HB477 is a borderline crazy bill — if you believe in open democracy, anyway. I cannot figure out why people in both mainstream parties or anybody of any political ideology for that matter is not completely outraged by this bill. I think we can all agree that transparency in government is an essential part of democracy, maybe a few national security issues aside.

The bill can be summed up like this: it restricts public access to government records. It paves the way for corruption and conflict of interest. In other words, it gives Utah legislators a way to communicate with each other and with rogue power players in secret. It vaguely allows the Utah government to charge an unrestricted amount of money for access to their records, putting the burden on the public and on the media (rather than on the government) to disclose information about the Utah legislature as they see fit.

Perhaps most notable is that HB477 prohibits disclosure of text messages. Ten years ago that might not have been such a big deal, but texting is becoming more and more preferable to a phone call or even face-to-face conversation. Lobbyists that have the legislators’ cell phone numbers will now have free reign to text back and forth with the politicians, especially during hearings and debates. Lobbyists will have a say in every last bill on the floor. HB477 deters anyone from gaining access to communication that their supposed representative is having with powerful lobbyists. And as we all know, if there’s one thing lobbyists need, it is more power in the legislative process.

Protests at the Capitol have put Governor Herbert in a tough place. The majority of Utah legislators were under the impression they had him on board, and that the bill would take effect as soon as it passed. Once they had the go-ahead, they passed it within a few days with next to no debate. The public then became aware of how serious this bill was and Herbert was put under a lot of pressure to veto the bill. In the end, he passed an amended version, which is set to take effect in July. This is supposed to allow for a more open debate about the bill. Hopefully enough of the public will demand its defeat. The flip-side is that attention to the bill may die down by then and it will end up passing anyways.

This bill has the potential to affect every law that passes in the state of Utah, not just collective bargaining agreements or immigration policy. There are more protests planned at the Capitol and, if people understood the potential impact of this bill, I think we would see protests similar to those held recently in Wisconsin and Arizona.

I guess we will see just how much people care in the next few months.

There were, however, 31 senators and many others who did not want this repeal to happen. You could even go so far as saying they were on the wrong side of the arc of history, the side that bends toward inequality and discrimination rather than justice. One senator said that, while the policy needs to be changed in the future, “In the middle of a military conflict is not the time to do it.”

The problem with this statement is that it is a misnomer. The U.S. has troops around the world all the time and there will be troops or “residual forces” in Afghanistan and Iraq for decades. What this means is that the senator was basically saying it should never happen.

The leading senator against repeal of DADT, John McCain, has repeatedly moved his benchmarks for when it should be repealed and said that repealing the law will “harm the battle effectiveness vital to the survival of our young men and women in the military.”

Apparently McCain does not understand that even without the repealing of DADT, there are still gays currently in the military — and from the survey taken recently, we know that just under 70 percent of those surveyed acknowledged that they fought with or worked alongside gay and/or lesbian servicemembers. Coincidentally, 70 percent of respondents also reported that integrating gays into the military would be positive, mixed, or of no consequence.

McCain also warned us of repealing DADT, saying, “Don’t think there won’t be a great cost.” If he is so worried about cohesion and cost, he should consider that, since the inception of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell in 1993, over 13,000 troops have been discharged from the military because of their sexual orientation — hardly a sign of cohesion.

Also, 25 other countries already allow gays to serve openly in the military, including Great Britain, Australia, Colombia, Italy, Japan and Spain, among others. Nobody was telling them there would be a problem with cohesion when they enlisted to help support current U.S. military adventures. Some of those countries even recognize same-sex marriages as legal.

Being on the wrong side of history is nothing to be proud of. But just as 70 percent of military respondents have seen, knowing someone who is gay or lesbian dispels myths and leads to greater understanding. Largely due to that kind of increased familiarity and tolerance, one more unjust policy has become a part of history rather than an unjust part of the present.

On Tuesday, the Pentagon released the “Report of the Comprehensive Review of the Issues Associated with a Repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” That’s a long title, and it comes with a fittingly long report that basically says what has been obvious for years — DADT is outdated and needs to be ended.

While polls consistently find the American public favors repealing the law, the report includes some illuminating, if expected, findings about how repeal will affect the military. For example, it says that the

“results of the Service member survey reveal a widespread attitude among a solid majority of Service members that repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell will not have a negative impact on their ability to conduct their military mission.”

The study also points out that, despite DADT, many troops already knowingly serve with gay men and lesbians:

“The reality is that there are gay men and lesbians already serving in today’s U.S. military, and most Service members recognize this. As stated before, 69% of the force recognizes that they have at some point served in a unit with a co-worker they believed to be gay or lesbian. Of those who have actually had this experience in their career, 92% stated that the unit’s ‘ability to work together’ was ‘very good,’ ‘good,’ or ‘neither good nor poor,’ while only 8% stated it was ‘poor’ or ‘very poor.’ “

The report even includes some charming quotes, including this already oft-quoted gem from a service member:

“We have a gay guy. He’s big, he’s mean, and he kills lots of bad guys. No one cared that he was gay.”

The point here — that DADT needs to go away — is obvious and hardly needs restating. What will be interesting, however, is how this report impacts political attitudes.

Up until very recently, Republicans have thwarted efforts to end DADT. Just when it looked like it might end, John McCain — perhaps as part of his dramatic, pre-election flop to the far right — staged a filibuster of the National Defense Authorization Act. The act included both the budget for the Military, as well as an amendment paving the way for the repeal of DADT.

McCain was joined by other Senate Republicans (and two Democrats), many of whom have previously expressed an unwillingness to modernize the military’s policy toward homosexuality.

Though it’s unclear when national defense became a partisan issue and it’s baffling that Republicans have wanted to prevent people from fighting terrorists, the Pentagon’s report removes the last objective roadblock to ending DADT. In essence, it’s becoming impossible to argue that the policy serves national interest. If Senators want to prevent its repeal now, they have to do so out of a personal commitment to prejudice and intolerance — and at the expense of national well-being.

President Obama has already called on the Senate to actually do something and repeal DADT by the end of the year. The question now is how they will respond. Too few congressmen and women had the courage and foresight to act in the past, so hopefully this new report will give them whatever excuses, scapegoats or motivations they need to get moving now.

A recent article about the overturn of California’s Proposition 8 lacked the objectivity necessary to do this important story justice. The story had a title and a lead paragraph that made it clear where they as a newspaper stood and assumed that their audience agreed. The article tried to hide its true feelings using an old journalism tactic — using the word  “some” to avoid appearing biased.

For example, the article states that “some BYU students from California are struggling to understand how a single federal judge could invalidate the collective voice of voters who passed Proposition 8 nearly two years ago.” The author reiterates this feeling later with “some BYU students said they felt the decision was difficult to understand.”

I’m sure most BYU students are, in fact, upset about the judge’s overruling of Proposition 8 — but The Daily Universe has a responsibility to report the news without the subjectivity that leaves its readers with only a partial examination of the issue.

A few of the main criticisms of Judge Walker’s decision went largely unaddressed. The first (which just happens to appear in the DU article) is that the courts no longer listen to the voice of the people. Since when were the courts supposed to listen to the voice of the people? What these critics fail to understand is that the United States Judicial Branch is in place to provide fair and impartial justice, yes, even when 7 million people voiced their opinions in the polls. Consider that, in the 1960s, California voted that you could discriminate the selling of your home based on race. The majority of Californians voted in favor of that law. That does not mean it is just. The Bill of Rights was intended to protect our rights and the Judicial Branch ensures justice and equality — even in the face of majority opposition.

The next critique is that Judge Walker was biased in his ruling simply because he may be gay. Looking at Vaughn Walker’s biography gives a more insightful look into this accusation. Judge Walker was nominated to the federal bench by the President conservatives miss dearly, Ronald Reagan, in 1987. He is known as an independent-minded conservative and has been condemned for rulings by those on all sides of the political spectrum.

He favored both the legalization of drugs and ruled in the mid 1990s that the police used reasonable force when they pepper-sprayed what most people refer to as ‘tree-huggers.’ He once represented a case as a private lawyer against the gay community in which he kept an organization from calling itself the Gay Olympics. He was also, at one time, a member of a club that did not allow membership for blacks or women. In short, he has more than lived up to his reputation as an independent minded conservative jurist.

Next up is the argument that marriage, especially gay marriage, is not a right mentioned in the Constitution. They are right in that it is not specifically mentioned. But since 1888, the Supreme Court has decided 14 times that the right to marriage is a fundamental right for all citizens. Fundamental rights are not and should not be deprived of anyone. There are many rights that are not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution (interracial marriage, for example), but the denial of fundamental rights is unconstitutional.

Many of those that supported Prop 8, such as one person quoted in The Daily Universe’s article, are upset because of the time and money they put into passing the amendment. Those that feel this way should remember that sometimes, things are not fair — but they should also be grateful that at least we have the judicial branch to ensure some fairness.

Argentina is the latest country in the process of legalizing gay marriage. The lesser branch of congress in Argentina, known as the Chamber of Deputies (comparable to the U.S. House of Representatives), approved a bill on May 5th that would legalize gay marriage, as well as make adoption legal for gay couples. The Senate was due to vote on the bill today.

The LDS Church took notice of this momentum and issued a statement to be read to its members in the country this past Sunday, July 11th. There were some stark differences between what was read to members of the LDS Church in Argentina and what was read to Mormons in California in 2008. The letter read to Mormons in Argentina on Sunday was not nearly as explicit and determined as was the California letter. The California letter was a call to action while the Argentinean letter was more of a statement of belief with a reference to the church’s “Proclamation on the Family,” a document highlighting the LDS belief that the family is a fundamental and important part of society.

There was, for example, no mention of “donating your means and time” to defeat the proposed law. No mention of a broad coalition of churches uniting to prevent gay marriage. There is no mention of contacting lawmakers to express opposition to the law either. That is significant given that this is not a ballot measure, but rather a bill working its way through the legislature.

After the letter was read and made its way around the Internet, the church was contacted for further comment and as part of their response stated that “the church has taken no official position on the legislation being considered” in Argentina. While their position was made clear with regards to marriage, it is true that there has been no political push. That is a big difference from what happened just two years ago in California.

This raises the simple question of why the LDS Church merely reiterated its stance on marriage rather than making such a concerted effort as they did in California. Is it because there is such a low percentage of Mormons in Argentina compared to California, meaning they are not in the position to take the lead on the issue? About two percent of the California population is Mormon as opposed to 0.85 percent in Argentina.

Not only that, but Argentina is considered to be a more secular country, especially compared to its Latin American neighbors, making it that much more difficult to create a coalition of religions to oppose the measure. Is it because the law is viewed so favorably by Argentinians, with about a 66 percent approval rating? Is it because the LDS Church’s public relations took a serious hit in the wake of Prop 8? Or is it because the church’s position on gay marriage is evolving ever so slightly?

Whatever the reason for the change, it is becoming abundantly clear that the world is in the middle of a long conversation about gay marriage.

This week, the magazine’s editor Steve Pierce and resident armchair economist Daniel Anderson contemplate the reigning hot topics of the day — including the most recent (and totally unexpected!) Bachelorette trainwreck, Eclipse‘s total dominance at the box office, local favorite Isaac Russell’s new major-label EP, and the greatest (and worst) American presidents. Enjoy!

You can stream the podcast by simply clicking on the link below, or you can download it to your computer by right-clicking the link and selecting “Save Link As” from the menu.

Listen to: Rhombus Podcast 019 — Rhombus Roundtable (2010.07.12)

On August 28th, Glenn Beck will unveil his plan to “save our country.” Mr. Beck has been getting his followers prepared for what he calls “The Plan” over the past few months, much the same way his rants led to The 9/12 Project and the Tea Party. Take, for example, the talking points used by both Beck and his Tea Party followers. Just the other day, both were on the verge of tears ranting about how they need to “take our country back.” How could they accomplish such a valiant effort? That is where The Plan comes in.

Beck has been dropping hints and providing previews of what The Plan will contain. The anticipation is building to the point where Beck’s organized followers are undoubtedly going to make a pretty significant showing in a couple months. I know I can’t wait.

On his website, Beck tries to entice his readers by giving hints as to what the plan will contain, laying out a plan for “action steps that each of us can take to play a role in America’s re-founding.” (Re-found is not in Webster’s Dictionary, by the way.) That, in itself, is not unorthodox for Glenn Beck. But here’s the kicker — he says that God is revealing to him this master plan to re-found America.

No joke.

Here is what he said in his own words: “God is giving the plan, I think, to me,” followed by claiming it is “a plan that He would have me articulate.” He then makes clear his discipleship with this gem: “I haven’t seen Jesus and what he would do on a talk show on Fox, but I’m gonna try.”

I cannot make this stuff up.

Here’s how it happened. Beck was having a conversation with his co-host Pat Gray and he mentioned to him that he felt a darkness. His own words really articulate it better than I can so here you go: “I said, ‘I can feel it coming. It’s darkness, and I can just feel it coming.” So Beck went home with his co-host and prayed. Later, after he and his sidekick had finished praying, they began reading the Bible. He said they “found something the next day that I think is important for you.”

That is how “The Plan” came to be, ladies and gentlemen.

If a political pundit trying to position himself as a leader of conservative thought starts making outrageous statements like that in an attempt to create a movement so powerful it must be referred to as “The Plan,” you should probably take a step away from the bandwagon. But, according to Beck, it is meant to be and should be taken seriously since it is not only coming from God himself, but also has the blessing of the Founding Fathers. It is what they want as well, of course. Beck said as much and so it is; It will contain the “values of the Founding Fathers.”

As if all that wasn’t enough, the timing of it all is impeccable. It is not a coincidence that Beck chose August 28th as the date to reveal such a marvel. That is the anniversary of none other than Martin Luther King Jr.’s historic “I Have a Dream” speech. Insulting, perhaps? If it isn’t insulting, it sure is pretentious.

And, of course, “The Plan” will be available in book form soon too, so Glenn clearly has no ulterior motives besides his sincere desire to bless us all with his revelatory saving powers. Nor does his advocating the investment of gold as a good idea in these hard times have anything to do with his sponsorship by Goldline, which rips off consumers by overcharging for their gold products. No conflict of interest there either.

Listening to or watching his show for a week is enough for any sane person to realize this guy has lost it. How many red flags do Glenn Beck fans need?

Teams from Miami, San Antonio, Los Angeles, and Phoenix have all participated in such nights dedicated to their Latino community, sporting jerseys saying “El Heat,” “Los Spurs,” “Los Lakers,” and “Los Suns.” Let’s be honest, it is largely a marketing scheme. Most recently, the Phoenix Suns were united in a decision to sport the jerseys, not on the “noche latina” but in the midst of a fierce debate about a bill that the Arizona Legislature recently passed which gives police an unprecedented amount of power to crack down on those suspected of being in the state illegally.

This story underlies a larger discussion in the midst of all the turmoil. The Suns decided to wear the jerseys not for marketing, but to show support for the Latino community. This comes in the face of some possibly very serious repercussions to a business that is already in financial distress. A recent poll shows that 70 percent of likely voters in Arizona favor the bill while, interestingly enough, 53 percent are concerned that its enforcement will lead to violation of many citizens’ civil rights. From those poll numbers it is apparent that people want the immigration problem to be dealt with, but they do not agree with how the bill allows for law enforcement to question anyone under “reasonable suspicion” to prove they are in the country legally.

Under the new law, if you are unable to provide documents showing that you are in the country legally, your arrest is a requirement. Previous law required police only to ask about legal status if you were involved in a crime. “Reasonable suspicion” is very subjective and could lead to infringement of civil rights. The bill also includes provisions that make it illegal to hire illegal immigrants for day labor.

The Suns have furthered an already divisive debate. President Obama recognized their protest in his speech at the White House while celebrating Cinco de Mayo, calling for comprehensive immigration reform this year. Rev. Al Sharpton led a demonstration against the immigration bill by the US Airways Center to the Arizona state capitol building before the pivotal game against the Spurs. (Conservatives begrudgingly began to root for the Spurs in this series.)

Noticing the uproar over the likely racial profiling, Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer signed an amendment to the bill intended to prevent racial profiling. I am still not clear how you can make people provide proof of their legality in the state because of “reasonable suspicion” without profiling on the basis of race. How do you know the police will not detain someone based on race, then find some minor infraction as an additional reason for detainment? And how to you regulate such a broad amendment?

The many chain e-mails I have received from conservative friends dealing with illegal immigration are not only racist, but they are aimed specifically at the Latino community. They are not complaining about any other immigrant population besides Latinos. Brewer’s latest amendment does little to change a law that allows for law enforcement to target a specific race. There were many cries of socialism from the right following the passage of President Obama’s health care overhaul, but this Arizona bill resembles the makings of an actual police state.

The Suns lost a lot of conservative fans with their bold move, but they undoubtedly gained a large number of more fair-minded supporters at the same time.

For Mormons, that should be a distressing assertion. As a Mormon himself, Beck has always been something of an oddball. However, Potok’s point wasn’t that Beck is simply extreme, or embarrassing to people of one political persuasion or another. It wasn’t even that he personally disagrees with Beck and those like him. Rather, it was that Beck and others are actually helping hate become more common. Tellingly, Potok also points out that hate crimes in the United States are becoming more widespread, which could obviously correlate with the increase in hateful rhetoric.

Ironically, and because I too am a Mormon, I listened to this segment of On the Media between sessions of LDS General Conference. As some surely know, that’s a bi-annual event that teaches Mormons to strive for Christ-like attributes, like love and respect. Yet in the midst of that message I also ended up listening to an expert on hate speech point out that one of the most prominent Mormons in the United States is doing the exact opposite of what the Church teaches.

In the past, I’ve had friends argue that Beck and other commentators are wrong primarily in style. They’ve said that while people like Beck don’t accomplish much with their belligerent tone, the underlying message these figures endorse is still worth dignifying with attention.

Yet, Potok wasn’t arguing that Beck has an abrasive tone. He was saying that Beck’s content itself is the problem because it promotes hate. Juxtaposed against the backdrop of general conference, that seemed like it would disturb all Mormons, regardless of an individual’s political orientation.

Others might argue that NPR and Potok merely epitomize the “liberal media,” whose goal is to tear down “patriots” like Beck. Judging from Beck’s Arguing With Idiots — which I recently received as a gift — that’s the argument I’d expect Beck himself to make. Yet, whatever biases the radio network may have, it routinely invites conservative commentators on its shows and strives for neutrality. Recently, for example, I even listened to another conservative Mormon, Mitt Romney, on Talk of the Nation. The point, then, is that irrespective of any supposed biases, Potok and On the Media are serious sources presenting, in this case, findings based on empirical research. In other words, these accusations deserve to be taken very seriously.

Of course, Beck was little more than a footnote in Potok’s discussion, but the larger trend of increasing amounts of hate obviously conflicts with the values the LDS Church teaches. During general conference, at least one talk pointed out the need to maintain respect in public and private discourse, and more generally the Church routinely emphasizes temperance and civility. Unfortunately, however, those are attributes about which Beck and the Church now appear to disagree.

Listen to the original segment from On the Media here.

The primary reason for the fury is that many Democrats feel betrayed by Matheson, arguing that he ignores his base and votes like a Republican on many key issues. Most recently, he voted no on President Obama’s monumental health care reform bill. It was a close vote and represented, for many, a core principle the Democratic Party has been working to accomplish for decades. Needless to say, it was a controversial vote being that the bill passed by a slim margin of 219 to 212.

During the 2008 election campaign, Democrats repeatedly accused Republican nominee John McCain of being just like George W. Bush. There were bumper stickers reading “McCain: Bush’s Third Term.” What was their reasoning for this? “McCain voted with bush 95% of the time.” So yes, McCain sided with Bush and the Republicans the vast majority of the time.

Some Democrats now accuse Matheson of voting just like a Republican as well, but that might not necessarily be true. According to The Washington Post, Matheson has voted with the current Democrat-controlled Congress 92.1 percent of the time. Does that mean McCain is not really that conservative and that he wasn’t a Bush “Yes Man?” Or does it mean that Matheson really does have Democratic principles?

Matheson has had another conspiratorial controversy surrounding him lately, this one coming from the conservative side of the aisle. The rumor — which was started by The Weekly Standard, a conservative rally cry magazine — alleged that President Obama nominated Rep. Matheson’s brother, Scott, to a federal circuit court judgeship in order to persuade the congressman to vote yes on the health care bill the second time around. Of course, the rumor made its way through the ranks — all the conspiracy-savvy conservatives (including the Republican National Committee) were making sure their base knew what was going on here. Tea baggers loved it. It fed right into their theory that the Obama White House is forcing tyranny on the American people.

More level-headed conservatives understood that was not the case. Both Sen. Orrin Hatch and Rep. Jason Chaffetz praised the nomination, saying they knew Jim’s brother would fill the vacancy on the court well beforehand. Paul Cassell, a former federal judge and colleague of Scott Matheson, was familiar with the nomination process and was quick to put an end to the theory, explaining the nominating process includes a few months of background inspection. The nomination would have been in the works well before the impassioned health care vote.

Even after all this, the Deseret News reported that Rep. Matheson’s approval rating is currently higher than ever at 64 percent, even higher than that of Orrin Hatch, Rob Bishop, Bob Bennett, and Utah’s wonder boy Jason Chaffetz (all Republicans).

Admittedly, I am not happy with some of Matheson’s votes, specifically his “No” vote on the health care bill. But what are the alternatives? Matheson’s winning percentage has consistently gone up nearly every time he has run for Congress. If Democrats really want Matheson out and another, more liberal Democrat in, the better option would be to wait until 2012 when Utah is expected to gain another House seat due to population increase.

This could very well result in a more liberal-leaning district than the one Matheson currently represents, since much of Utah’s population growth is based in Salt Lake County and gerrymandering will be severely limited since there is an independent commission in charge of the redistricting project. Maybe Utah could even end up with two Democrats in Washington depending on how the districts are drawn.

In the end, whether you support Matheson or not, we should take a step back from emotion-driven politics and at least get the record straight on the congressman. He deserves that much.