Rosa Parks, a symbol for the civil rights movement in America died last week at the age of 92. As much as any founding father or famous pioneer, Rosa Parks was an American hero, loaded with the pioneering spirit that defines many people in our country. She sought something better, to make others' lives better. Her story is the stuff of legend.

She lies in honor in the capitol rotunda. She's only the second civilian and the first woman to be placed there. She'll be laid to rest this week. I doubt she would've expected the grand spectacle surrounding her passing but I hope she would be proud.

like so many other in history, when the time came for her to make a difference, to take a stand she did. It was at some cost to herself and she put her own safety and that of her family at some risk, just by continuing to sit in a bus seat. Something so mundane leading to something so extraordinary boggles the mind.

The world today lacks heroes. We used to look to our presidents, astronauts, sports figures. These days, many are wrapped up in scandals, hung up on money and general don't care. Parks is a hero for the ages. She lies in the rotunda like so many other figures in American history. The last was Ronald Reagan.

When one takes measure of individuals to judge their quality, many characteristics comes to mind. Courage in the face of danger, fighting despite the odds, adhering to a code of righteous honor when others tell you not too. Parks was a person of the highest quality. I wish I could've met her. I believe I would've been better for it.

posted by Stithmeister @ 10:42 PM
 

So, we've got talking points out the yin yang right now on both sides between the Libby indictment and the Alito's nomination to the court. But there are a lot of other issues facing America right now. You wouldn't know it but there are.

So what issues are we considering here? Lets consider a few:

The Budget

Congress is currently debating on the what to do with the budget. They've got to make cuts somewhere (Don't they?). So naturally, they look to raiding the all the domestic programs. No one debates the military budget can be cut much right now. Dick and Rummy felt they could run it on a tight budget, getting by with bare necessities. They say they won't cut national security but they've cut the heck out public safety budgets, including police, firefighters, first reponders, etc. We also can't forget those annoyances like food stamps, medicaid, heating assistance for the winter months. All these will be cut.

But, we've got $458 million bridge in Alaska being built so a senator can up his mom's property values. The road bill had over 6000 special projects in it, popularly called PORK. It's one thing if roads are getting paved. It's needed. But the bridge goes to an island of 50 people. That's just one example. Getting rid of the bridge will protect half of the proposed cuts in the food stamp program. It would also heat a lot of homes in January. I bet it would pay off some of the loans from China.

The Economy

The first beef is the Fed. Greenspan keeps up the interest rate a quarter of a point to slow down inflation. The problem is inflation came almost single handedly from fuel prices. When fuel goes up, so does everything else. Many economists are saying that if they raise it again, they are nuts and will wreck the ecomomy. No one is saving, no one is preparing for the future. They should be because they can't get out debt now thanks to the Congress. Ben Stein (yes, that Ben Stein)even said it was the wrong move. The Fed is expected to raise the rate tomorrow though.

Professor Peter Morici of the Smith Business School at the University of Maryland said, "The prospects for weaker consumer and housing sectors and moderating inflation, coupled with the need to encourage business investment, indicate the Fed should pause in its march to push up interest rates to 4.5 percent. If it fails to heed these warning signs, the Fed risks throwing the economy into a tailspin."

Then there's jobless rates, the screwed up CAFTA agreement, China producing all the goods we consume AND buying tons of U.S. dollar every year. What're we going to when a couple hundred thousand veterans come back from Iraq. It will happen some day and everyone knows the bureaucracy in the V.A. can kill someone quicker than tap dancing on landmines. All those guys will need jobs too because most won't stay in the military I can assure you.


Iraq War

Seems like a good point next. So, we just hit 2000 dead. That's just our own. We attempting to democratize a nation with no history of it. No history of it anywhere around them except maybe Israel and they surely look to them for influence. Bill Buckley had a good column last week. He mentioned a conversation between former NSA chief Gen. Brent Scowcroft and his protege' and former NSA chief and now secretary of state Condi Rice. Scowcroft said it's darn near impossible to do. Of course Scowcroft is one of those people who created the current state of event to begin with because of meddling in the middle east but that's another post.

The point is, the administration has botched this one royally across the board. I just think of the 7 P's. Piss Poor Planning Promotes Piss Poor Performance.

Fuel Costs

Fuel costs are exorbitant. It's no big secret it's forcing people to cut back on spending in various other sector. There are few people who want higher fuel prices so it will cut back on levels of pollution. They think people should live closer to their jobs, use public transit, etc. I got new for you, most people can't use public transit. Try coming to Kentucky. Many people drive to Lexington or Louisville or Frankfort or Charleston or Elizabethtown or one of several other cities in Kentucky because many cannot afford to live in the city. They have no desire to live in a place with incredibly high property values when they can get something about the same for much less just 1/2 hour away. Lexington and Louisville have bus systems. I don't know much about TARC in Louisville but Lexington's LexTran system still needs a lot of work and more frequent routes before it could become really useful for most people.

Then there's heating. I wonder how many will freeze to death this winter to because they can't afford gas prices. All fuel costs are going up in our free market economy. Heating oil comes from crude just like gasoline does.



These are just some of the issues we must deal with and the administration is not dealing with. America is losing thanks to the problems created by this administration. While Clinton wasn't perfect by any means, he didn't create the problems in our country the way Bush has. I just hope our country can survive.

posted by Stithmeister @ 9:18 PM
 

President Bush nominated Appeals Judge Samuel Alito to replace Sandra Day O'Connor for associate justice on the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) as his second choice after Harriet Miers withdrew her name from consideration last week.

Alito has credentials that are darn near perfect for a seat on SCOTUS. He's been an appeals court judge for 15 years up in New Jersey. He's argued a dozen cases in front of the hight court and he clerked for the appellate courts also. He's been a federal prosecutor. It's safe to say he knows the job as well as anyone could going into the nomination process. The problem is, ideologically, he falls into classic "just right of Hitler" category.

He's the kind of candidate many conservatives wanted and really, the liberals did too. Now, we will be subjected to an ad campaign rivalling a presidential campaign with similar amounts of money. I'd say call my senators but that's would futile. Honestly, Mitch McConnell may have moment to really shine. With Bill Frist and his own problems, McConnell can really work the masses to make sure Senators are towing the line. This could set the stage for Mitch becoming majority leader in 2007. And everyone knows Jim Bunning does what he's told.

The Washington Post had a great feature discussing the matter. It goes into a lot of detail.

posted by Stithmeister @ 2:20 PM
 

It's Halloween and the White House got it's treat for the weekend. Tells what on your mind?

posted by Stithmeister @ 10:50 PM
 

I'm considering putting together a newsletter for a run about once a week. Would anyone be interested and what type of content would people like to see in it? Just doing some feelers at this point. What do people think?

posted by Stithmeister @ 10:46 PM
 

It looks like Karl Rove escaped with his head intact on this one, much to the chagrin of many a Democrat and liberal. As one of the brains behind the Bush administration, the future remains uncertain however because there are still questions about Rove and for that matter Cheney. Newsweek offered an analysis of the Rove situation.

The next chapter of the story will be Bob Noak too. He's the one the first revealed Valerie Plame in the article he obviosly wrote as a personal favor to Dick Cheney and the administration.

posted by Stithmeister @ 10:00 PM
 

Senator Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev) called for presidential aide Karl Rove to resign today because of his connections in the Valerie Plame controversy. Scooter Libby was indicted and subsequently resigned on Friday and the whole thing is still ongoing. Rover is still under investigation.

The Washington Post covered the shake down on Sunday morning news programs today and Reid was one of several calling for some major changes in the administration. While no one has called for the resignation of Vice President Dick Cheney, it's go to be in people's minds. Right now, the scandals are paralyzing the administration and Bush needs to surprise everyone and not only take charge of his administration but to also actually exercise intellectual capacity, which seems a stretch for him, to get our country going in a direction. Right now, we're caught in a malestrom and he's going to take us down.

"I think Karl Rove should step down," Reid said about the White House deputy chief of staff. "Here is a man who the president said if he was involved, if anyone in the administration was involved, out they would go. Anybody who is involved in this, they're gone."

[...]

Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.), speaking on "Fox News Sunday," urged the president to make changes in his staff but did not explicitly call for the dismissal of Rove. He said the president's chief strategist should decide for himself if he is a distraction to the administration.

But Lott said Bush "should always be looking for new blood, new energy. I'm not talking about wholesale changes, but you ought to reach out."

Sen. Christopher Dodd (D-Conn.), speaking on the same show, said he agreed that Bush should shake up his staff "but that's really the president's call."

Bush needs to get real because while I'm a Democrat, I also hate seeing our country flounder like this and it has been for four+ years now. He's wrecking things and he needs to get rid of Cheney and follow the line down.

posted by Stithmeister @ 7:05 PM
 

A progressive blog called the TPM Cafe talked about this week in corruption and our very own Ernie Fletcher and subsequent comments by Senator David Williams got mentioned.

This past Monday, Kentucky governor Ernie Fletcher called upon the special grand jury investigating improper hiring practices to stop indicting those he pardoned in late August, claiming that "it is unconstitutional to purport to indict persons encompassed by the Governor's amnesty." The president of the state senate, Republican David Williams, echoed Fletcher's request, and called for an end to the grand jury. Williams said if the investigation is extended for another 90-day period, it would be a "major distraction" during the General Assembly session in January, and "will put legislators in a bad mood and will not be good for the Commonwealth." An extension may well be needed, since this past Wednesday Fletcher's attorney's released nine emails investigators had requested for their inquiry, leaving 102 others they are still awaiting.

It's great when the state corruption scandal gets moree play on the national level. It reaffirms to everyone Kentucky has a corrupt political machine that Republicans in Kentucky are like Hal Mumme, you're hear a couple of years and are already on sanctions.

posted by Stithmeister @ 6:35 PM
 

Senate President David Williams said he thinks the merit system grand jury needs to end before the upcoming general assembly session. He is right in that it will distract from the session but I don't think it should end because the Republicans not only broke the law but he got caught, which politically, is the true cardinal sin. Jack Brammer quoted Williams and also House Speaker Jody Richards:

"If this investigation continues into the session, it will be a major distraction. It will put legislators in a bad mood and will not be good for the Commonwealth," Williams, R-Burkesville, said in an interview. "I think it's time for it to stop."

But House Speaker Jody Richards, D-Bowling Green, said the grand jury needs and should have sufficient time to finish "its important work."

"The jury needs time to be sure justice is meted out," said Richards. "More time doesn't bother me, and I don't think it will bother the legislative session.

"We will perform our duties in a way the public expects, even though the governor's power will be diminished somewhat."

What a great precedent we could set here. While Williams can be a potent force when it comes to bullying using his political strength, Stumbo's not slouch. I think this will go on a while.

posted by Stithmeister @ 5:11 PM
 

I posted my last post before Lewis Libby was indicted. The Fitzgerald issued an indictment based on inconsistancies in Libby's testimony. He was charged with perjury, conspiracy, obstruction of justice... the usual crimes when an administration is trying to distact from the real issue. The Washington Post had a good story on the matter. The story did point out that Fitzgerald said he wasn't done yet although I would be surprised if any other indictments come down.

Libby resigned and that's all well and good but the real problem hasn't been addressed and that's the campaign of malice and destruction the administration used against Joe Wilson. Wilson certainly isn't totally off the hook but at the same time, he also was against the war in Iraq, like most right thinking people and like pretty much the entire state department starting with Colin Powell and going down the line.

posted by Stithmeister @ 4:39 PM
 

I've thought for sometime Scooter Libby will be the one to take the hit for the administration this thing. If anything comes down it will be on Libby. Here's why. The administration simply cannot afford to do without Karl Rove. Libby will be a tremendous hit but Rove would be bigger. The investigation has been going on for two years and this has been all over the headlines. If nothing happens, the Democrats might go into armed revolt. Someone's head must roll. It won't be Bush or Cheney. Bush as the faceman and Cheney as part of the brains and the "Cabal of Evil" must remain in place. I could be totally wrong but the White House is genuinely worried as an AP story pointed out.

White House colleagues feared Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, would be indicted Friday for at least false statements but held out hope that presidential political adviser Karl Rove might escape criminal charges for the time being.

A person outside the legal profession familiar with recent developments in the case said Thursday night that Rove's team does not believe he is out of legal jeopardy yet but likely would be spared bad news Friday when the White House fears the first indictments will be issued.

What does it mean? It means things could potentially get uglier still. Even Fox News is raising questions about the GOP future because many running for office probably won't want Bush to help them campaign. It's not a good sign for the fearless leader.

posted by Stithmeister @ 12:12 AM
 

Bush made a bad call for nominating Harriet Meirs for the SCOTUS slot. She was a good loyal lawyer for Bush and she knew corporate law well but she knew very little about constitutional law and the problems she'd be facing as a justice. Also, the conservatives didn't like here at all. There were few loyalists but most went after vociferously. The Washington Post gives a good accounting of the break down of the situation. The first two paragraphs tell it all though:

For Harriet Miers, the "murder boards" were aptly named. Day after day in a room in the Justice Department, colleagues from the Bush administration grilled her on constitutional law, her legal background and her past speeches in practice sessions meant to mimic Senate hearings.

Her uncertain, underwhelming responses left her confirmation managers so disturbed they decided not to open up the sessions to the friendly outside lawyers they usually invite to participate in prepping key nominees.

Response

Now comes the tough part. If President Bush wants the support of the people who elected him, he's going to need someone very conservative, very astute and who embraces the evangelical mentality. One of the reason the White House nominated Miers is because they didn't want a war with the liberals. They got one with conservatives instead. So now what happens? The war the White House doesn't need is what. His next nomination will be conservative enough to pass muster and the left and the Democrats will pull out all the stops. In the coming months, Bush will pick someone to replace only the 35th nominee since 1789 not to make it to the court. This is a major loss for the president so he can't afford to take another hit. The problem is he's going to have a relentless, ideological war on his hands. It's almost pathetic for a guy who doesn't really even understand the ideological war.

posted by Stithmeister @ 11:53 PM
 

The governor's office continues to argue the extent of the pardoning ability. Fletcher and the attorney general's office are currently in a debate on whether the pardon's extend to other indictments. The practicality of the situation as Cynicus mentioned in a comment to a previous post is if Fletcher wants his pardons to work the way he wants them too, he might as well hand them a certificate to commit crimes at no charge. The Herald-Leader ran a feature by Ryan Alessi discussing the issue.

FRANKFORT - The attorney for the governor's office accused prosecutors of leading a grand jury to continue to indict public officials solely for the purpose of smearing those individuals' names in the jurors' final report.

Sheryl Snyder, who represents Gov. Ernie Fletcher, asked Franklin Circuit Judge William Graham yesterday to instruct the grand jury to stop indicting individuals in connection with the state hiring investigation. He argued that the governor's broad pardons, issued Aug. 29, effectively wipe the legal slate clean for any current or former officials.

[...]

For more than five months, the grand jury has combed through evidence and summoned more than 100 witnesses to investigate allegations that Fletcher's administration ignored merit hiring laws, which require that rank-and-file jobs be filled based on qualifications, not politics.

The grand jury has indicted 13 people. Five men have been charged since Fletcher's Aug. 29 pardons, which also provided "blanket amnesty" for anyone charged for related crimes in the future.

The grand jury can issue a final report when it wraps up its evidence gathering. But, according to Kentucky law, that report cannot accuse individuals of wrongdoing by name unless those people have been indicted.

Snyder accused the prosecutors of "misleading" the jury and encouraging jurors to levy more charges just to make the report more juicy.

"They are indicting people who have been pardoned for the sole purpose of naming them by name in the report," he told Graham. "It's now clear what's going on."

Snyder went even further, telling reporters later that pardons "erase the offenses" for all those pardoned.

"They should not be named in a report, just like a person who wasn't indicted shouldn't be named in a report," he said.

Whites conceded that a report cannot name people in connection with "committing infractions" unless they've been indicted.

posted by Stithmeister @ 8:31 AM
 

Budget cuts are being made this week to pay for the administration's war machine. The Washington Post ran an AP story discussing where various programs are being cut. They've even proposed pulling $1 bill from the the food stamp program. They're couldn't get any extra assistance for the poor to help heat their homes in the face of rising energy costs. So they're going to make people choose between heating their homes and eating in the winter. Delightful.

NONE of those senators or congressman will take a hit and help people to eat and stay warm this winter. The Democrats are no better than the Republicans. They're cutting the budget to pay for the Republican War Machine. They say it's Katrina and Rita assistance but that's a load of bull. If the administration hadn't started the war and wasted tons of money doing BS on the "WAR ON TERROR" then we wouldn't have this problem. The Bush administration. The problem is, not even the true conservatives like Bush because he's nothing remotely close to a fiscal conservative. He's rivaled FDR in massive deficit spending. FDR had a depression and a REAL war to fight. What's George's excuse?

posted by Stithmeister @ 11:57 PM
 

Mad dog Bill O'Reilly sure picks a good fight but he can't take it. He constantly attacks the Media Matters website and their words but he doesn't have the stones to talk to them on his show. Of course, if he did, his face would turn bright red, he would scream loudly, and he would eventually boot them from the show. Check out the video on their website.

I talk to people who say O'Reilly is better than some other conservative commentators and maybe he is in some ways but he's still the loudmouthed bully who can't handle dealing with people coming at him as equaly without yelling. He mistakes frequently. People who call him out he tries to smear. O'Reilly says he's looking out for you? How can a man from a wealthy Long Island family who attended an Ivy League university know what the average working guy thinks? He has no concept of it. He's an elitist jerk just like the rest of them.

posted by Stithmeister @ 11:26 PM
 

The 37th senatorial district in Jefferson County has been without representation for some time now. The problem is complicated. Virginia Woodward, the Democrat and Dana Seum Stephenson, the Republican ran for the 37th district back in 2004. There were problems. Stephenson, daughter of long time Louisville politican Dan Seum, got the most votes in the election, however, she wasn't eligible to run because she didn't meet residency requirements. Woodward filed with the state board of elections two days before the election. The race went on though with Stephenson's name on the ballot.

The state constitution sets the residency requirements in the document itself however it also says the houses of the legislature can determine eligibility requirements so there's a bit of a conundrum. The board of elections held that Stephenson couldn't take the seat. The senate however convened a special committee and then determined she could. So they swore her in and she has a seat with her name on it in the state senate. The judge in the case put granted an injunction for Woodward saying Stephenson couldn't take the seat. Then he also said the senate couldn't be forced to let Woodward to take the seat. This brings us to the current situation. The case should be finished soon, particularly since the legislature convenes at the beginning of 2006.

This is certainly a constitutional issue. But, in a recent WAVE-3 story, many people in the 37th district don't really know the situation.

At Jimbo's Barbecue, the food is hot and conversations about anything are easy -- except when it comes to the ongoing battle in the area's senate district.

Doug Audrey says, "I don't know really too much about it, to tell you the truth. I didn't know the seat was empty."

In fact, in a year where political showdowns have drawn lots of attention, it seems sometimes the only people in the 37th district paying attention to who represents it in the Senate are the two women fighting over the seat: Dana Seum Stephenson and Virginia Woodward -- and their attorneys.

Response

This really shows a lot of things. The average person doesn't have the time deal with all the garbage that goes on. They don't have time for the political antics and raving by various politicians. IF the Republicans had actually paid attention to the eligibility requirements or not just outright cheated in the whole thing, this wouldn't be a problem. IF the Democrats had raised this issue before, when the first found out about it, then it wouldn't be a problem. Both parties are to blame in this issue. It's ridiculous that the good people of the district, who pay taxes, who had their taxes altered without any kind of representation AT ALL haven't revolted yet. They, at the very least, should send the state senate a redress of grievances.

posted by Stithmeister @ 11:06 PM
 

The Denver Post ran a great editorial by former U.S. Senator, Gary Hart. Hart ran for president back in the 80s and might have made a good one except he had problem with liking the ladies. He challenged the Miami Herald to catch him folling around and they promptly did just that. It ruined his political career. He's still thoughtful and introspective. If one didn't know better, one would think he might be looking to run but it's doubtful he's got the stamina or the name recognition to make a national run.

Here is the crime in outing of CIA agent
By Gary Hart
Denver Post Guest Commentary

It is now fashionable among columnists supporting the Bush administration, New York Times journalist Judith Miller, Robert Novak and the increasing network of senior administration officials implicated in the Valerie Plame Wilson outing to say, "So what? Where's the crime?"

The federal statute making it a criminal penalty to knowingly divulge the identity of anyone working undercover for the Central Intelligence Agency was not enacted in a vacuum. In the early 1970s, in part as a result of the radicalization of individuals and groups over the Vietnam War, a former CIA employee named Philip Agee wrote a book revealing the identities of several dozen CIA employees, many under deep cover and some including agency station chiefs in foreign capitals.

Many of the countries in which those CIA employees were working themselves had extremely radical and violent elements stirred to hatred over their opposition to America's conduct in the Vietnam War. So, by revealing their identities, Agee had knowingly and willingly placed these American citizens at risk. Violent consequences were predictable.

Richard Welch, a brilliant Harvard-educated classicist, had been stationed in Greece as CIA station chief only a few months before he was murdered, by a radical Greek terrorist organization called the 17th of November, in the doorway of his house in Athens on Dec. 23, 1975. Had Agee not divulged his name, there is every reason to believe that Welch would be alive today after decades of loyal service to his country.

Largely as a result of Agee's perfidy and Welch's unnecessary death, the Intelligence Identities Protection Act (IIPA) of 1982 was enacted, making it a felony to knowingly divulge the identity of a covert CIA operative. It carries penalties of 10 years in prison and a $50,000 fine for each offense. There are those who dismiss the crime by saying, "Oh, Wilson only had a desk job." That is not a defense under this felony statute. It is for the CIA, not Karl Rove or Robert Novak, to determine who requires identity protection and who does not.

The political irony of all this is that conservative elements in America have always proclaimed themselves more concerned than anyone else with national security, the sanctity of classified information, protection of sources, support for our intelligence and military services, and so on. At radical times in our past, irresponsible leftist groups thought it was their duty to try to reveal the names of CIA agents. Now, under a conservative administration, it is these conservative national security champions who are saying, with regard to the "outing" of a CIA undercover

Response

It's nice to see Hart making thoughtful commentaries. It shows he's still got fire in his belly. He would make a decent leader in many ways, to help revitalize the party at least on the surface. Unfortunately though, our party doesn't have unifying leader like we had in Bill Clinton. He had the charisma and intelligence to do things for himself. Bush doesn't have those. He's got some charisma but it stops there.

Many on the conservative side, including the Wall Street Journal maintain Plame wasn't undercover at the time. If that's the case, then what was the point in bringing up the whole issue? What was the reason behind attempting this smear campaign against Joe Wilson if they didn't believe that naming his wife as a CIA agent wouldn't bring him and her some grief out of this. Wilson got his job as a diplomat When Bush's father was running the show. He spoke out against the information from the current administration and they attempt to destroy him and his wife perhaps even physically.

posted by Stithmeister @ 10:53 PM
 

So what's ticking you off? It's an open post. Lemme hear your gripes!

posted by Stithmeister @ 11:35 PM
 

Newsweek ran a great story giving a pretty detailed look at how things came together in with the war in Iraq as well as to the current chain of events that could very well end up with someone important in the hoosegow.

Central to that case was the belief that Saddam was determined to get nukes—a claim helped by the Niger story, which the White House doggedly pushed. A prideful man who enjoys the spotlight, Joseph Wilson grew increasingly agitated that the White House had not come clean about how the African-uranium claim made it into George W. Bush's 2003 State of the Union address. In June, Condoleezza Rice went on TV and denied she knew that documents underlying the uranium story were, in fact, crude forgeries: "Maybe somebody in the bowels of the agency knew something about this," she said, "but nobody in my circles." For Wilson, that was it. "That was a slap in the face," he told NEWSWEEK. "She was saying 'F--- you, Washington, we don't care.' Or rather 'F--- you, America'." On July 6, Wilson went public about his Niger trip in his landmark New York Times op-ed piece.

[...]

Some lawyers close to the case are convinced Fitzgerald has a mysterious "Mr. X"—a yet unknown principal target or cooperating witness. Some press reports identified John Hannah, Cheney's deputy national-security adviser, as a potentially key figure in the investigation. Hannah played a central policymaking role on Iraq and was known to be particularly close to Ahmad Chalabi, whose Iraqi National Congress supplied some of the faulty intelligence about WMD embraced by the vice president in the run-up to the invasion. Lawyers for Rove and Libby have said their clients did nothing wrong and broke no laws. Last week Hannah's lawyer Thomas Green told NEWSWEEK his client "knew nothing" about the leak and is not a target of Fitzgerald's probe. "This is craziness," he said. Whatever news Fitzgerald makes this week, however, the case has shed light on how Cheney and his clique of advisers cleared the way to war, and how they obsessed over critics who got in the way.

Response

This case is getting bigger and bigger. It depresses me that this whole fiasco happened. I don't know if Cheney actually broke a law. There is some debate over whether or not a crime was actually committed regarding Valerie Plame Wilson. However, as with so many other politicians, they get caught in the lies and then comes the conspiracy, obstruction and perjury charges.

posted by Stithmeister @ 8:52 PM
 

Canadian journalist Will Thomas maintains a web site discussing the philosophy of George Bush. It's pretty amusing and maybe, ever so slightly troubling because of the truth in the what's being said. Check it out.

posted by Stithmeister @ 8:18 PM
 

The New York Times reported Dick Cheney may have been the original source on the Valerie Plame leak although the amount of knowledge he had regarding her is up in the air.

WASHINGTON, Oct. 24 - I. Lewis Libby Jr., Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, first learned about the C.I.A. officer at the heart of the leak investigation in a conversation with Mr. Cheney weeks before her identity became public in 2003, lawyers involved in the case said Monday.

[...]

Lawyers involved in the case, who described the notes to The New York Times, said they showed that Mr. Cheney knew that Ms. Wilson worked at the C.I.A. more than a month before her identity was made public and her undercover status was disclosed in a syndicated column by Robert D. Novak on July 14, 2003.

Mr. Libby's notes indicate that Mr. Cheney had gotten his information about Ms. Wilson from George J. Tenet, the director of central intelligence, in response to questions from the vice president about Mr. Wilson. But they contain no suggestion that either Mr. Cheney or Mr. Libby knew at the time of Ms. Wilson's undercover status or that her identity was classified. Disclosing a covert agent's identity can be a crime, but only if the person who discloses it knows the agent's undercover status.

[...]

It would not be illegal for either Mr. Cheney or Mr. Libby, both of whom are presumably cleared to know the government's deepest secrets, to discuss a C.I.A. officer or her link to a critic of the administration. But any effort by Mr. Libby to steer investigators away from his conversation with Mr. Cheney could be considered by Patrick J. Fitzgerald, the special counsel in the case, to be an illegal effort to impede the inquiry.

[...]

On Monday, Mr. Rove and Mr. Libby both attended a cabinet meeting with Mr. Bush as the White House continued trying to portray business as usual. But the assumption among White House officials is that anyone who is indicted will step aside.

On June 12, 2003, the day of the conversation between Mr. Cheney and Mr. Libby, The Washington Post published a front-page article reporting that the C.I.A. had sent a retired American diplomat to Niger in February 2002 to investigate claims that Iraq had been seeking to buy uranium there. The article did not name the diplomat, who turned out to be Mr. Wilson, but it reported that his mission had not corroborated a claim about Iraq's pursuit of nuclear material that the White House had subsequently used in Mr. Bush's 2003 State of the Union address.

Response

The writing is plain. The outing of Valerie Plame Wilson was part of a campaign to not only discredit her husband Joe Wilson but also to show the price you pay for crossing the administration. The thing is nobody will go to jail for that, it will be because they lied about it under oath. It's always the simple things that get you. It also shows they can pretty much do what they want as long as they don't lie about it.

posted by Stithmeister @ 8:27 AM
 

Governor Ernie Fletcher continues to grasp at straws as he tries to get indictments thrown out on constitutional grounds. At this rate, it will all end up in federal court of they're not careful anyway. Mark Chellgren wrote the AP story. Here are some excerpts:

Fletcher filing argues some indictments are unconstitutional

MARK R. CHELLGREN

Associated Press

FRANKFORT, Ky. - Indictments returned by a special grand jury since Gov. Ernie Fletcher granted amnesty to anyone who might be charged are unconstitutional, Fletcher's lawyer argued in court documents filed Monday.

[...]

"The motion was filed on behalf of the governor in his official capacity and it seeks to enforce the amnesty he granted," Snyder said in a telephone interview.

Attorney General Greg Stumbo, whose office is conducting the investigation, accused Fletcher of trying to usurp the grand jury and hide the truth about "corruption in their government."

On Aug. 29, Fletcher pardoned nine current or former members of his administration who had been indicted, mostly for misdemeanor violations of state personnel laws known as the Merit System. But the pardon language also extended to "any and all persons who have committed, or may be accused of committing, any offense up to and including the date hereof, relating in any way to the current Merit System investigation..."

[...]

Snyder and the attorney general's office both say an 1865 case backs up their arguments.

In it, the former Kentucky Court of Appeals ruled that a gubernatorial pardon could be granted before a conviction. At the time, it was the highest court in the state.

Snyder said the case and the debates that led to the writing of the current Kentucky Constitution in 1891 show the power to pardon is virtually unrestricted for a governor.

But the relatively brief decision does not specifically address whether a pardon can be granted before an offense is even charged.

Response

Fletcher seems to be sinking fast. While he does have two years left, he's got a legislative session quickly approaching as well as a state of the commonwealth address. One has to wonder what he will say in it because just about all his aides have been booted in one form or another. Honestly, the state of the commonwealth isn't so good because they're no real leadership. The Democrats don't have much either. While I like a lot of the Democrats, none are really stepping up to begin their war against the Republicans. Who do people think show some real promise and can win the Democratic nomination for governor and then take it in 2007?

posted by Stithmeister @ 12:11 AM
 

Rick Howell has some good information regarding the vicious governor's race in Virgiina. Democrat Tim Kaine has a tight lead over Republican Jerry Kilgore but with any luck, Kaine can lengthen the lead a bit further as they head into the final days of the campaign.

posted by Stithmeister @ 12:08 AM
 

Mark Nickolas over at Bluegrass Report pulled a great quote from a speech Mitch McConnell made back in 1999 during the Clinton impeachment proceedings. I've reprinted it here. Pay particular attention to the final statement, McConnell quoted Justice Louis Brandeis:

I am completely and utterly perplexed by those who argue that perjury and obstruction of justice are not high crimes and misdemeanors...

Perjury and obstruction hammer away at the twin pillars of our legal system: truth and justice. Every witness in every deposition is required to raise his or her right hand and swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help them God. Every witness in every grand jury proceeding and in every trial is required to raise his or her right hand and swear to tell the truth. Every official declaration filed with the court is stamped with the express affirmation that the declaration is true. In the words of our nation's first Supreme Court Chief Justice, John Jay: 'if oaths should cease to be held sacred, our dearest and most valuable rights would become insecure.'

The facts clearly show that the President did not value the sacred oath. He was interested in saving his hide, not truth and justice. I submit to my colleagues that if we have no truth and we have no justice, then we have no nation of laws. No public official, no president, no man or no woman is important enough to sacrifice the founding principles of our legal system.

On this point, I am proud to quote Justice Louis Brandeis--a native of my hometown of Louisville and the man for whom the University of Louisville Law school is named:

'In a government of laws, existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the laws scrupulously. Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a lawbreaker; it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy.'

[Congressional Record, 2/12/99]

posted by Stithmeister @ 11:58 PM
 

The current administration is having real problems, no doubt about it. Various factions of the Republican party are divided. One major problem is the problem created by George Bush's "Cabal of Evil" and all the mayhem they have brought upon our glorious nation. Right now, a federal prosecutor smells blood and he's going to get it I think.

In this administration, loyalty is everything. It explains why Gonzalez is attorney general, it explains why Miers is up for SCOTUS and it explains why Joe Wilson and his wife Valerie Plame got the treatment they did. The administration may well have put Plame's life in danger based on sheer spite and someone may just spend some quality time in a penintentuary. It's a shame on our country that the Bush administration brought us to this level.

Do the Democrats have anything to offer? Probably not. The presidential candidates look somewhat weak so far because none of them are out pounding the sidewalks and the TVs calling for a sharp alternative to the corruption proliferating the White House. But first things first, the Democrats are going to have to work on Congress and get people elected at both state and national levels. I'd like to say we could do it in Kentucky, but Howdy Doody is a powerful senator who may end up senate majority leader. I only hope the Dems come up with some alternatives.

posted by Stithmeister @ 8:33 PM
 

Ben Bernanke has been tapped to replace retiring Fed chairman Alan Greenspan. Bernanke is an inflation hit man. Questions are already being raised about his loyalty to the president however as Bernanke currently chairs the presiden't Council of Economic Advisers.

The Washington Post picked up the AP story on the subject. Greenspan's been on the job since 1987 (Reagan pick)and will retire as of Jan 31, 2006.

There had been widespread speculation that Bush might act as early as this month to give the Senate time to act on the nomination before Greenspan's term expired.

However, announcing Greenspan's successor also provided a diversion for a White House reeling under congressional criticism of the Harriet Miers' Supreme Court nomination and a federal investigation into whether top officials leaked the name of a CIA operative for political purposes.

Dr. Peter Morici sent out a quick email about the nomination with a little info on Bernanke.

Ben Bernanke


President Bush has named Ben Bernanke to replace Alan Greenspan. He appears to be giving Wall Street exactly what it asked for: an inflation hawk. That would pose real dangers but don't pigeon hole him too soon.

Bernanke is a strong advocate of inflation targeting but as simple and elegant as that sounds, it can prove an unrealistic goal. These days, too much of the inflation challenge stems from structural issues beyond the control of the Fed—for example, hypergrowth in China and the resulting pressures on oil prices, and the mismanagement of energy policy and resulting shortages of refining and natural gas capacity.

Inflation targeting can result in overreaction to surges in commodity prices that the Fed cannot affect at the expense of sacrificing growth the Fed can help the economy accomplish. The end result would be rising unemployment and falling wages—stagflation.

Wall Street, whose view of the economy rarely extends beyond two quarters, wants an inflation hawk, even if it is at the expense of sacrificing growth and the interests of ordinary working Americans. That is even sadder because too much attention to inflation is bad for Wall Street too.

The Fed is charged with both maintaining stable prices and sustaining growth. Bernanke, while on the Fed Board, advocated attention to the output gap—that counsels more moderation from strict inflation targeting and concern about unemployment. However, Wall Street’s fixation with inflation—even inflation that is inevitable and beyond the reach of the Fed--kept any viable candidate from talking too much about the importance of the Fed’s joint responsibilities.

Just like a Supreme Court nominee, we really won’t know how Bernanke will vote, until he is on the job.

Peter Morici
Professor
Robert H. Smith School of Business
University of Maryland
College Park, MD 20742-1815

Response

The good professor generally isn't espousing one party or the other in his statements. He's a learned economist who calls them like he sees them. He is right about Bernanke. There's no way to know what he will do until he gets there.

posted by Stithmeister @ 1:18 PM
 

A traditionally rightwing newspaper, The Danville Advocate-Messenger, ran a letter to the editor recently about the new direction of the merit system changes:

State employees' group concerned about merit system changes

Dear Editor:

The Kentucky Transportation Employees' Association (KTEA) Board of Directors would like to express its concern with the Fletcher administration's attempts to change the merit system.

The KTEA is one of the oldest and largest employee organizations in Kentucky state government. The KTEA has served employees of the Transportation Cabinet since 1950. Currently, over 3,300 Transportation Cabinet employees are represented by the KTEA. Our organization is dedicated to upholding, preserving and strengthening the merit system. The merit system is the foundation of state employee freedom, freedom to devote our best work efforts to provide exceptional service to the taxpayers of Kentucky without fear of reprisal or expectation of reward for political activity.

During the 2003 governor's race, Governor Fletcher showed his support for the Merit System by stating, "The current merit system has been very effective at keeping politics out of state government. I believe that it would be a mistake to do anything that would potentially undermine the current system... We must ensure that the current merit system remains strong and that we continue to keep politics out of state government."

Since the governor has established a Blue Ribbon Task Force to study the current Merit System laws, we hope that he remembers his promise to state employees to support and strengthen the Merit System. While our organization is supportive of changes that would improve career growth, employee salaries and the overall wellbeing of slate employees, we are against any changes to Merit System laws that will threaten state workers' job security. Our organization welcomes the chance to provide input to the Blue Ribbon Task Force that will lead to a stronger more efficient state government workforce. Hopefully the Blue Ribbon Task Force has this same goal in mind.

Jane Shindlebower-Mers, president
Kentucky Transportation Employees' Association
Copyright The Advocate-Messenger 2005

Response

Imagine, employees worried about their jobs after the recent turn of events in Frankfort. I'd say Fletcher is wrecking things but I don't think he has the credibility nor the political power to do much of anything. He's a lame duck and his first regular session of the legislature's not even started yet.

posted by Stithmeister @ 11:19 PM
 

Senator Joe Biden did a little fund raising for Kentucky Democrats this weekend up in northern Kentucky. I pulled this story from WTVQ:

Senator Biden in Kentucky
Bennett Haeberle
Action News 36
Oct 23, 15:37 PM EDT

In an effort to jump-start political dollars for their party, the state's Democratic leaders brought in a national presence to ignite the crowd.

The move to bring in Senator Joseph Biden was intentional. He says his party is at a disconnect with middle class voters, and that if Democrats want to make strides...they'd better start now.

All the signs of a political rally were there: the smiles, the handshakes, the signing of autographs. But Delaware Senator Joseph Biden says his party has less to smile about and more work to do.

"The truth is, the Democratic party has lost its base - middle class folks."

About 400 people showed up tonight for a fundraiser that sought to gather $150,000 for the party.

"He's a presidential contender, he's a national figure and having him in Kentucky... it shows Kentucky is in play,” says Kentucky Democratic Chairman Jerry Lundergan.

Adding more of a spring to their step is the current Fletcher administration involvement in the merit system investigation… which Fletcher has called “politically motivated.”

But Biden says even the appearance of mismanagement – whether at the state or federal level – can aide his party.

“Forget ideology,” Biden says. “Just managing the war, the economy, not managing... It seems to me that Democrats need to talk about what we'd do."

But his talk has led some to criticize Biden for his stance on the war and the Supreme Court nominees.

As for Harriet Miers, Biden says he looks forward to learning more about her… because he says he knows little now.

As for his own presidential future, he says it will depend largely on what drives politics – money.

"If I can't sell my message in Northern Kentucky, I can't sell it to Tennessee… or Cincinnati…. Then I can't win."

On the phone last night, I spoke with Marcus Carey, a Republican executive committee member from Northern Kentucky. He says he doesn't feel his party will lose out to the strong conservative base they already have.

posted by Stithmeister @ 11:10 PM
 

It looks like Judith Miller and the New York Times (NYT) may be at odds over the CIA Leak case. The NYT executive editor, Bill Keller, sent out an email suggesting he felt Miller hadn't been entirely candid with them in the whole affair and they may have done things differently had they known then what they know now. Here's an excerpt from an ABC story from the letter:

In a dramatic e-mail, Executive Editor Bill Keller wrote Times' employees he wished he'd more carefully interviewed Miller and had "missed what should have been significant alarm bells" that she had been the recipient of leaked information about the CIA officer at the heart of the case.

"Judy seems to have misled (Times Washington bureau chief) Phil Taubman about the extent of her involvement," Keller wrote in what he described as a lessons-learned e-mail. "This alone should have been enough to make me probe deeper."

Keller said he might have been more willing to compromise with Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald "if I had known the details of Judy's entanglement" with Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby.

Response

Interesting stuff but it brings to mind a couple of points. One, it shows some reporters will go to great lengths to get contacts inside an administration, even to the point of losing any hint of objectivity in order to maintain the connection.

The second is a bigger picture thing regarding this issue. If reporters and the media that supports them, be broadcast, print or otherwise, continue they way they are going, they're in bed with whatever they're reporting on and have no safe claim to objectivity. They compromise their integrity in order to keep close connections. I'm a bit of a purist in that I believe the purpose of the media, once again print, broadcast or otherwise, is to be a gadfly to those in power. They're job is to sting the authority and the public consciousness in order to help make our world a little more transparent. Instead, these companies are big multinational conglomerates with a vested interest in the status quo. While many accuse the media of being liberal or conservative or whatever, honestly, they're just kissing the ass of whoever's in power to keep their connection. They don't hound them at every turn, they open the door for them and it's ridiculous.

posted by Stithmeister @ 10:58 AM
 

I picked this up from ChallengerNKY via Bluegrass Report. Pence discusses two big points. One, the budget was NOT revenue neutral and the fact Medicaid is eating any bonuses we might have gained.

Lt. Gov.: Medicaid Debt Devouring Gains

By Jason Feldmann
The Sunday Challenger
jfeldmann@challengernky.com

COVINGTON--Reducing the state's mounting Medicaid debt, the possibility of expanded gaming, and tougher penalties for convicted sexual predators were some of the topics that Lieutenant Governor Steve Pence addressed while speaking at the Northern Kentucky Chamber of Commerce luncheon on Friday, Oct. 14.

On Medicaid, Pence predicted Gov. Ernie Fletcher would "take the lead" during next year's legislative session.

The "huge" Medicaid debt, said Pence, is "eating up every bit of gain that our General Assembly and the governor made this last year."

New revenue from tax modernization is lost because the state "has failed to change the business model," said Pence.

Now perceived as "free," health care is being used "recklessly," added Pence.

One possible solution, he said, is to tailor Medicaid to meet the needs of patients.

Response

Medicaid is becoming a real problem. The federal government is cutting the program by leaps and bounds and will probably continue to do so. I'm not against providing medical benefits to those who need it but there has to be some effort to restructure and get peole using Medicaid to quit doing things like using the ER as a primary care physician. Treat this program like any other PPO and run it that way. Then people will have to do their regular checkups and things like that. I think it would work and it would be better than our current system.

posted by Stithmeister @ 8:34 AM
 

It looks like the grand jury handed down some more indictments on Thursday going after Republican Party treasurer Dave Disponett and J. Marshall Hughes, his assistant. The Herald-Leader ran a good story on the issue this morning.

Yesterday's indictments of Dave Disponett, an Anderson County contractor who also serves as Kentucky Republican Party treasurer, and Bowling Green attorney J. Marshall Hughes represent the first time in the five-month-long hiring probe that individuals who were never on the state payroll have been charged with crimes.

[...]

Disponett did work out of a Capitol office from February 2004 until June 2005 while he was advising Gov. Ernie Fletcher.

Disponett faces three counts of conspiracy, including one related to the hiring of his nephew. Another charge stems from the hiring of the brother-in-law of Agriculture Commissioner Richie Farmer.

Hughes, who often assisted Disponett in screening potential state job candidates, is charged with two counts of conspiracy, including the hiring of a Republican circuit court clerk as a transportation supervisor.

Hughes' attorney called the indictments "a stretch of the statutes" because private citizens can't be charged in relation to state hiring rules.

"I don't think you can conspire to commit a crime if you have no authority to make a decision on employment," said Steven Thornton, Hughes' Bowling Green-based attorney. "I can't imagine how it would succeed."

I think if you are working out of the governor's office at the governor's pleasure, using his resources, even if you don't have an official salary, you should be indicted. I think you have to consider what they're being charged with too. Conspiracy is means basically you were in on it to break the law. One doesn't need to be a paid state employee to be charged with violating the merit law rules. These guys helped to implement these policies and in so doing conspired to violate state law.

posted by Stithmeister @ 8:21 AM
 

A FEMA official testified before congress today and said that Brown was unprepared. Talk about an understatement.

posted by Stithmeister @ 11:56 PM
 

Soldiers were desecrating corpses in Afghanistan. More brilliance tricking down from the administration. You don't send in enough troops to win so you fight really dirty. That's a brilliant idea.

posted by Stithmeister @ 11:54 PM
 

Tom Delay reported to the police in Houston today and got booked. Just think, one of the most powerful men in Washington, a mountain of a congressman being booked. I hope they nail him to the wall.

posted by Stithmeister @ 11:47 PM
 

Recently, Col. Larry Wilkerson, USMC Retired, and former chief of staff at the state dept. under Colin Powell spoke at a luncheon for the New America Foundation think tank. In this luncheon he became a marine once again and began a verbal onslaught against those who are most damaging to the country and the constitution who swore to protect, President George W. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice. He let'em have it too.

The Washington Post printed a couple of good columns on it, one by Dana Milbank and the other by Dan Froomkin.

This is from Milbank's column:

He said the vice president and the secretary of defense created a "Cheney-Rumsfeld cabal" that hijacked U.S. foreign policy. He said of former defense undersecretary Douglas Feith: "Seldom in my life have I met a dumber man." Addressing scholars, journalists and others at the New America Foundation, Wilkerson accused Bush of "cowboyism" and said he had viewed Condoleezza Rice as "extremely weak." Of American diplomacy, he fretted, "I'm not sure the State Department even exists anymore."

This is pretty serious stuff here. This guy was obviously a heavyweight in the party and I think he's upset his friend Colin Powell basically got dumped on.

The man who was chief of staff at the State Department until early this year continued: "If you're unilaterally declaring Kyoto dead, if you're declaring the Geneva Conventions not operative, if you're doing a host of things that the world doesn't agree with you on and you're doing it blatantly and in their face, without grace, then you've got to pay the consequences."

Lots of people believe George W. Bush was a tough guy, a no nonsense kind of person who didn't take any crap off of those other nancy-boy nations. Turns out he was still nothing more than the Crawford Tx. village idiot.

Here's a link to the text of the speech:

Speech

His final words:

I will tell you, as a military man, the bottom line is not everything. It’s far from everything. One of the reasons Colin Powell answered the question when he was asked, after the first Gulf War, why he sent five carriers – one of the reasons he said because he didn’t have six – (scattered laughter) – was because he understood that the bottom line is not everything. When you start taking a paring knife to the military to cut it -- like a businessman would cut his business -- you are damaging and perhaps destroying the potential of that military to win future conflicts. You never know what you are going to need on the battlefield, so you’d better have six of them. Five of them won’t show up, four of them won’t be able to communicate, and I could go on. But you need overlap, you need redundancy. You need, as Powell used to say “decisive force.” People say he said “overwhelming force;” most often he said “decisive force.” And when you are dealing with government in many ways, whether it’s Katrina, Rita, responding to a nuclear attack or whatever, you’d better have 10 cases of water where you think you need one. You’d better have 15 million MREs where you think you need only a million because you never know in a crisis, and the best way to be prepared is to have lots more than you think you’re going to need or want. And that’s just the reality of the way you do business in government and in the military as opposed to the way you do it at GE – oh, I shouldn’t use GE – (scattered laughter) – you know, wherever you do business. It’s very – it’s a very different environment. So when you have businessmen making the decisions within government, it’s not necessarily bad, but you’ve got to be willing to listen to other people who might have different opinions to those you have.

posted by Stithmeister @ 8:38 PM
 

It looks like it will be a memorable October Classic. The Houston Astros have never been and the Chicago White Sox haven't been since 1959, haven't won since 1917. It should be good. Another great possible outcome.

posted by Stithmeister @ 11:54 PM
 

This is turning into a fairly traditional second term for a president. It may have started a little early but its still in line. Most presidents elected to second terms normally have the lame duck status to deal with. It's just the reality. They can't be reelected unless they want to take a step down.

In recent memory, Johnson had Vietnam. While he didn't serve 2 full terms it was 1 1/2 and it was ugly. Then came Nixon, who's troubles are legendary. He was the only president to resign the job. He would've been impeached and would've gone to jail. Then next two-term man was Reagan. He had Iran-Contra. It turned out to be a nightmare although it laid the foundation for a splendid pundit career for then Lt. Col. Oliver North. Then came Clinton (I like puns). He was impeached over lying about a BJ. Now comes Bush's second term and it's a disaster. His base is fighting like cats and dogs, he's had one natural disaster after another, fuel prices are at record highs, Iraq is a disaster. He may end up impeached over this mess the CIA mess. Yep... early, a little more extensive, but nonetheless not unexpected in a second term.

posted by Stithmeister @ 11:48 PM
 

A number of discussions are going on over who knows what regarding this CIA investigation. As many have pointed out, if Rove knew and Scooter Libby knew, it's not unreasonable to think Bush and Cheney knew as well.

Here's something further. It's no big secret Bush values loyalty, perhaps above all else. He takes care of those loyal to him and Harriet Miers has found out and a former FEMA director and a multitude of others. Ambassador Wilson crossed Bush when he spoke out against him. That would be more than enough reason for him to be dealt with accordingly, even to the point of putting his wife, Valerie Plame in danger. There's also been some animosity between the administration and the CIA for some time now after 9/11.

With both men acting on these, it's clear the administration knew what was going on. This plausible deniability is crap. It didn't work for Nixon, it won't work for Bush the Younger either.

posted by Stithmeister @ 11:41 PM
 

Rick Howell has a great piece on his opinions in the upcoming Virginia Attorney General's race. It looks like the Republican, Bob McDonnell, is firmly in the camp of the Pat Robertson school of political wingnuts. That's good enough for me. Get him out of there.

Rick suggests his Democratic opponent, Creigh Deed, is a bit more sound choice and while not necessary liberal, moderate enough to be in line with most people's views. Give your support.

posted by Stithmeister @ 11:37 PM
 

It shows this one if for real folks. A warrant was issued for Tom Delay and a $10,000 bond set. That's of course pocket change for him but it does show that this matter is getting serious. All of the proceedings will take place in Austin and this is just a formality. Whether or not he's guilty remains to be seen but this is certainly a difficult time for Delay because his reelection campaign will begin in just a few weeks. Here's a link to the AP story

posted by Stithmeister @ 11:32 PM
 

I received my weekly dispatch of "The Onion" and low and behold, there was a pictur of Ernie Fletcher and several other governors(some Dems) who've had some problems. I would check it out.

COLUMBUS, OH—The bodies of six U.S. governors were discovered in the Ohio Statehouse early Monday, all apparent participants in what authorities believe to be some sort of statewide-officeholder suicide pact.
Enlarge ImageSix Dead In Gubernatorial Suicide Pact

Governors Barbour, Fletcher, Lynch, Richardson, Taft, and X.

Police have identified five members of the media-dubbed "Gubernatorial Six": governors Haley Barbour (R-MS), John Lynch (D-NH), Bill Richardson (D-NM), Ernie Fletcher (R-KY), and Robert "Bob" Taft (R-OH). The identity of the sixth governor is being withheld until his family is notified. Columbus Police Chief James Jackson confirmed rumors that "Governor X," as he is being called, was a male, and governor of "a very large state."

Early toxicology reports indicate that five of the governors died after drinking scotch laced with barbiturates. Gov. Fletcher is believed to have mixed the drug with bourbon and a splash of water.

Discovered by a Statehouse night cleaning crew in the pre-dawn hours, the governors' bodies were arranged in a circular pattern on the floor of the Finan Room. Forensic evidence indicated that Taft, who was found clutching the presidential seal to his chest, was the last one alive, leading police to speculate that he was the ringleader.

"We believe Governor Taft served the executive authorities their final cocktails," Jackson said. "There were no signs of struggle, no attempts to escape. It appears that all participated willingly and sought a common end."

Although the reasons behind the suicide pact remain unknown, many of the country's surviving 44 state chief executives said they are not surprised by the tragedy. The governors were all known in their home states for their penchants for dark suits, their similar hairstyles, and their "fuck everything" attitudes.

"I never really talked to them except when I had to, like during the occasional National Governors' Association meeting," Hawaii Gov. Linda Lingle said. "They tended to stay away from girls altogether. It's sad to see such bright and promising state-level executives succumb to this senseless rage and self-destruction."

Oklahoma Gov. Brad Henry, who sometimes socialized with members of the Gubernatorial Six at luncheons, said that although they openly talked of taking their own lives, he never took them seriously.
Enlarge ImageSix Dead In Gubernatorial Suicide Pact

The grisly scene at the Ohio Statehouse.

"They made a lot of bizarre jokes, a lot of dark stuff that I didn't understand," Henry said. "I knew many of them didn't want to be governors anymore, and Bob was always saying how much he hated it, how he felt trapped, how he'd do anything to get out of 'the cage.' The others would pretty much go along with him. The sad thing is, they probably could have done quite well in the private sector."

Gov. Mark Sanford of South Carolina has been able to provide grieving family members and states with some insight into the actions of the Gubernatorial Six. Sanford, who was briefly associated with the group in 2003, said their suicide came as no surprise to him.

"I was your typical confused, first-term governor," said Sanford, who admits he found the dark, morbid posturing of the outcast governors "cool."

"I had a great deal of respect for Bob [Taft]—he lived on the edge, always giving the world the finger," Sanford added.

But by 2004, Sanford had distanced himself from the group.

"Bill [Richardson] had developed this habit of slashing at his arms and chest with his New Mexico flag lapel pin," Sanford said. "And Haley [Barbour] liked asphyxiating himself with his necktie until he turned blue. Not long after I stopped hanging out with them, I found a dead bald eagle on the doorstep of the governor's mansion."

The FBI set up a national hotline Monday and urged voters to call if they suspect that their governor might be contemplating suicide or has joined a gubernatorial cult. Counselors from the National Institute Of Mental Health have been sent to capitols in all 50 states to counsel at-risk and interim governors.

Response

One of the best stories I've read in a while. Check out the link. It's got photos and it's just a great read.

posted by Stithmeister @ 11:28 PM
 

JibJab recently premiered thier new video on The Tonight Show. Folks may remember their cutting edge humor back during the election for "This Land Is Your Land." I would advise checking it out. It's a good take on the state of affairs in America, particularly regarding out jobs industry.

posted by Stithmeister @ 11:25 PM
 

He folks, this is an open threat today. One little note I will pitch in though.

For folks who wish to include links into their comments, do it this way:

LinkNameHere

posted by Stithmeister @ 11:41 PM
 

I was glad to see St. Louis held on for another game against the Astros. They need to win two more and they go play the Chisox.

posted by Stithmeister @ 11:41 PM
 

I don't put up odd stuff in here very often but this was great. It's called Horton Hears A Heart. Check it out. I found it quite amusing.

posted by Stithmeister @ 11:39 PM
 

Another report by Dr. Peter Morici. He's been doing this economics stuff for a long time. He makes a lot of sense. Unfortunately, he seems to think the fed gets it wrong.

Producer Price Report Shows Inflation Poses Little Threat


Today, the Labor Department reported the Producer Price Index rose 1.9 percent in September, thanks largely to a surge in energy prices.

However, the report indicates inflation is not spreading to nonenergy goods and services that reach final consumers. The index for finished goods, less energy and food, rose only 0.2 percent, and prices for final consumer goods, less energy, were up 0.1 percent.

The latter two indexes are good predictors of future consumer price inflation. For example those were down in August, and the CPI, less food and energy, rose only 0.1 percent in September, reflecting some retail markup.

Consumer price inflation will likely be tame in the months ahead. Gasoline prices and crude oil have fallen in October. The recent spurt in energy prices has not passed through to wages, which account for about two thirds of production costs, and rapid productivity improvements are permitting businesses to absorb rising energy and material costs before those reach final consumers of nonenergy goods.

The core CPI, the CPI net of energy and food, has risen only 0.1 percent or less each month for the last six months, and today’s report on wholesale prices indicates future inflation likely will be contained.

The modest increase in wholesale prices for final consumer goods less energy indicate Federal Reserve concerns about inflation are exaggerated. Coupled with slowing automobile and other retail sales, this cooling of core inflation indicates consumers are strapped, and additional interest rate increases are not needed.

The reason for near zero inflation outside the energy sector is quite simple. Consumers have no more money to spend. Consumption exceeded disposable income in June, July and August. Credit card delinquency rates are very high.

Consumers can no longer easily add to credit card debt and home equity loans. With gasoline prices up, they are cutting back on spending in other areas. Stores like Wal-Mart are already discounting to accommodate weak consumer spending, which is resulting in lower prices for most products.

Some retailers and auto manufacturers are attempting to raise prices in October but those efforts will be frustrated. Attempts to raise prices will be met with fierce consumer resistance.

Energy prices will subside as Gulf oil, gas and refining come back on line. When energy prices fall, deflation, not inflation, may be the problem. Should the Fed persist in pushing up interest rates, it risks throwing the economy into a recession.

The Fed has no need to tighten credit markets further to slow the economy.

Higher energy prices have done the work of higher interest rates, and the Fed should not raise interest rates in December.

Peter Morici
Professor
Robert H. Smith School of Business
University of Maryland
College Park, MD 20742-1815


Response

As usual, his points are great. Credit is as tight as it needs to get because huge swathes of the country need rebuilding literally from the ground up and the holiday shopping season is upon us. I'd say retail markets will take a beating this winter as many won't have the money to shop unless oil prices drop dramatically across the board and I don't think that will happen.

posted by Stithmeister @ 11:19 PM
 

Howard Fineman's written a good piece about problems within the Republican ranks of Bush's administration. The various groups are having real problems connecting now that the leadership is falling apart.

Conservative Crackup
How the neocons have developed a political exit strategy.


Oct. 12, 2005 - President George W. Bush may have no military exit strategy for Iraq, but the “neocons” who convinced him to go to war there have developed one of their own—a political one: Blame the Administration.

[...]

The “movement” —that began 50 years ago with the founding of Bill Buckley’s National Review; that had its coming of age in the Reagan Years; that reached its zenith with Bush’s victory in 2000—is falling apart at the seams.

[...]

In 1973, Karl Rove met George W. Bush, and became the R2D2 and Luke Skywalker of Republican politics. At first, neither was plugged into “The Force”—the conservative movement. But over the years they learned how to use its power.

[...]

For Religious Conservatives

The Harriet Miers nomination was the final insult. Religious conservatives have an inferiority complex in the Republican Party. In an interesting way, it’s the same attitude that many African-Americans have had toward the Democratic Party over the years. They think that the Big Boys want their votes but not their presence or their full participation.

[...]

For Corporate CEOS

For them, Bush’s handling of Katrina was, and remains, a mortal embarrassment to their class, which Bush is supposed to have represented—at least to some extent.

These are people who believe in the Faith of Management—in anticipating problems and moving mass organizations. They also like to think of themselves as having a social conscience. And even if they don’t, they are sensitive to world opinion.

The vivid images from the Superdome were just too much for these folks. Recently, a prominent Republican businessman, whom I saw in a typical CEO haunt, astonished me with the severity of his attacks on Bush’s competence. And Bush had appointed this guy to a major position! Amazing.

[...]

Neocons

They think that the Middle East can be remade, and this country made safe, by instilling a semblance of democracy in the Fertile Crescent and beyond. But they seem to have given up on the ability of the Bush Administration to see that vision through.

They want more troops, not fewer; more money, not less; more passion, not the whispered talk of timetables for withdrawal.

Besides championing democracy, we need to show strength and resolve, they believe—and they are no longer convinced that Bush can show much of either.

Response

This goes to show you that many alliances are tedious and fragile at best. Far too many don't hold together very long. It will be interesting to see how our leaders go in the future because Bush tried to be all things to all people in his base and the farther along he goes, it turns out he's none of those things to anyway. He's not terribly adept at anything except maybe mountain biking. In some cases, I don't doubt his conviction. I think when the he walked among the ruins of the world trade towers, he felt genuine emotions. The problem with our president is that he's not the man everything thinks he is. He's the face man and he's lost face. Alas poor Dubyah.

posted by Stithmeister @ 7:44 PM
 

A great column appeared yesterday on how Mitch McConnell may be losing his touch. While he is powerful his efforts may be more focused on the national scene right now. Columnist Al Cross had a great column in the Courier Journal yesterday. Hat tip to Bluegrass Report for lead on this one. Here's an excerpt:

Nature abhors a vacuum, so the maxim goes. So does politics, and so do the politicians who are most successful at this strange science -- including those who indirectly helped create the vacuum.

U.S. Sen. Mitch McConnell showed that, two weeks ago tomorrow, when he and 1st District U.S. Rep. Ed Whitfield held a press conference at state Republican headquarters in Frankfort to announce that . . . well, that a state legislator who was elected as a Democrat from Whitfield's hometown of Hopkinsville was becoming a Republican.

This don't-stop-the-presses news came after a weekend of suspense, caused by the party's cryptic announcement of the event and the participants' refusal to give any clues about its purpose.

In the end, the real import was not that Republicans had their largest number of state House members in 61 years (44 of 100), but that the Boss was back in town.


Response

I agree with Cross on McConnell picking his people. I think he's done well building up the Republicans in Kentucky but he can never seem to grab the whole thing. I also think McConnell has his hands full in Washington right now too as Bill Frist and Tom Delay both are in deep trouble as his the administration. You'll see McConnell more in the news probably but it will take all his skills to come up smelling like roses on this one, especially since his clout may not be as strong with some in the state Republican party as it is with others.

posted by Stithmeister @ 12:13 AM
 

David Sirota wrote a great blog post about the real reasoning behind and behind corporate power attorney getting the nod for SCOTUS. You can find it at the Huffington Post.


For the last few months, I have tried to point out how, despite the media's binary left-right portrayal, President Bush's Supreme Court nominations are really about one thing: solidifying Big Business's power in our legal system (for examples, see here, here, here, here and here). We are led to believe these fights are all about ideology or partisanship, when in fact they center around money, plain and simple.

[...]

Still, this is a big moment as for once the mainstream media isn't trying to pigeonhole a political issue into purely partisan terms, when all the evidence shows that it is anything but. Here are the key excerpts:

"...another critical element of the Republican political base is applauding [Bush's court nominees] from the wings. That would be big business. For the first time in more than three decades, corporate America could find itself with not one, but two, Supreme Court allies with in-the-trenches industry experience -- Miers and newly minted Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. Don't be fooled by the low-key personas they have projected thus far; both are legal wonks who have packed a powerful punch in the corporate world. Together, they could be a CEO's dream team.... Miers has a blue-chip résumé that would wow Wall Street....Her decades as a high-powered corporate litigator are just the beginning. She also has served on the corporate boards of a securities fund and a mortgage company. She's tackled the entire spectrum of commercial issues firsthand, defending Texas car dealers against price-fixing charges, challenging claims that Microsoft sold defective software, protecting Walt Disney's trademarks, and taking on consumers who sued mortgage companies for violating debt collection laws. But, for the boardroom set, it's her work outside the courtroom that sets her apart. For years, Miers was a driving force in Texas for reforms that would protect industry from lawsuits."

[...]

This fault line between Big Money and The Rest of Us is, as it has been through history, the most important narrative we face, despite many D.C. "strategists" trying to say otherwise. It is what my upcoming book, Hostile Takeover, is all about. The narrative surrounding this fault line is one that, incredibly, conservatives have dominated over the last decade, as they have "framed" all of their policies as if they are on the side of the people. That may seem counterintiutive since they so clearly represent Big Money, but think about it - on almost every major issue, their elitist policies are packaged as populist.

Progressives, sadly, have often refused to make the narrative their own, for fear they will be attacked for waging "class warfare." That's as pathetic as it is stupid because, in truth, whenever an elitist cries "class warfare" what they are really crying is "uncle." This is the fundamental truth that the tired, ineffective dinosaurs who are desperate to maintain their relevance in and control over the Democratic Party are desperate to deny. These are the folks who, no matter how many election losses they contribute to, continue to make money advocating for split-the-difference politics that denigrates populism in the name of capitulation/subservience to the corporate hacks who fund their institutions.

So, we face a choice. Are progressives going to continue in an emasculated state, willing only to shill for hollow partisanship, and unwilling to give voice to the millions of Americans who understand that today's politics - often regardless of party - works only to enrich the already rich, and empower the already powerful? Or are we going to be a about something more than just the next election and and more than just providing cover to politicians who "aren't that bad?" Are we, in short, going to be apologists for and deniers of a sad reality, or are we going to be a movement to change that reality into something better?

Response

Sirota calls it right again. When one examines the culture, it's pure class warfare they are waging. Back when our country was founded, Alexander Hamilton knew that class warfare would sink our ship. He new that horizontal divisions would do nothing but create problems. He tried to create some rivalries but more between industries than classes. Those in say textile manufacturing might have some competition with those in another industry. It's an oversimplification but he recognized that class warfare just create's problems and like like the dolt, Neal Boortz said in his radio program, it's obvious what's up. The sad thing is, the people in power now lack the elegance and class of true nobility. If they acted kingly, they might get more to follow them. It's ashame they never follow noblesse oblige. It's more "hammer them til their broke."

posted by Stithmeister @ 11:16 PM
 

The Hill is a great DC newsmagazine and they've got a good article on Kentucky's own political machine, Mitch McConnell. McConnell got elected back in 1984 with a brilliant commercial against then Democratic senator, Walter "Dee" Huddleston. The commercial was viscious and comical at the same time and it got him in the door. He's been climbing ever since. It looks like he's continuing to climb as well:

Mitch McConnell is waiting patiently in the Senate’s wings, but he will soon be standing in the spotlight — a fact not lost on lawmakers, lobbyists and aides.

As fastidious in appearance and command of legislative details as he is in accumulating political capital, the Kentucky senator has been widely considered the heir to the Republican leader’s post since 2003, when self-term-limited Majority Leader Bill Frist (Tenn.) took the helm and McConnell settled into the No. 2 job of whip.

[...]

“There are definitely people out there who have woken up and realized that Mitch McConnell is going to be the next leader of the U.S. Senate,” one member of McConnell’s inner circle said.

[...]

“His good friend, Senator Frist, is the majority leader, and he is doing a great job at it,” McConnell spokesman Robert Steurer said in a statement. “Senator McConnell’s main focus right now is to be the best whip possible to enact our agenda.”

Those who have worked with McConnell describe him as measured, loyal and politically astute. Those traits helped him when Sen. Trent Lott (Miss.) was deposed as Republican leader in late 2002 after praising then-Sen. Strom Thurmond’s (R-S.C.) 1948 segregationist presidential campaign. Other Republican senators, including then-Whip Don Nickles (Okla.), publicly jockeyed for position. McConnell’s loyalty to Lott was rewarded when his colleagues promoted him to the whip job after all the dust had settled.

Response

For Democrats thinking that control of Frankfort is only a matter of time, be aware. McConnell is patient, thorough and deadly. He may have left Fletcher to his own devices, but it's not over by a long shot. He's concentrating on taking control of the state House, just like they have control of the senate and while some politicians implode, it's men like McConnell who should scare you. They set quietly in the wings, waiting for the opportunity to run the pride and that lion will be there soon enough.

posted by Stithmeister @ 10:50 PM
 

The News Tribue up in Washington state published an interesting article today discussing the Pentagon backing out of their offer to pay folks who extended their service $15,000.

The bonuses were offered in January to Active Guard and Reserve and military technician soldiers who were serving overseas. In April, the Office of the Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs ordered the bonuses stopped, Senator Patty Murray, D - Seattle, said.

[...]

A Pentagon spokeswoman, Lt. Col. Ellen Krenke, confirmed the bonuses had been canceled, saying they violated Pentagon policies because they duplicated other programs. She said Guard and Reserve members would be eligible for other bonuses.

Krenke said some soldiers had been paid the re-enlistment bonuses, but she was unsure how many or whether the money would have to be repaid. Murray’s office said that as far as it knew, no active Guard or Reserve members had received the bonuses.

Response

I'd say unbelievable but that's not true. Gee... still think a draft is a long way away? They're lying to get people to hang around longer. I wonder what other "deviltry" they can do.

posted by Stithmeister @ 10:43 PM
 

Katrina Vanden Heuvel recently blogged about her trip to Owensboro and Elizabethtown. It was a great entry and inciteful about life here in Kentucky. She points out that most of us news junkies are something of a rarity in Kentucky as most people feel like the scandals in the government on the state and federal level are just part of it. Something I think they're right. Here's an excerpt from the end of her post.

I got home Sunday night, after a few days out of New York, away from the parsing of Miller's testimony and the New York Times's treatment of her, and found a comment on my latest blog, about a Central American film I had highlighted. "Are you this out of touch?," some person named Colmes asks. Why are you "shilling for some Latin American movie when there are real issues right her in the previously good ol' US of A." Colmes then lists Rove and Miller and McLellan and so on.

There are real issues right here in the good ol' US of A. But maybe we need to spend more time paying attention to the record number of bankruptcies being filed in towns like Owensboro, or the workers' lives lost with an end to safety and health regulations, than to Judith Miller and her notes.

Response
I think she's got one thing right. Maybe our nation should work a little more toward helping our people deal with the tough issues of existance. The working men and women of our country are what define us at our foundation and that's where the Democrats have lost their way. She mentioned listening to folks like Dr. Dan Mongiardo, who could well be our state's future. Someone certainly needs too.

posted by Stithmeister @ 10:15 PM
 

AmericaBlog had delightful piece over the weekend and then reran today. It's a great op/ed and

If a senior White House staffer had intentionally outed an American spy during World War II, he'd have been shot.

We're at war, George Bush keeps reminding us. We cannot continue with business as usual. A pre-9/11 mentality is deadly. Putting the lives of our troops at risk is treason.

Then why is the White House and the Republican party engaged in a concerted campaign to make treason acceptable during a time of war? That's exactly what they're doing. On numerous news shows today, Republican surrogates, their talking points ready, issued variations of the following concerning White House chief of staff Karl Rove's outing of a covert CIA agent as part of a political vendetta:

- It's the criminalization of politics
- Is this 'minor' leak really worth all this?
- Political payback is common and should not be criminalized
- Mis-speaking or mis-remembering is not a crime

Yes, the Republicans are now making light of an intentional effort to expose an undercover CIA agent, working on weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East, no less, while we are at war in the Middle East on that very issue.

The GOP has become the party of treason.

It would be one thing for a senior adviser to the president to put the nation's security at risk during a time of war. That could be explained as an aberration - a quite serious one, no doubt - but a fluke nonetheless. But when the president himself refuses to keep his own word about firing that aberration, and when the entire Republican party rallies around that fluke and tries to minimize what is usually a capital offense during wartime, something is seriously wrong with that party and its leadership.

America is ignoring the Geneva Conventions because our president feels that winning this war is so paramount. Our Congress has watered down our civil rights laws. We have jailed American citizens with no access to legal counsel. And our President even believes it is worth lying to the American people in order to wage this so-important battle. All this because we are a nation at war and nothing will be permitted to stand in the way of this life-and-death struggle.

But when a senior aide to the President of the United States endangers the life of an undercover CIA agent, her colleagues and contacts around the world - when he chooses to put at risk our entire effort to uncover weapons of mass destruction before they are used to kill millions in an American city - what response do we get from the Bush White House and the Republican Party? A defensive (offensive) shrug.

The Republican party's gift to the American people, and the Bush administration's legacy, will be the normalization of treason. They are trying to convince Americans that betraying our country during wartime for personal gain is no more serious than running a stop sign or going 60 in a 55 zone.

If a senior aide to the president had intentionally outed an American undercover agent during World War II, an agent whose work was central to our mission of defeating the Germans, that aide would very likely be put to death. While no one is yet arguing that Karl Rove be executed, it is the height of hypocrisy and hubris for the Republican party to attempt to minimize a crime that not only puts our troops at risk, but risks the lives of every American man, woman and child.

It is truly a sad day when the Republican party minimizes treason in a selfish attempt to defend a traitor. President Bush has yet to give a clear explanation as to why 2,000 Americans have given their lives in Iraq. But one thing is for sure. It wasn't to defend our right to treason.

Response

A lot of the national blogs are examining this issue pretty closely but I feel here in Kentucky, we're going through it on a much more personal level because our own state scandal mirrors what's going in Washington. The same typical arrogant corruption that shows absolute disregard for the citizens. At least when the Democrats were in power, they had they knew how to work the crowd. They new how to talk to people. The Republicans show absolute contempt for even the idealistic side of Democrats, which is to say the working men and women and their well being. And I thought we lived in a utilitarian society.

posted by Stithmeister @ 9:24 PM
 

I normally keep the politics on this side of the pond but this story was too good not to mention. The Daily Mirror, a British tabloid reported this and there was something refreshing about this.

14 October 2005
EXCLUSIVE: TORY MP WALLOPS LABOUR MP
Labour and Tory MPs brawl over an email in radio studio
By Rosa Prince And Kevin Maguire

LABOUR MP Stephen Pound yesterday branded Tory backbencher Philip Davies "a little squirt" after the two men brawled at a radio station over a scrap of paper.

The bust-up broke out when law and order spokesman Mr Pound read an embarrassing email about Mr Davies which the Tory tried to grab from him.

Speaking from the red corner, 57-year-old Mr Pound - who went to hospital with a cracked rib or damaged muscle - declared: "What a pillock. He was knocking me about the control room trying to get the email. This guy has a very short temper and was howling at the moon."

But over in the blue corner Mr Davies, 33, innocently insisted: "He's pulling everyone's leg, there was no grappling. It was hardly Giant Haystacks against Big Daddy - it was more like handbags at dawn."

Talksport host Ian Collins, who had invited the two men to discuss their party leaderships on his show, had a ringside view of Tuesday's scrap.

His verdict? "It was an absolutely ridiculous sight, two grown men in their Savile Row suits brawling as if they were in a playground.

"They were in a bear hug and really going for it. They were very serious. We broke it up but as they were leaving, one taunted the other and it broke out all over again."

The email read out by Mr Pound revealed that Stacy Hilliard, an assistant of Mr Davies, had sent out a message asking local Tories to support him by phoning the show.

It read: "Tomorrow Philip will be on Talksport from 12-1 with Steven (sic) Pound and Simon Hughes. Please let members know so they can call in and support Phil."

At the end of the show Mr Davies, new MP for Shipley, West Yorks, tried to snatch the note from Mr Pound allegedly sending him flying.

Later Mr Pound, parliamentary aide to Home Office minister Hazel Blears, was treated at London's St Thomas' Hospital where doctors said he had either a cracked rib or a damaged chest muscle.

He said: "When I was 32 I never went grappling with older men.

"This man was embarrassed at the little scam being found out. I've decided he's a little squirt and don't want to give him any more publicity by reporting him to police.

"At one point it became quite farcical as the producer is blind and we ended up falling over his guide dog.

"But it's not really funny. It was very undignified. We were toe to toe body-checking each other. That's how I got hurt. I'm not happy about it at all. My rib is really very sore."

Told that Mr Davies denied his story, he said: "It 's a sign of desperation that he's making these claims. If I were to make up a story, it would be something a bit more exciting than a new Tory losing his cool and attacking me."

Mr Davies claimed he was unaware of the email and wanted to see it so he could discover who had leaked it.

He said: "None of this would have happened if he'd kept the email in his pocket. But he brandished it above his head as if he was Neville Chamberlain with the documents promising peace with Hitler.

"I snatched it off him and he was furiously trying to get it off me pulling at my fingers. In the end the note ripped. I had one half and he had the other. That was it, there was no grappling whatsoever. There's no way on God's earth he could have hurt his rib. If he went to hospital, he's obviously done it for effect."

Mr Davies accused Mr Pound of "having it in" for him because during the show, he joked about the Labour MP once being a bus driver.

He said: "I like to think of myself as a nice guy, and if that's what has upset him I'm prepared to apologise.

"I don't think there's anything wrong with being a bus driver. It was just banter and I'd hate to think I offended him. I can assure everyone there were no bear hugs. I wouldn't know how to give anyone a bear hug."

After the radio show the two MPs shared a taxi back to the Commons.

Meeting Mr Pound the next day, Mr Davies could not let it go and called out "How's your rib?" before adding: "It could have been worse."

But yesterday he said: "I did see him the next day, and shouted out 'You'll break your rib if you laugh like that, Stephen'.

"But that's because I thought it was a joke. I didn't believe for one moment he was seriously hurt."

Married Mr Davies was elected by just 500 votes. On his website he boasts that he campaigned to "Keep the Pound." Dad of two Mr Pound has represented Ealing North since 1997.

Response

This was just too funny. So, what do you think? David Williams and Ed Worley? Do you think Dan Mongiardo vs. Dan Kelley? Or let's go to the big leagues and say Senator Clinton vs. Senator Santorum. I think my money would be on Hillary. She's meaner.

posted by Stithmeister @ 11:52 PM
 

This is one of Cynicus favorite topics: This is pulled form Wikipedia

Demarchy is a term coined by Australian philosopher John Burnheim to describe a political system without the state or bureaucracies, and based instead on randomly selected groups of decision makers. These groups, sometimes termed "policy juries," "citizens' juries," or "consensus conferences," would deliberate and make decisions about public policies in much the same way that juries reach verdicts on criminal cases.

Demarchy attempts to overcome some of the functional problems with conventional representative democracies, which in practice have often been subject to manipulation by special interests and a divide between professional policymakers (politicians and lobbyists) vs. a largely passive, uninvolved and often uninformed electorate. According to Burnheim, random selection of policymakers would make it easier for everyday citizens to meaningfully participate, and harder for special interests to corrupt the process.

More generally, random selection of decision makers is known as sortition. The Athenian democracy made much use of sortition, with nearly all government offices filled by lottery rather than by election.

Recently, the Canadian province of British Columbia has made use of Demarchy in the formation of the Citizen's Assembly; a group of citizens randomly selected to propose a new electoral process to be ratified by the general population by referendum.

No more of this election crap, everyone should take a turn.

posted by Stithmeister @ 11:50 PM
 

Conservative talkshow host Neal Boortz advocates robbing the poor and giving to the rich. He would've been one of the wealthy weasels aboard the Titanic kicking the poor out of the life boats.

He made some recent comments on his radio program, based in Atlanta, suggesting that if a terrorist attack hits, the rich should be saved first. Media Matters recently posted what he said and a link to the recording. Here's what he said:

From the October 13 broadcast of Cox Radio Syndication's The Neal Boortz Show:

BOORTZ: OK, I've got an insensitive thought, folks. There's a news story out there -- there's a news story out there that rich people got some sort of an email notification of the terrorist threat against the New York subway before poor people did. OK? They're making a big deal out of it. Let me see if I can find it on the Drudge Report here. Let's see. There's a guy strangling a goose. That's a pretty good -- that's a pretty impressive picture. It's something about bird flu. So he's got this goose and he's just wringing its neck. You can -- oh, who tipped off the big shots? OK, now here's the story. And it says, "The Homeland Security Department launched internal probes yesterday into whether its officials tipped off friends and relatives to a possible subway terror plot days before average New Yorkers were alerted." So the real gripe here is that it seems that some wealthy people got notified of the terror plot before the great unwashed, before the others. Now, the Daily News in New York has a headline: "Rich got terror tip." Rich got terror tip. OK, let's get logical about this, folks. Let's play logic with this. This is as it should be. OK? If we are faced with disaster in this country -- let me ask you this, OK? You just be logical. Get all of the emotion out of this. Get all of the emotion out of this. But if we are faced with a disaster in this country, which group do we want to save? The rich or the poor? Now, if you have time, save as many people as you can. But if you have to set some priorities, where do you go? The rich or the poor? OK? Who is a drag on society? The rich or the poor? Who provide the jobs out there? The rich or the poor? Who fuels -- you know, which group fuels our economy? Drives industry? The rich or the poor? Now if you -- all of a sudden, somebody walks up to you and says, "Hey, Boortz listener. You're gonna have a -- you have to make a choice. You're going to -- we're gonna move you to another country. And you're just gonna have to make your way in this other country. We have a choice of two countries for you. In this country, people achieve a lot and they are wealthy because of their hard work. In this country, people don't achieve squat. They sit around all the time waiting for somebody else to take care of them. They have children they can't afford. They're uneducated. They can barely read. And the high point of their day is Entertainment Tonight on TV. Which country do you want to live in? The country of the high achievers, or the country of sheep, the country of followers?" You know what you're gonna do. I don't see what the big problem is. I just don't. I mean, if you -- who do I want to save first? The rich. Save the poor first. Then, when everything's over, where are you gonna go for a job? OK, hey, if I get a tin cup, can I sit next to you and sell pencils too?

[...]

I'm serious about that, folks. You see, that's the kind of thing that's going to end up in news stories: "Neal Boortz said that in times of disaster we should save the rich people first." Well, hell, yes, we should save the rich people first. You know, they're the ones that are responsible for this prosperity. I mean, you go out there and you look at this vast sea of evacuees, OK? You want to get an economy going in some city? Well, who you gonna take back? The people who own businesses? Or the people that sit around waiting to get their minimum wage job, work 'til Friday, get a paycheck and then not show up again until the following Wednesday? Come on. Just put a little logical thought into this, folks.

Response
I've listened to Boortz before. He claims to be a Libertarian but he's more "every man for himself." He's got no class, no taste and he's got some real real problems. You know, for a social darwinist, one would think he could do better. If he particular group or class of people were wiped out, some group would eventually fill the slot and it works both ways.

Cynicus had this to say:

A clear-cut rendering of the opinion that wealth is not merely a situational advantage, but that the possession of wealth indicates a qualitative, innate superiority.

The rich are better than you and me. Paris Hilton isn't spoiled and useless, Babs isn't sheltered, Dubbyah isn't semi-literate. Possessing inherited wealth, they have a moral excellence that prevents such judgements (or facts, however you want to say it) from applying.

Jesus loves you. But Mammon makes you superior.


posted by Stithmeister @ 11:38 PM
 

Political correctness ticks many people off in today's world. The most common connotation being speech regulated as to be inoffensive. It's a big debate, but, based on recent discussions over at DailyKos, political correctness actually means something else.

It refers to one's own politics, particularly in regards to one's state or federal job. Recent reports are saying that mid-level management are being filled by politically loyal positions. And they go there to make sure the hiring and other decisions fall across the party line.

It's a sad state of affairs but it's the way of things. It proves we've got to get the government out of the hand of the current run of idiots. If the Dems were in power, it certainly couldn't get much worse.

posted by Stithmeister @ 10:56 PM
 

The Nazis recently had a neigborhood get-together in Toledo, Ohio. It turned quite ugly. A number of citizens felt the need to express their opinion of said protestors in a violent way, even the point of threatening their political leaders. But they did have the right to protest, demonstrate, etc. The constitution guarantees the right to peaceable assembly, as much as it guarantees the right to religion and anything else. It also guarantees the freedom of speech. The Klan, in many ways exemplifies the point of the first amendment.

I absolutely detest Nazis and everything they stand for. The sell hate as their message and I find it loathesome. But I will defend their right to say such things. As Voltaire once said, "I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." That applies in this situation. A number of people didn't want the KKK marching in their communities. I understand most people don't like what they stand for and what they represent. But it is imperative that these people be given the opportunity to be heard. Political speech, which is what they spout, is protected. It is an absolute. Our forefathers fought for this hallowed nation and the right of its citizens to speak their mind. When we limit this, either civilly or unlawful mobs and riots, then our forefathers fought in vain. All our principles are worthless. You may not respect what they say but you must respect their right to say it.
When you take away their right to speak, then you lose your own right to speak. Our constitutional guarantees are in enough trouble without this kind of behavior.

posted by Stithmeister @ 7:20 PM
 

A friend of mine, Elizabeth Beardsley, put together a fine article for the Courier-Journal. Here's an excerpt:

FRANKFORT, Ky. -- Newly filed court documents show Fletcher administration aides wanted to fire the director of the state Personnel Board and get agency hearing officers to "look at life correctly."

Gov. Ernie Fletcher has maintained since the merit hiring investigation began that the Personnel Board, a quasi-independent state agency, is a more appropriate place than the courts to resolve personnel disputes.

In a January e-mail, then-Homeland Security Director Keith Hall, who previously served as a Fletcher personnel official, said he wanted control over the flow of state employee grievances to prevent them from reaching the full board.

At the time, Fletcher had recently installed John Chowning, his own appointee, as board chairman.

Hall also pushed to fire the board's executive director, Mark Sipek, whom Hall noted "controls the hearing officers." Hall suggested "recommending the governor direct John to get rid of him asap."

"The whole point of having the chairmanship is so Chowning can ensure those hearing officers look at life correctly," Hall wrote to Teresa Hill, then a Commerce Cabinet official. "If these things end up at the full board then it just becomes a spectacle as you know."

The e-mail was included in an affidavit filed yesterday outlining the probable cause for Attorney General Greg Stumbo's investigators to obtain a search warrant. It was served yesterday on Personnel Secretary Erwin Roberts' office.

Fletcher spokeswoman Jodi Whitaker issued a statement that did not address the contents of the affidavit.

"From the beginning of this administration, Gov. Fletcher has always wanted personnel decisions made appropriately and consistent with the law," the statement said. "He wants things done right."

She declined to elaborate.

Fletcher demanded Hall's resignation earlier this year. Neither Hall nor Hill could be reached yesterday.

Sipek, who is still in the job, said in an interview yesterday that the e-mail was "troubling" and that the board's most important feature is its independence.

"If you have somebody trying to influence board members to say, 'Here's the results we want,' I think then that's a problem and that's not a way to get a good strong merit system," Sipek said.

Chowning, who left the board in July and is now an administrator at Campbellsville University, said he heard from Hall and Hill about Sipek and the board's role.

Chowning said the board put a formal evaluation system in place for Sipek that will include a review in January. Chowning also said he was satisfied that hearing officers were randomly selected and did not interfere with that procedure.

The board was "an independent group of people trying to do their very best," Chowning said. "As far as a group of political lackeys, I did not find that in my 11 months."

Stumbo's office declined to comment on matters relating to the search and affidavit.

Response

Really, this just goes to show that Fletcher is just a chip off the old Bush block. They were in such a hurry to consolidate power that they totally disregarded any semblance of legality and it's continuing to show. The grand jury was still active yesterday and will continue for a while I think. I just hope the Democrats can capitalize on this so the Republicans can be diminished in their effective capacity.

posted by Stithmeister @ 1:01 PM
 

Some things DailyKos put together and my pal Cynicus brought to my attention.

David Sirota writes about a story broken in Manufacturing & Technology News:

Manufacturing & Technology News, a well-respected trade publication, has just released an exclusive story about how the Bush administration buried a report on outsourcing before the 2004 election despite congressional legislation demanding it well before then. Worse, now that the government has been forced to release the report, Manufacturing & Technology News also found that the report's analysis by expert analysts was doctored by Bush political appointees in the Commerce Department. [...]

[A]fter the election, an undoctored draft of the report by the government's technical experts "went into a vetting process among political appointees at the Commerce Department and White House" and the original report "never resurfaced." Instead, what did finally resurface was a "12-page version" that "focuses on the allegedly positive impacts for the U.S. economy of the offshore outsourcing." Instead of original data, the report "quotes research conducted by organizations and individuals that have been funded by corporations that benefit from shifting jobs overseas."

WaPo, via AMERICAblog

The Environmental Protection Agency issued draft regulations yesterday that would ease long-standing pollution controls on older, dirtier power plants by judging these plants by the hourly rate of emissions rather than the total annual output. [...]

But environmentalists and some of EPA's own lawyers said the move will undermine one of the agency's most effective means of forcing aging utilities to install new anti-pollution technology when they expand or modernize. Under the current law, a plant must put in new controls if a modification increases its annual emissions; the new rules would require such controls only if the hourly emissions increase. Under the new scenario, a plant could legally emit more pollution if it operated for longer hours. [...]

Some officials fear the rule change will undermine at least a dozen lawsuits against 50 utilities that are still in court.

But this from PEER is the most troubling, from diarist Maccabee, yesterday. It bears repeating:

Washington, DC -- The National Park Service has started using a political loyalty test for picking all its top civil service positions, according to an agency directive released today by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER). Under the new order, all mid-level managers and above must also be approved by a Bush administration political appointee.

The October 11, 2005 order issued by NPS Director Fran Mainella requires that the selection criteria for all civil service management slots (Government Service grades or GS-13, 14 and 15) include the "ability to lead employees in achieving the ... Secretary's 4Cs and the President's Management Agenda." In addition, candidates must be screened by Park Service headquarters and "the Assistant Secretary [of Interior] for Fish, and Wildlife, and Parks," the number three political appointee in the agency. [...]

The President's Management Agenda includes controversial policies and proposals such as aggressive use of outsourcing to replace civil servants, reliance on "faith-based initiatives" and rollbacks of civil service rights. [...]

"Presidents come and go but the civil service is designed to serve whoever occupies the swivel chair in the Oval Office," Ruch added. "It is downright creepy that now every museum curator, supervising scientist and chief ranger must be okayed by a high-level political appointee."

Response
My pal Cynicus suggests it's always worse than he thinks. The cynical side of me tells me both sides do it but this seems a but much. It's not so difficult to see the problems in Kentucky's own administration when Washington Republicans behave in much the same manner. Reports like this surface constantly. It is time for Democrats to fight back because while I think the Democrats have done it some, they, at the very least don't do as much or as brazenly. I think the brazeness of it all is perhaps the most maddening.

posted by Stithmeister @ 7:44 PM
 

The Energy Information Administration (EIA) released their numbers today. Crude went up slightly and everything else went down. The problem was credited to the lack of operational refineries tied to the hurricane. The problem still lies at the feet of the oil companies and the administration. How in the name of heaven can the oil companies be getting record profits, the economy is in the tank, AND...the oil companies get huge tax breaks and subsidies from the federal government for development?

What kind of CORRUPT administration continues to hand out to corporations that continue to break tbe back of the U.S. economy and the rest of the world. These people think the American economy can take it but it can't. The economy is a fragile eco-system as it is.

Some argue that environmental restrictions are too tough. The oil companies argue that can't afford the environmental changes. Others argue we could use the crude in the U.S. if we didn't have so many environmental restrictions. Why not, just one time, can't these damnable oil corporations take a little bit of a hit? Why can't the do the work it would take to develop cleaner burning fuel?

The point is American and the world desperately needs a new source of energy. I don't mean digging for oil in ANWAR either. I mean something altogether different, whether it's methane from livestock or hydrogen powered cars or what. The hybrids only solve part of the problem. Sure they're great and they'll help some in the short term but for the long haul, we need a new source of fuel that is CHEAP and accessible.

posted by Stithmeister @ 11:38 PM
 

David Sirota over at the Huffington Post had a great piece on politics right now.

A Bipartisan Brothel With a Revolving Door Entry

The Montana Standard has a poignant editorial today that shows how the pay-to-play system in politics is now afflicting both political parties - and how there is an alternative to it all. The paper correctly notes that the bipartisan legalized bribery system in Washington, D.C. has gotten down to a scientific formula: "Work for a congressman for a few years, leave to start a private consulting firm, pick up a few large corporate clients, and have those clients donate money back to the senators’ campaigns." In other words, Washington, D.C. is one big brothel with a gilded revolving door for an entry - politicians are the prostitutes, lobbyists are the customers, and the door spins faster and faster as the two seamlessly switch places.

You have to read no further than the Lee Newspapers' recent expose on the pay-to-play system to know that this description is a fact. And it is a fact even when it comes to the policy areas that should be most off-limits to this kind of corruption. As the Los Angeles Times recently reported, "lobbyists representing transportation, energy and other special interests dominated panels that advised Louisiana's U.S. senators" - Mary Landrieu (D) and David Vitter (R) - who were "crafting legislation to rebuild the storm-damaged Gulf Coast."

Democrats, not surprisingly, are trying to make the recent corruption scandals surrounding Rep. Tom DeLay (R-TX) and Sen. Bill Frist (R-TN) into a major 2006 issue, as they should. But as the aforementioned Los Angeles Times article shows, the problem is that there are those in Democrats' own midst who are still actively playing footsie with this "culture" themselves. And they aren't just isolated cases - they pop up all the time in the most damaging ways. Just this week, for instance, Montana Sen. Max Baucus (D) got caught using a Jack-Abramoff-connected goon to help him raise money. Abramoff, you may recall, is at the center of one of the most politically dangerous scandals afflicting both Montana's own vulnerable GOP Sen. Conrad Burns and the national Republican Party as a whole. To put it mildly, Baucus's move is not exactly helpful to Democrats working to position themselves as reformers.

This is why mere rhetoric berating a "culture of corruption" just isn't going to cut it for Democrats if they want to really make all of this an issue in 2006. It is going to take action and an actual change of behavior among Democratic poiliticians. The Montana Standard notes this very fact and points out at least one politician who is taking concrete steps to crackdown on the pay-to-play shenanigans. In contrast to Montana's congressional delegation, Gov. Brian Schweitzer (D) has taken a stand by declaring "he won’t employ registered lobbyists in state government." Schweitzer is also planning to push a statewide ballot initiative to force the legislature to accept commonsense lobbying and ethics reform.

Similarly, at least some courageous Democrats in Washington, D.C. seem to get the need for action. For instance, Rep. George Miller (D) is pushing a proposal to crackdown on lobbyist gifts to lawmakers, while Sen. Russ Feingold (D) has proposed a bill closing abusive lobbying loopholes.

The truth is, the public believes most politicians are corrupt - and with a few exceptions like those mentioned above and a few others, the public is right. Lobbying is an industry whose sole focus is buying off politicians - and that industry's growth into a multi-billion dollar industry is proof positive that we are living in one of the most corrupt eras in American history.

Unless the Democratic Party as a whole endorses and publicly promotes its support for concrete lobbying/ethics reforms, the public will only blame the GOP for getting caught for its corruption, not for necessarily being substantively more corrupt than their opponents. Put another way, Democrats have to give the public a reason to throw the Republicans out in 2006, and the only way to do that is to show the public how Democrats would be substantively different from the GOP in terms of cleaning up our government.

Response

In many ways, it's fairly accurate...unfortunately.

posted by Stithmeister @ 11:35 PM
 

It looks like Senate Majority Leader Dr. Bill Frist, R - TN, could be in a heap a trouble. The good doctor appears to be in a bit of tiff over the FTC investigation. It seems Frist sold his share, from a blind trust, of a medical company his father founded some years ago. The FTC is investigating the possiblity that he may have done this as a result of inside information he obtained about the company's earnings, released the day after he sold his stock. A great story from Reuters explains the matter in some detail.

It's very interesting that all the allegations and improprieties are starting to fly and pretty much ALL of it is in the Republican camp. In many ways, I think the Democrats have done some of the same things it's just that the Republicans are so non-chalant about the whole thing, it's as if they openly challenge others to investigate them.

posted by Stithmeister @ 11:20 PM
 

I've been busy today so please post away.

posted by Stithmeister @ 11:05 PM
 

It looks like the word has come down the certain blogs like Larry Dale Keeling's and Mark Nicholas' blogs were being blocked from state computers. While they probably shouldn't be surfing much during work time, it is interesting that these sites fall into the same category as say porn for purposes of work. I doubt many others have been blocked though. I'd be curious to see what else has been blocked.

posted by Stithmeister @ 11:36 PM
 

Sources are starting to report that Dick Cheney may be the source behind the leak. It appears his chief-of-staff, Scooter Libby, may have withheld information from special prosecutor Fitzgerald. And there's more. Here's the story from the National Journal.

In two appearances before the federal grand jury investigating the leak of a covert CIA operative's name, Lewis (Scooter) Libby, the chief of staff to Vice President Cheney, did not disclose a crucial conversation that he had with New York Times reporter Judith Miller in June 2003 about the operative, Valerie Plame, according to sources with firsthand knowledge of his sworn testimony.

Whoo boy... this thing is starting to get really interesting. It looks like the reason why Cheney and Rove didn't offer any guidance or information to the President on the Supreme Court nominee is because they were tied up in courts of their own. Left to his own judgement, he naturally picks the lawyer who is most loyal to him, HArriet Miers. He trusts her judgement and knows she will have his back. If the stuff with Cheney and Rove blows over, then they can get back to business.

posted by Stithmeister @ 11:26 PM
 

I picked up this site from Democratic State. This site, ImpeachBush, looks pretty interesting. I would encourage people to go view it. Bush does needs to be kicked out office but it will never happen because the Republicans control Congress, the White House and really the Supreme Court.

posted by Stithmeister @ 11:20 PM
 

Crooks and Liars had a decent opinion by Larry Johnson. It makes some sense.

It is unclear whether Jack Burkman, self-described Republican strategist, is working from a new set of Ken Mehlman inspired talking points or free lancing it when it comes to talking about the legal jeopardy facing the White House over the outing of CIA officer, Valerie Plame Wilson, in July 2003. Burkman, who appeared on today's MSNBC show hosted by Ron Reagan and Monica Crowley laid out three new points.

posted by Stithmeister @ 10:45 PM
 

Comedian Harry Shearer is a regular contributor over at the Huffington Post blog site. He had a good post about Bush's ability to say much and nothing at the same time. It's really sad but it's a skill all politicians must know.

"A centralized operation directed by Bin Laden and other Al Qaeda leaders, a confederation of distinct organizations, paramilitary groups, separatist movements and local cells."

posted by Stithmeister @ 9:01 PM
 

Cynicus noted this at the Eclectism blog. He found it on Modern World and it's circulating. It's quite a good entry on why we should those damned liberals:

A Day in the Life of Joe Republican

Found on This Modern World, an e-mail that's apparently making the rounds:

Joe gets up at 6 a.m. and fills his coffeepot with water to prepare his morning coffee. The water is clean and good because some tree-hugging liberal fought for minimum water-quality standards. With his first swallow of water, he takes his daily medication. His medications are safe to take because some stupid commie liberal fought to ensure their safety and that they work as advertised.

All but $10 of his medications are paid for by his employer's medical plan because some liberal union workers fought their employers for paid medical insurance - now Joe gets it too.

He prepares his morning breakfast, bacon and eggs. Joe's bacon is safe to eat because some girly-man liberal fought for laws to regulate the meat packing industry.

In the morning shower, Joe reaches for his shampoo. His bottle is properly labeled with each ingredient and its amount in the total contents because some crybaby liberal fought for his right to know what he was putting on his body and how much it contained.

Joe dresses, walks outside and takes a deep breath. The air he breathes is clean because some environmentalist wacko liberal fought for the laws to stop industries from polluting our air.

He walks on the government-provided sidewalk to subway station for his government-subsidized ride to work. It saves him considerable money in parking and transportation fees because some fancy-pants liberal fought for affordable public transportation, which gives everyone the opportunity to be a contributor.

Joe begins his work day. He has a good job with excellent pay, medical benefits, retirement, paid holidays and vacation because some lazy liberal union members fought and died for these working standards. Joe's employer pays these standards because Joe's employer doesn't want his employees to call the union.

If Joe is hurt on the job or becomes unemployed, he'll get a worker compensation or unemployment check because some stupid liberal didn't think he should lose his home because of his temporary misfortune.

It is noontime and Joe needs to make a bank deposit so he can pay some bills. Joe's deposit is federally insured by the FSLIC because some godless liberal wanted to protect Joe's money from unscrupulous bankers who ruined the banking system before the Great Depression.

Joe has to pay his Fannie Mae-underwritten mortgage and his below-market federal student loan because some elitist liberal decided that Joe and the government would be better off if he was educated and earned more money over his lifetime. Joe also forgets that his in addition to his federally subsidized student loans, he attended a state funded university.

Joe is home from work. He plans to visit his father this evening at his farm home in the country. He gets in his car for the drive. His car is among the safest in the world because some America-hating liberal fought for car safety standards to go along with the tax-payer funded roads.

He arrives at his boyhood home. His was the third generation to live in the house financed by Farmers' Home Administration because bankers didn't want to make rural loans.

The house didn't have electricity until some big-government liberal stuck his nose where it didn't belong and demanded rural electrification.

He is happy to see his father, who is now retired. His father lives on Social Security and a union pension because some wine-drinking, cheese-eating liberal made sure he could take care of himself so Joe wouldn't have to.

Joe gets back in his car for the ride home, and turns on a radio talk show. The radio host keeps saying that liberals are bad and conservatives are good. He doesn't mention that the beloved Republicans have fought against every protection and benefit Joe enjoys throughout his day. Joe agrees: "We don't need those big-government liberals ruining our lives! After all, I'm a self-made man who believes everyone should take care of themselves, just like I have."

Don'cha just hate those liberals?

posted by Stithmeister @ 10:52 PM
 

Karl Rove is heading back to the grand jury for a fourth time. One issue of contention is an email that took a bit of time to get to them. Newsweek had a decent little rundown of the whole thing. Here's an excerpt:

But lawyers close to the case, who asked not to be identified because it's ongoing, say Fitzgerald appears to be focusing in part on discrepancies in testimony between Rove and Time reporter Matt Cooper about their conversation of July 11, 2003. In Cooper's account, Rove told him the wife of White House critic Joseph Wilson worked at the "agency" on WMD issues and was responsible for sending Wilson on a trip to Niger to check out claims that Iraq was trying to buy uranium. But Rove did not disclose this conversation to the FBI when he was first interviewed by agents in the fall of 2003—nor did he mention it during his first grand jury appearance, says one of the lawyers familiar with Rove's account. (He did not tell President George W. Bush about it either, assuring him that fall only that he was not part of any "scheme" to discredit Wilson by outing his wife, the lawyer says.) But after he testified, Luskin discovered an e-mail Rove had sent that same day—July 11—alerting deputy national-security adviser Stephen Hadley that he had just talked to Cooper, the lawyer says. In the e-mail, Rove said Cooper pushed him on whether the president was being hurt by the Niger controversy. "I didn't take the bait," Rove wrote Hadley, adding that he warned Cooper not to get "far out in front on this." After reviewing the e-mail, Rove then returned to the grand jury last year and reported the Cooper conversation. He testified that the talk was initially about "welfare reform"—a topic mentioned in the e-mail—and that Cooper then changed the subject. Cooper has written that he doesn't recall a discussion of welfare reform.

Response

There seems to be a number of indescrepencies. The problem is that in the end, nothing is going to happen to anyone. A CIA person was outed illegally, a full investigation costing millions happend and everyone will walk away. Absolutely nothing will happen to Karl Rove or Scooter Libby or anyone else.

posted by Stithmeister @ 8:33 PM
 

It looks like Harriet Miers' nomination may be in some trouble although it's doubtful. I think this is a little reverse psychology by the administration. The religious folks get all bent out of shape and the Dems think this may be someone they can support. Many on both sides suggest though that she will be a yes woman for Bush.

She will do as the administration tell her to do in any case that they have an interest in which mean a roll back in a wide variety of human rights and civil liberties. The administration has two people in place who will sway the balance of the court to the right, perhaps very far to the right and we will get a court mandate evangelical/fascist state looking remarkably like those "undemocratic" regines we're trying so hard to fight against. She'd probably beg like dog if Bush told her too.

She has nothing in her history that suggests anything other than a corporate, cutthroat philosophy. There is no philosophical background, no demonstrated interest in the direction law in the country except towar her own purse. That means she'll fits well with the administration. Heck it'll take her a couple of years just to get up to speed and I'm scared when they ask her to finally write a decision.

posted by Stithmeister @ 8:19 PM
 

Cynicus picked this one up on Daily Kos

If we are going to be an occupation army we should have sent an occupation-sized army, something equivalent to the army that stabilized defeated Germany after World War II.

In proportion, that would be 3 million troops. We are about 2.8 million yellow elephants short.

That is why we will lose. The yellow elephants who scream and yell and cheer and wave flags and blog their screeds about this war are why we will lose this war. Their cowardice. Their parents' cowardice. Their grandparents' cowardice. All of the Barbs and Jennas and Jebs and John Ps and young college Republicans and RedStaters and Freepers and 101st Fighting Keyboarders and Little Green Footballs are why the US will lose this war. They would not put their bodies in support their parents', or their grandparents' purported patriotism.

If you support this war, think that we need to stay the course, are under 42 and not this very moment in the military, then you lost this war. You. Not the Cindy Sheehans, not the protesters in the street, not the antiwar writers on many blogs, not those who called this war immoral. No. not them, not the so-called "left"-- but you the so-called patriotic, USA USA-chanting, "right". You lost this war by not stopping it at the beginning and by not putting yourself there in order to win.

The revolution starts now--in your own back yard, in your own home town

by TarheelDem on Sat Oct 8th, 2005 at 05:01:44 PDT

Response

I think he's right on the money with this one. Back in WWII, the whole country got behind the war. FDR's family was in it. Jimmy Stewart flew a bomber, Clark Gable fired a machine gun in a ball turret and the list goes on. These people didn't have too, they wanted too. They believed in the dream and they came through the depression. People followed FDR because he showed leadership and new how to craft an image the country needed. Bush can't do that. His administration wants to run planet earth and do it from a religious perspective. They don't care which form of government is, they can achieve their ends regardless. I just hope they don't bury us in the process.

posted by Stithmeister @ 10:59 AM
 

I'm on a regular mailing list for economist Dr. Peter Morici. He's got a huge list of credentials that I won't get in too. I will post his email here. He's got some thoughts on the current financial situation:

Is the Fed Unnecessarily Scaring Stock Markets?


The Wall Street Journal reported this morning that three regional Federal Reserve Banks sent shivers through markets by calling attention to the threat of inflation. These fears are grossly exaggerated, and higher interest rates may cripple the economy.

Regarding inflation, two questions are key.

First, how much of recent energy price increases will work through to final nonenergy goods? How much of that happened and happens in September and October will occur regardless of Fed actions November 1. So far, very little pass through seems to have occurred. The producer price index for final consumer goods, less energy, fell in August. Look at autos. It's not just the Big Three that have been forced to trim prices but also the Japanese nameplates too.

Elsewhere, firms are going to face tough resistance to higher consumer prices. The producer price data indicate large increases in commodities and more moderate increases in semifinished goods and inputs to service providers (e.g., express delivery), but no inflation in final goods and services. Producers have enjoyed very strong productivity increases in recent months, permitting them to absorb somewhat higher material prices, and consumers have little additional cash to spend on higher priced goods (consumer spending was already greater than disposable income in July and August), and gasoline prices are draining their purses. Final goods inflation is what matters, and that seem under control for reasons relating to both supply and demand.

Second, does any pass through of energy prices to nonenergy goods set off a self-perpetuating spiral, or is the current burst, such as it is, a one time event? If it is a one time event, we are going to get the burst of inflation we get, regardless of Fed actions November 1. It's too late to affect those. Moreover, energy prices should recede as oil and gas and refining come back on line in the Gulf, and inflation will abate regardless of what the Fed does. We simply have too much competition in the marketplace, and labor markets show not sign of igniting a wage-price spiral.

The Fed is behaving as if we were in the 1970s, when union contracts would ignite wage-price spirals--not so with an 8 percent private-sector unionization rate. Companies that still index wages to inflation will contract very quickly, as other players in the marketplace eat their lunch.

Longer term, energy prices are going to be determined in global markets, and the Fed can do little about those. If we pumped most of oil we use, oil were in short supply, and we could not import additional supplies only at higher prices, the Fed would face a tradeoff between higher oil prices and growth, and the Fed would have the option of dampening growth to stave off inflation. Those days are long gone, and the Fed simply does not have that choice today.

The Fed is behaving as if it could affect energy prices and it can't. It is correct to worry about inflation but in its thinking, the Fed has its feet planted firmly in the past.

With Katrina and Rita already sapping consumer confidence and consumers having little additional money to accommodate higher gas prices, the economy is going to slow significantly with or without Fed action. Raising interest rates at this juncture only risks throwing the economy into a recession

All the Fed is accomplishing with its rhetoric is to panic the stock market. Will lower equity values help inflation? I think not!

Peter Morici
Professor
Robert H.Smith School of Business
University of Maryland
College Park, MD 20742-1815
703 549 4338
cell 703 618 4338
pmorici@rhsmith.umd.edu
http://www.smith.umd.edu/lbpp/faculty/morici.html
http://www.smith.umd.edu/faculty/pmorici/cv_pmorici.htm

Response

Greenspan is making the same mistake he made back during the first Bush administration. He needs to let the economy ride a little bit. He needs to quit screwing with it too much before it's unrecoverable. Why doesn't he tell Congress something smart like either cut spending or raise taxes.

posted by Stithmeister @ 11:14 PM
 

Haloscan commenting and trackback have been added to this blog.

posted by Stithmeister @ 9:51 PM
 

Ya know it's scary what the Bush administration proposes to do. No, it's downright terrifying. They continue to expand their police powers. They propose to have the military walking through the streets. We're turning into a truly fascist nation. It's unbelievable. Why won't anyone stand up for the rights of human beings? Why won't we have some semblance of freedom in our country anymore? Is it that frightening to the powers that be? They treat us like so many cattle at the slaughterhouse. Perhaps we are. Religion doesn't mean anything to them. It's just a tool, like the television or any other media tool. Soon, the military will be walking through our streets, like the do in NOLA now, for our protection. They'll be able to demand our papers or... know...see your ID card and all the record will be in there. We'll have checkpoints and guard houses in our neighborhoods. Gated communities will be such because the military will close them off. I may be paranoid but it seems more and more, as Congress passes more and more legislation that we get nothing. The ones that might think something is going on are too scared of being branded unpatriotic or unAmerican.

If you don't believe what I'm saying, check out this Newsweek story. The funny thing is the Prescott Bush, George's grandfather, made most of his money during the 30s and WWII, working for a bank based out of Germany that funded the Nazis. It looks like the family is still fulfilling it's old agenda.

But Martin, the civil-liberties advocate, said the DIA recruitment provision must be looked at in the context of two other measures tucked into the Senate intelligence authorization bill. One of them specifically grants the DIA a blanket exemption from having to search any of its “operational files” when it receives a FOIA request. There is already such a FOIA exemption for CIA operational files. But Martin contended that some of the DIA’s activities that are currently not covert would be covered by the new exemption, thereby extending a greater cone of secrecy around the agency. (The senior DIA official said the agency was “wasting time, energy and manpower” conducting FOIA requests for agency files that, at the end of the day, don’t get released anyway because they involve classified information.)

Another little-noticed provision of the bill would create a four-year pilot program that would allow U.S. intelligence agencies to have access to data collected about U.S. residents by other government agencies and covered by the Privacy Act. The FBI can already obtain many such records—such as pilot licenses or Transportation Department licenses for driving hazardous-waste materials or other government permits and applications—for law-enforcement purposes. The new Senate intelligence provision would allow U.S. intelligence agencies, such as the CIA and the DIA, or "parent" agencies such as the Pentagon itself, to collect such information deemed by the agency director to be useful in intelligence gathering related to international terrorism or weapons of mass destruction. No court order would be required for the information to be shared.

It's unbelievable. It's tough to have reasoned debate when one sees the ability to debate slowly being stripped away. It's unbelievable. What good is freedom of speech when no one is allowed, by law to talk about or question the charges nor the authorities we're being charged with. People may think I'm crazy and that they won't do that. But THEY WILL! The U.S. government has done numerous things in the past. There were the Tuskegee syphilis experiment or perhaps the CIA doing LSD tests on people. The deal is most of the population believe what's going on will protect them. It won't.

I

posted by Stithmeister @ 9:06 PM
 

Post Away

posted by Stithmeister @ 8:13 PM
 

I picked this story up from USAToday. In a brilliant move, Southwest Airlines booted this woman off their flight during a layover. Wasn't that sweet of them.

Woman bounced from Southwest flight for T-shirt

By Susan Voyles, Reno Gazette-Journal

RENO — A Washington state woman intends to press a civil-rights case against Southwest Airlines for booting her off a flight in Reno after fellow passengers complained about a message on her T-shirt.

Lorrie Heasley, of Woodland, Wash., was halfway home on a flight Tuesday that began in Los Angeles, wearing a T-shirt with the pictures of President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and a phrase similar to the popular film, Meet the Fockers.

Heasley said she wore the T-shirt as a gag. She wanted her parents, who are Democrats, to see it when they picked her up at the airport in Portland, Ore.

"I just thought it was hilarious," said Heasley, 32, a lumber saleswoman.

And she felt she had the right to wear it.

"I have cousins in Iraq and other relatives going to war," she said. "Here we are trying to free another country and I have to get off an airplane in midflight over a T-shirt. That's not freedom."

Southwest Airlines spokeswoman Marilee McInnis said the T-shirt became an issue after several passengers complained. She said the airline's contract filed with the Federal Aviation Administration contains rules on passenger conduct.

Heasley said no one from Southwest said anything about the shirt when she waited two hours near the gate at Los Angeles International Airport. And neither the pilot, nor other crewmembers, said anything when she boarded the aircraft, Heasley added.

After the plane stopped in Reno at noon Tuesday, she and her husband, Ron, moved to the front of the plane. Passengers began complaining about the T-shirt as they boarded.

After several conversations with flight attendants, Heasley agreed to cover the words by cuddling up with a sweatshirt. When the sweatshirt slipped while she was trying to sleep, she was ordered to wear her T-shirt inside-out or leave. The couple chose to leave.

McInnis said the rules filed with the FAA say the airline will deny boarding to any customer whose conduct is offensive, abusive, disorderly or violent or for clothing that is "lewd, obscene, or patently offensive."

Allen Lichtenstein, lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union in Nevada, said Heasley's T-shirt is "protected" political speech under the Constitution. The real issue, he said, is that the airline allowed her to wear the shirt onboard and then objected only when people complained.

"That they changed rules in the middle of a flight simply because someone didn't like it and it might be problematic," he said.

FAA spokesman Donn Walker said no federal rules exist on the subject.

"It's up to the airlines who they want to take and by what rules," he said. "The government just doesn't get into the business of what people wear on an aircraft."

"At any point when a passenger has a complaint against another and it becomes an issue that could disrupt the flight, our attendants have the discretion to take the appropriate action," said Phil Gee, spokesman for US Airways.

Heasley said she is in touch with ACLU lawyers in Seattle. She wants Southwest to reimburse the couple for the last leg of their trip and pay for her gasoline, a $68 rental car from Avis and a $70 hotel bill.

Before leaving the plane, she said she was told the airline would reimburse her for the tickets for the last leg of the flight. After they got off the plane, they were told they'd be reimbursed only for the taxes on the tickets. McInnis said customer services officials are looking into the matter.

After fighting over the ticket prices, the couple got a hotel room in Reno, rented a car and got home Wednesday afternoon — about 24 hours after they left the plane.

"I have always flown Southwest everywhere I go," Heasley said. "I will never fly with them again. They can disrespect somebody else."

Response

It's funny. I was watching Boston Legal the other night and they addressed this very same issue, corporate censorship. It's utterly and completely ridiculous. Southwest Airlines needs to grow some cahoneys and do the right thing. What they did to this paying customer is absolutely ridiculous. She did nothing wrong, she did hurt anyone, she merely had the decency to wear clothes while she flew and they didn't happen to like the tshirt.

posted by Stithmeister @ 7:59 PM
 

"Today was an opportunity for the President to be candid with the American people about the status of democracy in Iraq, and when he will bring our troops home. Instead, the President offered little more than empty rhetoric, claiming that Iraq is the central front in the war on terror -- a position that is simply not supported by the facts. The President went into Iraq under a false premise, without a plan, and has totally mismanaged our involvement. Now he is trying to justify his actions with a series of excuses.

"Democrats are committed to fighting and winning the war on terror. But the Iraq war has made us less safe, and led to squandered opportunities to fight global terror because of the allocation of resources in Iraq."

posted by Stithmeister @ 7:55 PM
 

The other member of this blog offers some predictions regarding Roe Vs. Wade; Bush's Supreme Court nominee, Harriet Miers; SCOTUS rulings that Presidential Records and testimony are confidential for national security; Abu Ghraib and Torture, Posse Comitatus; and more war in the Middle East.


Things I expect to see:

1. Bush's little office wife confirmed to SCOTUS after a fairly narrow vote, with the opposers being Repubs who didn't get the inside info

2. No immediate repeal of Roe/Wade (holding off for the 2008 Prez election as wedge)

3. SCOTUS rulings that Presidential records and testimony are confidential for national security, esp. as relates to outing Val Plame, Cheney energy meetings, etc.

4. SCOTUS rulings that Abu Ghraib, Gitmo, torture, et al are legal for the Presidency.

5. A 6-3 SCOTUS ruling that effectively undoes the Posse Comitatus Act, and lets the Prez send in the troops as he pleases domestically.

6. Some strategic time before the 2006 Congress elections (June or July, maybe?) , either "We found WMD's in Syria, let's roll ! " or "Iran is interfering with our nation building in Iraq, let's roll ! ".

These are all legitimate possibilities.

posted by Stithmeister @ 7:44 PM
 

Al Gore gave a speech on Wednesday and it was poingnant and one of the best I've heard in a while. I saw it posted at TPMCafe

Remarks by Al Gore as prepared
Associated Press / The Media Center
October 5, 2005

I came here today because I believe that American democracy is in grave danger. It is no longer possible to ignore the strangeness of our public discourse . I know that I am not the only one who feels that something has gone basically and badly wrong in the way America's fabled "marketplace of ideas" now functions.

How many of you, I wonder, have heard a friend or a family member in the last few years remark that it's almost as if America has entered "an alternate universe"?

I thought maybe it was an aberration when three-quarters of Americans said they believed that Saddam Hussein was responsible for attacking us on September 11, 2001. But more than four years later, between a third and a half still believe Saddam was personally responsible for planning and supporting the attack.

At first I thought the exhaustive, non-stop coverage of the O.J. trial was just an unfortunate excess that marked an unwelcome departure from the normal good sense and judgment of our television news media. But now we know that it was merely an early example of a new pattern of serial obsessions that periodically take over the airwaves for weeks at a time.

Are we still routinely torturing helpless prisoners, and if so, does it feel right that we as American citizens are not outraged by the practice? And does it feel right to have no ongoing discussion of whether or not this abhorrent, medieval behavior is being carried out in the name of the American people? If the gap between rich and poor is widening steadily and economic stress is mounting for low-income families, why do we seem increasingly apathetic and lethargic in our role as citizens?

On the eve of the nation's decision to invade Iraq, our longest serving senator, Robert Byrd of West Virginia, stood on the Senate floor asked: "Why is this chamber empty? Why are these halls silent?"

The decision that was then being considered by the Senate with virtually no meaningful debate turned out to be a fateful one. A few days ago, the former head of the National Security Agency, Retired Lt. General William Odom, said, "The invasion of Iraq, I believe, will turn out to be the greatest strategic disaster in U.S. history."

But whether you agree with his assessment or not, Senator Byrd's question is like the others that I have just posed here: he was saying, in effect, this is strange, isn't it? Aren't we supposed to have full and vigorous debates about questions as important as the choice between war and peace?

Those of us who have served in the Senate and watched it change over time, could volunteer an answer to Senator Byrd's two questions: the Senate was silent on the eve of war because Senators don't feel that what they say on the floor of the Senate really matters that much any more. And the chamber was empty because the Senators were somewhere else: they were in fundraisers collecting money from special interests in order to buy 30-second TVcommercials for their next re-election campaign.

In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, there was - at least for a short time - a quality of vividness and clarity of focus in our public discourse that reminded some Americans - including some journalists - that vividness and clarity used to be more common in the way we talk with one another about the problems and choices that we face. But then, like a passing summer storm, the moment faded.

In fact there was a time when America's public discourse was consistently much more vivid, focused and clear. Our Founders, probably the most literate generation in all of history, used words with astonishing precision and believed in the Rule of Reason.

Their faith in the viability of Representative Democracy rested on their trust in the wisdom of a well-informed citizenry. But they placed particular emphasis on insuring that the public could be well-informed. And they took great care to protect the openness of the marketplace of ideas in order to ensure the free-flow of knowledge.

The values that Americans had brought from Europe to the New World had grown out of the sudden explosion of literacy and knowledge after Gutenberg's disruptive invention broke up the stagnant medieval information monopoly and triggered the Reformation, Humanism, and the Enlightenment and enshrined a new sovereign: the "Rule of Reason."

Indeed, the self-governing republic they had the audacity to establish was later named by the historian Henry Steele Commager as "the Empire of Reason."

Our founders knew all about the Roman Forum and the Agora in ancient Athens. They also understood quite well that in America, our public forum would be an ongoing conversation about democracy in which individual citizens would participate not only by speaking directly in the presence of others -- but more commonly by communicating with their fellow citizens over great distances by means of the printed word. Thus they not only protected Freedom of Assembly as a basic right, they made a special point - in the First Amendment - of protecting the freedom of the printing press.

Their world was dominated by the printed word. Just as the proverbial fish doesn't know it lives in water, the United States in its first half century knew nothing but the world of print: the Bible, Thomas Paine's fiery call to revolution, the Declaration of Independence, our Constitution , our laws, the Congressional Record, newspapers and books.

Though they feared that a government might try to censor the printing press - as King George had done - they could not imagine that America's public discourse would ever consist mainly of something other than words in print.

And yet, as we meet here this morning, more than 40 years have passed since the majority of Americans received their news and information from the printed word. Newspapers are hemorrhaging readers and, for the most part, resisting the temptation to inflate their circulation numbers. Reading itself is in sharp decline, not only in our country but in most of the world. The Republic of Letters has been invaded and occupied by television.

Radio, the internet, movies, telephones, and other media all now vie for our attention - but it is television that still completely dominates the flow of information in modern America. In fact, according to an authoritative global study, Americans now watch television an average of four hours and 28 minutes every day -- 90 minutes more than the world average.

When you assume eight hours of work a day, six to eight hours of sleep and a couple of hours to bathe, dress, eat and commute, that is almost three-quarters of all the discretionary time that the average American has. And for younger Americans, the average is even higher.

The internet is a formidable new medium of communication, but it is important to note that it still doesn't hold a candle to television. Indeed, studies show that the majority of Internet users are actually simultaneously watching television while they are online. There is an important reason why television maintains such a hold on its viewers in a way that the internet does not, but I'll get to that in a few minutes.

Television first overtook newsprint to become the dominant source of information in America in 1963. But for the next two decades, the television networks mimicked the nation's leading newspapers by faithfully following the standards of the journalism profession. Indeed, men like Edward R. Murrow led the profession in raising the bar.

But all the while, television's share of the total audience for news and information continued to grow -- and its lead over newsprint continued to expand. And then one day, a smart young political consultant turned to an older elected official and succinctly described a new reality in America's public discourse: "If it's not on television, it doesn't exist."

But some extremely important elements of American Democracy have been pushed to the sidelines . And the most prominent casualty has been the "marketplace of ideas" that was so beloved and so carefully protected by our Founders. It effectively no longer exists.

It is not that we no longer share ideas with one another about public matters; of course we do. But the "Public Forum" in which our Founders searched for general agreement and applied the Rule of Reason has been grossly distorted and "restructured" beyond all recognition.

And here is my point: it is the destruction of that marketplace of ideas that accounts for the "strangeness" that now continually haunts our efforts to reason together about the choices we must make as a nation.

Whether it is called a Public Forum, or a "Public Sphere" , or a marketplace of ideas, the reality of open and free public discussion and debate was considered central to the operation of our democracy in America's earliest decades.

In fact, our first self-expression as a nation - "We the People" - made it clear where the ultimate source of authority lay. It was universally understood that the ultimate check and balance for American government was its accountability to the people. And the public forum was the place where the people held the government accountable. That is why it was so important that the marketplace of ideas operated independent from and beyond the authority of government.

The three most important characteristics of this marketplace of ideas were:

1) It was open to every individual, with no barriers to entry, save the necessity of literacy. This access, it is crucial to add, applied not only to the receipt of information but also to the ability to contribute information directly into the flow of ideas that was available to all;
2) The fate of ideas contributed by individuals depended, for the most part, on an emergent Meritocracy of Ideas. Those judged by the market to be good rose to the top, regardless of the wealth or class of the individual responsible for them;
3) The accepted rules of discourse presumed that the participants were all governed by an unspoken duty to search for general agreement. That is what a "Conversation of Democracy" is all about.

What resulted from this shared democratic enterprise was a startling new development in human history: for the first time, knowledge regularly mediated between wealth and power.

The liberating force of this new American reality was thrilling to all humankind. Thomas Jefferson declared, "I have sworn upon the alter of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man."
It ennobled the individual and unleashed the creativity of the human spirit. It inspired people everywhere to dream of what they could yet become. And it emboldened Americans to bravely explore the farther frontiers of freedom - for African Americans, for women, and eventually, we still dream, for all.

And just as knowledge now mediated between wealth and power, self-government was understood to be the instrument with which the people embodied their reasoned judgments into law. The Rule of Reason under-girded and strengthened the rule of law.

But to an extent seldom appreciated, all of this - including especially the ability of the American people to exercise the reasoned collective judgments presumed in our Founders' design -- depended on the particular characteristics of the marketplace of ideas as it operated during the Age of Print.

Consider the rules by which our present "public forum" now operates, and how different they are from the forum our Founders knew. Instead of the easy and free access
individuals had to participate in the national conversation by means of the printed word, the world of television makes it virtually impossible for individuals to take part in what passes for a national conversation today.

Inexpensive metal printing presses were almost everywhere in America. They were easily accessible and operated by printers eager to typeset essays, pamphlets, books or flyers.

Television stations and networks, by contrast, are almost completely inaccessible to individual citizens and almost always uninterested in ideas contributed by individual citizens.

Ironically, television programming is actually more accessible to more people than any source of information has ever been in all of history. But here is the crucial distinction: it is accessible in only one direction; there is no true interactivity, and certainly no conversation.

The number of cables connecting to homes is limited in each community and usually forms a natural monopoly. The broadcast and satellite spectrum is likewise a scarce and limited resource controlled by a few. The production of programming has been centralized and has usually required a massive capital investment. So for these and other reasons, an ever-smaller number of large corporations control virtually all of the television programming in America.

Soon after television established its dominance over print, young people who realized they were being shut out of the dialogue of democracy came up with a new form of expression in an effort to join the national conversation: the "demonstration." This new form of expression, which began in the 1960s, was essentially a poor quality theatrical production designed to capture the attention of the television cameras long enough to hold up a sign with a few printed words to convey, however plaintively, a message to the American people. Even this outlet is now rarely an avenue for expression on national television.

So, unlike the marketplace of ideas that emerged in the wake of the printing press, there is virtually no exchange of ideas at all in television's domain. My partner Joel Hyatt and I are trying to change that - at least where Current TV is concerned. Perhaps not coincidentally, we are the only independently owned news and information network in all of American television.

It is important to note that the absence of a two-way conversation in American television also means that there is no "meritocracy of ideas" on television. To the extent that there is a "marketplace" of any kind for ideas on television, it is a rigged market, an oligopoly, with imposing barriers to entry that exclude the average citizen.

The German philosopher, Jurgen Habermas, describes what has happened as "the refeudalization of the public sphere." That may sound like gobbledygook, but it's a phrase that packs a lot of meaning. The feudal system which thrived before the printing press democratized knowledge and made the idea of America thinkable, was a system in which wealth and power were intimately intertwined, and where knowledge played no mediating role whatsoever. The great mass of the people were ignorant. And their powerlessness was born of their ignorance.

It did not come as a surprise that the concentration of control over this powerful one-way medium carries with it the potential for damaging the operations of our democracy. As early as the 1920s, when the predecessor of television, radio, first debuted in the United States, there was immediate apprehension about its potential impact on democracy. One early American student of the medium wrote that if control of radio were concentrated in the hands of a few, "no nation can be free."

As a result of these fears, safeguards were enacted in the U.S. -- including the Public Interest Standard, the Equal Time Provision, and the Fairness Doctrine - though a half century later, in 1987, they were effectively repealed. And then immediately afterwards, Rush Limbaugh and other hate-mongers began to fill the airwaves.

And radio is not the only place where big changes have taken place. Television news has undergone a series of dramatic changes. The movie "Network," which won the Best Picture Oscar in 1976, was presented as a farce but was actually a prophecy. The journalism profession morphed into the news business, which became the media industry and is now completely owned by conglomerates.

The news divisions - which used to be seen as serving a public interest and were subsidized by the rest of the network - are now seen as profit centers designed to generate revenue and, more importantly, to advance the larger agenda of the corporation of which they are a small part. They have fewer reporters, fewer stories, smaller budgets, less travel, fewer bureaus, less independent judgment, more vulnerability to influence by management, and more dependence on government sources and canned public relations hand-outs. This tragedy is compounded by the ironic fact that this generation of journalists is the best trained and most highly skilled in the history of their profession. But they are usually not allowed to do the job they have been trained to do.

The present executive branch has made it a practice to try and control and intimidate news organizations: from PBS to CBS to Newsweek. They placed a former male escort in the White House press pool to pose as a reporter - and then called upon him to give the president a hand at crucial moments. They paid actors to make make phony video press releases and paid cash to some reporters who were willing to take it in return for positive stories. And every day they unleash squadrons of digital brownshirts to harass and hector any journalist who is critical of the President.

For these and other reasons, The US Press was recently found in a comprehensive international study to be only the 27th freest press in the world. And that too seems strange to me.

Among the other factors damaging our public discourse in the media, the imposition by management of entertainment values on the journalism profession has resulted in scandals, fabricated sources, fictional events and the tabloidization of mainstream news. As recently stated by Dan Rather - who was, of course, forced out of his anchor job after angering the White House - television news has been "dumbed down and tarted up."

The coverage of political campaigns focuses on the "horse race" and little else. And the well-known axiom that guides most local television news is "if it bleeds, it leads." (To which some disheartened journalists add, "If it thinks, it stinks.")

In fact, one of the few things that Red state and Blue state America agree on is that they don't trust the news media anymore.

Clearly, the purpose of television news is no longer to inform the American people or serve the public interest. It is to "glue eyeballs to the screen" in order to build ratings and sell advertising. If you have any doubt, just look at what's on: The Robert Blake trial. The Laci Peterson tragedy. The Michael Jackson trial. The Runaway Bride. The search in Aruba. The latest twist in various celebrity couplings, and on and on and on.

And more importantly, notice what is not on: the global climate crisis, the nation's fiscal catastrophe, the hollowing out of America's industrial base, and a long list of other serious public questions that need to be addressed by the American people.

One morning not long ago, I flipped on one of the news programs in hopes of seeing information about an important world event that had happened earlier that day. But the lead story was about a young man who had been hiccupping for three years. And I must say, it was interesting; he had trouble getting dates. But what I didn't see was news.

This was the point made by Jon Stewart, the brilliant host of "The Daily Show," when he visited CNN's "Crossfire": there should be a distinction between news and entertainment.

And it really matters because the subjugation of news by entertainment seriously harms our democracy: it leads to dysfunctional journalism that fails to inform the people. And when the people are not informed, they cannot hold government accountable when it is incompetent, corrupt, or both.

One of the only avenues left for the expression of public or political ideas on television is through the purchase of advertising, usually in 30-second chunks. These short commercials are now the principal form of communication between candidates and voters. As a result, our elected officials now spend all of their time raising money to purchase these ads.

That is why the House and Senate campaign committees now search for candidates who are multi-millionaires and can buy the ads with their own personal resources. As one consequence, the halls of Congress are now filling up with the wealthy.

Campaign finance reform, however well it is drafted, often misses the main point: so long as the only means of engaging in political dialogue is through purchasing expensive television advertising, money will continue by one means or another to dominate American politic s. And ideas will no longer mediate between wealth and power.

And what if an individual citizen, or a group of citizens wants to enter the public debate by expressing their views on television? Since they cannot simply join the conversation, some of them have resorted to raising money in order to buy 30 seconds in which to express their opinion. But they are not even allowed to do that.

Moveon.org tried to buy ads last year to express opposition to Bush's Medicare proposal which was then being debated by Congress. They were told "issue advocacy" was not permissible. Then, one of the networks that had refused the Moveon ad began running advertisements by the White House in favor of the President's Medicare proposal. So Moveon complained and the White House ad was temporarily removed. By temporary, I mean it was removed until the White House complained and the network immediately put the ad back on, yet still refused to present the Moveon ad.

The advertising of products, of course, is the real purpose of television. And it is difficult to overstate the extent to which modern pervasive electronic advertising has reshaped our society. In the 1950s, John Kenneth Galbraith first described the way in which advertising has altered the classical relationship by which supply and demand are balanced over time by the invisible hand of the marketplace. According to Galbraith, modern advertising campaigns were beginning to create high levels of demand for products that consumers never knew they wanted, much less needed.

The same phenomenon Galbraith noticed in the commercial marketplace is now the dominant fact of life in what used to be America's marketplace for ideas. The inherent value or validity of political propositions put forward by candidates for office is now largely irrelevant compared to the advertising campaigns that shape the perceptions of voters.

Our democracy has been hallowed out. The opinions of the voters are, in effect, purchased, just as demand for new products is artificially created. Decades ago Walter Lippman wrote, "the manufacture of consent...was supposed to have died out with the appearance of democracy...but it has not died out. It has, in fact, improved enormously in technique...under the impact of propaganda, it is no longer plausible to believe in the original dogma of democracy."

Like you, I recoil at Lippman's cynical dismissal of America's gift to human history. But in order to reclaim our birthright, we Americans must resolve to repair the systemic decay of the public forum and create new ways to engage in a genuine and not manipulative conversation about our future. Americans in both parties should insist on the re-establishment of respect for the Rule of Reason. We must, for example, stop tolerating the rejection and distortion of science. We must insist on an end to the cynical use of pseudo studies known to be false for the purpose of intentionally clouding the public's ability to discern the truth.

I don't know all the answers, but along with my partner, Joel Hyatt, I am trying to work within the medium of television to recreate a multi-way conversation that includes individuals and operates according to a meritocracy of ideas. If you would like to know more, we are having a press conference on Friday morning at the Regency Hotel.

We are learning some fascinating lessons about the way decisions are made in the television industry, and it may well be that the public would be well served by some changes in law and policy to stimulate more diversity of viewpoints and a higher regard for the public interest. But we are succeeding within the marketplace by reaching out to individuals and asking them to co-create our network.

The greatest source of hope for reestablishing a vigorous and accessible marketplace for ideas is the Internet. Indeed, Current TV relies on video streaming over the Internet as the means by which individuals send us what we call viewer-created content or VC squared. We also rely on the Internet for the two-way conversation that we have every day with our viewers enabling them to participate in the decisions on programming our network.

I know that many of you attending this conference are also working on creative ways to use the Internet as a means for bringing more voices into America's ongoing conversation. I salute you as kindred spirits and wish you every success.

I want to close with the two things I've learned about the Internet that are most directly relevant to the conference that you are having here today.

First, as exciting as the Internet is, it still lacks the single most powerful characteristic of the television medium; because of its packet-switching architecture, and its continued reliance on a wide variety of bandwidth connections (including the so-called "last mile" to the home), it does not support the real-time mass distribution of full-motion video.

Make no mistake, full-motion video is what makes television such a powerful medium. Our brains - like the brains of all vertebrates - are hard-wired to immediately notice sudden movement in our field of vision. We not only notice, we are compelled to look. When our evolutionary predecessors gathered on the African savanna a million years ago and the leaves next to them moved, the ones who didn't look are not our ancestors. The ones who did look passed on to us the genetic trait that neuroscientists call "the establishing reflex." And that is the brain syndrome activated by television continuously - sometimes as frequently as once per second. That is the reason why the industry phrase, "glue eyeballs to the screen," is actually more than a glib and idle boast. It is also a major part of the reason why Americans watch the TV screen an average of four and a half hours a day.

It is true that video streaming is becoming more common over the Internet, and true as well that cheap storage of streamed video is making it possible for many young television viewers to engage in what the industry calls "time shifting" and personalize their television watching habits. Moreover, as higher bandwidth connections continue to replace smaller information pipelines, the Internet's capacity for carrying television will continue to dramatically improve. But in spite of these developments, it is television delivered over cable and satellite that will continue for the remainder of this decade and probably the next to be the dominant medium of communication in America's democracy. And so long as that is the case, I truly believe that America's democracy is at grave risk.

The final point I want to make is this: We must ensure that the Internet remains open and accessible to all citizens without any limitation on the ability of individuals to choose the content they wish regardless of the Internet service provider they use to connect to the Worldwide Web. We cannot take this future for granted. We must be prepared to fight for it because some of the same forces of corporate consolidation and control that have distorted the television marketplace have an interest in controlling the Internet marketplace as well. Far too much is at stake to ever allow that to happen.

We must ensure by all means possible that this medium of democracy's future develops in the mold of the open and free marketplace of ideas that our Founders knew was essential to the health and survival of freedom.

posted by Stithmeister @ 7:16 PM
 

As someone who "zombies that feed off the trough of these people," I found it amusing when Bill O'Reilly lambasted Media Matters for their attacks against he and other "unbiased" conservatives.

From the October 4 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:

O'REILLY: Thanks for staying with us. I'm Bill O'Reilly. In the "Unresolved Problem" segment tonight: political smear sites. They operate on both sides of the political spectrum. There are no rules. These people will do and say pretty much anything to harm people with whom they disagree politically. The trend started back in the Clinton-Lewinsky days, and now thousands of bloggers are operating, throwing dirt all over the place. Now, they're not all bad. Some of these bloggers are good, accurate watchdogs. But there are plenty of awful ones.

Joining us now from Portland, Oregon, is David Kline, author of the book Blog! How the Newest Media Revolution is Changing Politics, Business, and Culture. From Washington, Jed Babbin, a contributing editor to The American Spectator, who was slimed recently by the vile Media Matters outfit. I think they're the worst, although Smoking Gun is awful. But Media Matters, this is a George Soros-funded thing. They've got a lot of money. They have no ethics or scruples. And what did they do to you, Mr. Babbin?

BABBIN: Well, it was fairly typical of what they always do. They disagreed with something I said on television. It was about the Iraq war and the fact that we did not find Saddam's weapons of mass destruction proved absolutely nothing about whether he had them before the war, because we gave him six months to fiddle and diddle with them, and Charles Deulfer's report probably shows that they were taken somewhere else, perhaps into Syria. Basically, by the time that I got home, they had somehow found my email address and posted it on their website, saying that I was a liar and I'd gotten, oh, I don't know, 100, 150 emails, all on the basic eloquence level of liar, liar, pants on fire.

O'REILLY: So they violated your privacy by putting out your personal email address. Then the zombies that feed off the trough of these people wrote pretty much the identical email. Because I get identical emails. That's what I get. So they're pretty much identical. These zombies can't even think for themselves. They have to tell them what to write, correct?

BABBIN: Exactly. It's kind of a -- it's a little boys' Lord of the Flies kind of atmosphere, some of these things. They don't want to be civilized, so they aren't. But they're really -- they're really not very efficient or effective. I mean, they're more of a nuisance than anything else.

O'REILLY: I have to disagree with you. I think Soros, his money that goes in, and then hires these assassins, does damage. I mean, these are the people who damaged Bennett. And they tried to damage me. I just -- before we get to you, Mr. Kline, I'll tell you a funny story. Had Phil Donahue on the air a couple of weeks ago. I had a shootout with him. And I come in the next day, and I get a big stack of email, of course. And you could tell the ones that were generated by the crazy left-wing websites, because the wording was all the same. Here's the wording: "We really like you, Bill, and are big fans of The Factor, but your treatment of Phil Donahue was" -- every one was worded the same. And even the misspellings were the same. Now, I don't know what crazy website it came from, but it did come from one. Now how do you see it, Mr. Kline? Are we overstating this?

KLINE: No, I think there are a lot of nutcases out there. You have websites and political bloggers that believe that President Bush orchestrated the 9-11 attacks.

O'REILLY: Oh, you mean he didn't? That's what I've been hearing from Phil Donahue and Jeremy Glick and Michael Moore, that he orchestrated it. You mean he didn't? That's not true?

KLINE: Well, there are also bloggers out there who believe that President Clinton had Vince Foster assassinated.

O'REILLY: Absolutely.

KLINE: These people five years ago, they would meet in a local Marriott Hotel conference room somewhere and order pizza. But now with the Internet, you know, they've got reach. They've got access to thousands, thousands of people.

O'REILLY: But here's the dangerous thing. They also have access to the major newspapers like The New York Times, the L.A. Times, the New York Daily News, Newsday, Washington Post. They have certain columnists that they are friendly with, and they spit this stuff right into those columnists, Mr. Babbin, do they not?

BABBIN: Well, absolutely. I mean, we're really in a situation now where, Bill, five or 10 years ago, we had what was called a news cycle. And people waited an hour or two or 12 before putting something in print or on the air. Right now there is no news cycle. Everything is instantaneous, whether it's on television, on the Internet, or anywhere else. And reporters in some cases get pretty lazy. They take uncorroborated stuff right off of a website and put it out on the air or in the newspaper. And it's just garbage.

O'REILLY: And you know how they get around it? Then they call you for comment. They print the slander --

BABBIN: Right.

O'REILLY: And then they print all the defamation, and then they call you to comment on it. Then it's all -- that makes it OK. Go ahead. Go ahead, Mr. Kline.

KLINE: Well, I think maybe we should take a different tack on this. I mean, let's not be babies about the partisanship. The kind of partisanship that you're seeing on the Web with these blogs, yes, some of it is vicious, some of it is just loony. But it's not all that different than what used to go on in the media before the advent of corporate media. I mean, most people before World War II grew up with 10, 15, 20 newspapers, all with different points of view. And what's interesting about those times, and I think we're going back to those times with a very partisan media, is that the electorate was much more engaged, and people were much more involved in the democratic process.

O'REILLY: But here's the danger.

KLINE: They argued -- they argued but they were -- at the same time they were actually more civil.

O'REILLY: Here's the danger. You know, you're making a good point. You've got a big variety of voices out there. It's better than just The New York Times and the network news strangling people and ramming stuff down their throat.

KLINE: Right.

O'REILLY: Absolutely valid, excellent point. But here's the problem: these people are so vicious, and they -- the media is so corrupt in taking their uncorroborated, as Mr. Babbin pointed out -- defamation that most people now won't run for office, sir. They won't do television and radio commentary. They won't put the -- when we had to book this segment, I couldn't get people to come on and say what you guys are saying, because they were afraid that Media Matters would go after them. They -- I couldn't -- I had people turn down this segment -- a bunch of them -- what are you, crazy? I'm going to criticize these assassins? They'll come after me. And that's a chilling effect.

KLINE: Well, I'm not naming names here, right? I mean, I don't want to get stalked.

O'REILLY: You see, you don't want to get stalked either. So put yourself in a position of somebody running for office or somebody trying to do an honest analysis of the news and they don't want to do it. Go ahead, Mr. Babbin, take the last word.

BABBIN: Well, basically, you can't be afraid of these people because the facts are what they are. And they're easily answered whenever they take these cheap shots. I'm not scared of those guys. I don't think anyone else should be.


O'REILLY: They can make stuff up -- look, they make stuff about me -- up stuff about me every day.

BABBIN: Sure.

O'REILLY: Every day of my life. And believe me, I've got to have bodyguards. I've got to have security wherever I go. And it's because of them. I don't fear them; I loathe them.


Response

The post is rather long. I posted the conversation from the O'Reilly show on Fox. Bill O'Reilly, contrary to what he might say, is a conservative pitbull. He claims to be looking out for "you" and tries to tell it like it is. He's not. He mean and bullish. He's vicious to his guests. He gets ratings and that's the name of the game and you better believe that if he weren't he'd be gone. But he still misinterprets a lot of stuff. He's not as bad as Rush, but he's bad enough.

posted by Stithmeister @ 1:54 PM
 

Political columnist George Will expressed his consternation at the choice of Harriet Miers by President Bush to replace Sandra O'Connor on SCOTUS. Daily Kos posted a portion of Will's text. I shall report it here:

Senators beginning what ought to be a protracted and exacting scrutiny of Harriet Miers should be guided by three rules. First, it is not important that she be confirmed. Second, it might be very important that she not be. Third, the presumption -- perhaps rebuttable but certainly in need of rebutting -- should be that her nomination is not a defensible exercise of presidential discretion to which senatorial deference is due.

. . . [T]he president has forfeited his right to be trusted as a custodian of the Constitution. . . . It is important that Miers not be confirmed unless, in her 61st year, she suddenly and unexpectedly is found to have hitherto undisclosed interests and talents pertinent to the court's role. Otherwise the sound principle of substantial deference to a president's choice of judicial nominees will dissolve into a rationalization for senatorial abdication of the duty to hold presidents to some standards of seriousness that will prevent them from reducing the Supreme Court to a private plaything useful for fulfilling whims on behalf of friends.


Response

I don't know if Harriet will make it through. She's loyal to the president and that's fine but she has no track record to speak of and several conservatives are really scratching their heads on this one. The behavior is bizarre but it might just be lip service too. I would say contact Kentucky's senators but that won't make a difference.

posted by Stithmeister @ 8:26 AM
 

A number of Republican reps from Ky. in congress have take money from good old Tom Delay. I wonder what kind of washing machine he put the money through? Realistically, they won't give the money back. But occasionally, they should check and see if the money is actually legal. It's a small technicality but certainly one worth looking into.

posted by Stithmeister @ 11:45 PM
 

Representative James Carr of Hopkinsville announced he was joining the Republican Party today in Frankfort, standing next to McConnell and Whitfield. I'm sure my pal Cynicus will have something to say about this.

posted by Stithmeister @ 11:54 PM
 

Tom Delay was reindicted after he did some stomping and feather ruffling last week. Now he's been charged with money laundering in addition to the conspiracy charges. Money laundering has some teeth. He could go to prison for life. It'll be interesting to watch this circus. With any luck, it'll do enough damage to get him out of the House next year.

posted by Stithmeister @ 11:50 PM
 

George Bush values loyalty above all else. Harriet Miers has been exceptionally loyal to Bush and now she's seeing her rewards. She may or may not be good justice. No one really knows. Even the National Review questioned her nomination. With any luck she won't make it but she probably will.

posted by Stithmeister @ 11:18 PM
 

Paul Hackett, the man who nearly beat the dealer in a vicious battle for Ohio's 2nd Congressional District, a dense Republican area, against Jean Schmidt, announced today he would be running for the U.S. Senate in 2006. Apparently, he's been to Washington to meet with Minority Leader Harry Reid, D - Nev, and is ready to start the battle again.

I picked up the story from MyDD and they led me to OhioNewsNow.

I'd say he's got a shot at it since some parts of Ohio are Democrat and he's got the some moral high ground here to combat a weakened Republican army in Ohio. I could easily see the event in Newport on 10/22 with Joe Biden and Wendell Ford being a nice place to get some PR and party support. I could also see Max Cleland from Georgia coming up to work the crowd for this guy.

posted by Stithmeister @ 11:06 PM
 

Bush names Harriet Miers, currently White House counsel, to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. Miers, 60, is a prominent Texas lawyer who's run the Texas state bar position as well as a number of other duties. She's got no experience behind the bench, she's single with no children and is loyal to the President. I've got to do some more research and will post more on her later. In the meantime, I've posted a link to the AP story this morning

Miers Story

posted by Stithmeister @ 8:25 AM
 

|

"This Week" with George Stephanopoulus had an interesting segment this week suggesting the Bush and Cheney both had something to do with the leak of Valerie Plame's identity as a CIA agent. Here's the quote that's floating around the blogosphere now.

Definitely a political problem but I wonder, George Will, do you think it’s a manageable one for the White House especially if we don’t know whether Fitzgerald is going to write a report or have indictments but if he is able to show as a source close to this told me this week, that President Bush and Vice President Cheney were actually involved in some of these discussions.

Response

Hhhhmmmmm.... sounds like possible impeachment proceedings. The only problem is what do you do when it's the entire administration including both the President and the VP in on it. Can you impeach them both? I wonder who replace them in a case like that. Ah well... it's a pipe dream. They won't be impeached in either case.

posted by Stithmeister @ 11:33 PM
 

Doing an open topic for this one, so give it a shot.

posted by Stithmeister @ 11:31 PM
 

Mark Nicholas at Bluegrass Report has got some interesting gossip including a rumor floating around about Senate President David Williams telling Fletcher that if he fired Bill Nighbert, then Williams would call for Fletcher to resign.

He also had a good post yesterday about folks who might be considering a run in Frankfort. I voted for Sharon Clark in Mercer County. I'd vote for her again. Check out his blog

posted by Stithmeister @ 10:49 PM
 

September 29, 2005

The Honorable George W. Bush

The President of the United States

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue

Washington, DC 20501

Dear Mr. President:

Hurricanes Katrina and Rita have focused the nation's attention on the use of the military in domestic emergencies. We understand the desire to examine the role and responsibilities of the active military in these types of devastating situations and believe that the current system that puts the active military in a supporting role is fundamentally sound. This arrangement preserves local control and state authorities granted under the Constitution, avoids the potentially dangerous use of the active military for law enforcement, and takes advantage of the enormous capabilities and experience that exist within the National Guard.

Putting the military in the lead role in domestic disaster situations negates one of the most fundamental attributes of the National Guard, its experience in working with local and state first responders and its familiarity with local communities. Under the current system, when a local community relief effort becomes overwhelmed, it turns to state resources and assistance without relinquishing control. When a state is overwhelmed it will turn to the federal government for support. This arrangement flows directly from the Constitution's separation of powers and has the practical benefit of ensuring that the elected officials who best know their communities remain in control.

Placing the active military in control creates an almost certain conflict with Posse Comitatus statutes that prevent the use of the military for law enforcement activities. These laws reflect longstanding conventions that prevent the military from becoming inappropriately involved in civilian affairs. Exceptions to the Posse Comitatus statues allow the President in extreme cases to invoke the Insurrection Statutes to maintain order, and these good laws create a strong presumption against interjecting the military into decision-making situations best handled by democratically elected officials.

The most expeditious way to leverage military assets in response to a domestic crisis is to activate National Guard forces under the Title 32 provision which provides for the dual- benefit of maintaining the National Guard under the command-and- control of the governor with federal financing. The worst lesson to take away from recent natural disasters would be to alter our emergency management system in a fundamental way and change the presumption against using the military as the lead organization. Such a radical change would go against our Constitution, threaten civil liberties in emergency situations, and ignore the full capabilities of the National Guard.

As you oversee the many reviews of the federal government's emergency response capabilities, we hope you keep our thoughts in mind. We look forward to discussing this matter with you in the very near future.

Sincerely,

Christopher S. Bond, Co-Chair, National Guard Caucus

Patrick J. Leahy, Co-Chair, National Guard Caucus

Response

This is a letter to the president urging him not to further militarize FEMA's response efforts and to keep the active military out of such affairs. The problem is this. FEMA SHOULD be able to respond to such disasters in a timely manner, with the aid of the national guard. They should have the resources and planning to help in just about every situation. Right now, the active military is really the only organization with the mobilization abilities to he do the job. This needs to change NOW.

posted by Stithmeister @ 3:24 PM