't be in this mess. That must be the reason why all that China business isn't flowing in yet. Otherwise, one might think those "It'll bring business to Utah" claims in '07 were indeed a pile of hooey.
Now we are really ticked at ex-teacher Carol Spackman Moss, who decided that the whole thing was a bunch of hooey and that she could not in good conscience go. "If I couldn't justify it to myself or my friends, then it wasn't worth it," Moss said in the Tribune article. Not everything is about you and your conscience, Rep. Moss. If Utah's economy goes straight to the toilet, we'll be pointing a finger at you and that empty seat on the China Fun Bus.
Monday, December 08, 2008
These Blackwater guards may not get their wish, but judging by initial comments on the D-News story, it's worth a try. The same people who usually assume that all charges brought against anyone must be true are taking the opposite approach here: Aw, shucks, the shooters were just doing their jobs, and these charges are just "Monday morning quarterbacking." (Yes, someone actually compared alleged civilian massacre to a sporting event.)
Wherever held, this will be an interesting trial. Unlike people we have imprisoned at Guantanamo, these men will actually have a right to defend themselves in a court of law. Of course, there is a difference: Those guys at Guantanamo are all guilty. They must be, right? Because our government says they are. Or is that just a bit of Monday-morning quarterbacking?
Sunday, December 07, 2008
Every hour at the :45, a non-Christian-loving announcer came on with her indoctrinating voice and said, "As part of our holiday celebration, the Library will hold a class at 2 p.m. on Tongan holiday traditions," or Mexican "holiday" traditions, or English "holiday" traditions.
Patrons were enraged. "I've lost him after the 1820 census but I know he didn't die until 1834," declared one genealogist in response to the barrage of anti-Christian announcements.
"Have you tried tax lists?" another agreed.
Clearly, something must be done. Sen. Buttars, there is time to rewrite your nationally renowned resolution telling business owners to quit ruining the Christmas holiday by using the word holiday. Could you please include the Church in that?
Tuesday, December 02, 2008
That's right. According to Sen. Lyle Hillyard, Valentine actually voted against Hilder because Valentine was in a snit, or, as my mother would have said, having a maddy. In a recent Senate Site post, Hillyard said that Valentine was going to vote for Hilder, but then Hilder went and ticked him off.