Frank Rich has written a good article on gay marriage. Frank Rich: The Joy of Gay Marriage

Shouldn't they have dones this, oh I don't know, about 18 months ago? New U.S. Effort Steps Up Hunt for bin Laden So, Bush has revealed the second prong of attack in his reelection effort. Capture bin Laden. Yup, that should definitely make Iraq safer, prevent the rise of militant muslim theocracies, create more jobs for Americans, help the poor, and restore confidence in CEOs who stole from the back pockets of hard working Americans.

Hey,I'd love nothing more than for us to capture bin Laden, but it's unfortunate that it didn't happen sooner. Had we kept the focus on terrorist organizations, and not made the diversion into Iraq, we would (1) have more credibility around the globe, and (2) we would therefore have more authority to go after rogue, terrorist organizations. Will capturing bin Laden make the world safer? Did the capture of Saddam Hussein make Iraq safer?

Let's hope the capture happens as quickly as possible, so that this president can go about the people's business and work toward solving the problems of average, regular Americans.

Legislative Session Must Mean it's Time for Hatred and Intolerance The Salt Lake Tribune -- Church reassures migrants When will the rational, forward-thinking people of this state step forward and oust their fanatical legislators? Case in point: the proposed bill to prevent the Mexican consulate from using its Matricula card within Utah state. What rational reason is being given for this? That it will promote illegal immigration, and illegal immigration violates the LDS Church Twelth Article of Faith, that its members obey all laws. Proponents of the bill are removed from the mainstream to the point where the LDS Church felt that it had to distance itself from them.

Is this yet another attempt to send a "message" bill to Gov. Walker's desk? Shouldn't our legislators' time be spent debating real problems and finding real solutions?

Comment on the proposed amendment that would ban gay marriage. Putting Bias in the Constitution Another fear is that the language of the amendment would strip basic rights that gays have won through the years (adoption, etc.). I am infuriated that in light of the loss of jobs and the war in Iraq, that this is what the president chooses to focus his attention upon. Hopefully, this will only highlight the lack of leadership exhibited by the president on issues that matter to people. I would love for John Kerry to say, "While the president concerns himself with dividing this nation on the issue of gay marriage, I am putting forth a concrete plan to give regular Americans faith that their country will provide continued prosperity, leadership and freedom."

Kerry wins Utah's primary. The Salt Lake Tribune -- Kerry gets Utah's nod

Evidence of a malicious intent in the re-drawing of the Texas congressional districts. Political State Report: straight from the trenches What will it take before a court will realize that the Texas Republicans intend to marginalize minority voters, thus possibly denying minority voters a fundamental right under the U.S. Constitution. Jim Crow is alive and well, he just happens to wear a Republican mask.

Judge Cassell, of the Federal District Court in Utah, has taken a step that might challenge the mandatory minimum sentences given in Federal Court. The Salt Lake Tribune -- Judge questions mandatory terms The Defendant in this case was convicted of 16 counts involving illegal drug trafficking. During two drug deals, Defendant carried, but did not brandish, a weapon. Also, Defendant possessed a weapon, but again, did not brandish it, at the place where he sold his drugs. The first weapon offense is a mandatory 5 years. The next two offenses add 25 years to his sentence, to be served consecutively. With all of the convictions and enhancements, Defendant faces a minimum 61 1/2 year sentence and a maximum of 105 years. In Utah state court, Defendant would have probably served two to three years and then been paroled.

Granted, Defendant has been convicted and is probably a less than savory figure, but 61 1/2 years for drug trafficking? Will his sentence solve anything? Take out one dealer and another steps in his place. Deterrence, through harsh sentencing doesn't seem to solve a damn thing.

Looks like Nader is intent on making the Democrats sweat this election. Ignoring Democrats� Pleas, Nader Announces Run for White House: Governor Bill Richardson says it best, "It's his personal vanity because he has no movement,' Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico complained on 'Fox News Sunday' before Mr. Nader's announcement. 'Nobody's backing him, the Greens aren't backing him, his friends urge him not to do it. It's all about himself.'" You can bet the Republicans just creamed their jeans at this announcement. Not only does Nader's candidacy compete with anti-Bush votes in competitive states, but his announcement focuses the press away from Bush and his failures and toward the race between the Dems and Nader.

Unfortunately, Nader refuses to act in accordance with the understanding that 2004 is much different than 2000. In 2000, our country had just witnessed one of the most prosperous years of growth in a long while. Unbeknownst to many of us, Nader was absolutely correct about corporate excesses and greed. Enron, Worldcom, Arthur Andersen, and the pets.com sock puppet were considered success stories before the 2000 election. Little did the public know that the traditional corporations would eviscerate the retirement savings of its workers, and break many laws doing it. At the time, the Internet, by then experiencing huge growth, still seemed to provide limitless opportunities. Venture capital flowed freely and if you had a semblance of an idea, a Business Model, you could get rich. I still remember attending a party in San Francisco in October of 2000 with my buddy Rob. Rob worked in the "dot-com" industry, and this was a "dot-com" party. As a first-year law student, accruing debt at a rate just slightly slower than the national debt, I was struck by the fact that I was at a party with people younger than me, and they all had more money that I'd see in a long while. Walking between conversations, I would overhear kids talking about "V.C." and "B.M.s" (venture capital and business models). These wankers talked the talk, and got rich doing it. The year 2000 was the culimation of a reckless era of corporations spending freely to accumulate bullshit companies. And, this corporate greed definitely spilled-over into politics. These companies were spending large amounts of money in Washington to get what they needed from the politicians.

What's changed between 2000 and 2004? Well, the Internet boom is over, and we've already faced a recession. Jobs are scarce and any economic growth that occurs appears to be geared toward the stock market. The heads of Enron have faced Federal prosecutions and some are actually serving time. The CEO of Tyco faces intense scrutiny for his lavish spending and squandering of corporate resources. We've been attacked and attacked in return. In addition to rooting out the Taliban and al Qaeda in Afghanistan, we have also taken many innocent lives. Of course, there is Iraq. We've won that war, we think, but what did we win? We didn't find any WMDs. Will we have a quagmire that we will leave unfinished and that will become a magnet for Islamic revolutionaries? In the process we have killed many Iraqis, and lost many of our soldiers. We also are now on the brink of another culture war. Bolstered by the Supreme Court's ruling in Texas v. Lawrence, which held that Texas's sodomy statute, as applied to homosexuals, was unconstitutional, and bolstered by the Massachusetts supreme court's ruling that a ban on gay marriage was unconstitutional, Bush and his conservatives will seek to make gay marriage a smokescreen to obscure the loss of jobs, mismanagement of the economy, and failures in Iraq.

What's the overriding goal for the Democrats and Nader? To beat Bush. What is at stake in this election? First, would be the right to appoint supreme court justices that will maintain, if not further, the rights of gays (it's widely rumored that Rehnquist, O'Connor, and Stevens might be ready to retire). We cannot have another Scalia, Thomas, or Rehnquist. Second, the economy and jobs. Bush's tax cut, if made permanent, will create lasting repurcussions that my children will feel. These deficits will hamper any fiscal flexibility that future generations may need. Nader is concerned about Bush's connections to corporate america and the subsequent corporate welfare, if Bush wins again, what does Nader think will happen? With a Democrat, things may not be the way he likes it, but they will be different. Third, we need to restore America's credibility in the world again. With the democratic nominee, we can at least start over, but with a Bush in the White House, we risk a complete squandering of any good will that remains.

Can Nader win the election? Absolutely not. He does not have the organization nor resources to win. Is this an indictment upon our electoral process. Absolutely, 100 percent, yes. Is Nader within his rights to challenge Bush? Of course he is. However, because he knows he can't win (and those who would say to the contrary, I say you're a damn fool), and because he seeks only to make a point about the electoral process, I believe that Gov. Bill Richardson is correct in saying that Nader's campaign is for nothing more than personal vanity. And I think, and hopfully others will think this, that there is just too much at stake to throw a vote to vanity. Those who would argue that Nader's campaign won't have an impact, I say carefully re-examine your statement. Those who would vote for Nader would almost never vote for Bush. By creating a Democrat alternate, you split the anti-Bush vote and maximize Bush's chances of winning. To make a point while losing your cause in the ultimate exercise in vanity.

Wow, perhaps we actually have some elected officials who can think. The Salt Lake Tribune -- Walker sees veto option as necessity I suppose we'll wait and see what happens, but it appears that Gov. Walker understands the futility of passing legislation that will be litigated (at state expense), and ultimately defeated (court precedent indicates so). Or, in the case of the gay marriage ban, the effect of the current proposal adds nothing new to Utah's lawbooks (the state has already banned gay marriage).

Leavitt's "retirement" may have more positive effects than we thought. Too bad Gov. Walker may not run for re-election this year.

Glad to see Chicago might be following San Francisco's lead. Perhaps if enough municipalities stand up for the rights of their citizens, the citizens will get their rights. KUTV: Chicago Next Gay Marriage Battleground?

Nice take by a prominent Utah columnist. The Salt Lake Tribune -- Mullen: Utah's petty little stand can't stop gay-marriage avalanche Last night, on a local news broadcast, one of the legislators supporting the gay marriage ban said that a gay marriage ban was needed because it would "up-end" things like tax laws, etc. How? It would merely grant individuals more rights. Last time I checked, any inconveniences incurred in granting civil rights was not enough to stop the granting of those rights. Can you imagine this argument actually flying? If this was the case, women and blacks would not be able to vote and own property. The sad things is is that I wish I could dismiss this sentiment as something from a kooky Utah legislator, but unfortunately, it appears to be a sentiment held by half the population of the U.S.

damn, Arianna Huffington beat me to the punch. Salon.com | The culture-war president

On a side note, I've noticed all sorts of banners for chicago cubs stuff at the top of the blog. The following will try to screw with that: Utah Jazz, Utah Jazz, Andrei Kirilenko, Wilco, Coachella, CD's, Music, Radiohead, Northwestern University.

So, it appears that if the Republicans cannot win the election on policy issues, they will force the election to be a culture war. Salon.com News | Laura Bush says gay marriage "shocking" Hopefully my faith in the American people to see through the obfuscations and lies by right-wing politicians and demagogues is not misplaced. Case in point: Laura Bush stated that she thinks the issue of gay marriage should be an issue that is debated by the American people, and should not be decided by the courts. Well, first, it IS an issue that should be decided by the courts because gays who seek a CIVIL marriage are doing so because laws preventing gay marriage prevent the exercise and enjoyment of rights attendant to CIVIL marriage. The Supreme Court has held that marriage is a fundamental right. Last time I checked, if you are being denied access to a fundamental right, you ask the courts, not your neighbor, for redress. Secondly, the American people ARE debating this issue. The state constitutional amendment process in Massachusetts requires input from the people, and the people seeking an amendment must pass that amendment every year for two years. This forces the people to debate the issue, vigorously, for two years. The federal constitutional amendment process is also forcing much public debate, too.

I just don't get what conservatives are afraid of. Will gay marriage denigrate the institution of marriage? How? Currently, without gay marriage, people suffer infidelities, lying, philandering, physical abuse, and mental abuse. Some conservatives argue that marriage is about procreation, the creation of the family. If that's the case, why do we let infertile couples marry, why do we let people marry who have no intention of ever having children? People would do them a great service if they just picked up a copy of the Supreme Court's decision in Loving v. Virginia. Although the issues that the Lovings challenged may be somewhat different than what gays would challenge today, the arguments the Supreme Court uses to refute the standard arguments used against interracial marriage still apply today.

Oh, one other thing kills me about Laura Bush's speech. If a president is accused of misrepresenting his National Guard service and the evidence that supported our decision to go to war with Iraq, that is a "personal attack," and therefore unwarranted. However, if a president is accused of having an affair while in office, then that is a legitimate topic of national debate. Hmmm, gotta love the double standards at play.

Article from today's Salt Lake Tribune that gives a little bit more detail on the state's Democratic presidential primary. The Salt Lake Tribune -- Utah Democrats get to show primary colors

Looks like it's now a done deal. Maddux signs with the Cubs for a 3-year, $24 million contract. Time to exorcise those Steve Bartman demons. ESPN.com - MLB - Report: Maddux signs 3-year deal with Cubs

Books I'm reading:

Guns, Germs and Steel
The Motorcycle Diaries
The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier & Klay
Mystic River

Films I'm Diggin':

City of God
Capturing the Friedmans
Lost in Translation
The Motorcycle Diaries
Goodbye Lenin

(speaking of foreign films, why is it that some of the better films coming out today are coming from other countries? I'm not one for jingoism, nationalism, or any other extreme -ism, but c'mon, it's embarrassing that Americans continue to put out such thoughtless crap. Just watch City of God. It's visually arresting, creatively shot, and includes some of the best music ever used in a film. Oh yeah, it also has a pretty damn, good story.)

Pitchers and Catchers report tomorrow.

MLB Picks:

AL West: Anaheim Angels
AL Central: Kansas City Royals
AL East: NY Yankees
Wildcard: Boston Red Sox

NL West: SF Giants
NL Central: Chicago Cubs
NL East: Phillies
NL Wildcard: Houston Astros

The Democratic Party of Utah will be holding this year's presidential primary on Tuesday, February 24th. Because the Republican-held Utah Legislature did not allocate funding for this year's primary, the Democratic Party will be funding it. Individuals seeking to cast a vote need only head to any public library.

ESPN.com - MLB - Report: Maddux, Cubs closing in on deal

Arms race in the NL Central.

In an attempt to keep up with the Houston Astros, it appears that the Chicago Cubs will sign Greg Maddux. That is if a graphic on ESPN's SportsCenter is to be trusted. SportsCenter projected Maddux as the fourth starter, behind (1) Mark Prior, (2) Kerry Wood, and (3) Matt Clement, and before (5) Carlos Zambrano.

Current online wire stories merely report that the Cubs' GM and Maddux are close to a deal.