Ted and I hopped on the motorcycle last Sunday and rode the nearly three hours to Price, Utah, for a fundraiser for the six miners still trapped in the Crandall Canyon Mine and for the families of the three men killed trying to rescue them.

We have always felt welcome and completely at home in Carbon and Emery counties–largely because we share the same politics with most of the people living there. I’ve given many speeches there to community and church groups, and people still swarm Ted when we visit, sharing all these cool memories of when he ran for U.S. Senate and Utah governor. Invariably, someone asks him when he plans to run again!

So I came home from that bittersweet event and wrote my weekly column for City Weekly about it.

Then, two days later, I saw an interesting letter on the Aug. 23 Salt Lake Tribune editorial page. Letter writer Mary O’Brien, who lives in Coal Country, pretty much sees the topic of miners’ hardscrabble personalities through the same prism as I do.

I am taking some heart, however, in recent news stories that have begun to show the families’ anger and resentment toward mine owner Bob Murray and his toadie for big mining business, MSHA’s Richard Stickler. It’s a powerful thing to hear them speak up against Murray’s one-sided version of the past 18 days. I hope they keep the heat on.

My regular column this week for City Weekly explains the back story of The Salt Lake Tribune’s endorsement on August 12 of Keith Christensen for Salt Lake City mayor.

Some may see my opinion as classic sour grapes because the editorial board did not endorse my stepdaughter/mayoral candidate Jenny Wilson. I hope not. As I pointed out in the column, I firmly believe the Tribune can endorse anyone it chooses. I simply expect the board to come by the decision honestly, and not by some sham interview process. I’d bet the voters would see it this way, too. This editorial came down almost exactly as the Tribune’s puzzling endorsement of George W. Bush for president in 2004 — amounting to an “order up” from publisher Dean “Dinky” Singleton, who spends most of his time in Denver and never even takes part in the candidate interviews.

Newspaper owners and editors are always wringing their hands over why they are losing readers and failing to gain enough new ones. Could it be in part because of the cynical way they make editorial decisions?

I just finished a telephone interview with Missy Larsen, executive director of Planned Parenthood Action Council for Utah. PPAC is the political action committee for Planned Parenthood, and has the legal authority to lobby state legislatures and Congress on family planning and abortion rights measures.

Here in Utah, when the Legislature tries to roll back the clock on women’s reproductive rights to the Mesozoic Era, it’s typically PPAC workers who show up and try to gently talk them out of it. They’re already gearing up for another fight come January, when state legislators are expected to take another spin at overturning Roe vs. Wade.

Missy tipped me off to one of the latest Utah myths concerning sex she’s heard through her line of work (and in this state she hears plenty of them). It’s called “floating.” Apparently, more than a few teenagers and even some college students believe it — the idea being that if you put a penis inside a vagina and then hold very, very still — it doesn’t really count as sex.

“Floating” is such a popular notion in Utah culture it even got a mention in this year’s version of Saturday’s Voyeur, the annual spoof on Utah culture by the Salt Lake Acting Company. Now that’s some street cred for a stupid urban myth, eh?

Sometimes I just want to go plum insane.

… but fear itself.”

President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s immortal quote from his 1932 inaugural address is almost the sum total of my knowledge of this amazing man. That, and the regular moments of hero worship my parents–especially my mother–lavished on FDR’s memory as I grew up. My parents were born five days apart in 1927, so while their experiences of the Great Depression are those of young children, it of course, was a period that carved itself deep into their earliest memories. My mother was much worse off in those times than my dad; for one thing, his father never lost his job with the Union Pacific Railroad. My mother, on the other hand, moved at least a dozen times in her first 10 years of life. Several of those upheavals were to live with her unemployed father’s relatives in Los Angeles. I think I cut my teeth listening to her tales of traveling across the Mojave Deseret with no air conditioning, towing a trailer filled with all their worldly possessions, and topping out the speedometer at 35 mph.

I’m raising the legacy of FDR for the purpose of recommending a fantastic new biography. I bought it yesterday and am sitting here at work right now, wishing I were propped up against a shade tree, reading it. It’s titled, simply, “FDR.” The author is Jean Edward Smith, who was a 2002 Pulitzer Prize finalist for a biography on Ulysses S. Grant. Smith also has written a well-received biography on the first U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice, John Marshall.

In his preface to the book, Smith unfolds a map to the 800-plus pages for the reader. He says the question frequently arises as to how Roosevelt, from his old-money, blue-blood, Hudson River clan, developed such an uncanny sense of empathy for the poor and disenfranchised. Smith agrees with most historians that FDR’s lifelong struggle with polio (he was paralyzed from the waist down for half of his presidency) certainly guided his political and social philosophy. But long before he was elected president, Roosevelt had spent extended periods in Warm Springs, Ga., taking mineral springs treatments for his polio. Smith says his exposure to intractable rural poverty in the deep South began shaping his thought process years prior to his life in national politics.

Smith also firmly believes that contrary to some recent criticism, FDR had no evidence of or any involvement in the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941. He does, however, make a case for Roosevelt’s complicity in the attack. Intelligence reports suggested strongly of a Japanese plot against the U.S. that would force us into World War II, but FDR believed Pearl Harbor to be far too fortified to fall under an invasion. I’m really looking forward to reading a thorough analysis on the topic.

But the main reason I shelled out $35 (!!) for the hardcover (published in May 2007 by Random House) is that I so desperately need to learn about a glimmer of hope that lit the way in one of this country’s darkest eras. For me, and I suspect for millions of other Americans, we are living through similar parallels in this decade. Yes, unemployment is screamingly low. But as we continue to grind on in a baseless and protracted war that fewer people support and growing numbers of young men and women have no desire to fight, I have been yearning for a thorough lesson on what a real leader did in similar and harrowing circumstances.

I won’t pretend to compare the intellect of a GWB to an FDR. A greater apples and oranges comparison couldn’t exist. But isn’t that a part of the mystery so many of us want to figure out? How is it this country could go from a Roosevelt to a Bush Jr. in fewer than 70 years? Is it possible to ever find a leader with the power and humanity of FDR again? Perhaps the stink of big money has corrupted politics to the point we’ll never see a redo of a Roosevelt-like presidency. And as I said to my husband Ted last night, world power has grown so diffuse–due in large part to sweeping technological changes in communication. It’s hard to imagine something like a 2007 Yalta Conference, with a “Big Three” calling all the shots, ever again.

Still, I’m aching to know more about the man whose name in my childhood home was almost on par with Jesus, followed by Jack Kennedy. I’d love to hear from any and all bloggers who can impart memories or knowledge of the Roosevelt legacy to me and others on this space. It’s high time for a glimmer of hope again, isn’t it?

I’m having this persistent image of George W. Bush sitting in the White House, head in hands, gazing out the window and asking “Where did I go wrong?”

So many answers to that one. Meanwhile, everything–beyond his obvious plummeting in the polls–is just falling down around him.

In the past 24 hours, Americans have been told that the Administration has lowered the bar for the benchmarks set for the big troop surge Congress authorized early this year for Iraq. Don’t expect so much, we’re told. But didn’t millions of us tell him that in the first place? I mean, before the waste of human life, energy and money that went into this ridiculous effort?

In tandem with that announcement comes a developing domestic crisis. We’ve learned that the prez is once again invoking executive privilege after directing two former top legal aides not to testify in the ongoing investigation into the Attorney General’s firing of federal prosecutors. Looks like Bush et al are headed for a showdown with Congress.

And all because this man–lacking intellect and respect for the constitutional process–has only one real characteristic left: stubbornness. Combine stubborn with shallow intellect and you get danger.

I hate the idea of a constitutional face-off between the president and Congress. But that’s why we have the Constitution in the first place, right? Guess we pull it out from behind glass and test it when we need to. This is why we have the whole separation of powers doctrine. Even some of Bush’s longtime GOP congressional pals are beginning to jump his ship (Sens. Lugar, Domenici, Warner…the list goes on), at least on continuing the mess in Iraq. The center is not holding.

I simply can’t get over the sense of Bush sitting at his desk, looking all defeated and dejected, much as Richard Nixon did in the days leading up to his collapse and resignation in 1974. What it must feel like to be George W. Bush right now–a hollow shell. Pathetic.

I am sitting at my office keyboard at City Weekly in the historic David Keith building. The address is 248 S. Main Street. I have two 8-foot high picture windows (which desperately need cleaning) looking eastward and straight down at the Gallivan Plaza TRAX stop. Sometimes I look down at that zany KUTV news crew doing live reports with barbecue chefs or some such fun on the sidewalk right across the street.

It’s 4:39 p.m. Before human beings started working around the clock and from home offices, this used to be known as “rush hour.” In Salt Lake City’s downtown golden age–50 years ago or more–it meant people moving on the sidewalks, cars idling at traffic lights. Men and women in hats and pressed suits.

There was life here.

Now there is scarcely any life at all.

The TRAX trains fill up nicely. A good thing, certainly. But they come into town and go home to the suburbs. Nothing on lower Main Street draws a crowd.

I think we are supposed to be patient, wait for another five years while the LDS Church builds its City Creek Center three blocks to the north. We keep hearing about the trickle-down theory of marketing and commerce. We’re told the new mall will wake up everything down here, and great throngs will find their way to Second, Third and Fourth South.

One of the most important questions we can ask the field of mayoral candidates is what are their plans for this sad, decaying, shuttered-up downtown. I’m not willing to give up to The Gateway–just to throw up my hands and admit priorities have shifted to chain stores and beige stucco.

If you were the architect, what would you do to kick the real downtown SLC into gear? One suggestion will do. Post it here, on the blog. Or am I just wrong? Maybe I live in one of those filmy, TV dream montages, where the downtown of my youth shows up and keeps me in a constant state of wishing for more. Maybe downtown is just dead; its resurrection just a pipe dream. Geez, Holly. Just get over it.

I think any downtown resurgence hangs on more than simply changing the liquor laws, though that would help. I’d love to hear your thoughts. And maybe the people running for Salt Lake mayor would, too. Most of them read this blog.

No, I can’t take credit for that headline. It’s the work of Bill Frost, a City Weekly staff writer whose writing always makes me laugh out loud. He gets all the credit.

Go here for Bill’s blog post on the silly, overhyped debate between Hannity and Anderson. It’s the best review I’ve read anywhere of last Friday’s event, and believe me, I read more criticism than than my gut could take.

A lot of you have posted on my previous blog entry about the Hannity-Anderson thing. I’m all but finished with writing/talking/thinking about it now, as the story is going on four days old and has just about grown fur at this point. I did, however, hear an amusing take on the whole drama while listening to KSL radio’s Doug Wright on the car radio this morning.

(My husband always asks why I listen to Wright’s talk show, and I always tell him it’s my best yardstick for measuring the way our garden-variety Utahn who marches in lockstep with authority thinks. For me, the show is a cultural magnifying glass. Today’s show did not disappoint.)

You’ll recall that KSL has been blowing every gasket since it learned the debate was a go. They went all wacky with promotion, including billing it as a “smackdown.” Those who watched it either live or on TV know it was anything but. Anyway, this morning Wright was doing his usual “woe unto us” hangdog analysis of our wretched, values-crossed society. The horribly insensitive audience, he said, was the real loser.

Wright simply couldn’t believe how rude, uncouth, how positively barbaric the crowd was. What with their heckling, interruptions and catcalls, why, the two narcissists on stage could barely get a word in edgewise. How, he asked, does an audience get off on behaving this way? What possible excuse could those people have?

Naturally it never dawned on Doug that his very own Sean Hannity has built a whole industry on interrupting callers he disagrees with, on name-calling and heckling and on pushing public discourse lower than an earthworm’s abdomen. You reap what you sow, Doug, and KSL has cultivated quite a garden of idiocy and social intolerance by choosing to syndicate Hannity year after year. Even though many of the outbursts came from pro-Rocky forces, we have a whole society that feels it’s perfectly fine to belittle others and cut them to their quick in a disagreement. I’d have to say both sides have learned the technique from the master: Hannity.

Hey, it’s always worked for him. So why not a crowd of heckling hayseeds at Kingsbury Hall as well?

It’s getting crazy as all getout in this town, leading up to the big Rocky Anderson/Sean Hannity debate tomorrow night at the University of Utah. Smart U. students, who got tickets for $5 a pop, are selling them on eBay for more than $75 a piece. Now that’s free enterprise.

Anyway, at City Weekly we have this thing in perspective. Resident funny man Bill Frost has made it easy for people intent on keeping score between our mayor for life and Hannity the showman. If you missed Bill’s take on the frenzy, check it out here.

Speaking of promoting my newspaper, I’m regularly pimping each week’s issue on FOX-13 here in Salt Lake City. For the next nine weeks, I’m on live with “Good Day Utah” anchors Kerri Cronk and Dan Evans each Thursday at approximately 8:50 a.m. We talk, we laugh, we act vapid just like the best morning show people do everywhere. Check it out.

Did anyone watch the first two-hour episode of “The Mormons” on PBS last night? Your thoughts?

In brief…The production values and interviews were excellent and well-edited. I did find myself dozing a bit on the couch during some scenes, including the early history of the LDS Church (Smith’s first vision, his death and martyrdom, etc.). This may have more to do with the fact that we first watched the Utah-Houston playoff game (hey, priorities!) and then “The Mormons” on a Tevo recording.

But growing up in Mormondom as I did, most of the background was familiar.

One small question: Why, in the visuals for the Saints’ trek into the Salt Lake Valley, did we see countless scenes of Monument Valley, Goblin Valley and other spectacular red rock formations of Southern Utah? A shot of the mouth of dry and scrubby Emigration Canyon would have done nicely.

Perhaps the “Life Elevated” team from Utah’s tourism office got hold of the early cut? Ha.

Tonight’s installment will feature more of the call of culture on Mormons, the political influence and business holdings of the church and the push-pull its doctrine and demand for strict obedience has on its members. Look for our friend, Jim Clayton, an emeritus professor of history at the University of Utah. He’s interviewed about the church’s mix of theology, politics and revisionist history that leads many faithful but questioning members to drop out of the fold.

I’m looking forward to it.

Meanwhile, any thoughts?

So, what do you think of Democrat Jim Matheson’s vote with the mostly GOP minority on last night’s House Democrats’ war spending bill? You know, the one that includes a set troop withdrawal beginning Oct. 1 and ending in March?

Methinks our Blue Dog Jim may have picked the wrong vote this time with which to sidle up to Utah’s conservatives. I mean, this isn’t abortion. Or gun control. Or even a vote to hand off a big corridor of Washington County open space to greedy developers.

This is the freakin,’ endless, losing proposition of a war. You know, the quagmire. You know, the place where the center no longer holds, and our troops are returning for their second and third tours of duty.

This is the war that according to a new poll, 55 percent of Americans believe is no longer winnable. And that 56 percent believe, along with the Democratic majority in Congress, must come to an end with a dedicated troop withdrawal.

And where military leaders testified just yesterday that George W. Bush’s troop surge is working, it’s really working. Except they aren’t counting suicide bombings among the casualties that would show otherwise. (Another indication that the brass is just a couple of cards short of a full deck on this deal.)

Our Blue Dog Rep. is old enough to remember Vietnam. Americans learned something from that protracted and ugly mess. They haven’t forgotten. I think they’re telling people like Matheson that Iraq is looking like a shocking sequel. They’d rather not stay for the ending.

Bad Jim, very bad. What the hell are you thinking?!