If Buttars' Faux Pax Created So Much Ire, I'm Surprised This Flew Under the Radar

The Trib had an article about Buttars getting back to work -- he is quietly trying not to say anything else that would raise the eyebrows of the public. One comment from Sen. Margaret Dayton, R-Orem caught my attention regarding a bill to create a registry for minority-owned businesses that would help them compete for federal, state, and private contracts set aside for such businesses, a bill which she and Buttars both opposed.

"It seems like the white male is such a burden or frustration to society. I really have angst with the growing discrimination towards the white male family-oriented Christian male. I'm just really frustrated with that."

To me, that seems like a much more racially charged comment than Buttars "This baby's black" comment -- you can almost see the robes and pillow cases. Are you serious? Especially here in Utah, where in many parts of the state there is ne'er a minority to be found.

I agree that pursuing affirmative action policies likely isn't the best remedy -- unless there is a problem is bad enough. (i.e. documented cases where a minority was denied a bid for no discernable reason other than race) However, to suggest some kind of a problem with white, male, Christian business owners being discriminated against, here in Utah, is a blatantly exaggerated fabrication.

In a side note, Buttars wisely refused to comment on his opposition to the bill.

Chris Buttars is My State Senator

So I saw a post on The Bloghive about looking up Chris Buttars on Wikipedia, and so I looked him up on Wikipedia and discovered that my new home happens to be in his voting district. What fun!

I don't think I would be the man to run against him (Peace, anon.) although as I stated in a previous post I've thought about it. I guarantee that I will be volunteering to help who ever does run against Buttars -- Republican or Democrat. I don't think there should be anymore delay in Bro. Buttars' full-time church service on the fabulous streets of San Francisco or in the Big Easy -- The field is white and already to harvest.

Anyone Wonder Who Votes for Buttars

This comment was a follow-up from a comment that I deleted for being less than civil. I decided to give this comment top posting, because it demonstrates what kind of individual agrees with and supports the policy agenda and decisions of Chris Buttars:

"another free speech phoney. can't take the truth huh?

well, once more then: this is a concocted media circus created to punish buttars for opposing the fag marriage registry from the slcf.o.g. (fag occupation government).down with f.o.g., long live buttars."

I would bet that Chris Buttars really would be appalled if he realized his constituency is made up of KKK loving, gay bashing, cross burning individuals like the anon who came trolling to Green Jello -- he would be appalled. However, this is who Buttars attracts.


P.S. If your going to come trolling on my blog looking for a fight at least have the intestinal fortitude to post as you rather than as anonymous. What are your plans this weekend anon? Any cross burnings?

Romney to Endorse McCain......I Wonder

I just heard that Mitt Romney is planning to endorse John McCain. This change of events begs the question, "Is McCain possibly tapping Romney as his running mate?"

It could be a very wise decision given the fact that Romney has such a large bank account, and that he had such a strong following during his bid for the White House. At least regarding Utah, the move might heal the ill-feelings towards McCain harbored by many local Mormons. I would recant any and all predictions I had that Obama would carry Utah.

However, there may be a large downside, Southern Republicans thoroughly rejected Romney due to (speculation) his Mormon faith. Would Southern Republican's still reject the idea of a Mormon VP?

Very interesting.

Buttars' Statement Out of Context

Before I begin I would like to reiterate that I find Chris Buttars to be the very epitome of the Taliban in Utah. The man is an extremist to the utmost degree. However, I think everyone is mis-characterizing the man's supposed racist comment.

Most media outlets (and lets face it fellow Buttars-haters) have reported that he made a comment about black babies being dark and ugly. That isn't what was said, Buttars said "This BABY is black, I'll tell you. This is a dark and ugly thing." To me, he is simple using a common reference to a noun (the bill in question) as a baby. He didn't say "This is like a black baby" or that black babies are dark and ugly, he was opining on the (in his opinion) poor merits of the bill. While I agree that the phrasing was poor, if he would have simply said bill instead of baby this never would have been a story, everyone is getting up in arms about nothing.

This is just one more example of hyper-sensitivity in America.

On a side note I do think the man is terrible hindrance to civil political dialogue in Utah. If I end up moving 20 to 40 blocks north before his next time up for re-election I might seriously consider running against the man.

The State Senate's Attempt to Thwart Benefits for Domestic Partners

Okay, when the nefarious Rocky Andersen pushed the "domestic partners benefits" idea I viewed it as a proverbial "F#@* off" after Utah passed Amendment 3. However, I'm not so sure that the right is right in this matter either. The 1930's throwback Chris Buttars and a cast of bloated social conservatives are pushing to stop a SLC registry to help domestic partners qualify for health benefits. The Right's argument against the registry is that it is in opposition to the states ban on gay marriage, and that as Buttars says "This is nothing but an open checkbook ... (the) 'repugnant' registry attempts to define a class, and therefore, it don't fit." he went on to say, "Some people may disagree with me, but since America was born, marriage is the cornerstone." While I agree that marriage is a critical cornerstone in our society, I cannot accept that idea that monogamous individuals, in a fully committed relationship, cannot enjoy any legal rights of their commitment.

The simplest (and to me the most logical) way to solve this issue is to provide a contractual remedy to these individuals -- i.e. civil unions, or some other binding contractual agreement (I have a hard time with the semantics of calling gay unions as marriage) Individuals would have contractual obligations to one another, and they also could enjoy legal benefits of their union. However, we here in Utah said no to that idea based on true religious and moral objections (I regrettably voted for Amendment 3 for those very reasons). However, this has left those members of the population who are in committed but (for the purposes of Amendment 3) unaccepted committed relationships in a position of inequality with the straight unforgiving majority of this state. For this purpose, SLC's move to provide benefits between domestic partners is somewhat commendable. (To me, the term "domestic partners" is perhaps a bit too broad and might ultimately be too costly. The term domestic partners leaves me to wonder how many straight same-sex roommates will adopt a "Chuck & Larry" approach to benefits in SLC, not to mention the undue expense of allowing uncommitted same-sex couples the same benefits of married individuals. A hetero-sexual couple isn't willing to marry, than they shouldn't be accorded the benefits of those who are in marriages.)

I think the Senate (and more appropriately the Senator from WJ) should butt-out. If there should be any objection the city's domestic partner benefit plan, it should be due the over broad inclusion of all domestic partners -- although we all know the plan would stand no chance if it were in behalf of HOMOSEXUALS IN COMMITTED RELATIONSHIPS exclusively.

The problem here in Utah is there should be a difference between religion and government. While I view homosexuality as a repugnant sin, I don't accept the idea that these individuals should be treated as unequal according to the law. Marriage should not be broken open to allow gay unions, but some sort of legal binding arrangement needs to introduced as an equalizer for Gay and Lesbian community.

Romney has bowed out!

CNN is reporting that Mitt Romney will suspend his campaign for the Republican nomination.

Where does that leave us here, in Utah? If Obama can pull off the nomination -- I think we may see a blue state come November (at least more than it has been in 4 decades). If Hillary wins the nomination, then a wacky third party candidate may stand to make a real solid showing here in Utah.

I have to find out more about Obama, but he seems to be an excellent individual. I guess I really have to see if I can support whatever his agenda may be as President, but given the red alternative for President this time around it may not be that difficult.

Vote Obama

Need I say anymore.

Utah Will Go To a Democrat in November -- Like it Really Matters

So for this Super Tuesday hasn't been kind for Mitt Romney. Although the night is young, I'm going to make a few predictions:

1. Mitt Romney will be finished tonight. (unless he soundly wins California)

2. If Romney does hang up the towel, and the race becomes a two man race between McCain and Huckabee. Utah will go to a Democrat in the general election for the first time since 1964 (if Obama can get the Democratic nomination)

So they aren't really bold predictions. With the acrimony both GOP candidates have produced in regards to Mormonism, if Obama gets the nomination he will have a very good chance at winning Utah in the general election.

I never was all that hyped on any of the GOP candidates, Romney was the candidate I found most electable (maybe for no other reason than a shared religion). With Romney likely going down, I am pinning my support to Obama.