Glenden BrownThe Repugs in Utah’s Legislature Won’t Listen to the People
IOW, it’s business as usual on the Hill.
While I’m at it, I’d like to take a moment and thank Strom Buttars for bringing his usual nasty little self out on public display for the people and making what was a boring and technocratic session into yet another nasty gay-bashing fest. FWIW, Chris “Strom” Buttars, you’re a narrow minded, bigoted nasty little man and we’d all be better off if you would just leave public life.
Okay, that’s out of my system.
Anyway, I read in this morning’s Trib that the Senate subcommittee that was holding a hearing about Buttars latest gay bashing law refused to let opponents of the law speak and instead turned the time over to Utah’s reliable host of bigots - Gayle Ruzicka (”No I don’t smell anything bad, my face always looks like this”), LeVar Christensen, Frank “gay people scare me” Mylar, and Merrill Cook. The usual suspects of Utah’s antigay police line up had nothing new to say. It’s the usual “We’re just so afraid and gay people are icky” kind of nonsense.
Too many of our state’s legislators ignore the people of Utah and our wishes. It’s not accidental and it’s not just a function of their swollen, gangrenous egos. It’s consistent with their conservative, governing philosophy which holds that the only time they accountable and answerable to the people is election day - call is plebiscite democracy. In this theory, if you are elected, the people approve everything you do and it’s okay to do whatever you want so long as you get re-elected and if the people disapprove of something, they are supposed to express that on election day.
In the many years I’ve been going to the Hill, I can honestly say I’ve been treated as an interloper, as someone who doesn’t really know what I’m supposed to do. On more than one occassion, I’ve had legislators flat out ignore my existence during public hearings - even as I’m speaking. I’ll ask a question and the chair says, “Next speaker.” It’s not just me. I see it happen time and time again. Yes, there are people who aren’t well spoken, who stumble over their words and express themselves badly, but too often our legislators act as if we are somehow violating decorum by expecting our elected officials to listen to us.
Our legislators offer a host of weasel words to explain their actions. I’ve been told “Well I have to represent the people of MY district” and when I say, “What have they said?”, I’m told, “They don’t care about this issue.” I’ve heard, “Well the people of Utah are very conservative and don’t want this.” And when they’re told, “This mornings d-news published a poll showing 75% of Utahns favor this issue,” they say, “That’s just the people who were polled.”
The great divide in Utah’s politics is between our Republicans who actually want to do what they want to do without having to bother with the will of the people and who go through the motions of pretending to listen to the public and the Democrats who actually believe in representative democracy. Utahns opposed vouchers and had to vote them down and we had a legislator (sorry don’t recall which one right now) who wanted to make the initiative process more difficult. Utahns favored hate crimes legislation year after year after year and until Gayle Ruzicka got tired of telling our legislators to kill it, we didn’t get it. So when I read our legislators stack the deck to make sure they only hear from people who agree with their extreme world view, I get angry but I also know it’s how they are going to keep doing it until we the people smack them down and smack them down hard.
February 18th, 2008 at 10:12 am
I really thought they would further cripple the initiative and referendum this year, in revenge for the voucher vote. The session isn’t over, though.
This morning’s SLT offers yet another example of a legislature that hasn’t the slightest concern for what the majority of Utahns want. In poll after poll, 80 percent of Utahns want more wilderness areas designated in this state. Naturally, our representatives passed a resolution against wilderness.
With 57 co-sponsors, House Joint Resolution 10 passed in the House 58-11.
February 18th, 2008 at 11:14 am
Sad as it is Glendon, representative democracy in this country is exactly that. We elect a representative and then that person does pretty much what they like until the next time around. As for the opposition, in a strong majority political environment, the opposition, or alternate view, is pretty much SOL.
In close pluralities, where favors across the aisle are common out of necessity, there is more give and take. You live in a theocracy basically, and being gay is not part of the accepted lifestyle. Only be thankful that the feds have made your case and are holding those that would discriminate against you accountable.
This is why I believe until decided by the judiciary, or legislation, laws should be respected and applied. When the system breaks down, those that have current rights could well lose them in a takeover. Ask an Algerian, or a secular Iraqi, Iranian, Afghani. The religious, and “true believers” in our country have the same abilities as any Islamic nuts.
This is the strength of the “Rule of Law” that you have derided. It has to be applied even handedly. We may not like the current laws, feel them unjust, but acting out, or politics in a purgatory, will surely land us in hell. In fact, that there is absolutely another side that exists that feels any rights you have obtained through the “Rule of Law” is unjust, amoral, and approaching in their mind…illegal is reality. You fight for yours, they fight for theirs…and the elites pick our pockets.
There is only the system of democracy, or tyranny. You live in a burgeoning State tyranny under the guise of Democracy. Sorry about that.
This is what makes the goddamn piece of paper so important, even of you disagree with parts of it. We need to be free from each others tyrannies of mind. In that regard all should spend their money effecting that, and not use the State coffers to further their social dreams.
The New England Patriots summed it up in one sentence, and had a flag for it.
“Don’t Tread on Me”.
In a sidenote: In my opinion the “Father of our Country” was Benjamen Franklin. A very wise old coot. Too old however, to influence and apply his strong opinion, that the new government should have only one house, and that should operate in Parliamentary fashion.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
In most life people tend to pay more attention to those who pay their bills and salary, or can offer the “rep” a future that comprises their desires. Money and a job. Human nature at work.
Now in Vermont for example, right wing jerk offs have the same difficulty you have being acknowledged at the legislature, there however, in the sense of fair play, the person is allowed to speak, then they are ignored.
In meetings where you might hold power, do you not have a tendency to maybe listen, but then ignore with acknowledgment, people that suggest ideas or tracks that do not fit into your world view? It is very hard not to, isn’t it?
This is politics of personality, and in a side note, is how completely unqualified dangerous freaks often acquire power through charismatic means.
February 18th, 2008 at 11:28 am
Glenn - I haven’t derided rule of law, I’m a big fan. Conservatives have recently discovered it as a new expression of their authoritarianism. Rule of law is a more complicated than “Pass a law and enforce it.” Rule of law acknowledges that laws can be unjust, they can be wrongheaded and passed for the wrong reasons, written by biased persons, just plain flawed - hence judicial review as enshrined in American legal theory. Rule of law isn’t the simple “right/wrong” dichotomy of conservative theorizing and speechifying. The idea of original intent - for instance - so beloved of conservatives has nothing to do with rule of law and everything to do with their misguided belief in some sort of idyllic past in which wiser heads prevailed. It’s a naive image of the leaders of the past that fails to see their biases, weaknesses and flaws.
As far as having a parliamentary democracy versus our current republic model, a number of years ago, an American historian wrote a book callled The Frozen Republic in which he traced the roots of our current bicameral system, examined its weaknesses, and offered scenarios under which we might move to a more responsive parliamentary system.
February 18th, 2008 at 12:11 pm
..and until the rectified by legislation or the judiciary it is the law. So at that point the risk is to allow anyone that does not agree with some to simply ignore it. It weakens the whole. Our legal system is based on precedent, if the precedent is to ignore any laws you don’t like…the obvious result is anarchy. Any argument that we are drifting into that State. No matter who you blame.
As a fisherman I made a rule. If at any time the bovine excrement hit spinning bladed cooling device…if at the time the issue became who was at fault, and less the amelioration of the problem, I quietly made my plans to once ashore, collect my check, cash it, and never come back. No explanation, just vacation. Plenty more boats and fish in the sea.
This is the risk. Many off us will simply split and leave the monkeys to themselves. Life is too short to hang out with monkeys.
There you have it. We are all different people, and have our bias. So in the interests of maintaining the system, the laws should be enforced, if glaringly bad and unpopular, the impetus will come to change it.
In the case of immigration law, the “People”, overwhelmingly want these laws enforced, and use as their guide, any other country, as a example. Our laws are the most lax on Earth…and then some.
The system remains ineffective and indecisive, in my view, for the simple reason of making the masses more easily ruled. Democracy is just tyranny of the stupid anymore, the problem is in our people, from both sides. Neither has any respect for the rights and views of the other. This is no accident. It is cultivated. The goddamed piece of paper is hated in principle by the extremists left and right.
“misguided belief in some sort of idyllic past in which wiser heads prevailed”
There are none amongst us that don’t have a parcel of that, once that becomes a truth you can face, you can let others live how they want, and quit attempting to steer this society in the direction you see fit. It is especially glaring when you attempt to do so with opposing taxpayers money. A sure reaction will result, leading to further fleecing as elites cackle and build more crap on the Mountains.
Progressive ideology to me is unnatural, and in the same way of religious intolerance spawns a form of “secular religion”, secular humanism as it is, and that is proving to be an expensive, invasive and ineffective method of progressing civilisation. It has to do with the culture. We will never be European, Asian, or whatever in mindset. For better or worse, adopting some ideology that isn’t congruent with our history is the equivalent of “pissing up a rope”.
February 18th, 2008 at 12:31 pm
Glenn - an interesting historical parallel - slavery was legal. A great many people said it was a shame and it was an immoral institution, but it was legal so we had to respect the right to own other human beings as chattel. It’s the same argument you are making and it’s not a strong argument.
It’s obvious you’re good at the “a few facts and figures” approach to American history but extremely unlearned on our social history. American social history is the history of a progressive nation growing ever more progressive. It is the conservative ideology that does not fit America.
February 18th, 2008 at 3:15 pm
Mayor Becker, city atty Rutan, council chair Love, and a lesbian from some group also spoke.
February 18th, 2008 at 4:05 pm
Strong or not, in your opinion, as for my unlearned knowledge of social history, my response. The struggle to end slavery was a personal one, based on personal morality, you could do as you wish. In the case of John Brown, he was hanged for his actions against slavery. Anyone could act out this way today should they wish, of course there would be consequences. I reference the abortion issue, to the committed, zygotes aren’t people, like blacks weren’t human. Pick your spot, live with the legal consequences.
It is however how things came down, and will again. It(slavery) was legal, so was beating your spouse and children, gays were in the closet, and you could pay the chinese in opium or not at all.
As it was, slavery was the perverse gift of the filthy crown, and as you well know it took about 100 years after nationhood and 600,000 dead to resolve the issue.Some say it only a cynical political ploy on Lincolns behalf. Liberia was created by us to return blacks that Lincoln had proclaimed unable to be assimiliated in to conservative US culture. Progress anyone? BTW, all these behaviors above mentioned are still quite prevalent. I hear plain old slavery is making a comeback in some of our cities, never mind utilizing illegals.
The US has been very conservative, and still is, despite any leanings in a “progressive” direction. How else do you explain us being dead last in just about every category of social justice in the modern world? You wish to argue that point Glendon?
The interesting historical point I would make, is that in the origins of a thing, or nation, are the inevitable elements of its future. America was founded by slavers and puritans, it is no small wonder that we have a sub class of tolerated illegal alien wage slaves, and a social history of backwardness with regard to morality. Slavers and Puritans. The more things change, the more they stay the same.
So frankly, I think it is you that is wrong, about America.
Most of what you struggle for has been well decided in Europe. 40 years ago. In addition the Europeans do not tolerate illegal workers, and have given them their due. It is quite likely that if it were not for the ability to pay low wages, and not pay the requisite taxes for an employee, there would be no hiring of illegal aliens at all, what for pray tell, to brush up on your Spanish?
So historically Glendon if progress is the norm, please explain why we have been unable to stop the decades of simple wars of empire and aggression that have beset many countries at our mercy. Usually from conjured boogiemen, and patent lies.
Progressive indeed. No country or people that have tolerated the last 8 years without rising up, can wear that mantle. No loyal opposition that has been such a doormat could ever seriously be taken as having the will, or merit, of leading us out of this morass.
In the context of others, those not from this Country, it is obnoxious and shameful to pretend.
February 18th, 2008 at 5:56 pm
Glen, thank you pointing out Glenn’s hypocrisy, though, I wouldn’t blame you if you gave up.
Arguing with Glenn is like banging your head against the wall. He doesn’t really care about facts, but rather about validating the freak show in his head.
February 18th, 2008 at 8:01 pm
I’ll use a hilary and say that you Cliff are plagiarizing my characterizations of the loony left in its current incarnation.
Freak show, look at the ineffectual consortium of misfits aligned against bush, and wonder upon how it is they all failed to reign him in.
It’s no mystery.
February 18th, 2008 at 9:34 pm
And for the record, I have not seen a single fact you have presented anywhere in this thread.
So much for credentials.
I suppose it’s a good thing that nobody reads this blog. You should rename it, notetoself.com…., sort of a cyber “post it” note.
Exercise, a pillar of good health.
February 19th, 2008 at 7:50 am
The Colorado law in effect, it is only a matter of time now.
February 19th, 2008 at 7:58 am
Hey Cliff - I know Glenn’s a yutz, a troll and loon and I would prefer to ignore him but every so often he actually says something that almost sounds like good sense! It’s a shame his version of American history is so idiosyncratic and inconsistent with, you know, actual history and his set of “facts” are in fact not so factual but I keep reading what he writes since every now and then he says something worth hearing. It’s odd. Of course, what’s the old joke, a broken clock is still right twice a day?
Oh well.
February 19th, 2008 at 9:42 am
Agreed Glen,
Glenn is not stupid, just a bit mad (crazy) and very lazy.
Somehow, he decided to stop learning after college before he was able to learn any modern history. His paradigm is based upon having been born (but not raised) in Germany, fishing in Alaska in the eighties, and world history up to Lao Tzu.
He has never voted.
February 19th, 2008 at 2:02 pm
Re, the leg not listening to the public, I’m reminded of Rumsfield’s repeated use of the phrase “I serve at the presidents pleasure”. Such is our relationship to the legislature, or so they would have us believe.
BTW, also re Glenn, I find his comments at least as stimulating as any others, and he’s fairly prolific. This is a good thing, and besides, shouldn’t we be bashing Squirley Macaine at this point instead of Glenn (by any other name)?
February 19th, 2008 at 2:41 pm
Still no facts, the best you both can do is ad hominem.
It is really quite pathetic. Refute any of the historical facts, anytime you like. The exchange of factual evidence would be the essence of dicovery. Appears you are neither interested nor capable.
Don’t know what you learned Glendon, but I do know that Cliff is a poli sci major, all theory. My own degree is in history.
You do not know that I have voted?.. and will again.
Are you sure you mean Lao Tzu cliff, and not Sun Tzu? I do not consider myself a Taoist. You are becoming goofier as you age. It must be all the losing.
In addition Glendon, you don’t know what I think, as my responses here are merely contra everything put here. Otherwise this site would be terribly boring. Like conversing in an echo chamber. You should thank me. Oh well indeed, a dry one.
Dear cliff, I have in my life never met anyone as personally lazy, as yourself, in habits.In the vein that you may believe yourself special and that others should serve you. Are you up to smoking indoors yet? At that point, it will be time to get a wheelchair for yourself.