Kentucky Blog

Crazy Pat Robertson

2005-08-29T12:17:00.000-04:00

Two years ago, I felt an urgent need for people to unite and pray for change in
the Supreme Court. So, in July of 2003, The 700 Club launched Operation Supreme
Court Freedom, a nationwide 21-day prayer campaign.

O'Connor announced her retirement this summer, so Robertson says his prayers are answered:

Tens of thousands of people responded to this massive prayer offensive and cried out to the Lord to change the court. And God heard those prayers!

So if I pray for rain today, and it rains tomorrow....

Anyway, the "prayer points" are just creepy:

Pray that those who oppose biblical truth would retire from the Supreme Court and be replaced by those who honor God's law.

Sandra Day O'Connor apparently opposed "biblical truth" (whatever the hell that means).

Pray that any plan of the enemy for the Senate confirmation hearing would be thwarted. Take authority over the schemes of Satan concerning the Supreme Court.

So people that think John Roberts ought to be questioned and held to account for his views, whether favorable or unfavorable is the "enemy" and minions of "Satan." That's about 61-64% of people overall while nearly 2/3 think he should state how he would rule on past cases. Since 2/3 also support the upholding of Roe v. Wade it appears that Robertson thinks a majority of Americans are the "enemy" or "Satan" (no surprise from someone that said federal judges are the biggest threat to America).

What ever happened to "judge not lest ye be judged"? Or "let he who is without sin cast the first stone"? The reason people think religious people are quacks is because religious people let Pat Robertson speak for them. Reject this lunatic's self-aggrandizing proclamation to speak for "people of faith" and you'll get the common courtesy you demand. Let Pat Robertson continue to speak for you and you'll get the ridicule you deserve.

Greenspan Has Jumped the Shark

2005-08-26T15:11:00.000-04:00

Alan Greenspan should have a wax statue made of himself and put on display at Madame Tussaud's because there's nothing working upstairs:

"Developing protectionism regarding trade and our reluctance to place fiscal policy on a more sustainable path are threatening what may well be our most valued policy asset: the increased flexibility of our economy, which has fostered our extraordinary resilience to shocks," the Fed chief said in a speech to an economic conference here, sponsored by the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City.

Words of wisdom brought to you by the stupid jackass that supported every deficit creating measure of this administration (as well as other Kool Aid induced policies).

The money quote? Try this:

"What they perceive as newly abundant liquidity can readily disappear," he said. "Whether the currently elevated level of wealth-to-income ratio will be sustained in the longer run remains to be seen."

See what's wrong with that statement? Here's a hint: tax cuts good, they grow the economy, they create wealth, growth covers revenue loss, too much wealth unsustainable, deficits created, can't cover paper investments (i.e., paper wealth such as "property deeds").

Make sense yet? Of fucking course it doesn't! That's the point. This dude has completely lost his marbels.

Oppose John Roberts

2005-08-26T14:30:00.000-04:00

I've been largely disinterested in the John Roberts for SCOTUS debate. He's conservative and I oppose his views on the role of women (in the home only) and his apparent belief in their relative inequality. I generally oppose his view that there is no right to privacy - that really seems to strike at the heart of my vision of what basic tenets America was founded upon. I disagree with his generally held belief that the Executive Branch carries greater strength than the judiciary, which strikes at the heart of the separate but co-equal three branches of government established by the Constitution.

But he's a conservative, that's what they stand for, and that's the type of nominee we should expect when a conservative gets to pick the SCOTUS nominee. It's not a good pick by my way of thinking, but then again I don't think Jesus would suggest assassinating world leaders, that Jesus wouldn't con some Muslims into taking out the World Trade Center because women have the right to choose what health care they receive or because lesbians have the right to hug and kiss each other, that George Bush is not the second coming of Jesus, and wouldn't really approve of cutting social benefits for tired, poor, and hungry so multi-millionaires can afford just...one...more...fancy...car. I suppose I'm really out of touch with Jesus, and my now deceased Southern Baptist preacher grandfather would be quite unhappy with that (even though he never suggested assassinating anyone, preached charity, and treated everyone equal - maybe he was out of touch, too, now that I think about it).

But this kind of crap really pisses me off (from Think Progress):

In April, Judge John Roberts “heard arguments about the Bush administration’s [Guantanamo Bay] policy as he was discussing a Supreme Court appointment in private conversations with the White House.” On July 15, “when Judge Roberts met with President Bush for the job-clinching interview, he joined a ruling in favor of the defendants, who included Mr. Bush.” The White House claims Roberts didn’t do anything wrong. Bush spokesman Steve Schmitt said “there was no conflict whatsoever.”
John Roberts knows better and we have proof. In 1986, when John Roberts was working in the White House Counsel’s Office for President Reagan, he was asked to review a mundane request by an attorney named Lester Hyman. Roberts replied: I must recuse myself from this matter, in light of pending discussions with Mr. Hyman’s firm about future employment.
So Roberts understands it’s unethical to make professional decisions that impact a prospective employer. When it came to the prospect of a nomination to the Supreme Court, Roberts simply set ethics aside.

Maybe I've just gotten fed up dealing with judges that don't give a damn about what the law is. Maybe I'm just tired of the arbitrary manner in which some state court judges adhere to the "good old boy" system of dispensing justice - one friend at a time. Maybe I'm overly idealistic in hoping that at least when a judge reaches the highest plateau of the legal profession he or she should have the highest regard for the rule of law and respect for the inherent integrity that comes with the accolade. Whatever.

But this crap shows Roberts to be nothing more than a groveling ladder-climber. I won't begrudge his ideology too much, although I will disagree with it. As I said, he's a conservative and as long as we elect intellectual neanderthals we'll get nominees that share their beliefs that women should be perpetually pregnant and earn substandard wages, opposes the extension of civil rights, and generally thinks the government should decide what's best for a woman's health. Not to mention the belief that it's okay to torture a couple brown people, because...well, they're just no Christians and they look different and their names are hard to pronounce dammit.

But nominating a guy that has so little regard for the most basic ethical trappings that accompanies the authority to sit in judgment over the foundations of our civil liberties and the rule of law? This particular nominee truly befits the pathetic moral and ethical depravity of the person that nominated him.

I'm Back Bitches

2005-08-26T11:36:00.000-04:00

Blogging is hard work. It ain't easy sitting at a keyboard, hurling biased and unsolicited commentary on everything from Iraq to Anne Northup to the merits of memorializing "big hair bands" in pretty bronze sculptures. It's been weeks since my last post, and if you've wandered by I'm sure it's because you meant to type something else in the "address" line of your internet browser. Anyway, while I've been gone I've managed to clear off my office desk, post a few entries over at Bluegrass Roots, and catch up on listening to some funky blues.

So I'm back, I'm glad, and I'm wearing stripes with plaid.

Fox News is the most f-ed up organization I've ever seen, and there really ought to be a law:

In what Fox News officials concede was a mistake, John Loftus, a former U.S. prosecutor, gave out the address [of the home of Randy and Ronnell Vorick] Aug. 7, saying it was the home of a Middle Eastern man, Iyad K. Hilal, who was the leader of a terrorist group with ties to those responsible for the July 7 bombings in London. [snip] ...A driver yelled a profanity at the family and called them terrorists as they barbecued on their patio Aug. 14. Some drivers have stopped and photographed the house, Randy Vorick said.Last weekend, someone spray-painted "Terrist" on their home. [snip] ...Loftus also apologized and told The Times last week that "mistakes
happen.""I'm terribly sorry about that. I had no idea. That was the best information we had at the time," he said.

The Rude Pundit explains life in "Gitmo America":

And Loftus, so plump with speaking fees, said that he gave out the information
based on "the best information we had at the time." Is that the unimpeachable excuse for every massive fuck-up now? You know, "the best information we had at the time" said that blacks were mentally inferior to whites who could be best served by being slaves. "The best information we had at the time" said that Native Americans were subhuman savages who needed to be slaughtered. "The best information we had at the time" told Colin Powell that Iraq had WMDs. If you tell your one-night stand that she can't catch your herpes from sucking you off, and then she does and does get your herpes, you can say you were working on the best information you had at the time. In other words, "the best information we had at the time" is the catch-all bullshit for every time you operate out of willful ignorance, outright lies, and stupidity. It's a cop-out. It's a way of saying that you're wrong now, but, shit, you weren't wrong then, when, really, and, c'mon, if you're wrong, you're fuckin' wrong, no matter when. [Because I can't post this stuff at Bluegrass Roots - it's a family blog, whereas mine isn't read by anyone.]

These people have 3 kids. What kind of world do we live in where a news outlet can subject an innocent family to psychological torment and threats of physical violence out of willful ignorance and a malicious disregard for the facts, and with no regard for common rules of discourse and decency? It's Gitmo America:

While Fox deserves even more scorn and pointing and laughing, let's not let the vigilantes who are attacking the Voricks off the hook. They are pathetic, worthless dungheaps, unable to articulate anything more than "Terrist bad" and rage at the full moon for daring to take away the shadows they cower in, piss bucket opportunists who only need to be told where to bring the mob so, hunched over and grunting, they can lynch and burn, lynch and burn, without the niceties of trial, the delays of due process, and cavort and cackle like crazed jackals over the carrion corpses of the dead. In this way, they are just like the Bush administration.This is Gitmo America, where guilt need only be implied for us to be willing to allow torture, psychological and otherwise, to be heaped upon the accused.

How un-American can you get?

Where The Wild Things Are

2005-07-15T09:50:00.000-04:00

What are you doing here?

All the action's here.

Thanks for coming by, but lately I've joined forces with The Green Lantern and The Silver Surfer, forming the Justice League of Kentucky.

In other words, there's more blogging goin' on at Bluegrass Roots.

Fear not, more rants and raves coming soon - new and improved! cleaner, brighter! guaranteed for life! Send money now - only three installments of $29.95 and all these rants and raves can be yours to keep forever!

Perhaps Reform Is In Order

2005-07-06T16:53:00.000-04:00

From Seattle:

A judge's ruling that two talk-radio hosts' on-air activity could be considered campaign contributions has attracted concern that the decision could have unintended effects on other media.

The usual outcries by media types and their well-kept lawyers about "freedom of press", etc., ensued:

"If commentary is equated with a commercial, does this mean that editorial endorsements that give out a campaign address and contact information is now a reportable in-kind donation?" Carlson asked. "Does it mean that a television commentary that vigorously opposes an initiative has to be reported? ....

The answers in my opinion are "yes" and "yes." That's not your job, that's my job. If you want my job then quit your job and give the public back its airwaves. Or better yet, give the airwaves back and start your own Fox News Corp. Otherwise, the cure for this is to quit editorializing and allowing yourselves to be used as a platform for promoting a political agenda. The cure is to call "bullshit" when bad facts are used to bolster the party line. The cure is to be the media instead of the 24/7 "American Idol" equivalent for politicians - a platform through which various themes can be tested and vetted and then promoted ad nauseum with little or no serious critique of the substance. The cure is to report some fucking news that relies on facts instead of refereeing the "he said" "he said" bobble head back and forth that consumes so much of our airwaves and takes away from the available programming space for really important things like "Hogan's Heroes" reruns or public access to the Game Show Network.

The cure is to quit whoring yourselves to whatever politician will give you the time of day just so you can consider yourself part of the "elite" since you get invited to their dinner parties and sit close to them at baseball games.

In fact if you don't want your work to be considered a campaign contribution then your goal should be to have every politician have at least one reason to hate your fucking guts. I'm sick and tired of bloggers doing well, for free, what you sorry asses are doing poorly, but getting paid good money for. So quit your crying because you can't get fat, lazy, and stupid then hide behind the First Amendment. That Amendment was earned through blood, and you shit on it when you wrap your craphole performance in its protections. It's earned. So earn it.

You can start any day now, but don't fear for my safety. I'm not holding my breath.

Sympathies

2005-07-02T14:03:00.000-04:00

There's really not much that can be said to ease the suffering our friend Ralph must be feeling. Hopefully our thoughts and prayers will ease his, and his wife's, transition.

Preparing For War

2005-06-27T22:30:00.000-04:00

Rawstory is pushing revelations that the US and Britain stepped up bombings in Iraq prior to the outbreak of war, and asserts this was in effect an illegal war (thus a usurpation of Congress' war powers). For my part, I think Kevin Drum is exactly right - like Bush or not, Congress has not been too keen on handcuffing the President's commander-in-chief role over the past 40 years (despite the War Powers Act Drum talks about).

People ought to get their pretty little heads around the fact that the point is not that Bush/Blair were fighting an illegal war in the Fall of 2002; the point is that they were goading Hussein into provoking a war, a war they had already planned to enter into, all while telling the American and British people that diplomacy was their first goal.

It's about the lies that led us to war, and it's yet another piece in the overall puzzle - one which will hopefully lead us one day to the enlightenment of why we are really in Iraq.

Jerry Lundergan, Boy Genius

2005-06-26T16:17:00.000-04:00

I've never been the head of a major political party. And most likely I never will be. Guys named "Pete" rarely make a name for themselves in the world (with notable exceptions such as Pete Sampras, Pete Townsend, or Pete(r) Sellers). But if I were the head of a major political party, I would not say this in the midst of the other team's blossoming scandals:

"There is a bunch of inexperienced advisers to the governor who have decided to run the merit system their way, not the right way, not the legal way," Lundergan said. "They have taken the protection out of the system so badly that they can punish people based on who has the wrong bumper stickers."

You see that? Poor, poor Ernie. He just got screwed by a bunch of young idiots. Over here at Democrat HQ, we sure feel sorry for the guy. He needs to purge those young pups - take 'em back to the woodshed for gawd's sakes - and then all will be right. Giving big Ernie slack in the noose he's tied for himself seems to ignore the "Sadie" email account along with the "Saddie wants a 'hit list'" emails ("Sadie" being Fletcher's dog, and also being the name on an extra email account he set up). Of course, it does fit in with Lundergan's goal to "Republicanize" the Democratic party -and wants my money in the process.

The fact is that all signs point to the notion that Fletcher knew what was happening. And if he didn't then that makes him inept, incompetent, and aloof. The choices are either that Fletcher is an idiot or he's involved. (For my part, I think Fletcher is anything but an idiot.)

2006 is going to be another piss poor year for the Dems if they can't get some better message control.

Why Does Italy Hate America and Love Terrorists?

2005-06-24T11:14:00.000-04:00

Uh oh.

In a blow to the Bush Administration policy of turning prisoners over to other countries for torture, 13 CIA agents are in a bit of trouble:

An Italian judge has ordered the arrest of 13 CIA agents for allegedly helping deport an imam to Egypt as part of U.S. anti-terrorism efforts, an Italian official familiar with the investigation said Friday.
The agents are suspected in the seizure of an Egyptian-born imam identified as Abu Omar on the streets of Milan in February 2003, according to the official, who requested anonymity because he was not authorized to release the information. ...
Prosecutors believe the agents seized Omar as part of the CIA's "extraordinary rendition" program, in which terror suspects are transferred to third countries without court approval, according to reports Friday in newspapers Corriere della Sera and Il Giorno.

And another six are being investigated.

There appears to be a mass of evidence against Abu Omar to begin with, and the Judge that issued the arrest warrant for the CIA agents was giving Italian investigators what they wanted in terms of surveillance and search authority. This goes to show that the stupidity of torture isn't limited to the unfortunate collateral damage of torturing innocent people - it's also recognized as a violation of international law and national sovereignty of the countries from which suspects are kidnapped.

Not to mention it interfered with what could have been a successfully prosecuted case over two years ago.

Open Letter to Rep. Northup and Senators Bunning and McConnell

2005-06-24T10:49:00.000-04:00

Dear Rep. Northup, Senator Bunning, and Senator McConnell:

According to an article in the New York Times ("Rove Criticizes Liberals on 9/11," June 23, 2005) presidential advisor Karl Rove stated, in Manhattan, that liberals in want our troops to die.

As a liberal and a Democrat, I find this deeply offensive. This sort of rhetoric is divisive and hateful, and our country does not need this during wartime, especially now that the honesty and integrity of the White House, President George W. Bush, and various Department of Defense officials is subject to honest question and debate with the revelation of the so-called "Downing Street Memos."

Having friends and family that have served this nation at times of war dating back to World War II, and in every conflict since, I resent the allegation that I want any of our troops to come to harm. In making such statements Mr. Rove is trampling the Constitutional protections of free speech and open debate in questioning the acts and motivations of our government - the core principles of our democracy that separate our system of government from fascism, communism, monarchy, and totalitarianism. We may have bona fide disagreements on politics and policy, but this debasement and degradation of my basic humanity for those political beliefs is atrocious and unbecoming of any public official, and especially one who speaks for the President of the United States - who is ostensibly the President for all Americans.

In a word it is un-American and constitutes a direct affront to the ideals and high aspirations espoused by our Founding Fathers. Rather, the President should vigorously pursue Osama bin Laden, the mastermind behind the 9/11 attacks, and who remains at large nearly four years after the vicious attack his organization made on our soil. As Porter Goss has recently indicated he has a very good idea of bin Laden’s whereabouts, and given that President Bush has vowed to not distinguish between terrorists and the governments that harbor them, it would seem a more worthwhile to attack them than fellow Americans. However, because Scott McClellan has defended Mr. Rove’s remarks on behalf of the White House, and Ken Mehlman has supported the statements on behalf of the entire Republican National Committee, it appears that Karl Rove, the RNC, and President Bush are more interested in attacking and conquering Democrats and liberals than terrorists.

As a constituent of yours, I would like to know if you agree with Mr. Rove's statements, and if you, too, believe that as a liberal that I want any of our men or women in the armed services to come to harm. If you are dismissive of my inquiry given my political leanings, then perhaps you will answer the Families of September 11. Or the members of our military who are appalled by Mr. Rove's statements. Or the 49% of Americans that voted for a candidate other than George Bush in the 2004 election. Mr. Rove's comments are an insult to half our nation's population, and likely the same to the 57% of Americans that now oppose the war in Iraq.

Mr. Rove, the RNC, and President George Bush are now attacking Americans.

So I am asking: Does Karl Rove speak for you like he speaks for our President?

Sincerely yours,

Pete

PS. / Update: Kristen Breitweiser posits an interesting question, and also would like some answers.

Saving the Bluegrass

2005-06-22T16:34:00.000-04:00

One thing that has always bugged me about being a Kentuckian, is that everyone outside of Kentucky always asks me first:

Did I get my shoes at the state border while leaving the state?, and next:

Do I get free Kentucky Fried Chicken as a resident?; and finally:

Do people really get naked in the Derby Infield?

Few people have a genuine appreciation for the sheer natural beauty of our state, from the rolling pastures to densely wooded forests, Kentucky has one of the most gorgeous landscapes in our nation. Of course, the conditions that make Daniel Boone Forest so lush also lends itself to the potency of some of the strongest marijuana in the nation, too. But that's a different blog post altogether.

I understand people outside of Kentucky thinking first of Yellowstone or Glacier National Forest when they talk of "getting out" or "backpacking" - although it's no less frustrating. Having spent many a night in Daniel Boone and the rest of the Gorge area, as well as other parks in Virginia, New Hampshire, Tennessee, North Carolina, and elsewhere, I can honestly say Kentucky gives no ground to those folks (except we don't have a Dollywood, so I guess we're a little behind).

I do, however, take issue with people inside Kentucky not appreciating our landscape. That's why it is with great joy that I see that the Bluegrass has finally been recognized for its beauty, but saddened that it had to become one of only eight U.S. sites listed as an "endangered" site to get noticed. It's also disheartening that it took folks outside of Kentucky to point out to us that we are paving over our heritage.

Compliance

2005-06-22T16:26:00.000-04:00

When fame and fortune beckon, 'tis best to heed its call.

In fact, total compliance is best.

Missing the Forest

2005-06-19T16:45:00.000-04:00

It's really cute that Anne Northup is "bucking the party line" by supporting the reimportation of prescription drugs at reduced prices. It makes great theatre since her little amendment will get stripped out of the bill without ever seeing the light of day, as appears to be almost certainly the case.

While her cheap theatrics will undoubtedly appease some among the elderly, to most thinking Kentuckians (and Americans for that matter) reimportation really ignores the larger issue - why does America produce most of the newest medicinal innovations yet our citizens pay some of the highest prices in the world? Why is America the only government that doesn't use its collective bargaining power to help reduce drug prices in the first place?

There's a reason drugs are cheaper in Canada. It's called price controls. And obviously it works.

The Next Wedge

2005-06-19T16:38:00.000-04:00

Gay bashing worked so well in 2004, that it seems it will continue in 2006 or 2008. Saturday I got word from political types that a ban on gay marriage will be on the ballot in Kentucky in '06 or '08. The only thing to be determined was in which year would it be the most beneficial to turn out the chicken littles that are so narrow minded that they honestly believe gays represent the greatest threat to Kentucky, America, "traditional" marriage, The Left Behind series, American Idol, Toby Keith, and the second coming of Jesus.

It's not a guarantee (I didn't get it direct from Mitch McConnell or Anne Northup), but the thinking is that this will be the next wedge issue in the state. Since our education system is top notch I really can't think of anything better to discuss during an election cycle.

Long Live The Last Sane Ralph Long

2005-06-18T15:05:00.000-04:00

Ralph Long makes an important point in this post:

In spite of the Larry Forgy lawsuit, and other attempted diversions, making a recommendation for a state job is not the issue. Larry Forgy can recommend anyone he wants, Greg Stumbo can do the same, and even Ralph Long can make a recommendation.
The issue is what happens after, what does the person making the hiring decision do with the recommendation.

So often lately this investigation has been improperly castigated as "partisan" or the like. That's a convenient smokescreen from Fletcher and Co., but it's troubling to see that same charge raised in comments over at Bluegrass Roots (not by the editors, but commenters) or in the Op/Ed letters to the editor of any given newspaper. Official misconduct is not a partisan issue. It's one thing to defend the administration for misguided policy decisions, but it seems clear that this is an instance where smoke equals fire.

I'm not presuming that because I'm a lefty. I'm presuming that because it seems true. And partly it seems true because of the administration's response to the whole thing - Fletcher played it just right in the beginning by admitting that some corners may have been cut, or that hiring parties may not have been properly trained. It was simply idiotic to change the tune and circle wagons, putting up obstacles at every turn.

The whole argument that "this is how it's always been" or "Democrats did it too" is just nonsense. Sure, it's always been this way. And yes, Democrats did it too. But it doesn't make it right now, nor was it right then. I didn't blog during Patton's years, but if I had you would have heard more vitriol than you hear now. [As an aside, the pain that Republicans felt during Patton's years (pre-Senate majority), and the inability to investigate infractions is much how Democrats in D.C. feel now with the discovery of the Downing Street Memos.]

I'm a Democrat, but that doesn't mean I will swallow corruption and incompetence just to toe the party line. Because above all I'm a tax paying Kentuckian, and every time this crap happens it wastes my money. And it's just sad to see Republicans (the champions of small government) actually defending this crap. Oh, they don't defend it by saying "what, is that wrong?" No, they defend it by saying "I expect indictments and hope the offending parties go to jail, but let's face it - Democrats always did it, and now they want to act like saints, blah, blah, blah, blah."

Besides being an indirect defense, it just makes the speaker sound insincere and a bit ethically and morally, if not intellectually, flexible - and not in a good way.

And let's be very clear. As Ralph stated, the investigation is not about recommendations. People need to quit saying that because it just makes them sound stupid. Recommendations are part of the territory, and it's part of being in control of administrative agencies. In other words it's somewhat of a perk. Whether it's right or wrong that a Fletcher recommendation should carry more weight than a Ralph Long recommendation, is not really debatable - the standard is whether it breaks the law. A "recommendation" without an administrative nudge is just a recommendation. A "recommendation" with the Fletcher "wink, wink, nod, nod" is not just a recommendation, and becomes somewhat on par with that old relationship known as "friends with benefits." It's really not complicated to distinguish being "friends" and being "friends with benefits." And it's really not hard to distinguish between "recommendation" and "recommendation with consequences."

Given that framework, giving letters of recommendation to fill open posts which are open through naturally occurring attrition are one thing.

It's quite another to create an open post through overtly partisan adverse employee action. It doesn't much matter if the guy on the road crew is a Democrat or Republican. But when you fire a Democrat on the road crew on trumped up employment infractions, as happened to Brian Roy in the parks department, to create space for a Republican donor or activist, then "recommendation" has crossed the line to something the AG's office ought to investigate

And like Ralph says, that's what this is all about.

Random Thoughts on Privatizating Social Security

2005-06-16T13:38:00.000-04:00

The thing that the Ohio investment scandals involving bad investments of a couple hundred million dollars in tax payer funds (or rather the loss of a couple hundred million) ought to tell us is this: privatizing social security is a dangerous move, but not just for the reasons most often stated. So far, Ohio Republicans have lost millions on a taxpayer investment into "rare coins" (managed by a big time Republican donor with ties to all top Ohio GOP and Bush/Rove); a couple hundred million with an investment firm with Republican ties (those ties are described here); and now a couple more million with a Maryland investment firm even after its owner was accused of fraud (in the loss of $40 million) and who is now convicted of various crimes related to it.

Sure, the stock market has the potential for higher rates of return over time, and for purposes of this simplistic post I'll ignore the inherent problems with the current plans being floated (start here and take the red pill, or see this post where I actually support reform with system wide investments, a position I'm now reconsidering). The problem isn't really with the stock market though, or the bona fide risks that an investor faces when placing their money with an honest, straight laced investment broker.

The problem is that the government (read: whoever the current party in power is at the time with the ability to do so) tends to reward its supporters, whether deserving or not (see Fletcher's current JOBTROT woes as an example). This includes unscrupulous investment brokers akin to what we're seeing in Ohio. Like the Republicans are fond of saying - you can't trust the government. And while they mean you can't trust them not to spend the social security surplus, it also means you can't trust them to give your social security to honest people. Maybe one day we'll be blessed with public officials that have an honest to goodness belief they work for us. I'm not counting on it, largely because we've grown accustomed to it and simply accept their shenanigans as "politics as usual." Reading any blog comments or message boards proves this.

My point is that when the government issues those "worthless IOU's" Bush is talking about in exchange for a loan from the surplus, those IOUs (a/k/a treasury bonds) happen to be backed by the full faith and credit of the United States. "Full faith & credit" is found in a little place I like to call the US Constitution, which is a little thing I like to call the intellectual and aspirational foundation of our country. Just as I don't care for Bush pissing on my country's full faith and credit, I don't care for the thought that my tax dollars would be placed with someone for investment who will piss on my investment.

No, I don't suggest all investments be in t-bills, that's just stupid. But Social Security isn't an investment. It's insurance. I think it's great if you don't need Social Security and have money to invest in rare coins or with a broker that boasts a negative $40 million dollar profit (i.e. a loss). But the funny thing about a $215 million loss by the state of Ohio with MDL Investments is that once the money's gone it's gone. It's now somebody else's money. Or no one's money. But it surely ain't the taxpayers' money.

Extrapolate that. The current SS surplus is $1.4 trillion (ignoring the annual $160 billion addition to the surplus) and let's say it's squandered on a beautiful collection of faux art (Rembrandt-esque, if you will). And let's say it loses 71.5% of its value (just like MDL did to Ohio's investments). That leaves $399 billion.

Another way to look at $399 billion? It's less than the defense budget for the United States.

It also looks like this: $399,000,000,000.

And the loss looks like this: $1,001,000,000,000.

Might I suggest an alternative investment be a game of chance? I play a mean hand of blackjack, and can anyone besides me imagine the comps you'd get in Vegas if you were tossing that kind of cabbage around? Oh yeah, we could shore up Social Security too (almost forgot that part).

All God's Children Got the Blues

2005-06-14T20:59:00.000-04:00

Yes, I'm a blues fan (as noted earlier, I drove a total of 11 hours round trip to see a grand total of 16 hours worth of blues music in Chicago). And yes, I abhor the heat and humidity of a Kentucky summer. Unfortunately, blues is a summertime sport - it's best enjoyed in the heat of the day, while drenched in sweat and bourbon, with your head bobbing side to side with the beat.

It doesn't get much better than Chicago or Memphis for the blues (unless you're more of a Louisiana/Zydeco blues fan, in which case New Orleans and the Bayou are your raison d' etre), but it is possible to catch great blues local. And it doesn't get much more local than Henderson, Kentucky for the WC Handy Blues Festival this week (click the "about" button on their website to read about who WC was - what they don't mention is that the annual "WC Handy Awards" are among the most coveted for blues performers, and are the blues equivalent of the Nobel Peace Prize).

The performers this year are top notch - and one of my favorites, Larry McCray, can pick the strings of a guitar like Republican fundraisers pick dollars from donors' pockets - the shit is smooth. While in Chicago I caught him two nights at the Kingston Mines (watch out for drunk college guys that think blues music gives them special powers of dance), and the blues is the funk.

Point is, if you're in the area check it out. It's free. And believe it or not, Republicans like the blues too. One good reason for us all to just get along.

Update: Didn't want to short change the other performers by just pointing out McCray, so I'll note that Billy Branch and Little Milton are both top notch blues artists, too. And in reviewing the schedule they've actually broken the festival down by style...in other words one night's Zydeco style, another nights jam style (think later Bo Diddley type), and so on.

Spinning the Indictment Wheel

2005-06-14T19:26:00.000-04:00

Three officials are indicted (as of today, there may be more to come) in JOBTROT, and among the three is one Dan Druen. Besides being a young pup, Druen is one of the three "youngsters" that Republican donors have been looking to protect through a donations to a legal defense fund (all "non-political" donations of course, lest they run afoul of the gift restrictions - Ralph Long takes us to school and shows us why this is a load of crap).

As Ryan Alessi at the Lexington Herald points out, there's a couple others that need protecting, and as I pointed out the donors better get to them before the AG's office does (in the form of plea deals, etc.). Based on Druen's indictment one has to infer that he's not made a deal with Stumbo or the rest of the AG's office (if he did make a deal that included an indictment he needs to find new legal counsel).

That leaves two more possibilities in the "low lying fruit" category - Vince and Corey Meadows. Both seem to be in a position to burn top level officials, but press reports put Meadows at the top of the list. My money stays on Meadows to cut a deal and do the right thing. None of the players are worth putting one's integrity or future on the line.

And the mystery around Keith Hall's abrupt resignation from Homeland Security takes a new twist, as he appears before the grand jury for less than five minutes - mostly likely pleading the Fifth Amendment. Keith's a "true believer" (i.e., one who, no matter what evidence faced with, will never accept, much less acknowledge, that his "team" may not have been playing on the up and up - in other words he simply sees himself governed by a different set of rules...and ends justifying the means sort of existence if you will), so no one ought to look for him to Henry Hill his way out of anything. Seeing as how he was in charge of board and commission appointments he may want to take off the blinders.

And a mystery commenter has more on the voluntariness of Mr. Hall's resignation (related to this post from yesterday)...

Bye Bye Keith, We Hardly Knew Ya

2005-06-13T13:42:00.000-04:00

Keith Hall resigns the Homeland Security post to pursue other endeavors.

No indication he was involved in any of the JOBTROT stuff, but I note with interest the difference between the Lexington Herald's coverage of this and that of the Courier Journal. Ryan Alessi's article in the Herald contains this little nugget:

When initially contacted by a reporter yesterday about Hall's departure, Carla Blanton, the governor's communications director, said, "It was a decision that the lieutenant governor made."

And you guessed it, the print edition (and internet edition for that matter) of the CJ's article does not. Perhaps not intentional, in fact most likely not. Most likely it's just lack of journalistic inquiry - or the CJ's political correspondents don't have the juice to get a return call from Fletcher spokespeople. Either way, Ryan Alessi and the Herald have been all over this thing like stink on...well you know.

So to save the Republicans the trouble, I'll ask "why does Ryan Alessi and the Herald hate Kentucky, America, our military, Fox News, Tim Russert, the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, the Magna Carta, Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan (and all actors that have portrayed him in movies about his life), Anne Coulter, and [insert your own name here]"?

Eating the Young

2005-06-13T13:29:00.000-04:00

Apropos to my post about Corey Meadows, it appears the race is on between the AG's office and Kentucky Republican Party to determine where the loyalties of the low lying fruit in the AG's investigation will fall.

The AG is ostensibly seeking their disloyalty with offers of immunity and the Republican Party is buying it with high priced lawyers and a bottomless well of defense funds. I'm not actually surprised that one or more haven't been cut loose yet to take the fall - the Republican M.O. is to circle wagons until it blows over or is forgotten by the American public. Because as the Bible states, the Republicans can do no wrong.

So who gets "the deal" from the AG? Who has the info damning to Fletcher? Will that party deal? Or will their loyalty - and thus their morality - be up for sale?

My money's still on Meadows. And I'm betting his ethics are a little stronger than those of the rest of the parties involved.

Chicago

2005-06-13T13:21:00.000-04:00

As an aside, I highly recommend a weekend in Chicago. Accommodations are pricey, that's why I say "weekend" instead of "week," but the city is rivaled only by New York City in this area of the country in terms of potential activities to satisfy all tastes.

I was there for the annual Blues Festival that ran from Thursday to Sunday (headlined on Saturday by Chicago legend Buddy Guy) and hit a couple blues clubs - my recommendations are Blue Chicago (either of the two locations on Clark St. - one admission covers both clubs), Kingston Mines (a more collegiate crowd, thus a bit more rowdy - but the bouncers are Michael Clarke Duncan sized, so will protect you from spastic, non-coordinated drunk college boys), and of course Buddy Guy's Legends.

If you're not into blues (in which case you must be tone deaf), check out the museums (including the awesomely grotesque Body Worlds exhibit at the Chicago Museum of Science & Industry) or the sports.

Most importantly, get out of your environment and live in someone else's for a while. It would do all Americans good to live the lives of other folks, whether it be city folk in the country (and I don't mean Simple Life style) or vice versa. Our politicians are pitting us against each other based on blue state/red state, Democrat and Republican. In fact, we're not all that different and it's encumbent on us each to find ways of remembering that.

Judicial Nominations

2005-06-09T16:20:00.000-04:00

Fletcher is set to appoint a justice to the Kentucky Supreme Court, and among the three candidates are his general counsel John Roach (also named in JOBTROT) and Roger Crittenden, the judge that's hearing the JOBTROT litigation in Frankfort.

The appointment is laregly a token since Kentucky elects their Supreme Court Justices to serve certain districts - a truly screwed up way of electing justices since their rulings affect all Kentuckians. Anyway, the successful appointee is subject to replacement at some later date by general election.

I would think outside the box and nominate Court of Appeals Judge William McAnulty or Court of Appeals Chief Judge Sara W. Combs. Having been married to Bert Combs may hurt Judge Comb's chances - Republicans don't forget those sorts of things.

Keeping Bad Company

2005-06-09T14:44:00.000-04:00

Corey Meadows is a name no one would have ever heard of prior to JOBTROT. He's a young lawyer, having just graduated from U of L's law school in 2002. He spent some time with the Jefferson County Public Defenders office, and by all accounts is a likeable, honest individual that practiced within the confines of the law and worked hard for his indigent clients.

Now he's embroiled in Fletcher's JOBTROT mess. Meadows was put in charge of LINK, Fletcher's "outreach office" which was apparently nothing more than a clearing house for political hirees. Meadows also drafted what may be one of the most damning emails if Fletcher is implicated:

"Have we found out anything about the jobs Brock requested......Madisonville/Owensboro.......Frankfort/Georgetown.......Richmond/Berea? EF is being updated tomorrow. Please advise," said a Sept. 19, 2004, e-mail from LINK's then-deputy director Cory Meadows to the former Transportation Cabinet deputy secretary Dick Murgatroyd.

I don't know Meadows well, but sources indicate he was a small time guy who got dazzled by the bright lights and big city when he was hired by Fletcher to work at the LINK office. I'm no fan of the Nuremburg defense, but word is that Meadows followed orders and is caught up in something he had no idea may have been wrong.

The first thing they teach you in law school is that ignorance is never a defense, and that's true. What's also true is that Meadows, by the accounts related to me, has no special ties or loyalty to the Fletcher Crew. That coupled with youthful indiscretions (hell, it worked for the president's pre-age 40 coke habit), should position him to plea bargain - assuming he cares about the whole misdemeanor conviction, loss of law license, jail time thing.

Meadows is the lowest level guy (in terms of connections) yet to be named, and his lack of any fundraising or familial ties are also his biggest liability. Is there any doubt that Meadows' rope will be the first one cut? And it may have already happened, and no one caught it:

Fletcher said he did not know what role Meadows had played in merit hiring.

Much different than the staunch defense of Murgatroyd within the same article, no?

"It really saddens me to see that -- the focus on Dick Murgatroyd," Fletcher
said. "Dick doesn't have a dishonest or illegal bone in his body."

Meadows was an idiot, for sure, but it should be more criminal if the AG's investigation nets only a young, ambitious, albeit foolish, lawyer who left a poverty wage job with aspirations to "move up."

Again, I don't know Meadows. But he's the tip of the iceberg, and there's little question that given half a chance his elders will hang him out to dry. But then again, he got moved out to the Transporation Cabinet from the LINK office, so maybe they are going to take care of him....

The most prevalent rumor is that Meadows was merely the gatekeeper - in other words, his name went on emails but the messages therein came from higher up. I for one find it hard to believe that a young Meadows would be given that kind of authority, especially given how tightly controlled the Fletcher machine has tried to be.

Who will get to Meadows first?

When All Else Fails, Change the Rules

2005-06-09T14:12:00.000-04:00

Astonishing.

With the Kentucky legislature out of session and unable to change the rules to bail out Fletcher, Murgatroyd, et al (and unlikely to be successful unless they burn down the House anyway), the Republicans are trying to change the rules the old fashion way...by going to court:

Republican Larry Forgy, a Lexington attorney who unsuccessfully ran for governor in 1995, is asking the federal court to block Attorney General Greg Stumbo’s investigation of hiring practices in Gov. Ernie Fletcher’s administration. Forgy, saying he was acting independently, filed a lawsuit today in U.S. District Court, challenging the constitutionality of the state merit-system law that says no state job action for classified service positions can be based on politics.
The law violates his rights to freedom of speech and due process of law, said Forgy, who wrote a letter of recommendation for a job action to former deputy Transportation Secretary Dick Murgatroyd. Murgatroyd now is Fletcher’s deputy chief of staff.

"Acting independently" is code word for "plausible deniability" and only a braindead half wit would believe it. Besides being entirely meritless - nothing in the plain meaning of the merit system laws prohibits a letter of recommendation - the clear purpose of this lawsuit is to further delay the investigation and getting past the statute of limitations (piggy backing on the Fletcher administration's prior efforts). Since Forgy is a lawyer, perhaps someone at the Kentucky Bar Association will remind him and his attorneys about Rule 11 which states in relevant part:

The signature of an attorney or party constitutes a certification by him that he has read the pleading, motion or other paper; that to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief formed after reasonable inquiry it is well grounded in fact and is warranted by existing law or a good faith argument for the extension, modification or reversal of existing law, and that it is not interposed for any improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation. [emphasis added]

While the court enforces Rule 11, the KBA enforces violations of the ethics code, such as this little beauty:

It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to:
...
(b) Commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects;

(c) Engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation;

(d) State or imply an ability to influence improperly a government agency or official;....

So here's the deal: Forgy is still a heavy hitter in the Republican party (despite his loser status in prior races), no one can dispute that. How deep, I don't know, but a couple of well placed sources could reveal it to someone like Al Cross. If Forgy was using political connections to get someone a job, and told that "someone" he could do so given those political connections, then he's per se violated two of the three violations mentioned above (the first being "improper influence" the second being criminal under the merit system).

I'm not on the AG's payroll, although could stand to get a pay increase if they want to buy me, but I'd be asking the individual named in Forgy's letter exactly what Forgy promised and how he promised to deliver it. Which brings us back to Rule 11. Forgy's lawsuit seems to be a preemptive strike against a potential criminal conviction, or at the very least unethical influence peddling.

If he's using it to influence improperly other litigation, Forgy may need to brush up on his used car salesmanship techniques.

Just a thought.

Out of the Witness Protection Program

2005-06-09T14:00:00.000-04:00

In a stunning revelation not witnessed since Henry Hill broke his witness protection program induced silence, The Last Sane Man has revealed his secret identity. I'm trusting he will continue to use his super powers for good despite the revelation. This is not a trend - my name is Pete and I'm sticking with that for the time being.

Anyway, Ralph f/k/a The Last Sane Man directs us to an article in the Courier-Journal where it appears that Dick Murgatroyd has hired Jack Smith to represent him in JOBTROT. As I've said, Smith is a hell of a lawyer, although he's generally been on the Democrats' side (no doubt because they generally held power these past 30 years, and thus were in the position to abuse it or be accused thereof). The downside of course is that hiring someone of Smith's caliber is abit akin to hiring the late, great Johnnie Cochran - it pretty much solidifies the notion of guilt, rightly or wrongly.

Facing criminal penalties truly makes strange political bedfellows.

Can We End Our Fascination With McConnell?

2005-06-03T17:27:00.000-04:00

The Iraq Debacle May death totals skyrocketed, and military insiders paint a dire picture of the Iraq Blunder, all while the military's capacity to wage war is waning and recruiting woes are becoming incapacitating.

But Mitch McConnell still looks through his rose colored glasses:

Sen. Mitch McConnell returned from his third trip to Iraq believing "all the
trends are in the right direction," as the country works to create a permanent
government.

At what point - how many American GI deaths or maimings, how many Iraqi civilian deaths, how much stolen money, how many newly created terrorists, how many more lost military recruits - can we, as a country, and without regard to party affiliation, have a serious discussion about that the hell we are doing in Iraq, and how the hell we're going to get our men and women out? The line that "well, we're there so we have to do this, or do that" is just bullshit, and it's a copout whether it comes from George Bush or Howard Dean. Our soldiers are dying every day and our "leaders" don't have a fucking clue what they're doing. Since both sides voted for this damn war, both sides owe our soldiers the duty to figure it out.

Bush and company have decimated our military. As Americans it is our duty to question our leaders, not to undermine our war efforts but to protect the men and women who are fighting in a foreign land in a war that no one planned for. Our men and women are dying, and Iraqis are dying - how much more patriotic can you get then by standing up and demanding some fucking answers?

It's now clear that Bush lied us into war with the revelation of the Downing Street Memo. He simply should have no credibility, and as such the voice of the people - being the majority of Americans that no longer think this war is worth fighting - should be heard and answered.

Our sons and daughters are dying, and those that would use deceit for their ideological ends, and then with the help of those that follow these pied pipers mindlessly would quash the voice of dissent, the voice of the majority that would question our leaders and make them accountable to us - the people - have the blood of our heroes on their hands.

Niceties are at an end. Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rice, and conservative pundits and bloggers like Anne Coulter, Bob Novak, Powerline, Andrew Sullivan - you sent our soldiers to war on lies and many have died. You sent them without the proper armor and many have died. You sent them in insufficient numbers, despite all advice to the contrary, and many of them have died. There is simply no distinction left between those that planted the IEDs or fired the weapons that have killed and maimed our soldiers and the callous fools that send the soldiers there in the first place.

You are nothing different than the murderous thugs you purport to fight. The blood of our fallen soldiers is on your hands. And you owe us some answers. You owe it to the families of the dead. You owe it to soldiers still living today that may not be so lucky tomorrow.

Stacking the Deck, Part 2

2005-06-03T17:08:00.000-04:00

Somehow I missed this when putting up my earlier post:

The man Gov. Ernie Fletcher appointed yesterday to the state Ethics Commission is identified in a state worker's complaint as the governor's office contact in Laurel County for hiring civil service employees.

That same commission is in the midst of investigating the complaint, which alleges the Fletcher administration hired transportation workers on the basis of politics and not merit, a violation of state law.

If voters don't punish this conduct at the polls, then all is truly lost.

Is Tom Handy unethical? The facts don't seem to indicate that. Is Tom Handy capable of impartiality? Perhaps. If Tom Handy and the Personnel Board absolve Fletcher and his posse will it be an untainted absolution? No. Beyond partisanship, Kentuckians have a right to believe our government is transparent and that our public servants are working with integrity. When questions are raised about that integrity it does absolutely nothing to vindicate the alleged wrongdoers if the process creates more appearances of impropriety.

Fletcher just keeps screwing himself with these partisan plays, and screwing us in the process by giving us more and more reasons to doubt the validity of our government's dealings. This is pathetic behavior for any public official - but is perfectly understandable when one finally comes to the realization that current Republican agenda consists of nothing more than creating accountability requirements for all of us vis-a-vis the government all the while alleviating their accountability to us.

In a word: corrupt.

Jefferson County's Loss

2005-06-03T17:01:00.000-04:00

Former Jefferson Count A District Commissioner Russ Maple (pre-city/county merger) died from injuries in a car collision last night. I happened through the scene (or rather around it, due to police/ambulance activity) an hour or so after it occurred but didn't realize the severity of it. Anyway, Russ was a good commissioner, and was well like across party lines in the county (I've always felt local politics is a foolish place to parade national party loyalty).

He didn't hold any current office but was still active in the community. His presence will be missed, and his wife remains in critical condition - please keep her in your thoughts, and if you're the praying type then perhaps keep her there too.

If You Can't Beat the Dealer, Stack the Deck

2005-06-03T16:49:00.000-04:00

This is just priceless:

Gov. Ernie Fletcher yesterday named one of his major campaign fund-raisers to the Executive Branch Ethics Commission, giving himself a majority on a board investigating allegations of Republican political influence in his administration's merit-system hiring....

Handy hosted a Sept. 13, 2003, event that raised $116,000 for Fletcher's gubernatorial campaign, according to campaign-finance reports. He gave $1,000 of his own money. In 1995, Handy was the Republican nominee for lieutenant governor, under gubernatorial nominee Larry Forgy. Forgy is one of the Republican political leaders whose recommendations for state job candidates are at the center of investigations by the ethics board, Attorney General Greg Stumbo and the state Personnel Board....

A page straight out of the old Republican play book. I've yet to see any sputtering from right wing hacks that justify this crap. It's one thing to support your man, but like an old law professor used to say "you cannot changes the facts" (but then he went on to explain that 1 + 1 really equalled zero, but that's another story). Face it, your poster boy is getting bogged down in his administration's own ineptitude. Perhaps it's cause no one in the Republican party knew what being in the governor's mansion was like, but it's looking more and more like the door was opened for a mad grasp for full power and it was simply too much temptation for these people to pass up.

Either way you slice it the political strategery is downright pathetic.

See No Evil, Hear No Evil (Part Deux)

2005-05-27T10:04:00.000-04:00

Hmmmm, the Inspector General (an independent officer by statute) of the Department of Transportation has been ordered to keep his pie hole shut about the JOBTROT investigation. The last person holding the office of Inspector General in the Dept. (a Democrat) was fired after he prepared a report critical of millions of dollars in change orders authorized for politically connected construction companies under the Fletcher administration.

Bill Nighbert, acting Transportation Secretary, the guy that ordered David Ray, the current Inspector General, to clam up and discontinue any internal investigation, is the same one that fired Bobby Russell after he prepared the offensive report. Doesn't Russell know that as an "independent watchdog" his job is to speak no evil of the Dept. of Transportation? I'm assuming Russell was not sufficiently schooled in this, although that seems odd since he was a Patton holdover.

And even though his report was withheld from the public for 7 months on orders of the Fletcher administration, those friendly Transportation workers gave their political chronies copies of the report, no doubt for "information purposes."

Sure sounds like waste, fraud, and abuse to me:

Yesterday, asked whether his office remained independent, Ray said he was not allowed to comment. Just hours earlier, Ray said, Nighbert ordered him to clear all of his future public remarks through the cabinet's Office of Public Affairs, which answers to Nighbert.
"I'd better not address this," said Ray, a retired U.S. Secret Service agent. "Much as I'd like to, I've got a -- I work for the cabinet at this point, and I've got to go with what they say."
Asked whether he planned to quit, Ray replied: "That's a great question. ... But I can't get into it. It's heavier than that at this point, I think."

And then there's this veiled warning to Ray:

Ray reports directly to him, Nighbert said -- "I pay his salary," he added -- but Ray could, like his predecessor under Gov. Paul Patton's administration, go straight to the top of state government if he truly feels stymied.
"If he can get an audience with the governor, and the governor wants to talk to him, I think he's perfectly welcome in the governor's office," Nighbert said.

Sure, go the governor's office...if you can get the "audience" (like Fletcher is the Pope or something). But if you can't get the audience, then you'll probably get canned for "not following the chain of command" much as your deputy, Mike Duncan.

And you don't pay his salary, I do. As does the other citizens of this Commonwealth that hand over our tax dollars on the presumption they will be used to pay people to do their jobs and not engage in petty chronyism. Neighbert should be fired for pure hubris alone.

This thing is a ticking time bomb.

Kelly Downard - A Man of the People

2005-05-27T09:51:00.000-04:00

The Louisville Metro Council requested a 50% increase in discretionary spending and 1/3 increase for public development and construction projects in each member's district, and got them from Mayor for Life Jerry Abramson.

For the life of me I can't understand why each council member, who represents their constituents and understands the needs of their particular community, shouldn't have the discretion to fund projects unique to their district. That's why I don't understand Kelly Downard:

But Republican Caucus Leader Kelly Downard, who is challenging Abramson for mayor in 2006, said it was "irresponsible" for Abramson to put the money in the
budget and said he would fight the increases.

I understand partisan politics, even though it's really pointless to have partisanship in local politics (I suppose being a part of the "club" makes some people feel the need to affiliate with one party and therefore oppose everything the other "club" is doing). But Kelly Downard is just foolish to object to this, and it's apparent he's doing it for the sole purpose of "distinguishing" himself from Abramson in preparation for what will be a losing run for the mayor's office.

Why does Kelly Downard think the taxpayers' money shouldn't go to projects that help the taxpayers? And what would he do with the money if it wasn't used for the taxpayers? Why does Kelly Downard hate Louisville?

It Should Go Without Saying

2005-05-27T09:36:00.000-04:00

It seems rather silly that any politician should ever argue with a straight face that taxpayers should have to pay for their defense attorney when they are accused of criminal conduct, whether in their official capacity or otherwise. Cloaking the groundwork for a meritorious criminal defense under some other auspices ("compliance with subpoenas and search warrants") doesn't change what it is, which is clearly what is going on here.

And it should be common sense that we wouldn't really need a law to that effect.

I also think it's rather assinine that any state agency should be able to hire an outside attorney to "respond to subpoenas" since every major government agency has their own "in-house" counsel that could presumably do those things. Unless of course said agency is acknowledging their in-house attorney's incompetence. The attorney represents the agency employing him or her, and their job is to protect the agency. In that case there's no problem with the in-house attorney asserting executive privilege (which I happen to think Fletcher has some entitlement to - although it's a judge's decision as to what is "privileged" and not Sheryl Snyder's).

That being said, when a government agency is sued by an outside third party for something (like defamation or abuse of power) there may be a justification for hiring outside counsel that may specialize in civil litigation. An in-house lawyer can certainly handle subpoenas from intra-governmental departments but there's no doubt an in-house lawyer wouldn't have the ability to defend a civil suit from purely a time management perspective, if not due to professional specialization. Contrary to public perception, and in spite of the Kentucky Bar Association's prohibitions against marketing a lawyer's specialization, no one lawyer is an expert in all facets of the law. If they tell you otherwise you better keep shopping for one.

The distinction is simple - a judgment against a state agency for conduct in their official capacity or by virtue of conduct in the course of the agency's official duties by a citizen or outside entity affects the public coffers, and thus the taxpayer. Defense in a civil suit of this nature is a defense of the taxpayers' money in essence. But defending a public official for alleged criminal conduct, which is in itself an affront to the taxpayer, constitutes nothing more than waste, fraud, and abuse in defense of...well, waste, fraud, and abuse.

Every Once in a While...

2005-05-26T22:14:00.000-04:00

Like people that come to this little blog, I read a lot of crap on the internets. By "crap" I mostly mean "stuff" although some of it is in fact "crap." A lot of great bloggers exist, and in a small amount of space on your computer screen they can capture the essence of a moment, make you laugh, piss you off, make you wish you hadn't booted up the damned computer at all, or teach you something you didn't already know. Of course on the other side of the spectrum a blogger can make you ask yourself "how in the blue blazes does this stupid ass even remember to breathe" right before you remember they get a little help from the fact that breathing is largely involuntary.

Then every now and then a blogger writes something that is read as if the author is actually talking to you, and is not merely representing his thoughts through the miracle of light refraction behind the glass on your monitor.

And so it is with The Poor Man's latest. It's a thing of beauty.

Either The Poor Man is a genius, or he has gotten his hands on some of the finest Amsterdam has to offer. Or perhaps both.

Hate Mail

2005-05-24T19:52:00.000-04:00

In an earlier post I made mention of Wyatt, Tarrant, & Combs and their representation of the Department of Transportation in Stumbo's case involving JOBTROT. I noted (with citation mind you) prior alleged misconduct and the fact that they charge a hell of a lot of money.

Both those facts are true. They were alleged to have engaged in misconduct and they do charge a hell of a lot of money. Perhaps what should be clarified (so as to address the scathing emails) is that I was not implying that each of Wyatt's hundreds of lawyers were unethical or did anything unethical. But someone in the firm was alleged to have, and you know what they say about "a few bad apples"....Anyway, if anyone at Wyatt was offended then I suppose they can launch a thousand ships, sue me, and make utter asses of themselves. I'm guessing they won't do any of that because quite frankly I don't think if someone accused them of eating babies they would really care. That's the benefit of having more money than everyone else - some people might call it "f---- you money." You know the kind...the kind where you can bite the head off a bat in front of screaming lunatic fans, and when someone says you're a nutbag, you say "f--- you cause I got mo' money than you...Bitch." If they have hurt feelings I'm sure they'll get over it. No attorney there makes less than $90K to start (based on info from U of L law school which is not on the internets) and partners can make in excess of $350,000, so a few hurt feelings can be assuaged with that shiny new BMW in front of the nice big house.

I happen to have known some Wyatt attorneys in a previous life, and thought they were good peeps. Even drank beer with them I think once or twice. And I stand behind my comment that they charge a hell of a lot because it's true. They don't give away all those fancy suits you know. If the Dept. of Transportation got a deal then great - get it out in the open and disclose it.

As for the joker that said I was slamming Grant Helman and Jack Smith, I'm not sure what post you were reading (or what substances you were under the influence of when reading it), but just so we're clear - I've had occassion to meet both individuals and will state unequivocally that Jack Smith is a top notch lawyer. Thus my suggestion that Fletcher call him for counsel (my understanding is that since Sheryl Snyder is under state contract he can't represent Fletcher in criminal matters - see the Rule in Clinton's Case for the basis for my assumption). Helman's rep is the same as Smith's, but I don't know him well enough to vouch for him.

No cites in this post because quite frankly the complaints didn't merit the attention I've already paid to them. Rich lawyers with hurt feelings get no sympathy - no one gets into the legal profession under any pretense that they'll be loved by the public at large. Yet so many still vote Republican despite being castigated as bottom feeding scum suckers in the great American pond by them. Now that's something they ought to be thinking about.

See No Evil, Hear No Evil

2005-05-20T08:26:00.000-04:00

Updated: Took out unrelated commentary to shorten post

In his best "3 Monkeys" posture, Lt. Gov. Steve Pence accused Attorney General Greg Stumbo of investigating potential illegal conduct because of partisanship, then Pence turns around and says he knew about the allegations the whole time -- but he didn't get the memo that as the Justice Cabinet secretary, Pence may want to pursue those things.

Lt. Gov. Steve Pence said yesterday he learned earlier this month about allegations state workers were being hired on the basis of politics but didn't ask state police to investigate because no one asked him to do so.
Pence said he had heard about the allegations after a state employee spoke with a
Transportation Cabinet lawyer, and the cabinet began an inquiry May 2.

Honestly, isn't a witness' allegation enough to merit more than a cursory glance? Especially from an administration that ran its campaign on eliminating "waste, fraud, and abuse"? Stumbo starts his investigation and within a week he has 80 people come forward. Presumably had Pence done the same there would have been similar results - but the difference is that you have to make the effort first.

I've supported Pence on many of his law enforcement policy positions, and will continue to. But he's playing politics with this and it's painfully obvious that this inexperienced crew can't play the allegation game as well as their federal government counterparts.

And in a stroke of utter genious, the Transportation Cabinet has hired Louisville law firm Wyatt, Tarrant, & Combs to investigate. WTC ain't cheap, and they were hip deep in tobacco litigation - on the side of tobacco. During the whole tobacco litigation fest of the 90's, this purportedly went on at Wyatt, Tarrant & Combs:

Williams says that in his work for B&W's law firm, he discovered that the company was avoiding legal discovery proceedings by funneling the most damaging material in its files to its legal departments, where company lawyers claimed the material was protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege and as attorney work product. That is fraud--and "that's never protected by attorney-client work privilege or work product," DeMoisey says.

But if you want a thorough gouging of the Kentucky taxpayer, that's one of the firms you'd want to call - they got an army of lawyers and a first rate billling system. When the public coffers are bottomless, there's no incentive to keep the price under control.

Los Angeles Not American?

2005-05-20T08:06:00.000-04:00

So says John Ziegler, disgraced conservative radio show host formerly of WHAS radio in Louisville and now with 640 KFI in Los Angeles:

"I hate where I live. I don't feel like L.A. is American," Ziegler said.

John Ziegler must be feeling the heat in his defamation trial, in which Ziegler, ever the good conservative (hypocrite) is alleged to have:

....Ziegler had talked about how Divita kept her pubic hair groomed. "It made me cringe."

Ziegler referred to her as a "pathological" liar and told listeners that Divita had the "best fake breasts" that "deserved some sort of Nobel prize." When a listener asked why Divita always wore slacks during her morning show, Ziegler responded that she did not wear underwear.

And what kind of "character" does this jackass have? Let's see...

Ziegler continued to "trash" Divita even after she was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis, Clay told jurors. "He won't shut up," the attorney said.

What a conservative asshole. And he looks like a real douchebag too.

And he was under oath, so presumably Ziegler really hates living and working in the second largest city in America. I wonder how his LA audience would react if they knew John Ziegler hates LA. Why do you hate LA John? Is it the heat? The "Hollywood elite"? Or do you just hate all those minorities running around out there?

Come on John, what makes LA "not American"?

Having Fun at Others' Expense

2005-05-19T10:30:00.000-04:00

WAVE3 has been sued by a schmuck for having the audacity to point out that he sold a house fit for condemnation to a blind lady. [Before he sues me, I'll qualify that "schmuck" is merely my opinion of him based on the evidence.] Representing said schmuck is the law firm of Smith & Helman, a Louisville firm formed by the partnership of Jack Smith and Grant Helman.

Grant Helman was appointed to the Board of Trustees for the University of Louisville by Paul Patton. He's regarded as a top notch, although cantankerous, lawyer in the Louisville area despite having lost his bid for a judgeship.

Jack Smith is a long time Democratic player (and former US Attorney) - mostly a behind the scenes guy. He's better known for helping form Lt. Gov. Steve Henry out of a pinch for a wee bit of alleged Medicare fraud. He has become known for keeping a low profile in high profile criminal defense cases (as opposed to the flashier Bart Adams, who is also a go-to guy if you're caught confessing to holding a pound of coke in one hand and the beheaded corpse of your ex-spouse in the other), and is also regarded as one of the best attorneys in the city.

Why are the professional abilities of these two lawyers (who aren't the actual attorneys from the firm who actually filed the lawsuit) relevant to the douchebag suing WAVE3? It's not.

But Jack Smith was a player on the defense team for the BOPTROT defendants, and has routinely defended people accused of government-related criminal scandals.

The point is that given the life this JOBTROT scandal is taking on its own, a meeting between Fletcher and Smith/Helman may be the best move of bipartisanship this administration has made. The doucebag part at the beginning was just for kicks and giggles, and to feed the right wing's incessant incantations that the judicial system is broken.

What Are Gov. Fletcher's Initials?

2005-05-19T10:03:00.000-04:00

From the Courier Journal editorial page comes a simple, yet difficult question to answer - assuming the respondent is not pleading the Fifth:

Of the many questions swirling around JOBTROT, the Fletcher administration's apparent trashing of Kentucky's merit system, one stands out as being both crucial and easy for the administration to answer: Who is "EF"? EF is mentioned in one of the incriminating e-mails about Transportation Cabinet hiring, and is a figure consequential enough to receive briefings by other top officials.
The e-mail was sent by Cory Meadows, then the deputy director of the Governor's office of Local Initiatives for a New Kentucky (LINK), to Dick Murgatroyd, then a deputy Transportation secretary and now Gov. Ernie Fletcher's deputy chief of staff. It said, "Have we found out anything about the jobs Brock requested.… EF is being updated tomorrow. Please advise."
It would make sense if Mr. Meadows had been preparing to update Ellen Williams; she's the commissioner of local development (and ex-head of the state Republican Party) who oversees the LINK operation.
But she's an EW, not an EF. Likewise, none of the Governor's staff members, as listed on his Web site, has those initials. And the prominent political names implicated so far -- D(ave)D(isponett), R(alph)H(acker), S(teve)B(ranscum) -- don't even come close.
There is one obvious possibility, of course. But, surely, it can't be true, considering that Attorney General Greg Stumbo is alleging illegal -- and prosecutable -- conduct.
The Governor needs to allay any fear, clear up the mystery and tell his staff to answer, quickly: Who is EF?

Ruh roh. Here's a handy reference that perhaps may of use to the Guv-nuh.

Kentucky Terror

2005-05-19T08:45:00.000-04:00

Today Kentucky is at "elevated" status for terror alerts. Setting aside the ridiculousness, and crying wolf posturing, of an "elevated" status, let's look at what we are supposed to be doing:

Yellow - Elevated Condition
Complete recommended steps at levels green and blue.
Ensure disaster supply kit is stocked and ready.
Check telephone numbers in family emergency plan and update as necessary.
Develop alternate routes to/from work or school and practice them.
Continue to be alert for suspicious activity and report it to authorities.

That's your tax dollars at work - coming up with that. We know now that federal terror alerts were politically manipulated (from Tom Ridge himself, no less), so what's the f-ing point of paying attention to this crap?

Get my "disaster supply kit" ready? Develop alternative routes to work or school?! Listen you stupid assholes, assuming there is a terror attack - and that's a big fat lobotomized "if" to even be considering any time of year in Kentucky outside of Derby time - who the hell is going to go to work? And do you think my kid is going to school?

Our tax dollars are being wasted to scare the hell out of us so we will keep voting for these sorry jackasses that are allegedly "better equipped" to protect us - because nothing is going to save my life like a homemade "disaster supply kit" and I can dodge bombs by taking my "alternate" route to work. The fact is that politicians and government can't do a thing to stop terrorists from attacking, and telling us to have a "disaster supply kit" is just further proof that they don't know what the hell to do, and will just make stuff up to justify their existence.

You want to prevent terrorism? Then take a look at why terrorists attack for God's sake. Can't we all just get along?

What a scam.

Blogging Hiatus

2005-05-19T08:17:00.000-04:00

After an unexpected blogging hiatus - which coincided with, and in fact was caused by, unforseen travel out of the state - I return to find the Fletcher administration embroiled in a scandal involving their bane of existence: waste, fraud, and abuse. No doubt everyone's heard the basics - Fletcher's crew apparently hired folks in the Transportation Cabinet cause they were Republicans.

It also appears they may have hired them cause they were white as the driven snow (and here's the editorial to ice the cake and make the case). And now the state stands to lose $600 million in transportation development funds.

Awesome.

Now it looks like A.G. Stumbo may be expanding the investigation to other cabinets.

And the tit for tat between two prospective gubenatorial candidates - is there any genuine belief Mitch McConnell will let Fletcher run again? - heats up:

"We've hired or promoted thousands of people. One or two does not mean there is a pattern," said Pence, who is also Justice Cabinet secretary and oversees the Kentucky State Police.
"If someone has done something wrong, and they may have, then we need to take responsibility for that and correct the action if we can and hold those responsible accountable," he said.
Stumbo said the attorney general is responsible for protecting the merit system and doesn't need to wait for the Personnel Board to act. "You could turn that around and ask: Lieutenant Governor, you took the same oath I did to uphold the law. You're in charge of a 1,000-person police force. Why didn't you launch a criminal investigation?" Stumbo said.

Partisanship aside, Pence is grasping at straws - but it's the popular M.O. for Republicans - do whatever the hell you want until you get caught, deny it happened until there's proof, then excuse it because "everyone did it" until it becomes an overwhelming P.R. nightmare, then blame the Democrats for trumping up charges and state unequivocally that your administration will be vindicated....just as soon as these three dozen committees consisting of appointees get done examining the evidence.

Despite my glee that reality has rudely invaded the utopian world of perpetual blue skies that loyal devotees to the Republican party inhabit, this scandal should cause us to address a larger problem. And that is that the merit system, while noble in concept, is a farce - unless of course you have a member of the opposite party in a position to enforce it (such as Stumbo) [note that the Last Sane Man talks briefly about the merit system and takes a less harsh view - he's got all the links so you can decide for yourself]. Of course the same people that say it works will also testify verily that Keith Hall was the best candidate to head Homeland Security.

And the funniest part is that unpaid "volunteer" Dave Disponett - who has an office and staff access paid for by the Kentucky taxpayers, despite not being ethically accountable to them - apparently got his brother a job, and that's what let to one of the original complaints.

Word around Frankfort - at the outdoor smoking stations outside government buildings - is that it's the tip of the iceberg. Rumor (unsubstantiated at this point, and I want to make that clear) is that there may have been "lists" of permissible job applicants for various Cabinet heads.

If you want to know more, just take up smoking and stand outside government buildings. It's amazing the stuff you hear.

Fighting Tyranny (Well, Maybe Tomorrow)

2005-05-10T08:38:00.000-04:00

Digby reminds us that for all Bush's tough talk about fighting tyranny, politically expedient relationships with human rights abusers earn them a free pass. I'll go one step further, and point to this article about the dictatorial rule in Equatorial Guinea, where one of the largest modern oil strikes was found in the 90's (to the tune of about $5.5 billion per year). Despite despotic rule, Bush has extended special privileges to the regime. [Some may remember this as the location of the failed coup attempt purportedly planned by Margaret Thatcher's son.]:

Per capita, it is one of the richest countries on the continent; rated by how much money ends up in the pockets of people not related to the president, it remains one of the poorest. Oil is the reason the desperate-looking cafés and shops in Ebebiyin use ExxonMobil signs as decorations. It is why, although his regime once sent death threats to the U.S. ambassador, Obiang now meets with senior administration officials and even with President Bush. And its why no one spoke out as Obiang treated his nations treasury as his own private bank account.

...Yet it has emerged as an all-too-real example of how a dictator, awash in petrodollars, enriches himself and his family while starving his people. His conduct has been aided by American companies: As detailed in Senate and Treasury Department documents, Riggs Bank helped Obiang shuttle millions into offshore accounts. Oil companies, meanwhile, made payments to his regime that the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is now scrutinizing under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.
...Human rights abuses continue unchecked. An oil company employee was recently beaten unconscious by gendarmes when he refused to pay a bribe. In 2002, more than a dozen security officials at the airport in Bata, the countrys commercial center, were arrested after they allowed an opposition leader to board a plane for Gabon. If you happen to be a member of the opposition, or even a suspected member of the opposition, you live precariously.

Read on for details on how big oil is propping Obiang up and keeping him in power while his people scrape by on $2 a day. Read on for the way Riggs Bank (who has a highly placed executive related to Bush) helped launder money for the dictator. Read on to see how big oil is running, and ruining, the world - in ways more than environmental. For goodness sake, even the Chinese find Obiang's treatment of his people to be abhorrent!

America, and the world, needs to face the fact that our reliance on oil destroys more than the environment - it is fostering dictatorial rule in more places than the Middle East, where entire populations are oppressed, murdered, and live in squalor. Until we can wean ourselves off this crap it is the world's addiction to cheap oil that will keep causing this.

On a side note, Digby's blog is a hell of a good blog to read - its one worth reading regularly, and his original post, which I jumped on with my own two cents, aptly made the same point.

Updated: Fixed stupid typos.

Rape in the Congo - Rwanda Revisited

2005-05-09T09:30:00.000-04:00

Go read this. There is evil in the world, and if something can't be done to protect these women then humanity is lost. Until we humanize these victims and force our representatives to focus on these gross violations of human rights, this wholesale rape of Congolese women will continue unabated.

This really is not a partisan issue. I have not heard anyone from either party call our government to action.

Rethinking the War on Drugs

2005-05-04T13:27:00.000-04:00

Surprise, surprise. A study shows marijuana use accounts for a majority of drug related arrests. Use of hard core drugs (cocaine, heroin) appear to be decreasing, but pot use is up.

The study of FBI data by a Washington-based think tank, the Sentencing Project, found that the proportion of heroin and cocaine cases plummeted from 55 percent
of all drug arrests in 1992 to less than 30 percent 10 years later. During the same period, marijuana arrests rose from 28 percent of the total to 45 percent.

This sounds good, because without a doubt heroin and cocaine are bad drugs - just ask Rick James.

However:

Bush administration officials attribute the rise in marijuana arrests to a variety of factors: increased use among teenagers during parts of the 1990s; efforts by local police departments to focus more on street-level offenses; and growing concerns over the danger posed by modern, more potent versions of marijuana. The White House Office of National Drug Control Policy released a study yesterday showing that youth who use marijuana are more likely to develop serious mental health problems, including depression and schizophrenia.

Ha! What a flipping joke. The "more potent versions" are grown right here in Kentucky. Some may argue it's the best in world, although I bet these people may disagree. And it's grown right there in Daniel Boone National Forest (ideal growing conditions, yet free from RICO property seizure laws since growers' property is not used in the process). Yet Bush and Company have cut funding for efforts to fight it.

Then we have Alberto "terrorism is my number one priority" Gonzalez:

Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, for example, has formed a national ommittee to oversee prosecution of violent drug gangs and has vowed to focus more resources on the fight against methamphetamine manufacturers and other drug traffickers.

Even from the American Enterprise Institute, who apparently "hates America" despite its conservative ideological leanings, we have these traitorous statements:

The conservative American Enterprise Institute published a report in March titled "Are We Losing the War on Drugs?" Its authors argue that, among other things, "criminal punishment of marijuana use does not appear to be justified."

The cost to society? $35 billion a year for the "war on drugs" and "[t]he report also found that one in four people in state prisons for marijuana offenses can be classified as a "low-level offender," and it estimated that $4 billion a year is spent on arresting and prosecuting marijuana crimes."

So what does the study really say?

"There's been a major change in what's going on in drug enforcement, but it clearly isn't something that someone set out to do," said Jonathan Caulkins, a criminology professor at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh. "It's not like anyone said, 'We don't care about cocaine and heroin anymore.' . . . The simple answer may be that police are now taking opportunities to make more marijuana arrests than they were when they were focused on crack cocaine in the 1980s."

That's right folks. We spend billions of dollars a year fighting a non-addictive, non-fatal drug (remember, not one incident of death by overdose has ever been reported - and that's from the government boys and girls), while other, more addictive and deadly drugs, imported from terrorist affiliated nations (like Afghanistan) are relegated to second tier status.

I'm just saying, if you want to fight violent drug gangs that sell marijuana, then make them irrelevant. If a hippy can buy a doobie at Starbucks, why would they drive to Compton? They wouldn't, and everyone knows it. Alcohol kills more people than pot ever thought of (assuming pot has the capacity to think), yet alcohol is sold on every corner in every major city in America with few exceptions.

Drugs are a problem, but marijuana is not - it's only a "drug" for legality purposes because statute designates it as such. And it's simply assinine and narrow minded to suggest that it is a problem that is more important than crack, heroine, meth, or cocaine. Perhaps it has to do with the fact that marijuana is naturally grown - from Mother Nature - whereas meth is naturally cooked - in any trailer park in the state. Whatever.

But pot is not the problem. It's a billion dollar industry that would make tons of people rich and provide a tax base unparalleled by any other industry in Kentucky. It's quite silly not to discuss this reasonably and rationally than resorting to the whole "gateway drug" nonsense. Alcohol lowers inhibitions much more so than pot, and the worst thing that ever happened to a pot head was they went on a carb loaded diet or hurt their finger dialing out for pizza.

Obsession With Sexual Intimidation

2005-05-04T10:39:00.000-04:00

From Digby:

I missed this one. Apparently, two female schoolteachers in their 50's who had the nerve to attend a public Bush rally without the proper Republican approvals were arrested and strip-searched. ...

Obviously, strip searching these women was an intimidation tactic, the same kind of tactic used to such great effect at Abu Ghraib. Sexual humiliation seems to be quite the rage among the macho these days. It was probably done by some cops who worship the phony Codpiece and think that American citizens who don't are traitors. ...

Get ready to be strip-searched America. Rush Limbaugh and all his little sick clones are training ever more people to believe that you deserve it. And worse.

I'm depressed today. Don't expect any inspiring words from me. The worst elements of our culture are on the rise. We have delivered massive government police power into the hands of authoritarian freaks whose followers are being told every day that liberals are a greater danger than terrorists are. Middle aged schoolteachers are being strip searched for protesting at a political rally.

This must be what that freedom they hate us for looks like.

Indeed. A police state in the making.

Drinking Liberally

2005-05-04T10:25:00.000-04:00

Drinking Liberally has a Louisville chapter now that meets Thursdays at the Bluegrass Brewing Company. The BBC happens to be a favorite haunt, as it's a short walk home (St. Matthews cops, like most law enforcement and reasonably minded people, frown on drinking and driving). Join their Wort Hog Club and enjoy some of their microbrews while meeting with like-minded liberals.

Tom DeLay Needs your Help

2005-05-03T15:30:00.000-04:00

Contributions to his legal fund are slowing down. Here's the report of DeLay's legal fund from its inception in 2000 through first quarter 2005 (via Public Citizen's Congress Watch). Lot's of Kentucky names there, and we have the dubious distinction of being the third highest contributing state to defend the corruption.

Yeehaw.

Why Does Richard Myers Hate America?

2005-05-03T13:10:00.000-04:00

From the great land of Washington DC (free subscription required), where citizens have no representation in the federal government but pay taxes anyway:

The concentration of American troops and weapons in Iraq and Afghanistan limits the Pentagon's ability to deal with other potential armed conflicts, the military's highest ranking officer reported to Congress on Monday.
The officer, Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, informed
Congress in a classified report that major combat operations elsewhere in the world, should they be necessary, would probably be more protracted and produce higher American and foreign civilian casualties because of the commitment of Pentagon resources in Iraq and Afghanistan. ...
In the report, General Myers wrote, the military faces "moderate" risk in its mission to protect the United States, and he assessed the risk for preventing conflict - including surprise attack - as "moderate, but trending toward significant."

Cue Anne Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, and the rest of the Get Along Gang, altogether now, saying "Why does our military always blame America first?"

Any minute now the Joint Cheifs of Staff will be branded a traitor and his resignation will be demanded by the Republican regime. Any minute now...

Of course, I seem to remember someone raising this issue in a presidential campaign last year....

Meanwhile, the Genocide Continues

2005-05-03T10:55:00.000-04:00

[Update: Blogger ate half the post when originally published. Here's the original full version.]

I love hearing or reading Bush apologists blame everyone else but the guy in charge, and its no different with Darfur. While thousands of innocent men, women, and children are being rounded up and brutally raped and murdered, the world turns its head. The Darfur Accountability Act was intended to speed up US involvement and stop the slaughter:

Last week, the Senate unanimously passed the Darfur Accountability Act as part of the Iraq-Afghanistan emergency supplemental appropriations bill. Led by Republican Sam Brownback of Kansas and Democrat John Corzine of New Jersey, the act appropriates $90 million in U.S. aid for Darfur and establishes targeted U.S. sanctions against the Sudanese regime, accelerates assistance to expand the size and mandate of the African Union mission in Darfur, expands the United Nations Mission in Sudan to include the protection of civilians in Darfur, establishes a no-fly zone over Darfur, and calls for a presidential envoy to Sudan.
The Darfur Accountability Act is now with the House, and Republican leaders there...are similarly joining with Democrats to push for a more robust humanitarian response to the unfolding genocide in Western Sudan.....
Yet in an April 25 letter from the White House’s Office of Management and Budget to House Appropriations Chairman Jerry Lewis obtained by the Prospect, the administration signaled its desire to strike the Darfur Accountability Act from the supplemental.

[Nevermind they didn't lift a finger when Republican Senators voted against a supplement of $213 million for body armor for troops in Iraq. Voted against by none other than Kentucky's finest - Mitch McConnell and loyal foot soldier Jim Bunning. Priorities are a bitch I suppose.]

The UN cannot move without the US' approval, and now we know why Darfur burns and innocent people are being slaughtered in what Colin Powell aptly described as a genocide:

The Bush administration has forged a close intelligence partnership with the Islamic regime that once welcomed Osama bin Laden here, even though Sudan continues to come under harsh U.S. and international criticism for human rights violations.The Sudanese government, an unlikely ally in the U.S. fight against terror, remains on the most recent U.S. list of state sponsors of terrorism. At the same time, however, it has been providing access to terrorism suspects and sharing intelligence data with the United States. Last week, the CIA sent an executive jet here to ferry the chief of Sudan's intelligence agency to Washington for secret meetings sealing Khartoum's sensitive and previously veiled partnership with the administration, U.S. government officials confirmed.

A decade ago Bin Laden and his fledgling Al Qaeda network were based in Khartoum. After they left for Afghanistan, the regime of Sudanese strongman Lt. Gen. Omar Hassan Ahmed Bashir retained ties with other groups the U.S. accuses of terrorism. As recently as September, then-Secretary of State Colin L. Powell accused Sudan of committing genocide in putting down an armed rebellion in the western province of Darfur. And the administration warned that the African country's conduct posed "an extraordinary threat to the national security" of the United States.

At what cost this cooperation? Do we really find it in our national interests to befriend mass murderers and state sponsors of terror (Khartoum is still listed as a state sponsor of terror under trade sanctions)? Are these the governments we want to be mentioned as affiliating with? Is the moral depravation of such action worth cooperation from a group that aided and abetted bin Laden in the 90's - presumably when he was plotting the USS Cole attack?

Is it worth the implicit sanctioning of genocide?

Does our country not stand for anything any longer?

A Note on Patriotism

2005-05-02T18:43:00.000-04:00

I have a very close friend (who is also a business associate) that hangs out on the right side of the political spectrum. Ideologically she couldn't be more liberal in terms of privacy (and in the sense of "liberal" I'm talking about the right to privacy positions long abandoned by the current Republican party which is now embraced by liberals - as in "keep government out of our lives"), but she's scared to death terrorists are going to strike her.

And I do mean her specifically. This fear is not borne out of a particular threat to her or her home city. She lives a rural community with one exit off the highway, and having been there on occasion I can honestly say short of a mandatory town meeting a terrorist strike wouldn't yield near the fatality rate of the World Trade Center. Even the mandatory town meeting might not make those numbers. Rather the fear is developed from the ridiculous notion perpetuated that "terrorists can kill us all."

Short of al Qaeda obtaining a large number of nuclear weapons, and the ability to deliver them to our shores (as in they take over an entire nuclear nation, obtain their launch codes, and thus possess the necessary delivery system to launch precision strikes), there is little to no likelihood that they could ever "kill us all." Despite her concerns about the economy (she lives in a union household) and the state of the nation's standing in the world, all this is swept aside because, after all, what good is a sound economy if they "kill us all."

I'm not belittling the threat posed by terrorists, but I do find it important to keep the threat in perspective in relation to other, more pressing threats. Like a nuclear North Korea as one example. Recognizing the threat, and living in a large city, albeit one with nominal terror targets, I, as so many others, have simply learned that the threat exists but life most go on.

This notion that they will "kill us all" is a dangerous mindset to carry. For one it is the foundation for the excuse to curtail civil rights and the rights of privacy. I am cast back to the history of the American Revolution wherein our patriots were willing to die for the preservation, or rather the procurement, of those rights and freedoms we so callously cast aside today. Sure, some may characterize as "brave" the willingness to dedicate our military to fight our battles, but in the Revolution we fought on all fronts and everyone was a part of the larger war - a war to protect our ideals. Men, women, and children, in reckless abandon of their own self-preservation, felt they were a part of something larger than their own self interests.

Contrast that the present. Today patriotism is defined by how quickly we are willing to castigate some of those foundational ideals for fear that they "will kill us all." Patriotism is no longer defined by adherence to our freedoms, but rather how ideocratic we are to abandon them. The dichotomy is confounding, but I have no doubt the absence of genuine tyranny over our citizenry has made us complacent in upholding the standards we once built a nation upon.

In other words, over 200 years ago patriots gave their lives to attain the freedoms that we disregard today to (ostensibly) save our own. Some of this is attributable to the mad grab for power of the current Republican regime, but I fear that as much can be attributed to the ideological complacency of Americans as a whole, or perhaps a subconscious belief that once won our rights will always exist without effort to maintain them.

This is not a call for human sacrifice - to throw one's self on the grenade so to speak - in dereliction of common sense. But some parts of our heritage were won by blood, and we dishonor that courage and sacrifice if we do not strive to preserve it.

Now, Having Missed the Obvious

2005-05-02T17:32:00.000-04:00

Chris Bowers at MyDD makes what should be an obvious point, but one which has been largely missed in the debate on the judicial filibuster. [Calling it a "debate" debases the word I think, but calling it "the nutbag Dobson and his feeble fundies' attack on democracy" is just too long to write all the time.]

Anway, Bowers is quite persuasive in arguing that you can't on the one hand cry about religious bigotry yet on the other advocate religious bigotry. It really cuts against the whole contention that they're not trying to create a theocracy.

More alarming is what is not being done about such insane crap in our "free press." It is really quite stunning that a leader of a religious sect can get on tv and advocate stripping American citizens of their inalienable rights because they don't donate to the Hour of Power every Sunday and still get asked to come back.

Living History

2005-05-02T15:18:00.000-04:00

This is an incredible contribution to the holes in the annals of history surrounding Hitler's final days. Those into history, specifically the largest war the world has ever known, will appreciate the closure this may bring to certain untold aspects of the end of Hitler's reign.

Encouraging Cancer

2005-04-29T08:11:00.000-04:00

From Road To Surfdom (via The Poor Man)

Bad news: deaths from cervical cancer are on the increase.

Good news: there’s a new vaccine that stops the virus that causes the cancer.
Unfortunate news: the virus in question, human papilloma virus (HPV), is sexually transmitted.
Obvious news: you simply have to vaccinate girls before they become sexually active.
Unbelievable news: “religious groups are gearing up to oppose vaccination, despite a survey showing 80 per cent of parents favour vaccinating their daughters.” Bridget Maher of the Family Research Council, a leading Christian lobby group says, “Giving the HPV vaccine to young women could be potentially harmful, because they may see it as a licence to engage in premarital sex.”
So stopping a generation of women from getting cervical cancer is a big no-no, but insisting that a feeding tube be provided to a woman who has been dead for fifteen years is the work of angels.

Of course there is absolutely no empirical evidence linking vaccination to increased sexual activity, and in fact studies show no correlation whatsoever. The vaccination could start around age 12, presumably before most teens were sexually active, and at a point in their lives where they don't really understand what they're being vaccinated for anyway. Consider that the "Td Vaccine", given for tetanus and diptheria, is given at age 11 as a booster to the DTaP Vaccine. When was the last time a kid got a tetanus shot then promptly rammed a rusty nail into their skin? Fact is, kids get all kinds of shots and so long as mom or dad approve, the kids don't really care what the shot is for.

This is just the dumbest crap I've ever heard (even moreso than the notion that $22 billion in tax cuts to an already booming oil industry will lead to development of alternative fuel sources).

Which leads to the obvious conclusion. These sex-obsessed extremists don't really care about a "culture of life", they only care about their perceived morality and imposing that on the rest of us even if it means your chance of dying prematurely just increased over a third. The cat's out of the bag on sex, and everyone pretty much knows what it's about. Getting a shot or not getting a shot isn't going to change that. But it may change whether your daughter outlives you.

And the same goes for their opposition to the Plan B drug (the "morning after pill"). This should be recognized for what it is. These lunatics won't be happy until they control each and every facet of our lives.

Now come on in, have some Kool-aid and let's wait for Hale-bopp together, and if it doesn't come we'll just light the place up and burn.

In Case You Missed Any of the Action

2005-04-29T07:50:00.000-04:00

You can purchase your very own copy of all the fun and excitement that was Justice Sunday last weekend, for the low, low sticker price of $15.00.

Come on, now, that's a small price to pay for such an inspirational work of art. And besides, your money will go to help buy Jesus that new Hummer he's been dreaming of.

Do They Think No One Watches?

2005-04-27T22:08:00.000-04:00

Just got done listening to Joe Biden's speech on the Senate floor in opposition to the Republicans' "nuclear option" given earlier today. It was tremendously historical, and while I pride myself on having read a lot of history surrounding our founding, the depth of Biden's knowledge (or at least the one that prepared the speech) was insightful. The proposed action really is phenomenal in terms of breaking with tradition - some of it even established by Republicans. His website is about a month behind on transcribing his remarks, and C-SPAN had nothing up as of tonight.

But then Orrin Hatch got up and promptly lied his ass off (video wasn't working tonight, but it's listed on the "109th Congress" link from CSPAN's main page). He said (maybe off by a word or two, I'm going from memory) "I don't call it the 'nuclear option'. That's a Democratic term. I call it the 'constitutional option'."

I think its been fairly well established by now that this is patently false. Thus Senator Hatch is a bald faced liar. Would Jesus lie to get judges confirmed?

Intern the Irish

2005-04-27T11:46:00.000-04:00

Being of Irish descent (with a hint of Scottish as well), I find it disturbing that The Poor Man has uncovered our plot to take over America.

Why does The Poor Man hate Irish Americans? And the imminent Irish America?

(For those with narrow capacities for cynicism and appreciation of dry humor, allow me to clarify - TPM's post is satire, and my reference to the post is equally satirical (albeit without adding anything material). However, I am Irish. And a little Scottish, to the extent the two were distinguishable during the 1300's. And yes, I like potatos and Guinness.)

Antagonizing Danny M

2005-04-27T10:57:00.000-04:00

After my post about Dan Mongiardo's youthful pursuits, The Last Sane Man has a follow up in which he discovers the basis for the Mongiardo bashing - jealousy!

Heh.

While it may be true that the women are getting catty, from a purely political perspective I think Danny Boy has tripped over his eagerness to dispel the "gay" rumors floated by Elizabeth Torri and David Williams. Fathers don't like the idea of voting for a perceived cradle robber, and with people in Kentucky suddenly believing themselves to be so conservative (a misconceived notion foisted on them by the right wing noise machine, an issue to be discussed later), this may very well end his political aspirations.

Again, I see nothing particularly wrong with the relationship. It's not as if he was trolling the UK campus for some hot young vixens at the onset of spring when the shorts come out and reveal freshly tanned legs. It was a chance encounter that led to something else. Danny Boy would be smart to get out in front of this quickly - and unfortunately for the young lady that will mean making her a public spectacle.

In other words, introduce her and make her more than a mid-life, post election loss crisis. If he doesn't, then you can bet his next political opponent will.

The USS Dan Mongiardo Takes on Water

2005-04-25T15:54:00.000-04:00

I'm not sure there's anything particularly wrong with it, however being 44 and dating a 19 year old UK student has all the wrong appearances for someone aspiring to run for Lt. Governor. Dan Mongiardo is a first class legislator, but even my liberal sensibilities see the allure that such a situation would present for Republican prognosticators and detractors.

Since the cat's out of the bag I don't suppose breaking up with her would really salvage anything at this point.

Justice Sunday

2005-04-25T15:46:00.000-04:00

Having gotten stuck in Nashville traffic yesterday on my way back from a golf weekend (that was prematurely ended by rain on Saturday), I missed all the Justice Sunday and the Freedom AND Faith rallies around town. However, the Herald-Leader has a forum thread with comments on the whole mixing of politics and religion thing. What's striking to me is the number of "religious" folks that are against this sort of thing.

Mitch McConnell defends Frist's right to commandeer the extreme right wing religious theology for partisan political gain, but McConnell's hackery goes beyond mere partisanship. His defense is so intellectually dishonest that one is left with the impression that he knows he's on weak footing. For example:

By filibustering these nominees, a minority in the Senate is refusing to allow a majority of senators to exercise their constitutional right to advise and consent, something no Senate minority has ever done in history.

McConnell and his buddies have in fact tried to filibuster nominees from the Clinton era. Their real gripe is that those efforts failed. Dishonest? Not technically. But certainly misleading. In fact, with Republicans in control of the Senate during that portion of the Clinton years the Republicans changed Committee rules so as to bottle up the nominations knowing they didn't have the votes for a filibuster. One was Richard Paez, who took four years to be confirmed. Leading the charge was one Bill Frist. Further, it's intellectually dishonest because the US Supreme Court has ruled that the Senate has the power to assign its Constitutional duties to Committees - which they did...200 years ago. The 60 vote super majority is in place to protect the minority - which in this case happens to represent roughly half of America.

Then there's this:

I can recall many instances of Democrats visiting churches over the years, not just to speak on a policy matter but even to outright plead for votes. Either I've missed the angry editorials in this paper and others over those events, or there's an astonishing double standard afoot here.

True. All politicians back to the Founders did this. And there is nothing wrong in my view with asking for votes and informing church-goers how one's policy positions reflect that person's interpretation of that particular religion's teachings. Some will disagree and say it all has to be banned, and that's their right to think that way. But it's a far different thing to fire up the right wing taliban for purposes of achieving a political agenda and influencing a policy discussion - especially under the rhetoric that to oppose a Bush nominee is an attack on religion. There the politician, in this case Frist, has merged the government and that religious cult - not just blurred the line. And to compound matters, Frist is supporting a cause which at its most basic level seeks to undo the protections of the Establishment Clause which is in the Bill of Rights not to protect religion from the government but to protect government from religion. Forget not that the groups involved in this thing have condemned the Catholic church, the Jews, and the Muslim faith. This is not religion overall - this is an extremist religious sect that promotes violence as a means of sending message (think abortion doctors) much in the same manner as al Qaeda.

The whole "there's no 'separation of church and state' in the Constitution" argument is so bogus it would be laughable if not for the fact that people will take the word of the guy in the pulpit who says otherwise. The First Amendment prohibits the government from establishing a religion, and by turning one particular sects' views into a political tool wielded by government is just that. And the efforts of Frist, Dobson, and the rest of this pack to establish a theocracy is an attack on our Constitution. If they were a true "rule of law" party they would be impeaching those that violate their oath to uphold the Constitution and defend it from all enemies, foreign and domestic.

So let's be honest here. Basically what we have are middle class, white men running around crying about discrimination. And we have a national political party that controls Congress, the White House, and 10 of the 13 Federal Appeals Courts yet is somehow trying to convince the rest of America that they are still in the minority. It's a lie. It's a fraud. And when they couldn't perpetrate it on the American people they hijacked religion to push their agenda. It's shameful and exploitative. It's un-American and sacrilegious.

And unrelated, but just to show just how uninterested in the problems facing common Americans, McConnell has to throw this in:

Sen. Hillary Clinton, back when she was still First Lady, once visited a Florida church to push her disastrous health care plan during the service.

State run health care that provides care to everyone. What a novel concept. And something supported by Americans 2-1. And a system that has evoked satisfaction from citizens in countries that actually put the interests of their citizens above their interests of self promotion.

Update: According to Armando, who relies on a Crossfire piece, there have been 30 judicial filibusters, with 80% being from the Republican side. Call Mitch McConnell and ask him why he lies with impunity - (202) 224-2541 or click here for the local number in your area.

Pumping Oil Where There is None

2005-04-25T15:26:00.000-04:00

Bush is pressing Saudi Arabia to pump more oil to help with regional shortages, and I can't figure out if this is just a silly politically expedient gesture so he can "look tough" with the Saudis, or if he really doesn't have a clue that they are already pumping at capacity. Increased production could occur by 2009.

Of course, it's equally silly and short sighted, albeit politically advantageous, to blame Bush and his oil chronies for oil shortages. Big oil can be blamed for high prices since they're raking in record profits under this administration - all while Congress and the White House look shocked and dismayed with their hands spread in the "what, me worry?" gesture of Alfred E. Newman, and pretend there's nothing to be done.

I have a hard time understanding what is so difficult for people to grasp. It's really rather simple: oil is running out, and today's prices are nothing compared to what we will see in a decade. It really doesn't matter how much oil companies gouge us now, because oil is finite and thus oil profits are finite as well, as is the length of time in which big oil can take us to the bank. Yes, it's anti-consumer to hit us with gas price increases when it's not all that necessary, and sure, diverting flow from the strategic reserve would help.

But that all belies the problem - and let me repeat it so I'm clear - that oil is running out. I understand that Bush's energy plan gives $8 billion in tax breaks to his energy supporters, no doubt in payback for their steady support of the Republican party. So I can see why Republicans won't actually say "Hey, we know oil prices are high, but we're not going to do a damn thing about it. You know why? Because it won't matter in a decade 'cause there won't be any oil then. No sir, the real problem is depleting supplies and not the prices. So buck up America, cause if we don't get some alternative fuel sources we might just be reading by candle light again."

I can see why Republicans don't say that - big energy companies help get them elected. But I don't know why Democrats ignore the underlying problem of high gas prices. This is a situation where both parties are failing us and our children miserably.

Bill Frist Goes Nuts

2005-04-21T09:09:00.000-04:00

By now everyone's heard about Bill Frist's sad grasp for future political power by shamelessly making religion the tool of the government (at least one particular theology) in his mad quest to impart his beliefs on the nation.

Well, not all religious types think that's such a good idea. From DriveDemocracy:

Progressive religious leaders from around the country are joining with DriveDemocracy to take the fight to GOP Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist and the far right’s unprecedented attack on the constitution and the judiciary.

We’re going to Louisville, Kentucky, just down the street from where the Family Research Council and Frist launch their theocratic telecast. We’ll be staging a massive rally at 2:30 p.m., Sunday, April 24, at Central Presbyterian Church. Joining us is the Clergy and Laity Network, whose national committee includes Rev. Dr. Joan Brown Campbell, Sister Joan Chittister, Rabbi Steven Jacobs, Rev. Dr. Otis Brown, Jr., Rev. Dr. Albert Pennybacker, Dr. Susannah Heschel and many more. Invites to other speakers from across the nation are going out today.

One thing I would like to add is that these judges have not been turned away by Democrats because of their religion (Myers is a coal guy that hates the environment and they want him in California!; Pryor is anti-environment and wrote opinions that were in conflict with applicable federal laws on the subject; Pickering is a racist; etc.). That's a tactic of the right - make liberals into "Jesus haters" instead of addressing the issues, and the religious taliban have become all too willing to be used as tools of the Republican leadership.

But while I think it's important that members of all religions speak out (after all it is their religions that will be attacked next if the evangelicals take over the government), they should speak out on the mixing of religion and politics. The inherent disconnect between the holy war mantra of the right with respect to "judicial activism" (or "inactivism" in the case of Terri Schiavo) and the fact that 205 of Bush's nominees have been confirmed was captured brilliantly by Nick Anderson of the Courier-Journal. By couching it in terms of the judiciary argument it's only playing into the theme created by the right. You'll never win a debate if you argue by their rules and within their linguistic framework. And besides this mixing of theocracy and government is bigger than the judicial fight - it goes to the very core of our Constitutional framework.

And yes, the First Amendment does create a separation of church and state albeit not in those words.

For these jihadists to say judges are forcing atheism on them is just stupid, baseless brimstone and hellfire rhetorical hyperbole. The Constitution guarantees their right to practice their religion, but not the right to impose it on others through governmental levers. Further the exact text of the First Amendment is "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

"Congress", dumbasses. And the Courts are there to protect us all - of all religions - if Congress comes down on the wrong side of the First Amendment. If we had a predominantly Muslim Congress or a predominantly Jewish Congress would these right wing taliban be clamoring for this crap? For the Constitution Restoration Act that restricts the federal judiciary's jurisdiction in religion cases? Of course not, but they're all too happy to push their religious agenda over the rights to religious freedom (and freedom from governmental interference) of the dozens of other religions practiced in this nation.

These assholes should have to live in the Sudan for a couple months practicing their brand of evangelical nuttiness and shouting down the rebels, and then see if they complain about religious freedom. And it doesn't help when Constitution haters like Tom DeLay suggest we go ahead and do away with the whole independent judiciary thing.

Anyway, I'll be there. Not because of the judges but because it should be a pretty good time. I didn't grow up in the 60's, so this is the closest I may ever get.

Update: I don't mean to imply all evangelicals are "nutty" althought that seems to be what was written. I am pointing to the people that lead these groups into the abyss of political manipulation. If evangelicals don't want to be seen as fruitcakes they shouldn't let people who advocate overthrowing our three branch system of government speak for them. Not all Germans were Nazis, but when they allowed the Nazis to speak for them...well...it sure looked like they all hated the Jews and wanted to take over the world.

The Death of Traditional Marriage

2005-04-21T08:47:00.000-04:00

Now that Connecticut's governor has signed the law allowing for civil unions, I await the influx of divorce filings as a result of the death of traditional marriage. I suspect the four horsemen will be making an appearance, along with Satan spilling the blood of innocents with his sidekick Saddam Hussein, and Michael Bolton singing Stones cover songs. All are signs of the Apocalypse I'm sure.

What is it called when a legislature does this stuff? Activist Legislators? Oh to be a divorce lawyer in Connecticut and surrounding states...

Faux Morality

2005-04-15T09:47:00.000-04:00

It never ceases to amaze me the number of politicians that want to impose moral standards on us all that they can't seem themselves to abide by (via Rawstory):

A state senator sponsoring a constitutional amendment aimed at "solemnizing the relationship of one man and one woman" is accused in a divorce case of cheating on his wife. State Sen. Jeff Miller, a Republican from Cleveland, is accused of "inappropriate marital conduct" in a divorce complaint filed Feb. 25 in Bradley County.

Yes, conservatives, I suppose one can find nothing inconsistent in banning gay marriage to protect "traditional marriage" yet be perfectly fine with cheating on your wife in your so-called "traditional marriage." But honestly, are you trying to make that argument? Apparently Miller sees the difference - gay marriage bad for "traditional marriage" but infidelity good for "traditional marriage" because he also "stopped an attempt to include a constitutional ban on adultery in the amendment."

Fletcher Slaps Congress - And He Should

2005-04-15T09:05:00.000-04:00

Kentucky got $29 million over the past 3 years for worker re-education - a staple of Bush's early initiatives to get workers back out in the job market. Problem was that it was a red tape nightmare, and was based on a one size fits all model. It just so happens that Kentucky has a large mining community. Whatever one may think of mining, and I happen to think it's comprised of some pretty big scoundrels as well as being environmentally disasterous, it's Kentucky's cash cow (after marijuana).

The federal government restricts use of these funds for training coal miners - in fact they can't be used for that. Big Ern (think Bill Murray in Kingpin) goes the Washington and issues a smackdown:

"Every child, every teacher, every school and every state is unique," he said, asking that states be allowed to move federal dollars more easily where they are needed.

Okay, not exactly a smackdown, but he makes the point that:

Rules about how federal funds can be spent not only hinder worker-training efforts but also high school programs designed to prepare students for college or a job, Fletcher said.

I'm no Fletcher fan, but at least he sees that the money on the table is useless if he has to spend it on an industry that won't benefit Kentuckians. Of course the other side to that coin is that if we had a sensible tax system wherein everyone paid their fair share we might not be in such a funding crunch. But God, I just can't stand to piss on Big Ern's parade today...he's just trying so hard and I can't start the weekend doling out bad karma.

Ellen Call - A Republican We Can All Support

2005-04-15T08:44:00.000-04:00

From the Lexington Herald-Leader (since I haven't read The Courier-Journal yet today):

Louisville Metro Council members are inching closer to considering a proposal that would ban smoking in indoor workplaces, exempting bars and Churchill Downs.

Ellen Call, R-26th, is leading a council committee studying a smoking ban. She has asked the Jefferson County Attorney's Office to draft a smoking-ban ordinance. Call said the ordinance would prohibit smoking in virtually all indoor public places except bars, which likely would be defined as establishments that derive more than 25 percent of their gross receipts from alcohol sales.

At the risk of jeopardizing Ellen Call's political career within the Republican party (she is a former Anne Northup staffer), I will confess that she is a favorite of mine on the Metro Council. In other words she's more concerned with public conservatism rather than private intrusiveness. Admittedly, the Metro Council doesn't get the chance to debate or enact the "wedge issues" (would an abortion ban work?), but when a fairness ordinance came up Ellen Call did the sensible thing - she listened to her constituents rather than Mitch McConnell.

I'll also confess that I've campaigned for Ellen Call, and will continue to do so - there's no pay, but when she proposes common sense ordinances she ought to get some free ink without having to pay for it.

A smoking ban is perfectly fine, and the fact that she got ahead of the game and is looking for a compromise to the "all or nothing" campaign waged by the Louisville smoke free groups shows that she's looking to protect business owners as well as patrons. She previously sponsored a bill to limit smoking in eating establishments and child care centers (who would object to that?) which is still in committee.

Another note on Ellen - she regularly designates discretionary funds or uses her position as chair of the appropriations committee to fund public service projects. She's even set up her own charity to take care of children whose mothers are in prison. Helping the poor and less fortunate. What better way into the good graces of a bleeding heart liberal?

Ben Chandler - Standing With The Rich and MBNA

2005-04-14T20:46:00.000-04:00

I expect Kentucky's five Republican Representatives to whore themselves out to the credit industry despite the fact that Kentucky's six congressional districts rank as follows (sort by column for kicks and giggles) by average income across the country:

Hal Rogers (KY-5) - Second from the lowest;
Ed Whitfield (KY-1) - 29th lowest;
Ron Lewis (KY-2) - 110th lowest;
Ben Chandler (KY-6) - 146th lowest;
Anne Northup (KY-3) - 183rd lowest;
Geoff Davis (KY-4) - 195th lowest.

That's out of 428 districts in the country. And about $10,000 separates Whitfield's district (@ $30K) from Davis' (@$40K).

But Ben Chandler? I know he has to go conservative on some things, but there is simply nothing in either bill that would benefit his constituents, but plenty to hurt them.

Every one of them voted to protect Paris Hilton and the credit companies' $30 billion in profits (and in fact add to it).

Pathetic.

Blaming the Troops First

2005-04-14T11:56:00.000-04:00

Jesus, this is just unbelievable. What the hell is wrong with these idiots?

Meet Your Republican Majority

2005-04-14T09:46:00.000-04:00

From Rep. Louise Slaughter on the bankruptcy bill debate in House Rules Committee:

The Republican Members also voted against exempting the men and women fighting for our country in Iraq and Afghanistan from the bankruptcy bill's so-called "means test." They opposed an amendment by Rep. Marty Meehan of Massachusetts (amendment # 23) that would protect disabled veterans who have developed financial problems due to their combat service and they voted against another amendment (amendment # 12) requiring credit counseling agencies to provide free services to men and women who have recently left the military after serving in combat zones.....

The Republican Members also voted against assisting people who are forced into bankruptcy as a result of identity theft. They opposed an amendment offered by Rep. Adam Schiff of California (amendment # 11) that would protect consumers who find themselves with large debts because criminals have stolen their Social Security numbers and other personal identification information....

The Republican Members even voted against several amendments intended to protect people who file bankruptcy because they or a family member are experiencing a serious, costly illness. For example, they opposed an amendment offered by Rep. Zoe Lofgren of California (amendment # 12) that would protect people whose medical costs total more than 50% of their annual income....

These are your peeps. There's really nothing more to say. Illness strikes us all. Military personnel have no control over when or where they go to war. Credit reporting agencies and companies with credit header data (i.e., your address, social, birthdate, prior addresses, spouse info, and entire credit history such as account numbers) are getting hacked and hundreds of thousands of personal records have been ripe for the picking by identity thieves.

I support personal responsibility and use a credit card only for the airline miles - the balance is paid every month because I'll jump off a bridge before I owe interest to these goons. But you have to be a cold and callous person to not see that bad things happen to well-meaning people all the time.

And you have to be a heartless bastard to send people to fight a craphole war and then vote to let them be ravaged by creditors upon their return.

I'm starting to really detest these people.

Protecting Paris

2005-04-14T09:21:00.000-04:00

No, not Paris, France - Paris Hilton. The House passes a bill repealing the estate tax, and Amy Sullivan sums it up best:

So, to sum up: Actual prescription drug relief? There's no money. Armor to protect our troops? There's no money. The funds to back up the mandated reforms of No Child Left Behind? There's no money. Doing away with a tax on super rich kids? Plenty o' cash to spare.

What's she talking about? Well:

Less than 1% of dead folks are subject to the estate tax and half the revenue from the tax came from estates with a value of $10 million or more.

Complete repeal of the estate tax would cost $1 trillion from 2012 to 2021.

Let's face it, the super rich have benefitted most from this administration, while American soldiers are losing limbs and lives because our Pentagon can't or won't buy the right armor. Our education system is crap. While Social Security is not in "crisis" there may be a funding shortage 75 years from now. And a drug benefit? Drug prices - because the government can't bargain for price controls like every other civilized nation - are increasing faster than inflation.

We are no longer debating Social Security and the budget deficit. The discussion has now centered on how to build majority support for cutting taxes for the benefit of less than 1% of our population and their heirs. All while that same majority suffers as a result.

Way to go big media. You really screwed the pooch on educating us.

That's your current Republican administration - crap on grandma's Social Security check so trust fund kids don't lose any portion of their inheritance. God forbid they have to contribute to society when they can just take instead.

What Energy Plan?

2005-04-14T08:49:00.000-04:00

Source:

A House panel yesterday backed drilling for oil in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, advancing a key element of the Bush administration's energy plan.
The House Resources Committee endorsed drilling in the refuge's ecologically sensitive coastal plain as part of a package of energy measures approved by voice vote. Committee members rejected an effort by Democrats to strip the drilling provision from the measure by a vote of 30 to 13.

Honestly, can any scheme that continues to rely on dwindling sources of oil to keep our country's lights on, rather than R&D for alternative fuel sources (a/k/a "renewable sources") be considered a "plan"? By the time the Wildlife Refuge is fully raped we will be another 10 years behind the development process and closer to a real energy crisis.

(Not so) Newsflash: Oil is running out. At an astronomical rate thanks to China and India's increasing usage. Think outside your financial money men. Do something for the good of our country's future for once.

Every last one of you.

And yes, I am pissed about the fact of the drilling in the Refuge for environmental reasons, just like a majority of the country (especially check out the "intensity of feelings" - 45 strong against, 19 strong in favor). But the fact is that big oil and big auto doesn't care that caribou need a home too. What we should all care about is the fact that when the last drop of oil is burned, our airline industry folds, and suddenly crazy Mel's vision of our future becomes increasingly more likely to occur. That's the line of attack.

Time to Build a Bomb Shelter

2005-04-14T08:46:00.000-04:00

As Ogma pointed out the other day, the great state of Connecticut has just insured that the sky is indeed going to fall. I can already feel the strain on my "traditional" marriage that this new law has wrought.

Money Does In Fact Buy Love (and Freedom)

2005-04-14T08:38:00.000-04:00

From the BBC (a good alternative for unfiltered or unspun news):

Osama Bin Laden gave US forces the slip by bribing the Afghan militias tasked with tracking him down, according to Germany's spy chief, August Hanning. Mr Hanning told German newspaper Handelsblatt that using Afghans was the key mistake in the hunt for Bin Laden. He said Bin Laden paid "a lot of money" to buy a safe passage from the Tora Bora caves, which he had retreated to during the US assault in 2001.
The US has said it used Afghan fighters to reduce casualties among its troops.

This is not new, and we've (as in the general public) known bin Laden escaped from Tora Bora for a little while. But Kerry was on the Senate Intelligence Committee, so it seems to me that he knew this occurred otherwise he wouldn't have hung it out there. When will Bush and his campaign flunkies apologize for calling Kerry a liar for...um...pointing out this fact in the debates?

My Bible says that would be the Christian thing to do (even for a guy that takes the Lord's name in vain).

The Tom DeLay Ethics Primer

2005-04-11T08:30:00.000-04:00

Tapped called it the "explainer" but however you identify it, this Slate article is a great beginning point to those coming in on the Tom DeLay Ethics Show mid-season. Most people (actually about 70%) had never heard of DeLay prior to the Schiavo case, and for good reason. DeLay is the type of guy you want lurking in the shadows - the puppet master if you will.

Anyway, read the article and then try to keep up as the news develops. While the corruption is not so glamorous to include a blowjob, it is far more rampant and widespread - and in fact much more lucrative to the participants and disasterous for democracy and consumer's rights - than most realize. Again, DeLay was, until his craven political stunt with Schiavo's life, a shadow - he only existed in DC - yet he controls everything in the House and in the K Street lobby scene. His staffers and associates get million dollar jobs as favors, and he runs the show like a mob boss.

After reading the article consider the implications for those that would defend his "character" or hang their own political careers on his coat rack. I'm just saying, in politics there's partisanship and then there's wholesale whoring, and people should understand that there is a difference. I've made no secret on this site that I don't like Tom DeLay, but it should be noted that my distaste for him is not solely partisan - he is a power monger, and however much one may understand about democracy the one thing democracy is opposed to is that kind of centralized power. Essentially the federal government was hijacked by pro-business interests to the detriment of us all - for Bush it was ideology whereas for DeLay it was the unquenchable thirst that a small, insignificant little man may wield enormous power.

In generic, general terms I can at least give Bush the credit of having nationally minded (albeit misguided and hazardous) policy ideologies (after all most of his wealth is in those "worthless IOUs" otherwise known as government bonds). But with DeLay he is simply beyond redemption.

Mitch McConnell Throws His Weight Around

2005-04-08T17:07:00.000-04:00

Update: The Bluegrass Army Depot is actually in Richmond, Kentucky (just a hop, skip and jump from Lexington), rather than Berea.

Whether the Pentagon is forced to quit stalling its destruction of chemical weapons, and prime terror target, currently stored at Berea, Kentucky is a test of Mitch McConnell's influence in DC. He expects to win this fight:

If he succeeds -- and he expects to -- it could mean an end to delays in design and construction of a plant that will destroy the 523 tons of chemical weapons at Blue Grass Army Depot. McConnell, a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, attached a provision to the supplemental spending bill that contains money to pay for the war in Iraq. McConnell's measure would forbid the Pentagon from transferring any of the $813.4 million earmarked in past years for Assembled Chemical Weapons Alternatives, the agency that oversees chemical destruction programs at the depot and in Pueblo, Colo. The Kentucky Republican and other critics have accused the Pentagon of holding up money meant for Kentucky and Colorado in order to pay for cost overruns at disposal sites where incinerators are used.

I disagree with the Senator on most matters that are solely about pure partisanship (as opposed to common sense matters like this that actually benefit our great state), but on an issue that's generated relatively little buzz outside Berea, Kentucky, McConnell is taking a strong stand. This should be commended and we would be remiss to criticize his bad behavior but not reward the good.

If you're so inclined, let Mitch know you appreciate him taking away a terrorist target in the Bluegrass.

Enough is Enough

2005-04-08T10:13:00.000-04:00

This is really getting old. I'm about tired of a US Congressman being given carte blanche to scurry about the nation suggesting that we fundamentally alter our constitutional system by paring down to two branches of government:

House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, stepped up his attack on federal judges Thursday, telling a gathering of religious conservatives that the judiciary has "run amok" and demanding that Congress assert authority over the courts. [Emphasis mine]

Perhaps I have too much affection for that old tattered document otherwise known as the "Constitution" and the built in "checks and balances." Perhaps having always had an interest in history I have too much nostalgia for the suffering of those that fled old Europe and fought insurmountable odds to establish a more perfect union. Perhaps I simply ascribe too much intelligence to a group of individuals that could draft a document whose words contain so much inherent power that the words alone are capable of binding a nation as vast and diverse as ours together for over two centuries. Perhaps I simply believe too foolhardedly that the American system of government is the best in the world - as it is right now and without modification simply because DeLay is having a meltdown and throwing temper tantrums on a daily basis.

Why does Tom DeLay hate the Constitution? And why can't he be removed from office in scorn and shame for violating his oath of office?

This has gone beyond mere politics. Tom DeLay may very well be certifiably insane to suggest that we scrap our Constitution and start over. At the very least he's shown himself entirely unfit to uphold the Constitution and defend it from all enemies, domestic and foreign, for the simple fact that his rantings make it quite clear he is himself the Constitution's enemy.

Judicial Activism in the CT Senate

2005-04-07T13:54:00.000-04:00

In yet another sign of the apocalypse, the Connecticut Senate has voluntarily (i.e. without the bogeyman of "judicial activism") approved a bill permitting civil unions that is expected to pass the house and may very well be signed by a governor that supports the "idea" of civil unions.

Keep Tom DeLay!!!

2005-04-07T12:10:00.000-04:00

For those that support the scandal-ridden Tom DeLay (and I know you're lurking out there because you've said you support him in the comments to previous posts), consider this from Mark Kleiman (via Atrios):

Kevin recalls correctly that DeLay was on Milosevich's side against Bill Clinton. He doesn't mention the extraordinary maneuver by which DeLay managed to send an encouraging message to the enemy while our men and women in uniform were in harm's way, by promising Clinton a resolution of support for the air war and then arranging for it to come to the floor and fail. (Of course, DeLay wasn't alone among Republicans, back then, in hating the President more than he hated the mass murderer the President was trying to rein in.) And now we know, as Kevin points out, that DeLay was doing all of this as the beneficiary of largesse from the Russian security services. Taking an expensive vacation at the expense of the military of a foreign power to support America's enemies probably doesn't amount to treason under the Constitutional definition, but it comes close.

Of course, "Kevin" is Kevin Drum who posted thusly:

Garance Franke-Ruta read to the end of today's Washington Post story about Tom DeLay's 1997 trip to Russia and was appalled to learn that it was financed by a firm with "tight connections to the Russian security establishment":

The United States of America cannot have one of its top congressional leaders taking money from people advocating for Russian military-intelligence and defense interests as part of a lobbying deal. It simply cannot. It is unacceptable for a critical leader in the U.S. government to be taken on a junket by groups working for foreign military interests or lobbying on their behalf, even if indirectly and without his knowledge.

Hmmm. Back in the mid-90s, wasn't DeLay awfully vocal about opposing action to stop Serbian genocide in Kosovo? And wasn't the Russian security establishment one of the biggest defenders of Serb interests?

That is why DeLay is an asshole (in my opinion of course), and that's why he's the equivalent of a bottom feeding douchebag. The scandals are breaking, and it now appears he was currying favor with a defender of not only NATO's enemy, but America's as well.

Hey Republicans, he's your guy. And unwavering loyalty to a despicable roach like this shows your colors too. Partisanship over patriotism. Wasn't it the Republicans that saddled up to mark Iraq War dissenters as "un-American" when in fact the Repubs had done the same in Kosovo? [And for those that want to blame Clinton for Rwanda, you ought to at least go out and get your facts straight. Nutshell: Bush I started Somalia, public opinion turned and Clinton had to pull out. Less than a year later Rwanda broke and there was little support for another "Mogadishu." France, Belgium, US and UN are all blamed for Rwanda, as the UN wanted everyone to chip in but didn't want to help cover costs.] But permissive genocide is par for the course - there's has been no action in Darfur until Bush finally bent on the International Criminal Court. While 300,000 people died at the hands of murderous thugs, Bush was trying to protect Rumsfeld and the rest of the torture crew from being wrung up at the Hague for war crimes in Iraq.

Ideology of corruption over ideology of transparent democracy. Ideology of power over the ideology of defending human rights. The "culture of life" is a political mantra that has no meaning coming from people like Tom DeLay.

Torture, corruption, shady deals with foreign military powers. That is what your party stands for now. You can either hit the "comments" button and call me a "hack" because the facts are inconvenient storm clouds in your otherwise utopian la-la land and show you backed the wrong horse; or you can work to change your party and make sure you're not electing scum like Tom DeLay to be your face in Congress.

I don't really care which, and quite frankly the longer shills support this fool the more likely it is that the whole regime will be swept from power. So by all means, support Josh Marshall in his efforts to create a bi-partisan colation to keep Tom DeLay. Maybe we can do our part in Kentucky by getting Hal Rogers to host another fund raiser for DeLay - assuming of course since losing the Appropriations Committee Chair position Rogers is still inclined to support the Bug Man.

Oil For Food, Literally

2005-04-06T11:56:00.000-04:00

Appropos to my post yesterday about Capt. Obvious and the looming oil crisis (Does that sound like a bad 80's band to anyone besides me?), I came across this article today (by way of James Wolcott, whose post linking to the sited articles is worth a gander as well if you're so inclined) about the scary times ahead.

Read the whole thing, but for those that absolutely refuse to absorb more reality (or to obey the wistful pleadings of a madman/nutbag liberal) here's some choice quotes:

Some "cornucopians" claim that the Earth has something like a creamy nougat center of "abiotic" oil that will naturally replenish the great oil fields of the world. The facts speak differently. There has been no replacement whatsoever of oil already extracted from the fields of America or any other place.

Now we are faced with the global oil-production peak. The best estimates of when this will actually happen have been somewhere between now and 2010. In 2004, however, after demand from burgeoning China and India shot up, and revelations that Shell Oil wildly misstated its reserves, and Saudi Arabia proved incapable of goosing up its production despite promises to do so, the most knowledgeable experts revised their predictions and now concur that 2005 is apt to be the year of all-time global peak production. ....

No combination of alternative fuels will allow us to run American life the way we have been used to running it, or even a substantial fraction of it. The wonders of steady technological progress achieved through the reign of cheap oil have lulled us into a kind of Jiminy Cricket syndrome, leading many Americans to believe that anything we wish for hard enough will come true. These days, even people who ought to know better are wishing ardently for a seamless transition from fossil fuels to their putative replacements.

The widely touted "hydrogen economy" is a particularly cruel hoax. We are not going to replace the U.S. automobile and truck fleet with vehicles run on fuel cells. For one thing, the current generation of fuel cells is largely designed to run on hydrogen obtained from natural gas [production of which is decreasing by 5% per year]. The other way to get hydrogen in the quantities wished for would be electrolysis of water using power from hundreds of nuclear plants. Apart from the dim prospect of our building that many nuclear plants soon enough, there are also numerous severe problems with hydrogen's nature as an element that present forbidding obstacles [like the fact that it's highly explosive] to its use as a replacement for oil and gas, especially in storage and transport.

Wishful notions about rescuing our way of life with "renewables" are also unrealistic. Solar-electric systems and wind turbines face not only the enormous problem of scale but the fact that the components require substantial amounts of energy to manufacture and the probability that they can't be manufactured at all without the underlying support platform of a fossil-fuel economy. We will surely use solar and wind technology to generate some electricity for a period ahead but probably at a very local and small scale. ...

If China wanted to, it could easily walk into some of these places -- the Middle East, former Soviet republics in central Asia -- and extend its hegemony by force. Is America prepared to contest for this oil in an Asian land war with the Chinese army? I doubt it. Nor can the U.S. military occupy regions of the Eastern Hemisphere indefinitely, or hope to secure either the terrain or the oil infrastructure of one distant, unfriendly country after another. A likely scenario is that the U.S. could exhaust and bankrupt itself trying to do this, and be forced to withdraw back into our own hemisphere, having lost access to most of the world's remaining oil in the process. ...

Daily life will be far less about mobility and much more about staying where you are. Anything organized on the large scale, whether it is government or a corporate business enterprise such as Wal-Mart, will wither as the cheap energy props that support bigness fall away. The turbulence of the Long Emergency will produce a lot of economic losers, and many of these will be members of an angry and aggrieved former middle class. ...
Food production will necessarily be much more labor-intensive than it has been for decades. We can anticipate the re-formation of a native-born American farm-laboring class. It will be composed largely of the aforementioned economic losers who had to relinquish their grip on the American dream. These masses of disentitled people may enter into quasi-feudal social relations with those who own land in exchange for food and physical security. But their sense of grievance will remain fresh, and if mistreated they may simply seize that land. ...

...if we don't refurbish our rail system, then there may be no long-range travel or transport of goods at all a few decades from now. The commercial aviation industry, already on its knees financially, is likely to vanish. ...

Does this guy get invited to parties anymore? Somebody put me on suicide watch, because that's some scary kaka right there.

How Am I Supposed to Take This Quote?

2005-04-06T11:01:00.000-04:00

From Condoleeza Rice:

"We have very good intelligence analysts who were doing their best, but obviously the president's intelligence has to be better than what we got on Iraq," she said Tuesday. [Emphasis mine in case there was any doubt]

Yes, Condi, the president should be more intelligent. But as a real douchebag once said (and I'm paraphrasing), "you go the war with the president you have, not the one you'd like to have." And given that the incompetents that gave aid and comfort to that lack of good intelligence keep getting promoted, including you honey, it doesn't look like we're going to be improving anytime soon.

Oh yeah, she was talking about Iran and North Korea's nuclear ambitions, and how the US can't afford not act since the intelligence is sketchy. How scary is that? Yet unprotected nuclear materials in the former Soviet Union are not high on the agenda, the very materials that would further Iran's and NK's ambitions...that is until someone gets their hands on them and figures out how to use them. Bush called it his highest priority in the 2004 debates, but where's the action to secure these materials? When a two year old won't quit hitting the dog with your golf club do you keep telling him to stop, or do you take away the golf club? Decrease the loose nuke materials and you necessarily decrease the likelihood that nuke weapons are easily obtained.

And the preemptive war drums beat on....

Bankrupting America

2005-04-06T08:27:00.000-04:00

Josh Marshall is one of my favorite bloggers, in fact his was the first blog I ever read and indeed the only one I read for a long period of time. And as usual, today he has a great post about the national debt in the context of Bush's Social Security phase out plan. I'll cut and paste, but do suggest reading the whole thing - especially you fiscal conservatives out there that swear by your man despite his utter abandonment of the core conservative ideology:

So, a bit less than $2 trillion of debt piled up on President Bush's watch.

Needless to say, that is much more than the entire Social Security Trust Fund, which President Bush says there is no way to make good on. (According to the recently released Trustees' report, the Trust Fund currently has just under $1.7 trillion in it.)

Now, federal debt is divided into "public debt" and "intragovernmental holdings", which means debt held in various government Trust Funds. Social Security and Medicare are the big trust funds. But there are several smaller ones too.

Over that same period I mentioned above, the total of these 'Intragovernmental Holdings' went from just under $2.5 trillion to just over $3.2 trillion. Now, remember, that's not all the Social Security Trust Fund. It's all the trust funds combined. But if the Social Security Trust Fund is worthless then the other trust funds must be worthless too.

So that means that President Bush (his administration) has borrowed some $700 billion of your payroll taxes that he now says will never be paid back. In fact, just last year (2004), on the president's watch, $156 billion (and change) of your Social Security payroll tax dollars went for what he calls worthless pieces of paper.

Now, one more batch of numbers. As you remember, the federal debt is divided into public debt and trust fund debt. Or, to put it into the president's terms, debt that actually gets paid back and suckers' debt that just amounts to worthless paper.

So now let's look at the public debt, the stuff even President Bush admits will be paid back. Over the same time period noted above (September 2001 to last month), public debt went from about $3.3 trillion to just under $4.6 trillion .... So let's call that around $1.2 trillion.

....The Social Security Trust Fund is now at about $1.7 trillion. And President Bush says there's no way that can or will be paid back. But just in his first term he's racked up about two-thirds that much money in new debt. And he'll easily exceed that number in his second term. And that'll amount to maybe a couple trillion dollars that even President Bush concedes will be paid back to all those bond purchasors here and abroad.

If we hadn't gone on President Bush's red ink binge, that would be more than enough cash to pay back all the money owed to the Social Security Administration.....

Instead we got President Bush who's run up a ton of debt that he just wants to walk away from. And he keeps borrowing more and more every day.

Isn't the bankruptcy bill supposed to deal with folks like him?

But 9/11 changed everything. 9/11. 9/11. Thousands dead. 9/11. Jesus. Etc.

I'm not a trust expert, but when someone holds money for the benefit of another I was under the impression a constructive trust is created for the benefit of the person whose funds are held. The holder of the funds is duty bound to use them only for the benefit of the beneficiary. By taking our Social Security contributions and buying paper Bush has no intention of paying back he has betrayed the public's trust.

Isn't it Republicans that always say you can't trust the government with your money? Maybe what they really meant was that you can't trust a Republican government with your money. Clearly that is the case.

And for really scary stuff read all about the trade deficit and how our economy (along with Europe's and Japan's) teeters on the brink of some stone cold scary stuff. China and India are looking to benefit immensely from reckless trade policies...or get really pissed when we cut them off.

Can We Just Call Him Capt. Obvious?

2005-04-05T15:35:00.000-04:00

Because "Mr. Obvious" is already taken. Anyway, the Maestro comes out with a statement on par with saying "water is wet":

High oil and natural gas prices have put energy markets under a degree of strain that hasn't been seen in a generation, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan
said Tuesday....

Then he comes with this as rationale for "letting the market sort itself out":

He said that the higher energy prices will not only stimulate new exploration but also research and development "that will unlock new approaches to energy production and use that we can now only scarcely envision."

Let me be square, I don't think there's anything that can be done about high oil prices given that OPEC is pumping at capacity and China is burning through it like a quarter bag at a Cheech and Chong filmfest. Nothing short of invading an oil rich country that is....but we've already tried that one. The Arctic Refuge yields about 6 months worth of oil and the oil industry has expressed skepticism about the costs involved versus the public relations nightmare. I'm going off the cuff here, but remember a poll showing almost 70% opposing drilling in the refuge.

So in many respect Capt. Obvious is correct - let the markets go. The problem is that under the prevailing mentality among big oil and this administration there's no incentive for American industry to change behavior. There has to be a change in the auto manufacturing market as well as an overall change in the behavior of Americans. This includes our expectation of instantaneous gratification in travel - and I have no idea whether we can make an airplane that doesn't require so much oil based jet fuel to fly. I do know that if they come up with one I'll hold out for a while before trying it out.

Part of the cure is the rails, just like Europe, that run on electrical power. Is it lots of cash? You can bet your sweet C-note on it. But hell, a couple of no bid contracts and Halliburton will have us riding the Amerail (my name for the American equivalent of the Eurail) in no time. Reliance on oil really cannot go on. The dinosaurs died out 200 million years ago (or 10,000 depending on which church you go to) and there ain't no more around.

And changing American behavior starts with taxing the habit. Conservatives will cringe, but the reality is that destructive behavior, if it's to be tolerated, should be taxed. Want to smoke? Pay taxes on the habit. Want to drive a gas guzzling Hummer? Pay taxes on the habit. Want to smoke pot? Pay taxes on the habit - okay, maybe I'm jumping the gun on that one. Anyway, the point is not to tax the habit(s) for revenue raising purposes alone - the goal has to be to wean people off the habit.

Am I suggesting no one drive and that we go to the horse and buggy? Absolutely not. I have no place at my house to store a horse or a buggy. I am saying, however, that Americans have to learn to do without incrementally because, just like giving up smoking, doing it slowly is less painful than waking up one day and finding out that oil hit $120/barrel and...well, before you get your home heated you're just going to have to wait until the needs of the more wealthy are filled at those prices.

The reality is that unlike diamonds, oil is not forever. The sooner the public at large is allowed to know that unsettling fact, the better prepared we'll be to meet the future and the better able our politicians wil be to make the proper policy decisions without regard to interference from an industry that will one day be as extinct as the species that created its product.

Trying Again

2005-04-05T14:29:00.000-04:00

Blogger has been feasting on my posts today, so I'm trying again. This one is not a redraft of an eaten one, but I'm going with it. "JB" thinks I never get on Democrats, so here goes:

This is stupidest thing I've heard since noon today (the stupid think before noon was in a post eaten by the Blogger monster):

“I think the opponents of this [bankruptcy] bill are in some cases deliberately trying to mislead people,” Rep. Richard Boucher (D-VA), told RAW STORY, “and to lead them to think that someone who is affected by a financial catastrophe is going to be hindered by this bill. That simply isn’t true.”

Not only is that stupid, it's a lie. The Senate voted down an amendment to protect military families, those in the poor house for medical disasters, and seniors (for general info with links to specifics see Think Progress' run down). Besides, people file bankruptcy, with nominal exception, because of financial catastrophe and limiting that right is de facto "affecting" them. So there you have it JB, stupidity rears its head on the Democratic side.

Truth be told, every Democrat that voted for this hunk of steaming crap ought to face primary challengers. This isn't a bill that pits religious folks against atheists, or whites against blacks, or men against women. This bill is only in favor of its authors, the credit industry. Both people on the right and left agree on this point. Therefore, a vote for this bill is a vote in opposition to the middle class, and thus a craven political betrayal of core Democratic principals. I'm not a liberal ideologue but I do believe in protecting consumers and keeping the middle class from shouldering the burden of the lifestyles of the rich and famous. And voting for this bill is shameful - for anyone that puts business so callously ahead of seniors, the military, and the destitute.

F@#* Blogger

2005-04-05T13:57:00.000-04:00

I had a kick ass post about stupid things Democrats say, just to show "JB" (a commenter on several posts below) that I don't subscribe to the "Democrats are holier than thou" ideology. But Blogger ate it and it's gone down the sewer forever.

Sorry JB, I'm out of time and can't redo it because of the time it took to get the links. I'll try again tomorrow.

Should DeLay Resign?

2005-04-04T22:31:00.000-04:00

These guys think so. Do these things work? Probably not, given that DeLay is mounting a counter offensive. But it sure feels good to have the impression you are making a difference.

God, I Hate Tom DeLay

2005-04-04T11:29:00.000-04:00

Tom DeLay got on the House floor and slandered Michael Schiavo, impugned his character, attacked his integrity, and later implicitly threatened his life.

Perhaps that prick should have read the GAL report, particularly starting on page 9, prepared by a guardian ad litem appointed by the Florida Circuit Court for the benefit of Governor Jeb Bush.

Forget scandals. Tom DeLay, and the rest of the bandwagon humpers that rode the Terri Schiavo case like a miniature pony at the state fair, breaking its back and crushing its spirit, should be sued civilly for their crass and unfounded comments about Michael Schiavo.

I'm sure Schiavo is not a saint, but he's not the murderer those assholes made him out to be. It's a sad day in democracy when a US Congressman gets free air time to use his/her bully pulpit to attack an ordinary American. This is not Stalin's Russia or Hitler's Germany. We all have civil liberties and freedoms, and one such right is the right to privacy. Schiavo was not a public figure from a legal standpoint and Tom DeLay attacked him for the sole purpose of scoring political points.

Tom DeLay, however, is a public figure. As such, I have no problem expressing my opinion of him. Tom DeLay, you are an asshole.

And when you say:

"No care for 15 years. No therapy. No nothing," DeLay said, his voice awash in scorn. "What kind of man is that?"

then you are an outright liar. You are a liar. And you are an asshole.

And since you pulled the plug on your own father, either you are a hypocrite or you are not a man at all, by your own analysis of course. Either one fits, but I think it's more the latter.

You are a liar, you are an asshole, and you are far from being a man. You are the epitomy of all the shameful and despicable despots that have ever wielded power in the history of the world. You are filth, you are a bottom feeding sack of soiled baby diapers (anyone with kids will appreciate the severity of the stench that eminates from dirty diapers).

All in my own opinion of course.

Changing the Face of Catholicism

2005-04-04T09:48:00.000-04:00

I don't have much to comment on the passing of the Pope, although will say that the length of his reign seems to be making his passing that much more difficult on Catholics everywhere. I'm not a Catholic, but I play one every Sunday and especially Christmas Eve and Easter. Even so, I don't get the sense that the church has lost its identity - the church is an institution and is larger than just one man.

In fact, it appears that at least insofar as American Catholics are concerned, they would like to see a change in the Catholic Church. Per a CNN poll:

Asked about the selection of the next pontiff, a third said they want a pope who is more liberal, while just 4 percent said they want someone more conservative. More than half -- 59 percent -- said they want someone about the same as John Paul.
Seventy-eight percent said the next pope should allow Catholics to use birth control, 63 percent said he should let priests marry and 59 percent said the next pope should have a less-strict policy on stem cell research.
Fifty-five percent said the next pope should allow women to become priests, while 44 percent said he should not. The question's margin of error means the difference is too close to draw strong conclusions.

And one of the most surprising to me (at least historically speaking, and from having lived in a Catholic community and in a Catholic family) was:

Asked whether the next pontiff, unlike John Paul, should allow Catholics to divorce and remarry, 49 percent said yes, while 48 percent said no.

Often the religious in this country, and particularly Catholics, perhaps because of the very public face of the Pope, are portrayed at once as both being far right religious extremists and as being "mainstream" America. Both are incorrect of course, but they make for great tv. Unfortunately, the Christians of this country have allowed their religious beliefs to be hijacked by extremists like James Dobson, who in one breath condemns the removal of Terri Schiavo's feeding tube but in the next breath can't believe we won't execute minors in this country.

Like the Pope and Vatican II or not, they were consistent - consistently erring on the side of life as GWB would say right before flipping the switch on yet another death row inmate in Texas. The religious folks of this country would be wise to take their religions back and reclaim them from the heretical misuse of their beliefs for the sole purpose of taking power and attempting a merger of the church and state. Now I will be clear - I don't believe that true mainstream religious America wants a Middle Eastern style democracy in which the Bible is the law and our political leaders are also our pastors. I do believe there are religious extremists that want to see that happen, just as Muslim extremists want to see it in their own countries. I don't believe however that Bush and Rove want that at all. No, their cynical use of religion and exploitation of the faithful was for the sole purpose of gaining power and nothing more.

The point, from my perspective at least, is that religion is a private matter - and by "private" I don't mean one should only practice it within the confines of a church or their own house. I mean that religion is different to everyone, even people within the same faith. The opinions expressed in the CNN poll shows that religion is not being accurately portrayed in the media, and people of all faiths should fight that. There's a reason people on the left will refer to Christian conservatives as "religious extremists" as if it's a one size fits all label. The reason is that Christians allow all the wrong elements to speak for them.

I for one am sick of people like James Dobson, Pat Robertson, and Jerry Falwell paraded around on the bobble head shows professing to speak for me.

Pro-Life Versus Anti-Death

2005-03-31T14:16:00.000-05:00

Amy Sullivan, guest blogging for the Political Animal (a/k/a Kevin Drum), has an excellent post on the notion that the Schiavo protesters (and I infer her larger control group to be the fringe religious extremists) are not so much "pro-life" as they are "anti-death."

This is an important distinction in terminology I think, because it implies a level of uncertainty in one's faith - as Amy articulates succinctly in her piece. But it also raises some metaphysical and theological questions in my mind as well. For one, is the artificial prolonging of life an usurpation of God's divine will and wisdom? In other words, is man-made life (i.e. life support) defying God's will that a person succumb to death? Is it playing God rather than trusting God to do the heavy lifting or trusting in His/Her wisdom? And does this equate to a denial of God's infinite wisdom? I am not a biblical scholar, and the only one I've known well enough to ask is dead, but I seem to remember that denying God is a bit like standing squarely behind a bull and sticking your fist in his ass - it's something only a fool should do. Or someone with little appreciation for where they'll land when punishment for the act is handed down.

The second, and more fundamental, question is derived from what I assume will be a negative answer to the preceding (as in "no, man's forced sustaining of basic living bodily functions is not antithetical to God's divine power to take life or create it at His/Her pleasure or leisure"). If defying the natural processes of life is okay, then why would it not be okay to harvest stem cells from unimplanted embryos that exist at this very moment in IVF clinics across America? If we are all about "erring on the side of life" (ignoring for the moment Bush's execution rate while Governor of Texas) then should we not do everything in our power to cure life ending disease or injury?

And would the money blown in Iraq be better spent on curing cancer, childhood diabetes, or AIDS?

The Vultures Circle

2005-03-31T08:37:00.000-05:00

Sleep with dogs, wake up with fleas:

Efforts in Congress and the courts to prolong Terri Schiavo's life failed because of political miscalculations, missed deadlines and misguided legal strategy, according to legal experts and some of the conservative activists who made the case a national issue.
That harsh assessment is causing recriminations and finger-pointing among social conservatives and Republican staffers on Capitol Hill, who say there's plenty of blame to go around for why efforts to reverse state court rulings fell short.
Ken Connor, the former head of the conservative Family Research Council who gave legal advice to Florida Gov. Jeb Bush as the case was moving through the courts there two years ago, said Congress' inability to agree on a bill to keep Schiavo alive before her feeding tube was removed March 18 "severely prejudiced Terri's case."...
But he said social conservatives still chafed at how Congress didn't act in time "to save Terri.""If this were a tax cut or malpractice issue, something important to the bluebloods, Congress would have gotten it done," Connor said.

It was the religious conservatives that pushed this debacle thus revealing their agenda of wanting to control every aspect of your life, whether against your will or in accordance with it. Given that the vast majority of Americans thought this whole farce was a gross overreaching of the government's powers, it seems that the true nature of American "values" is revealed.

Americans are religious, but no, they don't all subscribe to the extremist point of view that your life is not your own and because you are too fallible to manage it yourself, "they" must manage it for you. Just as all Muslims are not terrorists, in fact the vast majority are not, not all religious Americans are religious extremists either. Of course, the ones that claim the moral superiority to control your lives are the same ones that do so by fear mongering and festering hate. A very gestappo-esque tactic for a group that thinks the peaceful and benevolent Jesus actually condones their crap.

Religious conservatives ought to be waking up, much as Connor appears to be in this article. This administration has exploited them like teen prostitutes shipped from Asia to America in the cargo hold of an oil tanker. These bozos don't care about your religion or Terri Schiavo, they only care about cementing power and marginalizing democratic processes to insure that their power is forever inshrined. So Mr. Connor is correct, were this a tax cut or regulatory modifications in favor of big business, this administration would in fact have seen it done.

But instead their political opportunistic mentality is revealed, and their true colors allowed to shine. These people are destroying democracy, and it's time people quit enabling them.

Why Do Conservative Judges Hate America?

2005-03-31T08:17:00.000-05:00

From conservative judge Stanley F. Birch, Jr. of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta, Georgia:

Birch went out of his way to castigate Bush and congressional Republicans for acting "in a manner demonstrably at odds with our Founding Fathers' blueprint for governance of a free people -- our Constitution."

Birch said he couldn't countenance Congress' attempt to "rob" federal courts of the discretion they're given in the Constitution. Noting that it had become popular among "some members of society, including some members of Congress," to denounce "activist judges," or those who substitute their personal opinions for constitutional imperatives, Birch said lawmakers embarked on their own form of unconstitutional activism....

In his opinion, Birch-didn't discuss the merits of Schiavo's parents' arguments because he said he felt compelled to address the larger constitutional question of whether Congress had a right to force any reconsideration of the case.

Birch cited precedents at the core of the American government's structure, including the Federalist papers, published to urge ratification of the Constitution, and Marbury vs. Madison, the 1803 Supreme Court decision that established the judiciary as the highest authority on the law.
Birch said Congress stepped into territory reserved for the judiciary when it passed the law directing federal courts to hear Schiavo's case without considering its state court history or traditional barriers to federal review.

The law "robs federal courts of judicial doctrines long-established for the conduct of prudential decision-making," Birch wrote. "Congress chose to overstep constitutional boundaries into the province of the judiciary. Such an Act cannot be countenanced."

This is the same judge that ruled in favor of banning gay adoptions and restricting the sales of sex toys in Alabama. A Scalia/Thomas judge in other words.

Politics Make Strange Bedfellows

2005-03-31T08:11:00.000-05:00

Oliver Willis points us towards a compare and contrast sort of chart that shows the uncanny similarities between the neoconservative ideology of this administration and the ideology of its sworn enemy.

One and the same? Perhaps we've all been snookered.

Exporting Democracy One Freedom at a Time

2005-03-30T11:26:00.000-05:00

Freedom is on the march - straight out of America. The incessant message control mindset of this administration is reaching all time lows. From state sponsored propoganda reminiscent of the Nazi party in the 30's and 40's, to under the table payments to journalists for pushing a point of view, and now to skipping the pretext and simply removing people from public events that may have a different opinion.

By "public event" I mean one that we paid for, Democrat and Republican and Independent alike, with our tax dollars:

In Denver, three people say they were booted out of a presidential event last week even though they never uttered a peep, apparently because their car bore a bumper sticker denouncing the war in Iraq.In Fargo, N.D., last month, local Republicans developed a blacklist of more than three dozen residents, including a city commissioner, who were to be banned from Bush's visit.... "
We welcome a diversity of views at the events," White House spokesman Scott McClellan said Tuesday, although in fact participants at the events are carefully screened and dissenting voices are rare.
Young and his friends, Karen Bauer and Leslie Weise, had barely gotten in the door before they were unceremoniously shown the exit by a man who refused to explain his actions. They thought he was a Secret Service agent because he had an earpiece and an official-looking lapel pin.
Young said he was later told by Secret Service officials that he and his friends had been ejected by a local Republican volunteer who'd been spurred to action by the bumper sticker on their car: "No More Blood for Oil."

To be certain, Young indicates it was the Secret Service that ejected him from the event, yet the Secret Service seems to be indicating none of their agents actually did the ejecting. So either the Secret Service, an arm of the government, is being used to violate the First Amendment, or someone (or someones) in the Republican party are impersonating the Secret Service. One is a desecration of our Constitution and grounds for removal from office whereas the other is criminal.

Fighting Waste, Fraud and Abuse with Cronyism

2005-03-30T10:41:00.000-05:00

This really does not merit comment, so I'll just let it speak for itself:

Fletcher has appointed more than 65 people who are paid at least $100,000 a year, three times the average state worker salary. In particular, Fletcher pays his inner circle more -- sometimes far more -- than previous Gov. Paul Patton paid his when he left office in late 2003.

For example, most Fletcher cabinet secretaries are paid about $127,000, up $20,000 from the Patton cabinet. That's a 19 percent raise. By contrast, raises for all state workers averaged 3 percent last year.....
Fletcher's aides get some of the largest checks, such as his general counsel ($127,146, up 19 percent from Patton's general counsel), press secretary ($121,957, up 17 percent from Patton's press secretary) and assorted senior advisers and executive assistants, who average $120,740....

Those remaining -- police, prison guards, social workers, engineers, clerks and the like -- no longer see raises of 5 percent a year, as they once did. Instead, due to budget cuts, raises tend to be 3 percent or less. Salaries for all executive branch employees have averaged about $36,000 for two consecutive years.

Lindy Casebier, a former Republican state senator who lost his seat in the 2002 redistricting, had been paid $77,000 as an assistant to the Oldham County
school superintendent. Fletcher hired him in January for $104,000 as executive director of arts and humanities in the Commerce Cabinet.
Casebier said he-didn't need or demand the 35 percent increase. But he didn't reject it once it was presented.

Screw that, I have to comment. These jackasses are cutting health care benefits for state workers that make $36,000 per year while fattening their own pockets. They are cutting child care assistance benefits to benefit their political cronies. They are looking to cut Medicaid while they reward people that have no experience in government other than political loyalty. How else can they explain Keith Hall getting the Homeland Security position when his past experience is as a lobbyist for Insight Communications?

This is your modern Republican government. They have abandoned the ideals of conservatism (parts of which I happen to subscribe to) and exploited religious fervor for the sole purpose of putting themselves in power and living fat off the public tax tit.

It pisses me off because I have relatives that work under this administration and I see first hand what a 3% raise (actually less for most state employees at universities and in public education) gets you when your wages are already at the bottom - absolutely nothing. The modern Republican movement is an abomination and true, old school Republicans should feel ashamed that they've bought into this cynical crap about "big government" while enabling their elected officials milk the tits of the cow otherwise known as the taxpayer's money.

Here's a tip - they don't give a damn about you and they only care about themselves. Why is that so hard to understand or admit?

Unintended Consequences

2005-03-24T08:33:00.000-05:00

Banning gay marriage apparently provides a safe harbor for those that commit domestic violence against non-marital partners. At least so says a Judge (damned activist judges at it again) in Cleveland, Ohio:

His public defender, David Magee, had asked the judge to throw out the charge because of the new wording in Ohio's constitution that prohibits any state or local law that would "create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals."

Before the amendment, courts applied the domestic violence law by defining a family as including an unmarried couple living together as would a husband and wife, the judge said. The gay marriage amendment no longer allows that. ...

Because Burk had a prior domestic violence conviction, the latest charge was a felony that could have resulted in an 18-month jail term; a misdemeanor assault carries a maximum sentence of six months.

To be certain, a mere change to the Ohio penal code will correct this obvious defect in the law. In the short term though a man that beats women is back out on the street. While curable, it does serve to highlight the short sightedness of those that would rush to defend the "tradition of marriage" by writing discrimination into a state constitution - in a country that is ravaged by a 50% divorce rate among heterosexual couples.

It is simply disingenuous to suggest that gay marriage has anything to do with the decline in the "institution of marriage." Since money issues are most often the dagger through the heart of a marriage, one would think that this administration's economic policies would be more of an affront to marriage than would some gay people.

But that's just the logical, loony liberal in me I suppose.

Why Is George Bush a Liar?

2005-03-23T10:12:00.000-05:00

Link:

A commander for Osama bin Laden during Afghanistan's war with the Soviet Union who helped the al-Qaida leader escape American forces at Tora Bora is being held by U.S. authorities, a government document says.

The document represents the first definitive statement from the Pentagon that bin Laden, the mastermind of the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, was at Tora Bora and evaded his pursuers.

President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney asserted during the presidential election that commanders did not know whether bin Laden was at Tora Bora when U.S. and allied Afghan forces attacked there in December 2001. They dismissed assertions by Sen. John Kerry, the Democratic presidential nominee, that the military had missed a chance to capture or kill bin Laden while al-Qaida made a last stand in the mountainous area along the Pakistan border. The document, provided to The Associated Press in response to a Freedom of Information request, says the detainee held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, "assisted in the escape of Osama bin Laden from Tora Bora." ...

While campaigning for president last fall, Kerry said Bush had erred in relying on Afghan warlords to hunt down bin Laden in the caves of Tora Bora in December 2001, contending on Oct. 22 that the president had "outsourced" the job.

Cheney said Oct. 26 that Gen. Tommy Franks, the commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan, had "stated repeatedly it was not at all certain that bin Laden was in Tora Bora. He might have been there or in Pakistan or even Kashmir," the Indian-controlled Himalayan region.
Franks, now retired, wrote in an opinion column in The New York Times on Oct. 19, "We don't know to this day whether Mr. bin Laden was at Tora Bora in December 2001." He added that intelligence assessments of his location varied, but bin Laden was "never within our grasp."

On several occasions Bush cited the column as evidence that bin Laden could have been in any of several countries in December 2001. "That's what Tommy Franks, who knew what he's talking about, said," Bush said on Oct. 27.....

The document does not elaborate on the detainee's U.S. connection but says he arrived in Afghanistan via Bahrain and Iran. He was "present at Tora Bora," crossed the Afghan border into Pakistan in December 2001, and surrendered to Pakistani authorities, the document says....

And Tommy Franks you are the biggest liar of them all because it was your lie that enabled Cheney and Bush during the whole campaign. Your lies enabled the poor planners of this foray into the black abyss of imperialism.

Why Not Just Try Something Different?

2005-03-23T08:47:00.000-05:00

From the MoJo Blog (from those that bring us Mother Jones, an excellent magazine with true "journalism"):

Unlike the average driver of the average automobile, the oil industry has just come off a bumper year. Profits have reached all-time highs, with, for example, Exxon-Mobil reporting quarterly income of $8.42 billion, the highest quarterly income ever reported by an American firm.But, as Michael Klare, author of Blood and Oil: The Dangers and Consequences of America's Growing Petroleum Dependency, notes, this can't last.
[C]heering as the recent announcements may have been for many on Wall Street, they also contained a less auspicious sign. Despite having spent billions of dollars on exploration, the major energy firms are reporting few new discoveries and so have been digging ever deeper into existing reserves. If this trend continues -- and there is every reason to assume it will -- the world is headed for a severe and prolonged energy crunch in the not-too-distant future.
We can soften the landing by conserving energy today funding R&D for alternative technologies tomorrow, but "at current rates of development, none of these alternatives will be available on a large enough scale when petroleum products become scarce," a point also made by Paul Roberts in a recent Mother Jones article.

Is it really responsible to think that killing off 45 species of animals in the Alaskan Wildlife Refuge is going to solve this pending "energy crunch"? I am an environmentally concious person, but I also like having heat in the winter and A/C in the summer. Moreover, I believe society has an obligation to take care of the less fortunate - in other words those that will be most affected by an "energy crunch" in the form of higher prices and less means to pay them. The current trend is to shave money from programs that protect the elderly and the poor. What will our society do when this "energy crunch" drives prices even higher, and instead of choosing food or medicine people are choosing food or medicine or air conditioning? Will we let them die in their beds from heat stroke? Or will the Republican Congress step in, one by one, Terri Schiavo style, and save these people?

We know the answers to those questions, so before we have a land full of corpses I think it's time we started looking to renewable energy sources. Those dinosaurs that lived a mere 10,000 years ago (don't bring your evolution crap in here) are about tapped out.

Liberal Inactive Justices - A Follow Up

2005-03-22T18:45:00.000-05:00

Having been taken to task for suggesting a Clinton appointee is conservative, I thus rip straight from Talk Left:

He is a former federal defender, former Circuit Court Judge for Hillsboro County and Clinton appointee to the federal bench. Like all federal judges, his appointment is for life. A review of his published opinions and news articles on his decisions do not show political partisanship, or even liberal tendencies. Here's a good size sampling, all sources are listed and available on Lexis.com.

In a high-profile case in Tampa, he ruled a "county can regulate nudity in private clubs to protect residents from an increase in crime and prostitution as well as the degradation of women." Sarasota Herald-Tribune, January 15, 2003.

He "denied an adult business owner's attempt to bar the State Attorney's Office from prosecuting him under a state racketeering law if he sets up shop in Polk County." Lakeland Ledger, February 5, 2003.

He refused to find Polk County's use of antiracketeering laws and high bail unconstitutional. Tampa Tribune, March 2, 2003.

He ruled that "Manatee County nudity ordinances do not infringe on exotic dancers' constitutional rights of expression." Sarasota Herald-Tribune, April 3, 2002 .

He "dismissed a lawsuit filed against the Polk school board by parents and students who said the mandate to wear uniforms violated their civil rights." Tampa Tribune, November 20, 2002,

He sent a former publicist for the National Baptist Convention USA back to prison for nine months for violating the terms of her probation. The reason: she had forged the signature of a church minister and made a false statement on a lease application for an apartment. Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, September 29, 2002

In a religious investment scam case, he sentenced Greater Ministries Founder Gerald Payne to 27 years in prison and called him him a "wolf in sheep's clothing." St. Petersburg Times, August 13, 2001.

He upheld Florida's law prohibiting interstate shipment of wine from out of state to Florida consumers. The state had argued the law, which is a felony, is "justified because they address a "threat to the public health, safety, and welfare; to state revenue collections; and to the economy of the state." Broward Daily Business Review, July 30, 2001.

See the link above for more, including some of his "liberal" highlights.

What Is The Meaning of "Life Support"?

2005-03-22T14:07:00.000-05:00

I honestly don't know. Is it a medical terminology with specific meaning? Or is it a common usage term? Does "life support" refer to a particular type of medical equipment?

For example, when a politician says "[Schiavo's] not on life support, she just gets nutrition through a tube," what are they really saying? It seems that Mrs. Schiavo can't eat, thus the need for a feeding tube. Obviously, from what we've seen on television - and indeed the crux of the debate - is that removing the feeding tube would result in imminent death.

If the feeding tube is necessary to sustain life, would it not then be "life support"?

And if that's the case, then why are these people lying about it?

Inactivist Judges, The New Scourge

2005-03-22T10:35:00.000-05:00

Judge Whittemore refused to order the feeding tube be reinserted into Terri Schiavo despite heartfelt pleas from the 90% of politicians that represent the 30% of people that wanted the US Congress to intervene.

First it was activist judges ruining the moral fabric of America, now it's inactivist judges. And a conservative judge at that.

I'm beginning to wonder if this is "democracy" in action rather than some radical plot by the judiciary to execute a coup against the altruistic Republican Congress. If this is democracy then why does Tom DeLay, Bill Frist, George Bush, the radical Right and the rest of Republicans hate it so much?

The Rude Pundit Makes My Job Easy

2005-03-22T09:53:00.000-05:00

The Rude One speaks where I was at a loss for words on the Terri Schiavo matter. Beware the bluntness of his speech, but heed his message [Ed. note - this has been edited for television]:

And there's everything you need to know about contemporary conservatism and its evangelical remoras. Nothing matters - not medicine, not courts, not even the word of a spouse. All that matters is what DeLay says. Or Bush. Or Frist. The Congress and the President said fuck you to the husband; said f- you to the following courts: the Pinellas County Circuit Court, the Second District Court of Appeal, the Florida Supreme Court, the Second District Court of Appeal (again), the Florida Supreme Court (again), the Pinellas Country Circuit Court (again and repeatedly), the Second District Court of Appeal (yet again and repeatedly), the Florida Supreme Court (yet again and repeatedly), and the U.S. Supreme Court; said f- you to doctors; and said f- you to any notions of the liberty of the living. Will they do something to say "f- you" to the federal court that's considering the case now if it rules against the Republicans (and Schiavo's parents)? They have no idea. They're making it up on the fly, the Republicans. They pretend to a belief system and a plan, but ultimately they are merely tools, beholden to their polls, their politics, their re-election pocketbooks.

This entire debacle is about nothing more than changing the national argument, from Social Security, Iraq, and Tom DeLay, to their b.s. "culture of life." But as it sinks in, as it becomes apparent that all that's going on is pandering to the evangelical right, as the rest of us are galled by the actions of a destructive legislative branch, this will
backfire.

The right wants to control your behavior and your interaction with others. In the bedroom, the classroom, the doctor's office, the hospital room. Now we know what the enemy believes - that they and only they know what is medically sound. Now we know why the enemy so absurdly "protects" the "rights" of those "who have no voice": the brain-damaged, the fetuses: because those can't tell the enemy that they're just f-ing wrong.

Right Wing Bracketology

2005-03-22T08:54:00.000-05:00

As only The Poor Man can. I can't believe Pat Buchanan got a 2 seed. He's the Wake Forest of the tournament. And Bill O'Reilly got screwed as a 6 seed - I guess that makes him the Louisville equivalent.