SpecterVision

2007-04-25T16:35:00.000-04:00

What Will Mr. Murphy Do?

Hi All,

***UPDATED and BUMPED***SCROLL FOR UPDATE

As you probably know if you have ever read what I write, I am a Republican. My current House of Representatives representative is Chris Murphy (D – Dist 5 – CT). I actually believe that Mr. Murphy has a belief that he represents all of his district. However, I also believe that elected government officials have a responsibility to explain their actions and votes to their constituents.

In the last two days I have sent Mr. Murphy two separate emails. The first asks Mr. Murphy to explain his vote on H.R. 1591 which is the bill that tried to set timetables for the removal of troops of Iraq, cut funding for those troops, and was loaded with millions and millions of dollars of “pork” just to get Democratic members of the House to vote for it. If you haven’t seen the breakdown of this bill, read this editorial in the Washington Post (Note: In general the Post is a very left-leaning newspaper).

With all of this in mind, I wrote the following email to Mr. Murphy:

Mr. Murphy,

I would like a written explanation from you regarding your vote on H.R. 1591. You voted for this pork laden bill and many of us want to understand why you did this. Was it simply because you only vote party line? Or was it that there is some overriding reason you feel that supporting the troops is not something you should do?

I await your answer

So far, Mr. Murphy has not responded, but I will update this post when he does.

I also wrote to Mr. Murphy with regards to the recent trip by Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi to the Middle East in general, and to the country of Syria in particular. According to the Constitution of the United States of America, only the executive branch has the right to conduct foreign affairs and policies relating to foreign affairs. President Bush asked that Mrs. Pelosi not undertake the trip because she does not represent the policies of the current White House. Mrs. Pelosi, undeterred, made the trip to Syria, and promptly gave untrue information to Syrian President (aka dictator) Assad. See this article for details.

Unfortunately, as the article points out, Mrs. Pelosi was not portraying information from Israel as she stated. In fact, the country of Israel had to quickly point out that what Mrs. Pelosi told Assad was not true. By trying to undertake the foreign policy message of her own initiative, Mrs. Pelosi violated he tenets of the Constitution. And in fact, she may have violated the law – the Logan Act. The act states:

§ 953. Private correspondence with foreign governments.
Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply himself, or his agent, to any foreign government, or the agents thereof, for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects.

According to the Constitution, the foreign policy conducted by the US is the purview of the President, and his/her appointees of the State Department. With that in mind, I wrote the following to Mr. Murphy:

The current Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, has…in my opinion…completely disgraced that important position by going to Syria against the wishes of the government that she professes to serve. This is utterly inexcusable and unacceptable! It is most definitely NOT the business of the Speaker of the House or any member of Congress to usurp the authority of the President, especially in the middle of a DANGEROUS war! People have been skirting around the issue by calling it a difference of opinion, an “alternative foreign policy” (Tom Lantos), a constitutional duty (Arlen Specter), a Congressional perogative…this is ALL nonsense!!

There has also been talk of the possible violation of the “Logan Act” by Ms Pelosi. I think, technically, that is probably the case…and I would like to see her prosecuted. However, I am realistic enough to know this is probably not going to happen. However, it IS within the authority of the House of Representatives to discipline one of their own. This is a VERY serious breach of ethics and conduct! Ms Pelosi is not a Prime Minister, Secretary of State, or an Ambassador. Her public disputes and disagreements with the Bush administration need to stay IN THIS COUNTRY!

I regretfully, but strongly, add my name to a growing list of voters who ask that the House immediately launch a probe into the outrageous conduct of Nancy Pelosi and others who went with her (including any Republicans who participated in this) and that, if faced with continuing treachery of this sort, steps be taken to remove Pelosi and others from their leadership roles. I have no wish to see Ms Pelosi publicly humiliated (even though the same consideration for President Bush on her part has not been evident)…having said that however, if she insists on escalating this behavior to the point where it becomes a critical matter to do so, then so be it!

That some in this government would prefer to talk with our enemies rather than our own President is horrible!! I know that if President Bush intruded himself into the Congress’ legitimate business, that he would and SHOULD be roundly criticized for it. Now it is Congresses turn to put the mirror to its own conduct and DO THE RIGHT
THING!!

I strongly urge you to discuss this with the House ethics committee and anyone else you may deem necessary to include. Perhaps you could prevail upon Nancy Pelosi herself to resign from the Speaker of the House position. She does not belong there…PERIOD!! If NOTHING at all is done about this situation, it WILL send a signal to not only our enemies abroad, but a clear signal to others in Congress and elsewhere that interference in our crucial foreign policy will be tolerated even to the disastrous consequence of our failure to WIN this or any other future war!

It is time to set Mrs. Pelosi straight as to what her job is, along with anyone else who may wish to oppose the duly ELECTED President in this way. It may yet come down to a choice of her losing her job or this country losing the war. NO ONE’S job is so important that it should be protected at all costs against the prospect of complete and utter failure of our foreign policy and the horrible thought of what could come after that.

I look forward to your reply on this matter.

Again, I will update this post when, and if, I hear back from Mr. Murphy.

UPDATE:
The original emails to Mr. Murphy were sent prior to the first publishing of this article on 4/9/07. To date all I have heard from Mr. Murphy is two "form" emails stating that he would get back to me. Because of that, today I sent the following email to Rep. Murphy:

Mr. Murphy,

Several weeks back I wrote two emails to you. Although I got your form response email stating that you would get back to me, I have not heard from you to date. It has been almost 3 weeks.

The first dealt with your reasoning/rationale for voting for HR 1591. Surely, since you already had voted for this pork laden bill, you had a reason to do so. It seems to me that it should not take three weeks of research to see why you voted for the bill. As one of your constituents I would like an immediate answer.

The second email asked you to begin discussions with the House Ethics committee on the possible transgression of the law by Speaker Pelosi (and others) with regards to her trip to Syria. This is even more important now that she is making known intentions to visit Iran. As I explained in my previous email, it appears that Speaker Pelosi may have violated the Logan Act. To wit:

§ 953. Private correspondence with foreign governments. Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly ommences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply himself, or his agent, to any foreign government, or the agents thereof, for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects.
Please let me know the status of your discussions/investigations with the
House Ethics Committee.

IN addition, please update me on the status of investigations into Rep. William Jefferson (why hasn't he been removed from his committees), Speaker Pelosi's ties to minimum wage and Starkist Tuna, and Rep. Mollohan. I assume that you believe that even the impression of impropriety by elected representatives needs to be investigated.

Finally, I would like you to put into words your reasoning of why Congress should try to micromanage the military situation in Iraq, as opposed to the military leaders who are paid to make the right decisions there. Why would any member of Congress think they are better qualified? Why would you vote for any measure that attempts to take control of and micromanage the military? Do you have a Constitutional basis for trying to control the military through Congress?

I await your reply. Hopefully I don't just get an automated form letter again.

2007-04-21T17:32:00.000-04:00

Will We Ever Learn?

I am currently reading Flyboys, by James Bradley. This is an excellent book, especially if you want to learn a lot more on the back-story of the brutality shown by both sides in the Pacific Theater during WWII. You can get a copy of the book here.

I was particularly struck by a chapter early on in the book that describes the Japanese attitude towards the United States. I think there are clear parallels to be drawn today, and that maybe there are some of us who haven’t learned from missteps in the past. Because of that, the question becomes are we doomed to repeat those mistakes over again?

I apologize in advance to Mr. Bradley for this fairly long excerpt from his book, but I know that he has put the history into words that I could not hope to imitate without actual plagiarism.

Flyboys – Chapter 6 (pgs. 89-91)
The ABCD
Encirclement

On Tuesday, September 21, 1937, Japanese
airplanes bombed the capital of China, Nanking. Over the next few days, the
front-page New York Times headlines reflected the West’s
horror:

U.S. SHARP NOTE TO JAPAN “OBJECTS” TO NANKING
RAIDS
ATTACKS TERMED ILLEGAL

20 CHINESE CITIES BOMBED; 2,000
CASUALTIES
CIVILIANS VICTIMS

BRITAIN EXPRESSES “HORROR” OF
BOMBINGS, TALKS BOYCOTT
LONDON IN PROTEST
ENVOY CITES SLAUGHTER OF
NONCOMBATANTS

The accompanying articles denounced Japan’s “campaign of death and terror.” Britain “called the attention of Japan officially to the fact that no nation has a right in law or morality to bomb crowded cities from the air and so make war indiscriminately upon noncombatants and combatants alike.” For it’s part, the U.S. State Department dispatched a stiff note to Japan, stating, “This government holds the view that any general bombing of an extensive area wherein there resides a large populace engaged in peaceful pursuits is unwarranted and contrary to principles of law and humanity. Secretary of State Cordell Hull condemned the bombing with these torrid words: “When the methods used in the conduct of these hostilities take the form of ruthless bombing of unfortified localities with the resultant slaughter of civilian populations, and in particular women and children, public opinion in the US regards such methods as barbarous. Such acts are in violation of the most elementary principles of those standards of humane conduct which has been developed as an essential part of modern civilization.”

President Franklin D. Roosevelt expressed the shock of “every civilized man and woman”: “The ruthless bombing from the air of civilians in unfortified centers of population during the course of the hostilities which have raged in various quarters of the earth during the past few years, which has resulted in the maiming and in the death of thousands of defenseless men, women, and children, has sickened the hearts of every civilized man and woman, and has profoundly shocked the conscience of humanity.”

In floor debate, senators said the Japanese had committed a “crime against humanity” and were pursuing methods “reminiscent of the cruelties perpetrated by primitive and barbarous nations upon inoffensive people.” A resolution was quickly passed denouncing the “inhuman bombing of civilian populations.”

Soon the entire world, in the form of the League of Nations, had condemned Japan. In a resolution the League declared that “taking into urgent consideration the question of aerial bombardment by Japanese aircraft of open towns in China, [the League] expresses its profound distress at the loss of life caused to innocent civilians, including great numbers of women and children, as a result of such bombardments, and declares that no excuse can be made for such acts, which have aroused horror and indignation throughout the world, and solemnly condemns them.”

Japan’s reaction was to continue bombing. And why not? The same issues of the New York Times discussing the West’s hand-wringing also revealed that Tokyo was facing all bark and no bite.

Please do not misunderstand what I have quoted here. I know that the US, before and after this period of time, resorted to very brutal means in the course of war. That is not the point.

The reason I quote this is the last sentence. Japan considered the rest of the world to “all bark and no bite.” Millions of words were spoken and written (and from the quotes above one can see that run-on sentences were the style of the day). Negotiations were undertaken – diplomacy at all levels. And Japan just kept on doing what they wanted. They were emboldened by the lack of direct confrontation over their wars of conquest. In fact they considered the US to be a “land of merchants” whose population didn’t have the stomach to fight a prolonged war. They felt that their Warrior Spirit, coupled with their war machine could attack the US and win. That they would get away with it because of our reluctance to fight.

Why is this important today? Simple. The question is have we learned from history? Have we learned from our complacency in earlier wars?

In today’s world we are at war with a particular form of Islam – radical Islam. Jihadists believe that the US is “all bark and no bite”. That all they have to do is wait us out; wait until the American people are tired of fighting a prolonged war, and then they will win. Unfortunately, we have many in this country who are helping the radical jihadists. We have the MSM who can’t be bothered to tell all of the story in Iraq. We have political leaders who don’t have the cajones to finish what they voted for to begin with.

The parallels to the war in the Pacific are scary. What happens if we pull back from Iraq? I’m not speaking about the ethnic cleansing that will take place. Any normal, thinking person knows about that. There will be massive bloodshed.

No, I’m speaking more about what the jihadists will believe. If we repeat history, as some seem to want us to do, the jihadists will become more emboldened. If they consider us to be a country with no resolve, how long will it be before they come here? Just as the Japanese came to Pearl Harbor. But this time, it won’t be dive bombers and fighters attacking a series of military bases. It will be mass destruction aimed at civilian population centers.

When will we wake up to the reality of the situation? When we are attacked again? What a sorry state of affairs.

Law Enforcement - Or the Lack Thereof

2007-04-07T21:31:00.000-04:00

This is a tricky issue. Our Law Enforcement agencies are there to protect, serve, and help the citizens. There is no question about this. All you have to do to believe that is to look at the emergency response during any disaster – especially 9/11, when so many risked life and limb to help and rescue others. However, I must ask if that is all there is to it?

Tonight I was watching Cops on FOX. It was episode #1928 and the segment I found interesting was the second. The description of the segment, from the FOX.com website, is as follows:

Officer David Couture of the Lowell Police Department responds to a call that a van had been reported with men throwing beer bottles out of it. The two suspects are questioned. The suspect in the red shirt confesses to throwing the bottle. The victims are questioned and they confirm the story and add that the driver tried to run them off the road. Both suspects are arrested and taken to jail.

Theoretically, police officers are supposed to be highly trained in questioning. Part of the protocol is training in asking open-ended/non-leading questions. In essence it means that police officers are not supposed to ask leading questions of either accuser or suspects. The reason for this is simple – if a leading question is asked, it could implant a suggestion into the mind of the person being questioned.

The problem I had with this story on Cops is this. The police were called out in response to a person throwing a beer bottle at the car of the accuser. There seems to be no question this happened, as the “suspect” in the red shirt admitted as much. However, when Officer Couture was speaking with the accusers, the information about the driver running them off the road was not volunteered by the accusers. Instead, Officer Couture clearly asked them if the driver of the other vehicle had run them off the road. That is a leading question. The accusers immediately responded that had happened.

The point here is that the officer should have been more careful. The driver of the vehicle was charged with attempting to run the accuser’s vehicle off the road. This may have happened – we do not know from the show. But what happens when the defense attorney gets hold of the tape of the Cops episode showing the officer asking leading questions? The guy will probably get off because of the lack of basic investigatory skills.

What does all this mean? We have a problem in this country with many, many incomplete or botched investigations by police officers. Guilty people are going free because of it. And vice versa, innocent people are going to jail. And the problem continues to spiral out of control. More later.

A Gift From Above

2006-12-16T00:57:00.000-05:00

I do not know if you have seen this, but I think that it is a gift for all of us during the holidays, no matter what faith. To me, being a Christian, it is a gift from God, given to us through diligent and dedicated health care professionals and researchers. But, whatever your faith, give thanks for this.According to this news article, a group of scientists in Canada (Toronto) have made a tremendous breakthrough in a search for a cure for diabetes. This disease, which affects so many people around the world, can be deadly for those afflicted. According to the researchers:Diabetic mice became healthy virtually overnight after researchers injected a substance to counteract the effect of malfunctioning pain neurons in the pancreas."I couldn't believe it," said Dr. Michael Salter, a pain expert at the Hospital for Sick Children and one of the scientists. "Mice with diabetes suddenly didn't have diabetes any more."It would seem that this could lead to a cure. But if nothing else, it will open a whole new front in the research on this disease. And remember that even though the incidence of Type II Diabetes has been increasing in adults in the US, even more important in all of this is the fact that so many children are affected with the disease.What a holiday gift to all of us.BTW - Happy Hanukkah.

Herald the Pollsters!

2006-11-15T08:12:00.000-05:00

Wait a minute! I’m confused.

Didn’t we just have mid-term elections where the Democrats took both houses of Congress, albeit by a very small minority? Didn’t the Democrats run on the platforms of “Bush is Bad, Therefore We Are Good!”, “Trust Us, We Can Do Better!”, “We’ll Solve the Problem in Iraq!”, etc.? That is what I heard day-in and day-out on the TV for months before the election. The Democrats got the voters all fired up that they were going to solve the problems in Iraq! And they got elected on that!

But what are we hearing now? According to the latest AP/Ipsos poll, the plurality of Americans, 37%, believe that Iraq is the largest problem facing the country. And even though Healthcare and the Economy were the other big “hot button” issues for the Democrats, only 12% and 10% respectively, thought those issues should be top priorities.

What is more astounding though is the reported numbers about people’s confidence in the Democrats. Believe it or not, 57% of those polled believe that the Democrats do not have a plan for handling the situation in Iraq. Imagine that – the largest issue that the Democrats won on, and people don’t believe there is a plan! Just what did people think they were voting for?

What’s even funnier is that the AP/Ipsos has been known to slant their opinion polls in favor of Democrats, and in this case, they did not disappoint. 34% of the respondents claimed to be Democrats, as opposed to 28% Republican. Just in that we see the bias built into the poll. And with that bias, the majority of people believe the Democrats have no plan. Amazing. Confusing!

It was interesting to read the article on this from the AP. Did they squawk the poll numbers at the top of their lungs as they did in every poll before the election? Why….no. In fact, they used wording to try to soften the impact. You can read the article by AP Writer Jim Kuhnhenn here, but I have selected a few quotes:

For every 10 adults polled, four said the country will be better off, three said it would not make much difference and two said the country will be worse off.

Get that? 40% of this biased poll said people believe things will be better with Democrats in control of Congress. But the reporter tries to hide the result which shows that 50% said that there won’t be any difference or the country will be worse off. What a mandate that was handed to Democrats. LOL. The majority of Americans believe that things won’t get better with them in charge. And you have to laugh at that because remember the Democratic bias built into the poll to begin with. BTW – the actual poll numbers were: Better off – 42%, Worse off – 21%, No Difference – 33%.

In the poll, more Americans ranked Iraq as the top priority of the new Democratic-controlled Congress, but nearly three out of five say the party has no plan to deal with the war.

Let’s reverse the situation for a moment. If it had been Republicans in charge do you think the writer would have used “three out of five” or would he have blasted the number as “Nearly 60%”? Disingenuousness at it’s best.

To be honest, in the next paragraph the writer does bring the numbers out, but why not at the top of the article – in the first few paragraphs?

Oh well. I’m still confused about what the voters were thinking. According to the article, exit polls said people were worried about corruption within the government, but that is not what the new poll shows as being a priority. In fact, it did not even rank as a problem in the poll. I guess that is why Spkr2B Pelosi can name John “ABSCAM” Murtha and Alcee “IMPEACHED” Hastings to leadership positions with no concern about voter backlash.

Maybe some day it will make sense. But, hey – for now the Dems have the ball in their court. Unfortunately somebody better start giving them dribbling and shooting lessons. They can’t pass anymore!

Lieberman Slams Marcos Zuniga aka KOS

2006-11-02T08:09:00.000-05:00

Well…..I just could not resist. Here are the first 3 pages from a Lieberman mailer to households around the state. The message seems pretty self-evident to me. Good for a laugh. And Unready Neddy is still 12 points behind….Sorry the print quality on the third page is not perfect. Here is what it says (the sources listed are actually footnotes in the brochure):

From the start, out-of-state extremist Markos Moulitsas Zuniga has been one of Ned Lamont’s biggest cheerleaders. Zuniga used the leading left-wing blog he runs, www.DailyKos.com, to help raise more than $400,000 for Lamont. (Source: http://www.actblue.com/page/netrootscandidates) He also starred in one of Lamont’s first TV commercials. (Source: http://www.nedlamont.com)

But when he’s not busy smearing Joe Lieberman, Zuniga is making hateful comments about others. This is what Zuniga had to say after four American civilians delivering food in Fallujah were killed:

“They are there to wage war for profit. Screw them.” (Source: Wall Street Journal Online, 4/2/04)

What kind of politician takes someone like this and puts him in a TV commercial?

Now just thing about what Ned Lamont will do – if he’s elected to the United States Senate.

There you have it folks. Lieberman slams KOS. Gotta love it.

DUH!!!

2006-10-28T11:41:00.000-04:00

Duh!! That is what I say about a new study that was done – and made big news this week. According to a Washington Post article, heavier Americans burn more gas. Again I say, “Duh!!”

It sure makes one wonder where intellectual curiosity has gone. Apparently a study was actually done on this at the University or Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. My question is, “Why bother?” It is just basic common sense that the heavier an object is, the more energy required to move it. I would be willing to bet that any Junior High School student knows this intuitively. From the article:

"What we have here is a relationship that exists between the obesity epidemic and fuel consumption," said Sheldon H. Jacobson, a professor at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and a co-author of the study. "Now, does it mean we should all go out and lose weight? Of course not. But it does mean that there is a relationship and we should be aware of it."

LOL. I wish Professor Jacobson could tell me of any person of average intelligence who was not aware of this “relationship” before this ground-breaking and truly top priority study. In my own mind I wonder where the idea for this study came from, and if there were any government grants given to accomplish it.

I guess there is one redeeming thing that came from the study. Basically, if people lose weight, we as a country will use less gasoline and therefore be less dependent on foreign oil. Besides the fact that this is just basic common sense, somehow I think there are easier ways of becoming less dependent. Gee – opening up our own oil field resources for development is the first thing that comes to mind. And then we could hire a bunch of new workers with the added benefit that if we hired heavy people, they might lose weight. LOL.

Just a point of view…..

Check This Out!

2006-10-22T23:09:00.000-04:00

If you haven’t met Squiggler yet, be sure to check out her site. Not only does she do a great news round-up, but she writes with incredible detail and attention to facts. Check out her latest, The Devil Made Me Do It.

Making a Statement

2006-10-22T23:03:00.000-04:00

If you haven’t seen the new RNC ad, you should visit Sweetness & Light and check it out. Talk about making a statement. Go here.

The Dying Fire

2006-10-22T22:58:00.000-04:00

Have you ever sat and watched a fire? Today was a rainy, foggy, half-light and cold kind of day. While working, I lit a fire in the fireplace. As I was partaking of my one addiction – a cup of coffee – I sat watching the fire burn. And while doing that I made an observation.

As a fire burns, it tends to collapse in upon itself. When it does that, new flames spring up, eagerly consumes the new fuel that is exposed to the core heat. That process continues until all of the wood is consumed, and then the fire dies out. The only way to get around the eventual burn out is to add new fuel – to add more wood to the fire.

OK. Now I know you are wondering where I am going with this. As I watched this natural process, I realized that there is a very appropriate analogy to a fire. And that is ideas within a political party. Each political party has a base foundation of concepts and ideals. This foundation is represented in the analogy by the initial fire. New ideas – the trying of new things; the willingness to adapt new concepts and strategies – are the fuel – the new wood – which is added to keep the fire going.

And that brings me to my point. For the last six years, the Democratic party has been using the exact same ideas to fuel their “fire”. And people are getting tired of hearing the same mantra. In essence, the fire is dying. They are even starting to lose their base – except for the radical left.

I have no fancy statistics to back up my observations. But maybe some anecdotal evidence is in order. As many of you know, I live in the seriously Democratic state of Connecticut. This year, besides the contentious senate race between Independent Joe Lieberman and Democrat Ned Lamont, there are three major House races going on. Nancy Johnson (R) vs. Chris Murphy (D), Christopher Shays (R) vs. Dianne Farrell (D), and Rob Simmons (R) vs. Joe Courtney (D). In each of the latter three races, the TV advertising for the Democrats is almost exclusively based on, “The incumbent votes with George Bush. Because of that you should vote for…” the Democratic candidate. No issues; no, “Here’s what I stand for.” Only “vote for me because the other guy voted for stuff Bush supported.”

This tactic was used by John Kerry during the last Presidential election, and turned out to be a complete failure. Yet, with that particular fiasco behind them, the Democrats have chosen to use the exact same strategy – one that already has been shown to be ineffective. If just one Democrat would come up with a new idea, they might gather more votes. But no – no new ideas; no espousing of their “plans” to take care of the problems we face as a country. Simply the same old thing. Don’t get me wrong. People like Unready Neddy have ideas – spend more on education, raise taxes, and promote universal health care. Of course, the proposals are only general ideas, and at that, the same ideas that the Democrats have promoted for the last 30 years. Raise taxes, bigger government, more entitlements, and government involved in every part of your life. My goodness! Can you even imagine what it would be like if the government took over health care? They can’t even buy mil-spec hammers for a reasonable fee – there is already too much bureaucracy.

Now I know that some of you will wonder what is different about the Republicans. Well, all I can say is that the reason to vote new people into office is dissatisfaction with the current situation. We have a booming economy, have had no terror attacks on our soil, have new (if watered down) immigration legislation, successful campaigns in both Iraq and Afghanistan, the disemboweling of Al Quaeda , and a myriad of other accomplishments. We have seen the government adapt their tactics to further the goals of the country. That, in effect, is adding new ideas. Go figure.

How To Participate in PlameGate!

2006-09-20T23:09:00.000-04:00

****SCROLL FOR UPDATE****

What is to be done about PlameGate? I’m not sure if you have followed the whole affair as closely as I have, but it certainly has taken some interesting twists and turns. But revelations from the last few weeks seem to have put the kibosh on the whole affair.

In case you have not been following the story, let me bring you up to speed. Several weeks ago it was revealed that Richard Armitage, Senior Aid to Colin Powell at the State Department was the person who leaked Valerie Plame’s name to the press. It was also revealed that Justice Department knew about Armitage prior to the appointment of Special Prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald. It also appears that the Special Prosecutor knew all about Armitage well before his infamous press conference (October 28, 2005) where he announced the indictment against Scooter Libby as the “first known” official to have leaked Ms. Plame’s name. In other words – Fitzgerald knew that he was misleading the public when he held the press conference! And if you read the news, I bet you thought it was Karl Rove…..

I have been following this case for quite some time from various news accounts and blogs. The main blog that I have participated in is Just One Minute (hosted by the ever congenial Tom Maguire). I like that site as there are quite a few people (from both sides) with substantive knowledge and legal backgrounds. They have analyzed each and every piece of documentation that has become available surrounding this entire, drummed-up scandal. These self-admitted “Plameaholics” have kept the story very interesting.

Although I have blogged about this issue here and on other sites, I will not even attempt to recreate the whole, convoluted story. Instead I will point you to an article by Clarice Feldman, a Washington D.C. area attorney with a tremendous amount of legal experience, frequent commenter at Just One Minute, and contributor at The American Thinker. In her article, entitled The Case of the Missing Crime, Feldman concisely lays out the details of the case. You should read it.

Now that we have reached this point in this non-scandal, it is time to start asking why the Special Prosecutor continued to investigate this case after he knew who the “leaker” was, how the information was leaked, and that no crime had been committed. This investigation has been on-going for several years at a large cost to taxpayers. Yet, the prosecutor had the details to end the investigation within months of being assigned to find out who the leaker was. It is also evident that Fitzgerald crossed the line on several ethical issues. You may be asking, “What can we do?” Simple.

I refer you back to Clarice Feldman. Today she sent a very detailed letter to the Office of Professional Responsibility at the Department of Justice. You can read the original of the letter here. In discussing this tonight at Just One Minute, several posters pointed out that it would be better if Ms. Feldman’s message came from quite a few different people. The concern is that the whole issue will get buried/lost in the bureaucracy. My suggestion was that if a person does not have the time to write their own detailed letter, they simply forward Ms. Feldman’s letter to their House Representative/Senators. With that in mind, I have actually created the letter (which I have already emailed to my federal legislators) which you can copy and paste. Of course you will have to look up the email contact form for your Representative and Senators

Here is the letter:

Dear (fill in the blank with your Representative/Senator),

Today I came across a letter written and mailed by Washington DC Attorney Clarice Feldman to the Department of Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility. I thought that I would make you aware of this letter so that the issue is not buried within the government bureaucracy. I have pasted the letter below. Please keep an eye on this situation and do what you can to make sure that this issue is brought into the public light:

(BEGIN PASTED LETTER)

H. Marshall Jarrett, Counsel

Office of Professional Responsibility

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Suite 3266

Washington, D.C. 20530

Re: Patrick Fitzgerald’s handling of the Plame Case

Dear Mr. Jarrett:

I am writing to suggest that if one is not underway yet, it is long past due to undertake an investigation into the circumstances of the appointment of Patrick Fitzgerald and the way in which he has conducted this matter.

As a general overview of the inappropriate way in which he handled this matter, I reference this article (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/720lutwz.asp) in the Weekly Standard.

As to more specific references to inappropriate conduct not outlined there, I draw your attention to his statements in the press conference announcing the indictment and particularly ask that you read those statements in light of recent developments: It is now apparent that Mr. Fitzgerald knew from the outset of his appointment that the source of the “leak” to Robert Novak was Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage.  In spite of this, Mr. Fitzgerald appears to have never fully explored with Armitage whether Armitage had spoken to other reporters in addition to Novak—although it is now known that Armitage spoke about Plame to at least one other reporter, Bob Woodward, and quite possibly other reporters who have testified before the Grand Jury. That conversation happened a full month before the Novak article was published.

Mr. Woodward has volunteered that he himself told other people during the month in question, but it seems that Mr. Fitzgerald was uninterested in whether this provided an alternate path for information to spread through the Washington press corps, including quite possibly other reporters who have testified before the Grand Jury.  Nor did Mr. Fitzgerald seek waivers of confidentiality for any reporters with whom Armitage spoke with regard to Plame (with the possible exception of Novak himself).  The “good leakers” “bad leakers” and “whistleblower” distinctions made by the prosecution are a frank prescription for criminalizing politics and were unprofessional. And the suggestion in those statements that the defendant had deliberately disclosed the identity of  an undercover agent and harmed national security in so doing, prejudiced the defendant, slandered him in the public eye, and far exceeded the evidence in the prosecution’s possession and the indictment itself.

Further, the affidavit he filed in the Miller appeal was a model of misdirection and disingenuousness clearly designed to mislead the Court. Taken as a whole, the affidavit conflates the Armitage leak to Novak with Libby’s quite apparently innocent conversations with other reporters, presenting a materially false impression of the facts the prosecution already had determined. Whether Libby’s recollections of those conversations were accurate, or his conversational partners’ recollections were more accurate, both sides to each conversation recall something entirely benign.

I ask you to focus attention in particular on paragraphs 9-17 and 81 of that affidavit and read them in light of recently revealed facts: that Armitage told Novak and Woodward earlier and in far greater detail about Plame’s role and identity than did Lewis Libby or Karl Rove who were pilloried for three years for innocent, passing comments to reporters who asked THEM about information, reporters who already  seem to have  known  about Plame’s identity due to the indiscretions of Plame and Wilson. From these facts alone it is readily apparent that these reporters already knew about Plame’s employment and her relationship to Wilson.  These obvious facts should have lead an unbiased investigator or prosecutor to examine the source of that knowledge—whether it was due to the well documented indiscretions of Plame and Wilson themselves or whether, like the leak to Novak, their knowledge derived from conversations with Richard Armitage.    Significantly, Mr. Fitzgerald’s reference to a Newsday article suggesting that Plame fell within the IIPA failed to note that the source(s) for those claims were Wilson allies in the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, a group which ironically was urging intelligence officers to leak classified information. Even more ironically some of them reportedly are connected through interlinked organizational ties with Mr. Agee, whose own deliberate revelations of undercover CIA agents was the very impetus for the Statute. At no time in the unredacted portions of the affidavit did Fitzgerald directly say that Plame met the test of the IIPA - which she clearly does not -but in various ways he deliberately left the Court with that impression in order to effect the rare contempt order and jailing of a reporter. Further, while portions of the affidavit remain redacted, it doesn’t appear that the Prosecution was adequately forthcoming to the Court in revealing that the disclosure to Novak was by someone who did not get that information from Libby or Judith Miller. Indeed, Miller herself may have received it from Armitage as well. Her notes reflect other sources, prior to the June 23 meeting with Libby and she had in the recent past written interviews with Armitage. Fitzgerald’s grand jury interrogation of her respecting those sources, moreover, seems to conflict with the agreement he’d reached with her not to ask about sources other than Libby.

Footnote 15, p. 28 of this filing was markedly misleading.

    “If Libby knowingly disclosed information about Plame’s status with the CIA, Libby would appear to have violated Title 18, USC Sec. 793 if the information is considered information respecting the national defense. In order to establish a violation of Title 50, USCSec.421, it would be necessary to establish that Libby knew or believed that Plame was a person whose identity the CIA was making specific efforts to conceal and who had carried out covert work overseas within the last 5 years. To date we have no direct evidence that Libby knew or believed Wilson’s wife was engaged in covert work.”

That it is so is clear from this portion of Judge Tatel’s opinion in that case.

    “Addressing deficiencies of proof regarding the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, the special counsel refers to Plame as person whose identity the CIA was making specific efforts to conceal and who had carried out covert work overseas within the last 5 years -representations I trust the special counsel would not make without support. [Emphasis added].”

There is no indication on the record that the Prosecutor informed the Court that this was a misreading of the affidavit he submitted.

Finally, I think it important to investigate the circumstances surrounding the extra-statutory appointment of Fitzgerald as Special Prosecutor by Deputy Attorney General James B. Comey.  In view of the now well-known fact that the appointment of Mr. Fitzgerald took place 2-3 months after the true source of the leak was known, I believe it is of great importance to determine

    1) whether the appointment was made by arrangement with any members of the Senate Judiciary Committee,

    2) whether any members of that Committee were informed by anyone in the Department of Justice or the Special Prosecutor’s office of Armitage’s admission that he had been Novak’s source and,

    3) if so, when such disclosure was made and by whom.

I recognize that the special prosecutor is acting in a unique capacity. On the other hand, since the appointment of a Department of Justice employee as Special Prosecutor created a special circumstance that was not contemplated by the Statute, it seems logical that Mr. Fitzgerald should be covered by the operations of your office. In support of that position, I draw your attention to the fact that both Mr. Comey and Mr. Fitzgerald provided affidavits to the Court in support of their own contention that the operations of the Special Prosecutor are under Department of Justice supervision.  If you feel that this is not the case, I would appreciate your disclosing that to me even though I appreciate that non-jurisdictional issues are and should remain non-public during any investigation. Because I am convinced that the above described conduct imperatively demands investigation, I will seek it in another forum if this matter is beyond your jurisdiction.

Sincerely yours,

Clarice Feldman

(END PASTED LETTER)

Please let me know what you find out.

Sincerely,
(your name)

Have at it…..

****UPDATE (9/21/06, 1:09 PM)
It has been pointed out that some people may take the position that it is not worth writing to their own Congressional representatives because they will simply ignore it (as I expect one of my Senators will – as Mr. Dodd has ignored most of the issues I have written to him about). If that is the case, you can write to Representative Sensenbrenner who is the chair of the House Committee on the Judiciary. The procedure is the same. Simply cut and paste the letter above and send it to him. What the heck – I’ve sent it to him and all of my Congresscritters.

2006-09-12T07:25:00.000-04:00

Let’s Spend More…

In my last article, The Wishing Well, I pointed out that Ned Lamont has wishes for the Federal government that are going to cost an awful lot of money. Universal Health Care was one – and at that we never talked about what type of impact such a plan would have on the economy. As the term “universal” implies, would government health care be for everyone? Or would it only be for the people who cannot afford to pay for their own insurance (which – as usual with federal programs puts the burden of paying for the system on people who are already paying for health insurance personally)? If it is for everyone, what happens to all the people who are now employed in the health insurance sector? What is the overall cost of such a plan? My bet would be that it would easily cost more than the Iraq War and Katrina combined. So while Universal Health Care sounds good in a 30 second TV ad, there is no substance to it – no plan – and certainly no thought as to how it impacts the country.

Nevertheless, I find I have to retract a statement I made. I said that Ned was a single-issue candidate with no plans for anything other than to retreat from Iraq. I am the first to admit I was wrong. Yesterday, Ned unveiled his plan for education. If you have not seen it, you can read the pdf version here. In this article I want to cover some of the basics of Ned’s plan.

In his opening paragraph, Ned states:

We face a competitiveness crisis as workers in other countries compete against ours on wages and skills. The quality of our workforce is Connecticut’s competitive edge and America’s edge. But now Europe is turning out twice the number of scientists and engineers as the U.S; and Asia is outpacing us by a factor of three. Our graduate enrollment in math and science is down 20% from its peak in 1985. Our twelfth graders fall near the bottom in the international competition in math and science. By many, many measures, we’re losing the talent race.

Like many of Ned’s public statements, this is one you can’t argue with. It is true that, as a country, we are falling behind in education. The real question though is, if we throw more money at the problem, will the education crisis be resolved? Of course, Ned’s solution is to spend more money – as any Democrat will tell you. The Lamont camp spells out a five-point plan to solve the crisis. We will cover the top three points.

Ned points out that NCLB promotes “teaching to the test” and that the American education system is “rigid.” I could not agree with him more on this. No matter what comes from the testing, there is a fair segment of children in our society who just do not “take tests well.” Standardized testing does not take these children into account. The approach also does not take into account the fact that many kids are not ready for the tests to begin with, but we’ll talk more about what may be the root cause of that later.

The Lamont plan seems to yearn for the days after Sputnik when American schools did well to educate children not only in Math and Science, but also created:

…curious mind and creative thought, a liberal arts basis which has served the creativity and energy of our entrepreneurial capitalist system very well.

Again, this may well be true. Ned also says that it has been documented that from Fourth Grade on, students in the United States fall behind their contemporaries in other countries. This, also, is true.

John Stossel covers this subject quite well in his book (p. 108-109), Myths, Lies, and Downright Stupidity. He says:

We gave identical tests to high school students in New Jersey and in Belgium. We asked the Belgian kids, “What did you think of the tests?”

FIRST BOY: Well, I thought it was pretty easy considering the tests we usually get here. This was kinda a piece of cake.

SECOND BOY: The test was so easy, I think that if the kids in America couldn’t do this, they’re really stupid.

“Stupid” was harsh, but the Belgian kids cleaned the American kids’ clocks, getting 76 percent correct vs. 47 percent for the Americans. We didn’t pick smart kids to test in Europe and dumb kids in the United States. The American students attend an above-average school in New Jersey and New Jersey kids have test scores that are above average for America.

The American boy who got the highest score told me: “I’m shocked, ‘cause it just shows how advanced they are compared to us.”

I asked the New Jersey kids:

STOSSEL: So, are American students stupid?

FIRST STUDENT: No, we’re not stupid.

SECOND STUDENT: I think it has to be something with, with the school, ‘cause I don’t think we’re stupider.

Stossel goes on to point out that (red-font emphasis mine):

At the age of ten, students from twenty-five countries take the same test and American kids place eighth, well above the international average. But by age fifteen, when students from forty countries are tested, the Americans place twenty-fifth, well below the international average. In other words, the longer American kids stay in American schools, the worse they do in international competition. They do worse than kids from much poorer, less-developed countries, like Korea and Poland, which spend much less on education than the United States.

With all of that said, let’s explore what Lamont thinks we should do. His first point is this:

In the long run, provide support to local school districts, on a sliding scale basis, to ensure that every child in America enters kindergarten prepared to learn. In the short run, in the most poverty-stricken cities in towns in every state, where children have not learned basic skills, Congress should fund the full cost of implementing well-tested approaches to early childhood education for those kids not presently being served. The projected annual cost would be $6.545 billion.

So, if we get kids ready to enter kindergarten, will we do better overall from an educational standpoint? How then does Lamont’s plan, and this section in particular take into account the fact that the slippage in our national scores develops between 4^th grade and high school? Remember, at 10 years old America’s children, while behind the curve, are still performing fairly well in international comparisons. So Ned’s point here must be something different than just preparing children for kindergarten.

Maybe I see – it is the implementation of this “action” point based on federal help to schools on a sliding scale, with the most “poverty stricken” cities and towns top on the list. In other words, let’s take more money and let “Congress…fund the full cost of implementing well-tested approaches to early childhood education.” Let’s translate this to English: Let’s give more money to experimental early childhood educational programs and hope that they show results. And who would get the money, and who would pay for it? Ned’s plan is a typical democratic approach to problems. Throw more money at it and hope it sticks.

I’m not sure about the rest of you, but I seem to remember that kindergarten was a place to get used to being in school, to maybe learn to count, and draw; to eat a snack and have nap time and recess. Where did we as a country decide that kids need to read before they get to 1^st grade? When we were the top in education, was that how things worked? Have our kids become dumber? Or is there another reason we don’t do as well? Read on.

Ned’s action point number two:

Through grants to selected recipient educational institutions, encourage the development of full-service “community schools,” which leverage the educational program of each school with additional services provided by the school or its community partners to students during extended hours before, during and after school and on weekends. Such services might include early childhood education, Head Start, academic enrichment activities, mentoring, promotion of parental involvement and family literacy, career counseling, mental health, and primary health and dental care. Initial grants would target schools in high-poverty areas. As contemplated in a proposed bill introduced by Representative Steny Hoyer, the initial annual funding for grants would be $200 million.

Other than the fact that middle-America will have to fund this program, I can see where there is probably a need for it, or something like it. In the “targeted” areas, we have an epidemic of broken nuclear families, violence ridden neighborhoods, poverty, and the people who care about their children are really struggling to make ends meet (remember there are many people who don’t care about their children – all over America). Giving the schools the ability to be open early and late – to provide supervision and learning opportunities – is at first glance a good thing.

From a slightly different point of view though, I dislike this idea, but am admittedly not sure how to solve the issue. When my spouse and I were raising our children, we both worked long hours. Typically we would drop our kids off about 6:00 AM and pick them up at about 6:30 PM. We thought, “Such is life.” But over time we began to realize that other people were raising our children. We had abdicated the responsibility of raising our children to others. That was not right – we ended up restructuring our lives so that one of us could be home with the children.

That is what is missing from Ned’s plan in this step. The incentive to break that cycle and become parents. The “taking” of responsibility by the parents who had these children. There needs to be a stick that goes along with the carrot. And what we need to avoid is another system that rewards parents for not taking responsibility for their own lives. I would think that needs to be coupled with more job training of some sort so that parents can either begin paying a minimal amount themselves for this service, or so that they can eventually restructure their lives to raise their own children. Obviously this problem is a mess and just throwing money and half-solutions at it is not going to solve it.

Overall, I really think the biggest worry is that “big brother” ends up with the responsibility or raising children. That is scarier than anything.

Step three in Ned’s plan:

Invest in math and science education to the extent analogous to the support provided in the decade after Sputnik. The 2005 report by a blue-ribbon committee of the National Academy of Sciences, Rising Above the Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing America for a Brighter Economic Future, provides recommendations for

1. increasing America’s talent pool by vastly improving K-12 mathematics and science education,

2. developing, recruiting and retaining the best and brightest minds,

3. strengthening the nation’s commitment to long-term basic research, and

4. providing incentives for innovation.

The first two categories of the above recommendations focus on education.

Truly, this is where Lamont’s plan runs into the most trouble. The first two points in this action step are the ones we need to look at with regards to education. These are great talking points, but underneath it all, the plan is lacking. First off, how do we “increase America’s talent pool by vastly improving K-12” education?

Believe it or not, the Specter’s are heavily involved in K-12 curriculum development. My spouse has been employed in that specialty for a quarter of a century, and I have worked in the periphery for about 15 years. We have seen – as have many of you – the new “theories” of how to educate children come and go. And as the new experiments have been tried – and failed – the nation’s kids have fallen further and further behind their contemporary counterparts. There are many possible explanations for this:

1. Kids are less intelligent now. Somehow I do not believe this.

2. Parents are less involved in making sure their children are keeping up. Personally I feel that this is one of the biggest factors. The Baby-Boomers – in their rush for material goods and pleasures – have stopped doing all the things that need to be done to ensure that their children do their best. This is huge. As a society we’ve gone from one where parent’s supervised their children as far as homework and activities, to one where about the only time parent’s get involved is at report card time. Caveat – Not all parents are like this, but many, many are.

3. The curricula being taught to children is not as good as it was in the 50’s and 60’s. Well…I’m not sure how to answer that one. In many respects it is better. But, as I noted above, we have seen so many outright failures in new methods (take for example Whole Life Language Arts and Inventive Spelling – great ideas on paper that left millions of students without the ability to read and spell properly), that I can’t say every approach is better than it was before.

4. The teachers. Which leads us into Ned’s “best and brightest.”

Teachers. Here is what I believe is the crux of the educational issue – and quite honestly where Ned’s plan fails the test. Lamont says let’s just “develop, recruit, and retain the best and brightest (paraphrased slightly).” That’s a great talking point. But again, no real plan. But let’s talk about this.

The first thing I need to point out is that there are some very, very good teachers out there. And what I have to say here does not detract from their abilities or dedication – and their worth to our society as a whole.

Teachers today are faced with an increasing number of “objectives” that must be taught to students each and every year. These objectives are mandated at local, state, and federal levels and there is no coordination among the mandating entities. With the number of things that have to be mastered increasing, teachers have less and less time to work with students who are falling behind. In essence, we need less government micromanagement of our schools.

I remember the old days when a group of us would stand at the board and work math problems. Basic math. And when we made a mistake, it could be embarrassing, but the teacher was able to watch and see where we were having difficulty. When they saw issues, they would find a different way to teach the curriculum. They had the time to take different approaches – approaches that fit better with the varying learning styles of the students (visual, aural, kinesthetic, and combinations). It is not that way any more. Today, if a student is falling behind, well, for the most part, too bad.

The “good” teachers I referred to above somehow find ways to keep up with the increasing mandates and still help all students. But they are far and few between. In his book, Stossel talks about the way that the American education system has become a government monopoly. I agree with that wholeheartedly. But he also points out that “the only thing worse than a government monopoly is a rigidly unionized government monopoly.” With my apology to the “good” teachers, I agree with Stossel. Currently there is no way to measure the effectiveness of a teacher – brightest mind or not. And even if there was, it is near impossible to get rid of a bad teacher.

On page 124 of his book, Stossel says:

At a high school in New York, students told us some of their teachers don’t try very hard. “I’m standing, today sixth period, outside my room, ‘cause I don’t know where my teacher is,” said one, adding, “One of my teachers tells me he does this for the health benefits.”

This seems odd because teachers I know want to help kids learn. Some are passionate about education. They take extra courses to learn how to be better teachers. Some pay out of their own pocket to learn the latest techniques.

Yet again and again, kids told us, “You got teachers that say, ‘I don’t care. I get paid for it anyway.’”

I shouldn’t be surprised. If you pay everyone the same, and pretty much guarantee their jobs, there’s little incentive to try harder.

I talked to a group of NYC high school students.

STOSSEL: Are there teachers that students dread?

GROUP OF STUDENTS: (In unison) Yes!

PATRICIA STUART: They talk like – like they’re dead, and – and it makes you want to go to sleep. And when you do go to sleep, they get mad. But you – but you can’t help but go to sleep, ‘cause they – they talk like they – like somebody is forcing them to be here. When they don’t have no enthusiasm, we don’t have no enthusiasm.

Isn’t that true? Imagine trying to learn from Ben Stein’s character in Ferris Bueller’s Day Off! Stossel continued talking about trying to get teachers to take an informal teacher’s test. From what he says, ABC went to “dozens” of cities and teachers refused to take the test. Stossel interviewed a group of teachers in NYC who did not take his test. He tells us that these teachers were already involved in a law suit against the state because “the state had the nerve to use a test called the National Teacher Examination or NTE, to partly determine benefits and pay.” The interview went like this (read this with the understanding that many of the teachers failed the test):

FIRST WOMAN: I’ve taken the NTE probably twenty times, maybe more.

FIRST MAN: I’ve taken it numerous times. I lost count.

STOSSEL: Usually, if you take something and you fail, you study so you can pass.

SECOND MAN: There’s nothing to study from.

SECOND WOMAN: I don’t need to be tested.

STOSSEL: You test the kids. Why shouldn’t we test you?

THIRD WOMAN: If I’m tested by outsiders, that’s unfair. Every day that we go into the classroom, that’s a test.

Their lawsuit claimed the test was racist, because many who flunked the test were members of minority groups.

MARC PESSIN, SOCIAL STUDIES TEACHER: Now I will give you an example of a common question. Let’s see if you get it. What is the hue of that wall?

STOSSEL: Hue? That means the color of the wall?

MARC PESSIN: I’m asking you the question.

STOSSEL: Beige.

MARC PESSIN: All right. You are lucky because, based on your understanding, the word hue is understood to mean color. People who come from poor neighborhoods, those people may not have the enriched vocabulary that the people who make the test have.

That is ridiculous. Someone who has a teacher’s certificate, which generally means a college education, doesn’t know the word “hue” loosely means color? I should note that great credentials doesn’t necessarily equate to great teachers. I don’t think that is what Stossel was getting at.

What we really need in this country is a way to measure whether or not a teacher, no matter their “credentials”, is effective in getting students to learn. We need to be able to get rid of teachers who do not meet that standard, and reward those that do. We need to find teachers who motivate children to learn. Ned was involved in volunteering at schools – he should know this.

Lamont’s plan does not address this need. It does not get to the root of the problem (and neither does NCLB). Instead, Ned wants to spend more than $7 BILLION per year. He wants to throw money in areas that are not the root cause of our educational crisis. Maybe we would be better off by using NCLB testing results to also measure how teachers are doing year to year. Almost everything else is fluff…..

2006-09-10T00:25:00.000-04:00

A Moment of Silence

Don't forget to take a moment of silence on Monday morning in honor of all our fellow citizens that were lost. No matter our political persuasion, or our feelings about the war, it is the proper thing to do. Also, be sure to thank, and shake the hand, of your local emergency response people.

Life comes at us fast
And we know it does not last.
But we must remember
That day in September
When so many of us were lost....

2006-09-08T08:27:00.000-04:00

The APosaurus

The more I read from the AP, the more I realize that they really are dinosaurs – the APosaurus. I say that because not matter what the facts are, they completely ignore them to print what they feel is the “word” that needs to get out.

Take for instance today’s article by the AP’s Matt Apuzzo in WaPo (you probably will have to complete a free registration if you don’t have one). While Apuzzo properly coveys the story that Armitage was the leaker in the now infamous Plamegate, he goes on to make some statements that are blatant misrepresentations of the truth. Tom Maguire over at Just One Minute has more on Armitage's first public interviews. First Apuzzo says (emphasis mine):

For almost three years, an investigation led by Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald has tried to determine whether Bush administration officials intentionally revealed Plame's identity as covert operative as a way to punish her husband, former ambassador Joseph Wilson, for criticizing the Bush administration's march to war with Iraq.

OK…I know. Fitzgerald’s investigation was self-limited to the White House and administration after he was fed the line about “retribution.” But in reality, Fitzgerald’s task was to find the leaker. That was it – plain and simple. By wording the sentence the way it was, Apuzzo leaves the impression that it was all but settled that the leak came, on purpose, from the administration. He implies that Fitzgerald was appointed solely to find out who in that group leaked. That was not true. But it gets worse (again – emphasis mine):

He said he did not realize Plame's job was covert.

Since this is not a direct quote, but a paraphrase, we do not know if this is exactly the wording that Armitage used during his interview. Maguire's article covers more of the exact details of what was said and suggests that the word used was "operative." The problem is that even Fitzgerald has backed away from the claim that Plame was covert, opting instead for classified. If Apuzzo was trying to report fairly, that very important caveat would have been included. But, the APosaurus made the claim early-on the Plame was covert, and not even the facts are going to stand in the way of them actually admitting they were wrong. The way the word was used here clearly is an attempt, yet again, to say that Plame was covert. Not very unbiased reporting. The final section that got to me was (emphasis mine):

Armitage's admission suggested that the leak did not originate at the White House as retribution for Wilson's comments about the Iraq war. Wilson, a former ambassador, discounted reports that then-Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein had tried to buy yellowcake uranium from Niger to make a nuclear weapon _ claims that wound up in President Bush's 2003 State of the Union address.

Once again the APosaurus is at work. As everyone except the AP apparently knows, the information provided by Joe Wilson on the Niger situation, is at best suspect, and quite possibly outright lying (how could he debunk the forgeries when he had never seen them, as he told the WaPo?). The fact is that Wilson’s piece of the pie was only a small slice of all the intelligence gathered on Hussein’s attempts to buy “yellowcake.” And, as everyone who has the ability to read, listen, or comprehend (leaves out the APosaurus apparently), Bush’s words in the SOTU address did not specifically point to attempts to buy “yellowcake” in Niger, but Africa in general. You remember – the continent where several countries mine uranium.

So we come back to the original claim that the AP is a dinosaur. Looking more and more like it may be the case…..

2006-09-04T15:15:00.000-04:00

The Wishing Well

Over the next few articles I am going to examine some of Ned Lamont’s television commercials. What we need to look at is what the commercials seem to be implying, and attempt to analyze what Ned’s position on the “issue” is. In essence, we need to determine what he plans to do to change the “problem” he sees. As we do this analysis, we need to remember that we have been duped many times by politicians promising things that they have no chance at changing.

In this article we will be taking a look at Neddy’s commercial called Wishing Well. The ad, which you can see here (the last one of the TV ads as you scroll down), starts off with Ned narrating about wishes as various costumed people march by a wishing well and drop in money.

His first statement is:

“In America, no one should have to wish for medicine…

On the face of it, this is true. Nobody should have to wish for medicine. Leaving aside the fact that we are probably the most over-medicated country on the face of the earth, there are people in need of medicine that can’t get it. And Ned is correct that something needs to be done. But what Ned doesn’t mention that there are many, many programs already in place – both government and private – that provide support for pharmaceutical needs. Take for example, the Husky program for children in Connecticut (soon to be replaced by a newer program as I understand it), the programs for indigenous/homeless/shelter, the new Medicare drug program, etc. And before you start, almost everyone understands that due to the bureaucratic nature of governments, administration of these programs is unwieldy, but it does not mean that people can’t take advantage of them.

In essence, what Lamont is referring to here is his “plan” (read as “pipe dream”) for Universal Health Care. Of course Ned has no real plan for how to implement something like this. But it sure makes good “buzz talk” for the masses. And doesn’t that sound like the typical democratic talking point? I mean, it sounds good, but what are the real world implications of Universal Health Care? How much would it cost? How would the government, in all it’s lack-of-efficiency, going to handle this? Would we need another new, huge bureaucracy to handle the program? Where would the money come from? And probably the most important question of all, does anyone trust the government to make good decisions about an individual’s health? Add to that, do you really trust the government to protect your personal data?

Ned continues:

…or decent classrooms…

I don’t think that anyone would argue about this. Quite honestly I feel that the federal government does not belong in our classrooms to begin with.

Depending on the measure you use, NCLB is either a minimal success, or a failure. What is unfortunate is that our entire public school system is an over-funded, under-achieving, government monopoly. Picture it this way – schools are now regulated so tightly on what has to be taught each year, that teachers have no way to help children in trouble, or children who are gifted (although more emphasis is placed there). Federal mandates and requirements. State mandates and requirements. And when you add in the fact that unions protect under-performing teachers, you end up with the mess we are in today.

With all that said, just what is Ned’s plan for making it better? In all of the rhetoric he has put out, he has not articulated any plans whatsoever. What is the solution? Is it to throw more money at the wall and hope that it sticks? Is it that he wants vouchers? What? Ned’s word seems to be, like that of John Kerry during the 2004 election, “Trust me. I will fix everything. Bush is bad.” That is the sum and substance of the campaign.

What did Lamont say next? Let’s review:

…or secure retirement.

This is interesting, especially coming from a leftist-elitist worth over $90 million. I suspect it is a reference to the Social Security system. And again, on the face of things, Ned is correct. People should not have to worry about their retirements. However, we know that for all the people who are depending solely on Social Security for their retirement, they are in serious trouble. With Baby-Boomers retiring in droves, and people living longer, it is not a question of if Social Security will become bankrupt, but when.

There have been several attempts to fix the problem. But due to partisan wrangling (on both sides), all we ever get is band-aids to the problem. We have a series of patches that may extend the fund, but do nothing to fix the problem.

The real issue is should the government be responsible for people’s retirement? My opinion is that they should not be. Give me my money and let me invest it the way I want. If my spouse and I had been allowed to invest the money we have put into the system we would in all probability have a retirement fund that would provide at least twice what Social Security will give us – and that using “safe” investments. However, just because many of us can be disciplined in investing and preparing, many aren’t. So what do we do?

Now, the question that has to be asked with regard to Ned Lamont is, what is his plan to fix retirement for all of us? As with everything else in the commercial, he has no plan, just words. Is that what we really want from a Senator? No ideas what to do, just “trust me.”

Ned continues:

No one should have to wish that their mom and dad won’t be shipped off to war…

I agree with that too. Nobody would wish to see a loved one go off to war. But to think that Lamont can provide us with options where nobody ever gets shipped off to war is very, very unrealistic. Try to name one administration over the last few that did not have to commit troops to a foreign soil.

I think that what Neddy is trying to get at here is the anti-Iraq war movement. Well and good. We know his stance on this issue. In fact, it is the only issue in Ned’s entire campaign where he has advocated a plan, even if not fully-formed. And that is “cut and run.” And while many people are disappointed in the progress of the war, there have been major results there. We could debate the issues involved all day, but suffice it to say that this claim is the heart of Ned’s campaign.

Finally Ned says:

Still, every day we spend billions of dollars, and nothing changes….

Yes. Our government does spend billions of dollars every day. To pay for those billions, we are taxed beyond belief – not only in formal taxes, but in hidden ones also. And the GWOT has added to that, and has added to our deficit. So did all of our natural disasters, Katrina being the biggest. And yet, the deficit has been cut in half in shorter time than expected (not the debt, the deficit). The economy has shown incredible resiliency. Things are not as bad as they have been painted.

But does Ned Lamont really expect to reduce the amount of money the country is spending? With programs like Universal Health Care, more band-aids for Social Security, and more government intervention in our schools, does he really expect that we will not be spending more money than we are now? What are his plans for doing that? How will it be accomplished?

Quite honestly, I think that Ned has been spending to much of his time at the Wishing Well. Too many quarters wishing for solutions and votes, and not enough time in the real world.

An Immature Camp(aign)

2006-09-01T08:49:00.000-04:00

As more and more comes out of the Lamont camp, and I call it a camp as opposed to a campaign, one begins to get the feel of just how much Ned represents the far, far left in his efforts to be elected. Here is the latest kerfuffle:

Picture this. You have a candidate running for a United States Senator. The Upper House of our federal legislative system, the chambers of which are full of men and women to whom decorum and appearance tends to be paramount (legislating/debating aside). This is the place where weighty decisions are made. This is the place that looks down upon the “brawling mass” of the House of Representatives (at least from their perspective). This is the “great deliberative” body!

Now picture this. Jane Hamsher, closely tied to the Lamont campaign, puts up a photo-shopped picture of Joe Lieberman on her site – one where Lieberman is in blackface (see here for the picture). Ned immediately denies knowing anything about blogs. He actually told the WaPo:

Lamont brushed past reporters Wednesday night in Bridgeport, saying: "I don't know anything about the blogs. I'm not responsible for those. I have no comment on them."

Yeah right – as will soon be shown, Ned’s camp (portrayed as a bunch of sulking teens with nasty mouths) mimics the far left blogs to a tee. BTW – Hamsher claimed that she was not officially a part of the Lamont camp. This in spite of the fact that she moved to Connecticut to blog for Lamont, travels as part of his group, drives his people to important engagements (like his Comedy Central appearance with Colbert), and even admits (with pictures to show it) that she helped direct at least one television commercial for the primary. According to the WaPo article:

While noting that Hamsher is not a paid staffer, Gerstein argued that she has been an integral part of the Lamont operation. "She's been an active part of their campaign," he said. "She travels with him, she's raised money for them and has become the primary mouthpiece for him in the blogosphere."

But Ned doesn’t know who she is.

Ned has appeared in video with the founder of DailyKos, Jane Hamsher, and others. But he doesn’t know who or what bloggers are.

His own campaign site has a tribute to the blogosphere: Happy Blogosphere Day. But Ned doesn’t know anything about blogs.

But it is apparent that the Lamont camp is sinking to the level of commenters and posters at the likes of DailyKos – to the level of vulgarity and coarse behavior that is unbecoming for someone running for the United States Senate. Ned’s campaign manager, Tony Swan, compares the city of Waterbury as a place:

“where the forces of slime meet the forces of evil.”

That was in response to the fact that Lieberman won more votes in that city than Neddy did. Seems a bit over-the-top to me. But also reflects the immaturity of Lamont’s staff. Why in the world would a camp go out of the way to alienate a part of the electorate? Of course, the after-the-slip-of-the-tongue rationalization is that Swan was simply referring to the fact that a former mayor was jailed on corruption and child abuse convictions. Again, even with this explanation in hand, it is obvious that the people of the city of Waterbury were offended. Now we are getting close to the normal rhetoric used by the far left. What else can we find?

Here is the kicker. According to an article published in the Hartford Advocate, Lamont’s camp has finally come up to Kos standards (or as most people believe – sunk to Kos standards):

Or, to put it more simply: “Woah, are these professionals that are going to Washington?”

Those are the words of Kevin Brookman, vice president of the Connecticut Pride Center, a Hartford organization for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered people. Brookman said when he recently tried to secure a promised donation from Lamont’s campaign, he was stunned by the cursing and disrespect he received from a campaign staffer.

Brookman is organizing the Connecticut Pride Festival, which is expected to draw at least 10,000 people to downtown Hartford on Sept. 9. (He’s also a neighborhood activist and a member of Hartford’s Republican Town Committee.) Festival organizers solicited potential donors to buy advertisements in the festival guide, and Brookman said both the Lamont and Lieberman campaigns pledged to contribute.

Lieberman’s campaign paid for its ad, but Brookman said Lamont’s people subsequently decided not to contribute. Brookman said he tried again, leaving a message with the campaign. Sitting in his office with other Pride Festival organizers a couple weeks ago, he received a call back and put it on his speaker phone. It was top Lamont staffer John Murphy, who was Swan’s deputy at CCAG and joined the campaign along with him.

According to Brookman’s account, Murphy tore into him, saying, “Who the fuck do you think you are?” and continuing in a similarly off-color vein. When he mentioned he had personally given an information packet to Lamont, who promised to buy an ad, Murphy said, “Why the fuck would you give it to the candidate?” Finally, Murphy said, “We’ll take the fucking ad,” according to Brookman.

“He was using the F-word as every other word,” said Daniel Halle, a festival coordinator who was in the room. Worse than the cursing, however, was the campaign’s broken promise to support the festival, he said. “Do we want someone as a senator who can’t even stick with getting an ad?” Brookman said, “This is the biggest single event in the gay community, and they’re blowing it off.” The organizers have yet to receive a check from the Lamont campaign, they said.

Wow. Lamont staffers swearing at voters. That says it all. It almost sounds as if a bunch of High School kids got together to run this campaign.

And of course, Neddy has not apologized for his staff. What does that mean? Does he support their attitude? Remember, this is a spoon-fed, rich, elitist who did not ever have to work a day in his life, although one of his TV ads (coincidentally using High School kids) implies that he is a self-made man. He quit his country club recently, where he was a member for almost two decades, because it was pointed out to him that the club might be viewed as not integrated enough. Why now?

What a double standard. Bush gets lambasted for using a swear word, but Ned apparently likes his staff doing the same thing……

When Crazy Makes Headlines

2006-09-01T07:17:00.000-04:00

Now – this is too funny. Well it would be if it wasn’t for the fact that it is true. Too scary. At any rate – read the whole thing.

Safe - Great News!

2006-08-27T09:41:00.000-04:00

Just wanted to add my heartfelt jubilation over the release of Fox News correspondent Steve Centanni and his cameraman Olaf Wiig. I won’t cover the story because so many others have been blogging about it all along.

Thank God for their safe return. Gentlemen – go home and have a nice long vacation.

Lamont Spinning Again

2006-08-26T12:24:00.000-04:00

Well, I must admit that I was surprised when I heard that Chris Shays had pulled an about take on his position on getting the troops out of Iraq. I should have known better – after all, the reports came from MSM and we all know that at times (what the heck – all the time) the MSM shapes what is reported around what fits their POV; what fits their view of how the world should be. As I read more, I found that the “headlines” were a bit misleading. Let’s dig a little further.

Chris Shays has not been my favorite Connecticut legislator, but he has always seemed to stick to his guns with respect to his stances. Take, for example, his continuing stance on campaign finance reform. While his position on this is not extremely popular with his own party, he still keeps trying. So his reported “about face” with regard to Iraq really seemed quite odd – even in respect to his tight election campaign this year.

According to the AP Wire report in the Waterbury Republican-American, Shays said:

"Our troops cannot be there indefinitely," Shays, R-Conn., said Thursday from London during a telephone conference call with reporters after visiting Iraq for the 14th time since the 2003 U.S.-led invasion. "We need to have a sense of when our troops can withdraw."

~snip~

"We should be able to tell the American people what kind of timeline we can have to begin to draw down our troops," he said. "It may be a timeline the American people don't want to hear. It may not be something that brings them out quickly."

From this report it would seem pretty clear what Shays position is. Well….maybe not, but we will get to that in a few minutes.

To her credit, Diane Farrell – Shays Democratic opponent in this election –bucks the Democratic party trend by believing that no exact timetable should be set for the withdrawal of troops. She does believe that Congress should develop an exit strategy. According to the same article:

Farrell, who opposes troop pullback timetables proposed by some in her party, has called for Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's resignation in favor of a successor who can develop an Iraq exit plan that Congress supports.

"Congress ought to demand an exit plan," she said.

There has been some fall-out from the original articles and it is somewhat humorous if you are following the antics of Ned Lamont’s campaign. They (under the leadership of George Jepsen – who has been around CT politics forever) quickly jumped on the Shay’s headlines to claim that it shows how wrong Joe Lieberman is. According to an article published in the Hartford Courant by Mark Pazniokas:

Ned Lamont's Senate campaign Friday seized on the statement by Shays, a supporter of the war in Iraq, as a dramatic shift that places Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman in a dwindling minority opposed to considering deadlines.

CNN, MSNBC and other news networks gave prominent play Friday to the ramifications of Shays' new position, which he first announced Thursday on a conference call during a London stopover on the way home from his 14th trip to Iraq.

(Quick side note: Mr. Pazniokas, the writer of the Courant article, has shown a clearly biased attitude in a series of articles on this campaign. Even though his paper officially endorsed Lieberman during the primary, Mr. Pazniokas consistently writes articles that favor Lamont over Lieberman. It is obvious what his bias is, whether he ever admits to it or not.)

"It is a pretty dramatic shift in course," said George Jepsen, the chairman of Lamont's campaign to unseat Lieberman. "[Shays] is buying into the rationale that the Iraqi army, political leadership and security folks won't step up to the plate."

Shays' new position further isolates Lieberman politically in Washington and Connecticut and undercuts Lieberman's claim that Lamont is reckless for suggesting that Iraqis need to prepare for a reduced U.S. presence, Jepsen said.

First off, as with any good spin, Jepsen makes a valid point about what Shays believes. It is probably true that some Iraqi government officials would move more quickly if they knew our troops were leaving. But as far as I know, Lamont has never claimed that “Iraqis need to prepare for a reduced U.S. presence.” Lamont has stated on numerous occasions that the US must pull out and do it now. And there’s the spin. Jepsen tries to make Lamont’s position sound more like what Shays said, while in reality they are completely different POVs. In fact, before this latest kerfuffle, Shays’ and Farrell’s positions were more closely aligned.

I find it interesting though that while Jepsen and Lamont are clearly castigating Lieberman; intimating that he is out of the mainstream for his view that we need to stay in Iraq until the mission is complete, but they make no mention of a similar stance by Farrell. The logic does not make sense. If Lieberman’s position is wrong, then so is Farrell’s. And is the Lamont camp now supporting Shays? Or was this simply that they tried to jump the headlines for more advantage. Sounds more like inept campaigning to me.

But let’s explore further, because there is more to this MSM spin. If you read further into the Pazniokas article, you find:

Lieberman, who is continuing as a petitioning candidate after losing the Aug. 8 Democratic primary to Lamont, told reporters during a campaign stop in New Haven that he remains opposed to Congress' setting a deadline for withdrawal.

"As I've said to you over and over again, the sooner we get out of Iraq, the better it's going to be for the Iraqis and for us, but if we leave too soon for reasons of American politics, it's going to be a disaster for the Iraqis and for us," Lieberman said.

The article continues:

As he flew home Friday, Shays said in a telephone interview from the plane that he remains in agreement with Lieberman that a premature withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq would be a disaster. A timetable cannot be arbitrary, he said.

"I believe if we left Iraq immediately or prematurely, it would result in just what Joe Lieberman sees: an all-out civil war, fuel prices off the scale," Shays said. "Of greatest concern, ultimately, would be that Islamist terrorists would have won. It would make Iran the new power in the gulf. That can't be allowed to happen."

~snip~

His plan is to establish goals and realistic deadlines that will prod the Iraqis to establish internal security forces and open talks to end sectarian violence - and also reassure the Iraqis that the U.S. will not leave prematurely, he said.

Now wait a minute….this doesn’t sound the way that MSM first portrayed Shays’ stance. They made it sound like Shays decided to “cut and run”, just like Ned Lamont’s position. Instead we see that what he really wants is a better plan for forcing the Iraqi’s to take over security in their country, and allow us to leave when the country is stabilized. Shays’ statements don’t seem much different from what his stance has been all along – to not leave immediately or prematurely.

As for internal security in Iraq – we know several facts that you will never see from the Lamont camp or on MSM. First off, we are over 50% complete with our goal of training and deploying the Iraqi Army. They have taken over large portions of the country and are now firmly in control. This has freed up our troops to help out in the Baghdad area – practically the last bad area in the country. Not only that, but the news from Baghdad is good:

From this article:

Via the Multi-National Force weekly press briefing on Tuesday, August 22, 2006, Major General William Caldwell shared some of the good security news from the past week including the big news that Coalition and Iraqi forced captured "well over" 100 known Al Qaeda terrorists and associates in the last week!

And more here:

Also, just this week- "Coalition and Iraqi forced captured "well over" 100 known Al Qaeda terrorists and associates in the last week!"The official spokesman for the Iraqi department of defense, Mr. Muhamed Alaskari said, "Armed attacks have substantial decline, about a 70% decline compared to the last few weeks." And... The BBC is even reporting the joint operation to improve security in Baghdad is bringing results.

And here:

"God willing, the Americans will stay until the situation gets better."Baghdad businessmanLawk Salih is reporting this good news tonight:
Business has been so good, that business owners like Taha are having a tough time keeping up with the growing demand. He sells everything from dime-a-dozen Nokia’s to high-end camera phones.

The list goes on…….

Bottom line, MSM and their supporters have tried to spin what Shays said into something he did not. Lamont jumped all over it, but no forethought or logic, which goes right along with the Democratic brain trust of Nancy “Can You Read Upside Down” Pelosi and Howard “AIIIIIIIYEEEEEE” Dean.

2006-07-18T15:13:00.000-04:00

Haloscan commenting and trackback have been added to this blog.

The Middle East War

2006-07-18T14:14:00.000-04:00

I think it is high-time we had a discussion about the war going on in the Middle East. Unlike many of the articles that I write, this one will be short and simple. There will be no quotes. Simply my opinion.

What I believe is that it is about time that Hezbollah (or whatever your favorite spelling happens to be) was crushed as a viable fighting force. It is time that they were taken down and their monetary and material funding is cut off. Of course, that last part will take international cooperation from many sources as I believe that both Syria and Iran will have to be cut off from their jihadist army.

On to Israel. I think that Israel has the right to defend itself, and I think that armed response was correct even though it was seemingly for such a small transgression – that of kidnapping two soldiers.

However, I believe that there needs to be a large international effort to help the people of Lebanon who are being hurt by this war. They are not Hezbollah, yet so much of the infrastructure of the country is being destroyed, they are seriously affected. I understand the strategic necessity of destroying the infrastructure – to keep Hezbollah from being re-supplied, but I truly feel that plans need to be put in place now to help the Lebanese citizens recover from this action. And as much as I hate to say this, I think the US should be one of the countries to take the lead in helping Lebanon.

I am really interested in discussion on this subject so feel free to comment.

The Rules of Disinformation

2006-06-11T23:51:00.000-04:00

I don’t know how many of you remember the word wars in the political newsgroups on Usenet. But I was thinking about the good ol’ days and remembered a few things that seem very apropos in today’s blogosphere. I will admit that a fellow blogger on a local board, Boomer, was the one who reminded me of some of this and pointed me in the right direction. So a big “Thank You” and a hat tip to him. I would also be remiss if I took credit for the following information.

A gentleman named Michael Sweeney took another’s work and expanded it to what I have posted below. The original was the “Thirteen Techniques for Truth Suppression” by David Martin. What Mr. Sweeney came up, excerpted below, is the Twenty-Five Ways To Suppress Truth: The Rules of Disinformation (Includes The 8 Traits of A Disinformationalist). I have done some minor editing.

As I read through this I laughed quite a bit. The reason is simple. As I have been tip-toeing my way around many blog sites (and in some cases, stomping my way through them), I have come to realize that there are three basic rules that are consistently followed by lefties and especially lefty trolls. You must understand that in my travels I have come across articulate lefties who can actually hold a discussion and debate knowledgeably on the subject at hand. A few of them hang out at Just One Minute (mostly speaking of Jeff, but a few others – Doug Reese was there for a few days on the latest Kerry stuff). Over at my local site, I debate with a lady name micpi – we do not agree often, but we know we can agree to disagree.

More often than not though, instead of intelligent conversation, you have the ranting, raving style of lefty that is so full of hatred for anything Republican that they will argue just to be negative.

Let me give you one example. A little over three weeks ago, that esteemed journalist (and I use the term loosely), Jason Leopold, wrote a fantasy piece about how Karl Rove had been indicted. The article was published at that well-known, middle-of-the-road (yea right!) web site called Truthout. It was a piece of writing with true literary license. From the 15-hour meeting in Luskin’s office (11:30 AM to 2:30 AM), to Fitzgerald’s handing over the sealed indictment and telling Rove he had “24 hours to get his affairs in order.” You just had to laugh at that statement. It was like particularly poor writing for Law & Order or CSI, drawing the picture that Rove would be thrown in jail with no chance at bond until after he had “served his time”. Of course, within a day, the 24-hours became 24-business-hours. Now who ever heard of that? Nevertheless, they stuck to their guns, with Mr. Leopold stating on radio over that weekend that if it did not come true as he had written it, he would “out” his sources. Well – the time came and went. No “outing” by Jason yet.

Well, I went over to TruthOut (Not!) to participate in the discussion. I was having fun debating the regulars about what 24-hours meant, or even 24-business-hours actually meant; what would they do if Jason was wrong and things did not come out the way they had been told they would; would Jason actually out his sources; etc. Some of the very welcoming lefties at TruthOut (imagine that – the regular crew at TruthNot is lefty based) did not seem to like me very much. I kept a countdown for a day or so, until Marc Ash, the owner of the site, banned me from posting. No warning, nothing. Just banned from posting. This is what Mr. Ash had to say:

Marc Ash - director@truthout.org:
Specter,

Yes, you are access denied. I OK'd it. We received a lot of complaints, and lost patience.

Marc Ash, Executive Director - t r u t h o u tmailto:director@truthout.org

Nice, huh? So let’s get down to basics and talk about the three rules that lefties follow that I have observed:

When confronted by a fact, a lefty will change the subject. They will come up with the most absurd changes in direction to not have to answer someone who actually presents facts.

If a lefty is confronted with facts again, they will quickly start using swear words and vulgarity. This is an attempt to again deflect the direction of the conversation when the lefty can’t refute the facts.

Finally, if you are the site owner, simply ban a commenter that continues to push for real answers. Ala Marc Ash. If you can’t beat ‘em, ban ‘em.

But thanks to Boomer, I remembered there is much, much more to this. Some of the lefties are true disinformation specialists. Over at TruthOut there is Cassandra, Wonder Woman, LWelsch, sarao (who actually sometimes makes good comments), and dark duck. There are others there like Slow Down (mensa-man) who are absolutely mind-numbing boring – no real discussion, just weird points like how many posts someone has made like that has any real significance. But the fact was that all of these “commenters” seem unable to let go of the fact that Leopold’s article was wrong – unless 24-business hours means 3-plus-weeks. Yet rather than admit that the article was factually incorrect, they stick to the story and trounce on anyone who even says different. That is what I have found to be a typical lefty. With that in mind, here are the old style rules from usenet that actually apply today:

Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation

Note: The first rule and last five (or six, depending on situation) rules are generally not directly within the ability of the traditional disinfo artist to apply. These rules are generally used more directly by those at the leadership, key players, or planning level of the criminal conspiracy or conspiracy to cover up.

1. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil. Regardless of what you know, don't discuss it -- especially if you are a public figure, news anchor, etc. If it's not reported, it didn't happen, and you never have to deal with the issues.
2. Become incredulous and indignant. Avoid discussing key issues and instead focus on side issues which can be used show the topic as being critical of some otherwise sacrosanct group or theme. This is also known as the 'How dare you!' gambit.
3. Create rumor mongers. Avoid discussing issues by describing all charges, regardless of venue or evidence, as mere rumors and wild accusations. Other derogatory terms mutually exclusive of truth may work as well. This method which works especially well with a silent press, because the only way the public can learn of the facts are through such 'arguable rumors'. If you can associate the material with the Internet, use this fact to certify it a 'wild rumor' from a 'bunch of kids on the Internet' which can have no basis in fact.
4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent's argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.
5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary 'attack the messenger' ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as 'kooks', 'right-wing', 'terrorists', 'conspiracy buffs', 'radicals', 'militia', 'racists', 'religious fanatics', 'sexual deviates', and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.
6. Hit and Run. [Specter note: AKA Troll]In any public forum, make a brief attack of your opponent or the opponent position and then scamper off before an answer can be fielded, or simply ignore any answer. This works extremely well in Internet and letters-to-the-editor environments where a steady stream of new identities can be called upon without having to explain criticism, reasoning -- simply make an accusation or other attack, never discussing issues, and never answering any subsequent response, for that would dignify the opponent's viewpoint.
7. Question motives. Twist or amplify any fact which could be taken to imply that the opponent operates out of a hidden personal agenda or other bias. This avoids discussing issues and forces the accuser on the defensive.
8. Invoke authority. Claim for yourself or associate yourself with authority and present your argument with enough 'jargon' and 'minutia' to illustrate you are 'one who knows', and simply say it isn't so without discussing issues or demonstrating concretely why or citing sources.
9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues except with denials they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.
10. Associate opponent charges with old news. A derivative of the straw man -- usually, in any large-scale matter of high visibility, someone will make charges early on which can be or were already easily dealt with - a kind of investment for the future should the matter not be so easily contained.) Where it can be foreseen, have your own side raise a straw man issue and have it dealt with early on as part of the initial contingency plans. Subsequent charges, regardless of validity or new ground uncovered, can usually then be associated with the original charge and dismissed as simply being a rehash without need to address current issues -- so much the better where the opponent is or was involved with the original source.
11. Establish and rely upon fall-back positions. Using a minor matter or element of the facts, take the 'high road' and 'confess' with candor that some innocent mistake, in hindsight, was made -- but that opponents have seized on the opportunity to blow it all out of proportion and imply greater criminalities which, 'just isn't so.' Others can reinforce this on your behalf, later, and even publicly 'call for an end to the nonsense' because you have already 'done the right thing.' Done properly, this can garner sympathy and respect for 'coming clean' and 'owning up' to your mistakes without addressing more serious issues.
12. Enigmas have no solution. Drawing upon the overall umbrella of events surrounding the crime/issue and the multitude of players and events, paint the entire affair as too complex to solve. This causes those otherwise following the matter to begin to lose interest more quickly without having to address the actual issues.
13. Alice in Wonderland Logic. Avoid discussion of the issues by reasoning backwards or with an apparent deductive logic which forbears any actual material fact.
14. Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime/issue at hand completely, a ploy which works best with issues qualifying for rule 10.
15. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions. This requires creative thinking unless the crime/issue was planned with contingency conclusions in place.
16. Vanish evidence and witnesses. If it does not exist, it is not fact, and you won't have to address the issue.
17. Change the subject. [Specter Note: My Rule #1]Usually in connection with one of the other ploys listed here, find a way to side-track the discussion with abrasive or controversial comments in hopes of turning attention to a new, more manageable topic. This works especially well with companions who can 'argue' with you over the new topic and polarize the discussion arena in order to avoid discussing more key issues.
18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents. [Specter Note: My Rule #2]If you can't do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them into emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat less coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first instance, but even if their emotional response addresses the issue, you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how 'sensitive they are to criticism.
19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the 'play dumb' rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon.) In order to completely avoid discussing issues, it may be required that you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance.
20. False evidence. Whenever possible, introduce new facts or clues designed and manufactured to conflict with opponent presentations -- as useful tools to neutralize sensitive issues or impede resolution. This works best when the crime/issue was designed with contingencies for the purpose, and the facts cannot be easily separated from the fabrications.
21. Call a Grand Jury, Special Prosecutor, or other empowered investigative body. Subvert the (process) to your benefit and effectively neutralize all sensitive issues without open discussion. Once convened, the evidence and testimony are required to be secret when properly handled. For instance, if you own the prosecuting attorney, it can insure a Grand Jury hears no useful evidence and that the evidence is sealed and unavailable to subsequent investigators. Once a favorable verdict is achieved, the matter can be considered officially closed. Usually, this technique is applied to find the guilty innocent, but it can also be used to obtain charges when seeking to frame a victim.
22. Manufacture a new truth. [Specter Note: VIPS?]Create your own expert(s), group(s), author(s), leader(s) or influence existing ones willing to forge new ground via scientific, investigative, or social research or testimony which concludes favorably. In this way, if you must actually address issues, you can do so authoritatively.
23. Create bigger distractions. [Specter Note: Can you say Haditha?]If the above does not seem to be working to distract from sensitive issues, or to prevent unwanted media coverage of unstoppable events such as trials, create bigger news stories (or treat them as such) to distract the multitudes.
24. Silence critics. If the above methods do not prevail, consider removing opponents from circulation by some definitive solution so that the need to address issues is removed entirely. This can be by their death, arrest and detention, blackmail or destruction of their character by release of blackmail information, or merely by destroying them financially, emotionally, or severely damaging their health. [Specter Note: Or Banning them – My Rule #3]
25. Vanish. If you are a key holder of secrets or otherwise overly illuminated and you think the heat is getting too hot, to avoid the issues, vacate the kitchen.

The Back-Pedaling Begins

2006-05-13T10:11:00.000-04:00

I know that it has been a long time since I actually put an article up here, but I have been busy with life and participating on other sites. But the new “Scandal Du Jour” from the left, as revealed by USA Today this week, just plain annoys me. It is an obvious attempt to derail Hayden’s nomination, as well as to push Bush’s numbers even lower. But I thought that I would put my two-cents in.

Here are a couple of interesting MSM articles. Wow - I actually said MSM and interesting in the same sentence. But - I will qualify that one is an op-ed piece.

The first from the WaPo this morning:

Spy Agency Watching Americans From Space

By KATHERINE SHRADER
The Associated Press
Saturday, May 13, 2006; 6:29 AM

Let's stop and look at that first. What was your first impression when reading the title? I bet I know what most of the left thought - "Here we go again - that bunch of liars from the WH is finding another way to spy on us." And no doubt that is why the headline was worded as it was. To get people to think just that. Let's read more:

WASHINGTON -- A little-known spy agency that analyzes imagery taken from the skies has been spending significantly more time watching U.S. soil.

Not sure if the journalist is trying to be cute here, but the impression is the same as the headline.

After last year's hurricanes, the agency had an unusually public face. It set up mobile command centers that sprung out of the backs of Humvees and provided imagery for rescuers and hurricane victims who wanted to know the condition of their homes. Victims would provide their street address and the NGA would provide a satellite photo of their property. In one way or another, some 900 agency officials were involved.

-snip-

On Clapper's watch of the last five years, his agency has found ways to expand its mission to help prepare security at Super Bowls and political conventions or deal with natural disasters, such as hurricanes and forest fires.

With help, the agency can also zoom in. Its officials cooperate with private groups, such as hotel security, to get access to footage of a lobby or ballroom. That video can then be linked with mapping and graphical data to help secure events or take action, if a hostage situation or other catastrophe happens.

So let's see - the article is mostly about (from the front end – which is what most people read) how this agency has helped Americans with their technology - not about the invasion of privacy like the headline makes it sound. But the writer does cast some dark clouds later in the article by trying to infer sinister motives about the abilities of this agency –of course attributed to the "unnamed experts" we hear so much about. Sheesh.

Here is another one that was interesting. This time a brief snippet an Op-Ed piece from also from WaPo:

On Thursday, USA Today reported that three U.S. telecommunications companies have been voluntarily providing the National Security Agency with anonymized domestic telephone records -- that is, records stripped of individually identifiable data, such as names and place of residence. If true, the architect of this program deserves our thanks and probably a medal. That architect was presumably Gen. Michael Hayden, former director of the NSA and President Bush's nominee to become director of the Central Intelligence Agency.The potential value of such anonymized domestic telephone records is best understood through a hypothetical example. Suppose a telephone associated with Mohamed Atta had called a domestic telephone number A. And then suppose that A had called domestic telephone number B. And then suppose that B had called C. And then suppose that domestic telephone number C had called a telephone number associated with Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. The most effective way to recognize such patterns is the computerized analysis of billions of phone records. The large-scale analysis of anonymized data can pinpoint individuals -- at home or abroad -- who warrant more intrusive investigative or intelligence techniques, subject to all safeguards normally associated with those techniques.

Hey - if the WaPo is allowing this type of Op-Ed it is definitely an indicator that the hard left is going to back away from the story. I wonder if it had anything to do with the poll ABC did?

Why Bother Taking Polls?

2006-03-10T10:05:00.000-05:00

Riddle me this Batman. Why do the major polling outfits, especially AP/IPSOS even bother to take polls? Rather than spend all that money, they could just call up Pelosi and Rockefeller and get the answers. Then they could just plug in the numbers they want to see.

Webster defines the word poll (in the context we are talking about) as:

“A survey of the public or a sample of the public to record opinion or to acquire information.”

When an organization decides to take an opinion poll to get an idea of what the general public is thinking, they are supposed to pick a statistical population that reflects the general population. Yet, in poll after poll over the past six months (awww…to heck with that – over the past two weeks) we have seen just the opposite. What we have seen is polls that oversample one group’s opinion, and by correlation, undersample another’s. That means that the results from any such poll must immediately be considered invalid. That’s right – invalid.

If statistical sampling of this type were done as a school project (High School or College or Graduate), the student would receive a failing grade. The reason is simple – the statistical population must reflect the real world or the results can not be considered true. If another person then picked the results from that failed, biased poll up, and touted the numbers to others, they would quickly be brought into line.

But of course, that scenario – having the correct statistical population and unbiased results doesn’t belong to the real world. In today’s world, if someone produces a poll with some results – especially results that are against the Bush administration – it is considered valid and honest, no matter what the underlying demographics. And not only that, but immediately the major news outlets pick up the invalid results and publish them as headline material. In essence, they use the poll as a propaganda tool to fit their own agendas. Let’s look at the latest AP/IPSOS poll for an example.

This poll was conducted between March 6 and March 8, 2006 and included 1000 respondents, 828 of which were registered voters.

Before I attempt to see what kinds of questions are asked, I always skip to the end of the poll to pick up the demographics of the respondents. That gives a large clue as to the validity of the poll. In this case, questions 1 and 2 within the party affiliation section tell the tale:

1. Are you currently registered to vote at this address, or not?
ALL ADULTS
Yes................................................... 79
No .................................................... 20
Refused/not sure ........................... 1
2a. Do you consider yourself a Democrat, a Republican, an Independent or none of these? *

INITIAL PARTY IDENTIFICATION REGISTERED VOTERS
Republican ....................................... 29
Democrat ......................................... 35
Independent ..................................... 20
None of these................................... 14
Not sure ......................................... 2

(IF “DEMOCRAT” TO Q.2a, Q.2b ASKED. IF “REPUBLICAN” TO Q.2a, Q.2c ASKED. IF “INDEPENDENT” or “NONE OF THESE” TO Q.2a, Q.2d ASKED. RESULTS SHOWN IN SUMMARY BELOW.)

2b. Do you lean strongly or only moderately toward the Democratic Party?
2c. Do you lean strongly or only moderately toward the Republican Party?
2d. Do your beliefs tend to lean more toward the Democrats or the Republicans?

REGISTERED VOTERS
Strongly Republican.......................... 18
Moderately Republican ..................... 22
Definitely Independent/neither .......... 8
Moderately Democrat........................ 28
Strongly Democrat ............................ 22
Refused/not sure............................. 2
Total Republican ............................ 39
Total Democrat ............................... 51

Any way you look at these numbers you can see that the poll results must be considered invalid. In the last national election the percentage of voters was 37% Republican and 37% Democrat. Any poll which favors one party over another in the statistical population of the respondents does not reflect that real population and will be slanted to the POV of the respondents with the larger number. It is quite disingenuous to call a poll like this anything else – and probably borders on unethical. But let’s take a look at some more:

(ASKED OF HALF THE RESPONDENTS.)
2. How likely is it that civil war will break out in Iraq?
Very likely ......................................... 39
Somewhat likely................................ 39
Not too likely..................................... 12
Not at all likely .................................. 5
A civil war has already broken
out in Iraq (VOL) ............................... 1
Not sure.......................................... 4
Total Likely...................................... 77
Total Not Likely............................... 17

Let me see if I have this correct. The poll was taken during the week of March6 through March 8. Now why would people think that there could be a civil war in Iraq? Let’s go to the newsroom – I’ve picked a sampling of hundreds of articles that were published in the two weeks before the poll was taken. It does not include the evening MSM news broadcasts – many of which led off with the “Iraq Civil War” story:

Iraq on the brink

The crash of civilizations
I've been predicting for some time that Iraq could end up being like Lebanon to the power of 10 if the civil war already underway there should escalate. Last week's bomb attack on the Shiites' Golden Mosque in Samarra may be the trigger for precisely that escalation. The point is that Iraq's "clash" is not between civilizations but within Islamic civilization — between the country's Sunni minority and its Shiite majority.

Remember Beirut? Welcome to Baghdad
Today, with Iraq on the brink of civil war between Shiites and Sunnis — and the Americans looking increasingly helpless, their mission having shifted from "democratization" to peacekeeping — another analogy has been circulating in policy circles: the Lebanese civil war. Like any analogy, it's not perfect, but it's the best we have so far.

Iraq's Besieged Sunnis Now Looking to U.S.
The moment of bitter irony for the 52-year-old father of six is emblematic of a sharp shift in Iraqi opinion. Three years after the March 2003 invasion that ousted Saddam Hussein, with the threat of civil war looming, leaders of a nervous Sunni Arab minority have started to drop demands for an immediate U.S. withdrawal.

As Iraq Conflict Changes, Has Bush Kept Up?
Larry Diamond, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and former advisor to the U.S.-led occupying authority in Iraq, concisely expressed the evolving view when he wrote in the latest issue of the New Republic: "Iraq is in the midst of a civil war."

Civil War Looms With 68 Killed in Baghdad
The surge of violence deepened the trauma of residents already shaken by fears the country was teetering on the brink of sectarian civil war, threatened talks among Iraqi politicians struggling to form a government and raised questions about U.S. plans to begin drawing down troop strength this summer.

Evictions May Foreshadow Iraq Civil War
BAGHDAD, Iraq -- The sectarian cleansing that drove 68-year-old Abbas al-Saiedi from his home may be as alarming a sign of a country on the brink of civil war as the killings that have swept Iraq in the past week.

Diplomacy Helped To Calm the Chaos
AGHDAD, Feb. 27 -- In the days that followed the bombing of a sacred Shiite shrine, Iraq seemed within a hair's breadth of civil war. But an aggressive U.S. and Kurdish diplomatic campaign appears for now to have coaxed the country back from open conflict between Sunni Arabs and Shiites, according to Iraqi politicians and Western diplomats speaking in interviews on Monday.

30 Killed as Violence Continues in Iraq
Iraq began to tilt seriously toward outright civil war after the Feb. 22 bombing of the revered Shiite Askariya shrine in the mainly Sunni city of Samarra, 60 miles north of Baghdad.

I think it is fairly clear that the reason people think a civil war is looming is that they were bombarded with it for two weeks in the MSM. Great way to take a poll though. Have the talking heads of MSM and “Society of Subversion” tell people over and over again that the civil war has started, and then ask people what they think. Unethical? You have to answer that for yourselves.

But to help you along the way to your decision, let’s look at the demographics of some of the other polls published in the past few weeks:

From the Washington Post – ABC Poll released on March 6, 2006:

901. Generally speaking, do you usually think of yourself as:
Democrat     32
Republican     28
Independent     36
Other     3
No Op     1

901/904 Leaned Party:
Democrat     50
Republican     42
Independent     7
Other     1
No Op     1

908a. Would you say your views on most political matters are liberal, moderate, or conservative?
Liberal     22
Moderate     42
Conservative     33
Don’t Think in
Those Terms     2
No Op     1

Imagine that. This poll, released just days before the new AP/IPSOS poll also oversampled Democrats. Hard to believe isn’t it? But there is one difference here. This poll had a very different Presidential Approval Rating:

1. Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling his job as president? Do you approve/disapprove strongly or somewhat?

-----Approve-----
NET     41
Strongly     24
Somewhat     17

-----Disapprove-----
NET     58
Somewhat     14
Strongly     44

No Op     1

Now wait a minute. Is MSM really trying to tell us that in less that 3 days time the President’s approval rating fell 4 points? I suppose it could be, but what would drive that? Maybe we should take a quick look at another MSM poll. On February 27, CBS released a poll also. Let’s take a look at the demographics first:

Total Respondents: 1018

-----Unweighted-----
Total Republicans     272
Total Democrats     409
Total Independents     337

-----Weighted-----
Total Republicans     289
Total Democrats     381
Total Independents     348

Wow! I think I see a pattern here. Three different polls, all conducted and released with ten days of each other, and get this – all of the clearly oversampling people from the democratic party. At least the CBS poll above tries to weight the parties to make it more fair, but even with that it seems that both democrats and independents are over-represented.

But, just like Ronco – There’s More! In the CBS poll we find the President’s numbers to be the following:

Pres. Bush Job Approvals
Now     34%
1/2006     42%
10/2005     35%
11/2004     51%

Let me see if I’m reading the polls correctly. On February 27, 2006, Bush’s approval rating was 34% according to the unbiased CBS poll. On March 5, 2006 it was 41% according to the unbiased Washinton Post/ABC Poll. And today his rating is 37% based on the obviously and completely unbiased AP/IPSOS poll. It is incredible to think that people change their minds so quickly – remember that the polls are supposed to be representing what the true population actually thinks. And according to these wonderfully enlightening polls President Bush saw a magnificent rise in the polls of 21% between February 27 and March 5 (six days) and then plummeted from there by almost 10% over the next four days. Wow – either the public is really, really fickle – or there is something wrong with the polling. I wonder what it could be?

It Has to be Asked!

2006-03-07T10:19:00.000-05:00

I think the question needs to be asked – and apologies to some of the very smart and ethical attorneys that I know and blog with. But the more I thought about the fact that so many law schools were against letting recruiters on campus, the more I began to wonder just what kind of lawyers we are turning our nowadays.

I’ll admit up front that I have not done extensive research on this subject, so it is based from the heart, soul and critical thinking, rather than from facts. The bastions of higher education complained that military recruiters should not be allowed on campus because of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policies. As I understand it, the claim by the law schools was that the military policies interfered with the First Amendment right of free speech, and therefore the schools had the right to ban the recruiters from campus. Sheesh – even that sentence was a mouthful.

While I can see how the military’s policy may effect someone’s right to free speech once they join the military, I fail to see how it effects people’s rights to have recruiters on campus. Doesn’t the military, as an entity in and of itself, have the right to present their point of view? Isn’t that a free speech issue also? And is it possible that there are students on campus that would like to hear what the military recruiters have to say? Don’t they have rights too? In essence, didn’t the law school’s policies do the same thing they claim the military’s policies do – deny people free speech rights? Maybe I’m confused, but it seems rather circular.

But the issue that sparked this post was that 36 law schools – the people who are educating our future lawyers – could not understand that they were arguing in circles (no lawyer pun intended). The fact that they could not see that freedom of speech issues work both ways, at least to my simple mind, bothers me. And the question came out – without forethought – “What – do we have a bunch of Ward Churchills running the law schools?”

I think Bill Murchison says it all at Townhall.com:

One might wonder -- as I do -- why our nation's highest court had to be asked anything so obvious as, "Are military recruiters entitled to reach U.S. college students on the same terms as nonmilitary recruiters?" What seems obvious to Main Street Americans isn't, alas, obvious to their intellectual establishment. A fair reading of FAIR's argument is that the military's needs don't rise to the level of gay law students' imputed need for affirmation by their military protectors -- according to the Constitution!

Mr. Murchison continues:

Where this stuff comes from is a matter of conjecture. A strong, indeed, I think, decisive inference, is that our academic community has yet to recover from the Sixties -- probably because many of those who were the Sixties now preen in top academic offices, imposing on the younger generation the ideas they sought, 40 years ago, to impose on the older generation.
It helps to recall what the Harvard faculty did to its president, Larry Summers, for wondering -- in the course of wondering about the paucity of women scientists -- whether women's minds are formed for science in the same way that men's minds are formed for it. Does anyone know the answer to that one? I think not. What brought the roof crashing down on Summers' head and contributed to his eventual demise as president, was his implication that the question of sex differences might be worth discussing. Egad! You might have thought he had proposed a School of Creationism Studies, with Pat Robertson as dean.

Kind of scary if you ask me. I am glad the Supreme Court came down on these self-proclaimed intellectuals.

Slow But Sure...

2006-03-07T09:10:00.000-05:00

Good news from ABC today. Apparently their correspondent and nightly news anchor, Bob Woodruff, is making substantial progress after being severely injured in Iraq in late January.

According to the news article:

March 7, 2006 — ABC News co-anchor Bob Woodruff has made major progress in the last 48 hours — he is starting to talk, speaking with his family and doctors, and beginning to walk.

That is fantastic. Also, Mr. Woodruff’s cameraman, Doug Vogt, is back with his family and doing well.

Keep up the prayers for these men and all of our Service Personnel, as well as the innocent civilians being killed over there.

Gumball - I Mean Gumbel Speaks

2006-02-19T22:27:00.000-05:00

Well….it has been a long time since I posted a new article. I have been busy though hanging out at some of my favorite blogs, having at it with some of the local trolls. But last week something came to my attention (other than the ridiculous kerfuffle over Cheney and Whittington. Of course that story has been done to death….and it is a dead issue except in the minds of certain dipsticks who a part of MSM. However, that is not what I want to talk about.

Today I want to talk about another story – Bryant Gumbel and his racist remarks on HBO’s Real Sports with Bryant Gumbel. In case you missed it, he said:

Finally, tonight, the Winter Games. Count me among those who don’t care about them and won’t watch them. In fact, I figure that when Thomas Paine said that “these are the times that try men’s souls,” he must’ve been talking about the start of another Winter Olympics. Because they’re so trying, maybe over the next three weeks we should all try too. Like, try not to be incredulous when someone attempts to link these games to those of the ancient Greeks who never heard of skating or skiing. So try not to laugh when someone says these are the world’s greatest athletes, despite a paucity of blacks that makes the winter games look like a GOP convention. Try not to point out that something’s not really a sport if a pseudo-athlete waits in what’s called a kiss-and-cry area, while some panel of subjective judges decides who won. And try to blot out all logic when announcers and sportswriters pretend to care about the luge, the skeleton, the biathlon and all those other events they don’t understand and totally ignore for all but three weeks every four years. Face it — these Olympics are little more than a marketing plan to fill space and sell time during the dreary days of February. So if only to hasten the arrival of the day they’re done, when we can move on to March Madness — for God’s sake, let the games begin.

So what does Mr. Gumbel mean by this? First one might read it as saying that none of the sports in Olympics need real athletes. All that is needed is “pseudo-athletes”. That, by itself call Mr. Gumbel’s sanity into question. Has he ever watched the sports of the Winter Olympics? There is a tremendous amount of flexibility, strength, stamina and perseverance require in almost every single sport featured in the Olympics.

And since Mr. Gumbel seems to speaking specifically of ice skating – almost as if it is the only even featured at the Winter Olympics – let’s talk about it for a few minutes. And I’d like to take it to a personal level. Mr. Gumbel – can you skate? Even though I can get around the rink smoothly, I am not what you would call an accomplished skater. I have been watching the Dance Skating Competition tonight. I am absolutely amazed at the strength and agility required by these athletes. And they do it without having to go on pure oxygen after every play – imagine that! He is right in that somebody has to judge them. So what? That doesn’t mean they aren’t athletes.

But let’s go further. What about sports like Downhill Racing, Ski Jumping, Ice Hockey, Luge, Skeleton, Snow Boarding, etc. They don’t count? The people involved in those sports are not athletes? I suspect that if you said that to a linesman from an Olympic Hockey Team (and take your pick on which one you want to ask – but if I had my druthers you should ask any one of the players on the Russian, American, or Canadian teams) you would not have any teeth left!

But what I think angers me more is Mr. Gumbel’s statement – or at the very least intimation – that there are no real athletes at the Winter Olympics because of a scarcity of blacks. That is a racist statement made by a person who is obviously is a racist. We all realize of course that there are many exceptional black athletes, just as there are exceptional athletes in any race. But to blatantly state that due to a “paucity” of black athletes means there are not real athletes at the Olympics is ridiculous. We can also infer from Mr. Gumbel’s statement that college basketball has more real athletes. I would love to see some of those real athletes try to compete at Ice Hockey, or even better, to give a shot at Ice Dancing. And I’d love to see a football lineman (BTW – my favorite sport) try Ski Jumping. Or a professional baseball player in the 1500 Meter Speed Skate. Or the real athlete of Mr. Gumbel’s choice in the anchor spot on the 4X4 Cross Country Ski event.

I wrote to HBO about this, but after several days of hearing nothing, I can only assume they chose not to respond. So much for responsible journalism.

Society of Subversion

2006-02-10T23:13:00.000-05:00

I have decided to coin a new term for the Democratic Party and their actions. I like it and I think it fits well.

Democrats = Society of Subversion

A “society” with the intent of “subversion” - a systematic attempt to overthrow or undermine a government or political system by persons working secretly from within.

The symptoms of this are the continuous outright lies we see from that sphere of non-influence. Let’s look at some facts:

Harry Reid claims over and over again that the money he received from Abramoff and his clients was not tainted. Yet, the more information that is gathered, the more we find just how extensively Reid and his office are tied to Abramoff. Check this article at Breitbart.com (and before you say….well it’s Breitbart….it is a copy of an article from the Associated Press). Some highlights:

Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid wrote at least four letters helpful to Indian tribes represented by Jack Abramoff, and the senator's staff regularly had contact with the disgraced lobbyist's team about legislation affecting other clients.

The activities _ detailed in billing records and correspondence obtained by The Associated Press _ are far more extensive than previously disclosed. They occurred over three years as Reid collected nearly $68,000 in donations from Abramoff's firm, lobbying partners and clients.

So not only are Reid’s constant claims of innocence incorrect, he makes the claims knowingly. Hence – he lies. There’s more:

Reid, D-Nev., has led the Democratic Party's attacks portraying Abramoff's lobbying and fundraising as a Republican scandal.

But Abramoff's records show his lobbying partners billed for nearly two dozen phone contacts or meetings with Reid's office in 2001 alone.

But he has no close contact…right….

Hillary Clinton, who usually tries to portray herself as centrist, told a packed church in Harlem that the House of Representatives is run like a “plantation”. The noted icon, the Reverend Al Sharpton later claimed that Ms. Clinton didn’t make that statement in a Harlem church:

Sharpton's theater of the absurd reached its apotheosis when he claimed that Hillary "did not make the comments at a Harlem church". Even the New York Times had to admit that she had spoken in "at the Canaan Baptist Church of Christ in Harlem," and Hardball rolled footage of her speaking at a lectern in the church draped with fabric decorated with a cross.

Responded Matthews, not even attempting to suppress an amused look: "You're kidding me, Reverend. I don't understand why you're defending her. Do you think she would have used that word with a Jewish group, an Italian group? She used that phrase, 'you know what I'm talking about.' What's that supposed to mean? She was pandering."

And this guy has the title Reverend?

And what about Senator “Splash” Kennedy? He spent hours of time, on our dime, reading the same passage over and over again, from the magazine published by the Concerned Alumni of Princeton. The visually and maybe mentally aging Senator Kennedy tried to use the passage to paint Justice Alito as a bigot, racist, and chauvinist during the embarrassing Democratic spectacle erroneously called Confirmation Hearings. In relation to Justice Alito’s affiliation with the club the Senator said:

“…affiliation with an organization that fought the admission of women into Princeton calls into question his appreciation for the needs for full equality in this country.”

And yet, it turned out that “Splash” belonged to a similar club at his own alma mater – and not only that, but his club was tossed from campus for discrimination against women. Interestingly enough, Kennedy’s club was in violation of laws that the Senator himself wrote. But to add to this the fact that after his association with a male-only club was published Kennedy quickly dropped his membership.

Want more? Let’s add in Al Gore’s speech on Martin Luther King Day. In the early part of his speech he said:

…As we begin this new year, the executive branch of our government has been caught eavesdropping on huge numbers of American citizens…

Let’s see – I think the obvious words here are “caught” and “huge”. Caught? Mr. Gore must have meant when the NYT illegally published the information about the NSA program in their newspaper. He does not mention that this was a “secret” program and the administration regularly briefed the proper members of Congress. But even more disingenuous is the word “huge”. What is that? It sure makes it sound like thousands and thousands of people have had phone calls listened to. But the fact is, that is not true.

I could go on and on and on. Just look at John Rockefeller who is now under investigation for leaking the NSA details to the NYT. I truly think the title of “Society of Subversion” is well deserved.

Alright - One For The Thumb!

2006-02-05T22:04:00.000-05:00

Congratulations to the Pittsburgh Steelers. I lived for many years in Pittsburgh and was there for the first three Superbowl years. It is about time that they got ONE FOR THE THUMB!

And what a team….Rothliesberger, Polamalu, Bettis, Willy “longest run in the SuperBowl” Parker, Hines Ward, Randall El – I can’t even begin to say all the names.

BTW – I live in New England Pats territory now and it feels good to be able to say, NYAH, NYAH, NYAH….”

Also BTW – Congratulations to the SeaHawks too. They had a great season and this was by far the best SuperBowl in a while….

Smething Smells Fishy.....

2006-02-05T13:21:00.000-05:00

UPDATED at bottom (latest update on February 9, 2006).

I think that something smells fishy in the state of the world over Denmark’s publication of the Prophet Muhammed cartoons. The whole issue is nutz!

First, the pictures were apparently published in October last year. But the outrage didn’t start until last week. It sounds like several mullahs from Denmark, took those pictures, added a few of their own which were even more insulting, and then spread them through the Middle East. Because of this, the current unrest. It appears that this was done purposely to foment the rioting – the burning of embassies – the burning of Danish flags. And isn’t that suspicious? I hadn’t thought of this, but there are other people out there who did. The big question is where did all of those flags come from? Did the countries in the Middle East just happen to have hundreds of Danish flags on hand to be conveniently burned in front of cameras? How did the reporters know to be there for the burning of the flags? Something smells very rotten. Read more of this at PowerLine in the post from Scott Johnson.

But there’s more. The issue about whether our MSM should have broadcast the pictures is a big one. All of the major media outlets decided not to so that they would not offend the Muslim community. And contrary to some threads I have seen in the blogosphere, I do not think there is a “conspiracy” amongst the MSM over this. The real question that remains though is why MSM do not worry about “offending the sensibilities” of other religions? Look at Kanye West as Jesus. Look at the upcoming Will & Grace episode called “Cruci-Fixin’s” (UPDATE: NBC announced last night that they are canceling this episode due to objection by Christian groups).

I postulate that the real reason that MSM acts this way is simple. There are not any Christian “terrorist” groups that will strap explosives on their bodies and walk into the MSM headquarters. There are not any Christian leaders that would (Pat Robertson excepted maybe…if you call him a leader) issue a “fatwah” to kill the producers of the articles/news segments – to gun them down in cold blood. Yet, we have seen such actions from Islamic extremists (Note: I do not believe that the extremists represent the views of anywhere near the majority of Muslims).

You can read more at Michelle Malkin.

UPDATE (February 6, 2006):

Check out the article in the Guardian Unlimited entitled Rioting with well-planned spontaneity. It just proves this whole thing is a fraud designed to cause unrest. And worse, in the rest of the world’s eyes it portrays the rioters as simpletons – people packed like sardines on buses to cause mayhem on command – and then to stop on command. But hey…wouldn’t want to miss the bus home even for such an important cause.

UPDATE (February 9, 2006):

Here is another great site to check out. It has a fairly funny animation of “deception” by the radical Muslim clerics from Denmark.

Misrepresentation - or a Syntax Error?

2006-01-29T16:56:00.000-05:00

My view of politicians is rather simple – there are good and bad in both parties. The reason I consider myself a Republican is that at I believe that they take a stand and stick to it. You can rely on them, for the most part, not to flip-flop on issues based on the latest poll data.

Interestingly enough, I have read several articles lately from MSM predicting the demise of the Republican Party – or at the very least, the loss of power in the next election. And I have seen Democratic leaders make complete fools of themselves in public by saying things that were either too ridiculous to believe, or were just plain misleading. I’m speaking of “plantations”, “chocolate city”, “OWL club”, “AIIIYEEEEEEEEEEE”, “We defeated the Patriot Act”, calling for a filibuster before counting votes, etc. Finally I see MSM bending the facts – slanting the truth – to attempt to bring this about.

But what is worse, is when poll data used by the MSM and the leading democrats is slanted like the recent polls by AP-IPSOS (Sorry – I can’t get to the original poll data any more, but AnkleBitingPundits has the information) and LA Times/Bloomberg.

Let’s take a quick look. First off – the AP-ISOS poll was reported in several large, left-leaning newspapers. But the problem with the poll was the fact that 52% of the respondents were Democrats and only 40% were Republican. Now compare that with the fact that during the 2004 election, voters of both parties were split evenly at 37%. Right away you can see that the results are going to be slanted – yet they were reported as fact by the MSM.

The LA Times/Bloomberg poll situation is different. The report from the poll does not contain the demographic information on the respondents, so nobody can actually tell how honest the poll was. They gloss over this by reporting:

The Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg Poll contacted 1,555 adults nationwide by telephone January 22 through 25, 2006. Telephone numbers were chosen from a list of all exchanges in the nation, and random digit dialing techniques allowed listed and unlisted numbers to be contacted. Multiple attempts were made to contact each number. Adults were weighted slightly to conform with their respective census figures for sex, race, age, education and region.

Note that results were weighted by everything except political affiliation. So it begs the question. But there is more:

Poll results may also be affected by factors such as question wording and the order in which questions are presented.

There…they said it, not me. The wording of the question counts. Let’s look at some questions to see how they are worded:

Q30. Which do you think is more effective in stimulating the nation's economy: An economic agenda focused on returning money to taxpayers through tax cuts, or an economic agenda focused on reducing the federal deficit and paying down the national debt?

Q31. Which do you think is more effective in stimulating the nation's economy: An economic agenda focused on returning money to taxpayers through tax cuts, or an economic agenda focused on spending on such issues as health care and education?

I won’t debate the poll results from these questions, because of the wording. That is because the way they are worded makes it sound like tax cuts are simply designed to put money back in taxpayers pockets. But the issues is different. As John F. Kennedy asserted, tax cuts are designed to spur the economy by giving people more money to spend and invest. The economy is not driven by what the government does, but by how much money people are spending. These questions misrepresent, on purpose I would opine, the reason tax cuts are done.

Q34. As you may know, George W. Bush authorized federal government agencies to use electronic surveillance to monitor phone calls and emails within the United States without first getting a court warrant to do so. Do you consider this an acceptable or unacceptable way for the federal government to investigate terrorism? (IF ACCEPTABLE/UNACCEPTABLE) Do you feel strongly about that or not?

Q35. Would you mind if you found out that your phone calls were being monitored by the U.S. government as part of the fight against terrorism?

In each of these examples the entire question is biased by the way it is worded. In Q34 it says “use electronic surveillance to monitor phone calls and emails within the United States…” What is wrong here is that this particular question does not take into account the fact that the NSA program is monitoring phone calls and emails of people with links to international terrorist organizations. Quite clearly, if the question made that distinction, the answer would have been very different. The next question is in the same vein – they fail to point out that the people being targeted by the program are suspected of ties to organizations that have attacked – and are claiming to be planning additional attacks – on US citizens. Again, if the questions had been worded the answers would have been much different.

A different take on the same issue is from this Fox News Poll. The same basic questions are asked but worded differently. It is obvious from the results what a difference a word or two makes:

30. Do you think the president should or should not have the power to authorize the National Security Agency to monitor electronic communications of suspected terrorists without getting warrants, even if one end of the communication is in the United States?

31. In an effort to identify terrorist activity, do you think the president should or should not have the power to authorize the National Security Agency to do computer searches of large numbers of international phone calls coming in and out of the United States without getting warrants?

Clearly there is a tremendous difference in the way these questions were worded. It is somewhat disingenuous to word questions to purposely slant the answers. But there is more to it than that. Just as a glaring example, the LA Times/Bloomberg poll asked, “Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling his job as president?” The result of the question was that 43% of the respondents said they approve and 54% said they did not. The next question is how did the LAT report this result?

Overall job rating: A majority of Americans (54%) disapprove of the way the president is handling his job, while 43% approve. This includes 39% who strongly disapprove. This is a big drop from the beginning of last year, when a January L.A. Times Poll had Bush’s job rating at 50% approve (47% disapprove). Throughout much of 2005, most national polls have shown Bush’s popularity declining dramatically. The poll results are very close to the average of other national polls released in the last two weeks.

This analysis is at best misleading. It compares Bush’s ratings now, to those of January 2005, and reflects a 14% decline since then. What they fail to point out is that Bush reached a low in his ratings shortly after Hurricane Katrina. At that time his rating was at 35%. Since then, his rating has risen almost 23%. The analysis truthfully states that through much of last year Bush’s approval rates were dropping. But it completely ignores the fact that Bush’s approval rating has risen at a much quicker rate than when it was dropping. Unfortunately for all of us, this is what passes for “unbiased” journalism at the LA Times.

All of this leads me to be suspicious of every single story I see in MSM. To doubt every single word that comes out of the mouths of Democratic Party leaders. And that is sad. But it is funny at the same time. I can’t understand how a party that wants to be a centrist force in the United States can continue to rely on the MSM to be their PR branch, or make statements that so clearly go against the wishes of the American people.

If you want to see something even funnier, check out Jon Stewart’s take on some of the Democratic leaders. The Political Teen has the clip.

Passport Forgeries

2006-01-27T11:47:00.000-05:00

Thomas Jocelyn is carrying the story of the Columbian forgery ring that was making fake passports for Hamas/Al Quaeda. He is taking the news directly from a CNN report, and raises an interesting question. Here are some of the highlights of the article:

Colombian has dismantled a false passport ring with links to al Qaeda and Hamas militants, the acting attorney general said Thursday after authorities led dozens of simultaneous raids across five cities in collaboration with U.S. officials…

…An undisclosed number of those arrested are wanted for working with the al Qaeda terror network and the militant Palestinian group Hamas, said acting Attorney General Jorge Armando Otalora.

The counterfeit Colombian, Spanish, Portuguese and German passports were used to enter the United States and Europe, he said.
But Justice Department spokesman Bryan Sierra said an indictment unsealed Wednesday in Miami charges 10 foreign nationals with smuggling "people that they thought were members of FARC into the United States."

"We are not alleging any connections to any terror organization other than the FARC," said Justice Department spokesman Bryan Sierra.
He said the U.S. will seek to extradite the 10 alleged smugglers, of whom eight have been arrested.

I guess it remains to be seen if there is any connection to Al Quaeda or Hamas. But the big question is, how did the US authorities pick up on the fact this was going on at all? Wish I knew the answer to that.

Stay Tuned for further developments.

Direct Flights From Iran - Yea Right!

2006-01-27T10:59:00.000-05:00

Iran has asked to have direct flights to the United States. According to Reuters (and a hat tip to Generation Why):

The request comes as the United States and its European Union allies are pressing for the Islamic Republic to be reported to the United Nations Security Council where it could face possible sanctions for its nuclear program.

"We sent a letter to the relevant American officials on Wednesday, announcing Iran's willingness to resume direct flights," Nourollah Rezai-Niaraki, head of Iran's Civil Aviation Organization, told state television.

The reason given is that Iranian people living in the United States have been complaining to the government in Iran that:

"They have repeatedly complained about wasting time and losing their baggage on connecting flights", the official said.

Let’s analyze this for a moment. A country with direct ties to terrorists, who is actively trying to (or so it appears at the moment) develop a nuclear weapons capability, and has vowed to wipe Israel off the map now wants direct flights to the United States. Direct flights between Iran and the country referred to as “The Great Satan”. Couple that with the new islamofacist fascination of killing lots of people using airplanes.

Now why would anybody be suspicious about this? Apparently, “the decision to make the request was taken by hardline Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. I’ll put my two cents in:

Close down your nuclear facilities Iran.

Allow completely unencumbered inspection of any site we choose to look at – any time we want to look at it.

Get rid of Ahmadinejad.

Give us “free” oil for life.

In twenty years we will take the issue up and consider it again.

What Did He Say?

2006-01-25T09:14:00.000-05:00

What to make of someone like Joel Stein? He says:

I DON'T SUPPORT our troops. This is a particularly difficult opinion to have, especially if you are the kind of person who likes to put bumper stickers on his car. Supporting the troops is a position that even Calvin is unwilling to urinate on.
I'm sure I'd like the troops. They seem gutsy, young and up for anything. If you're wandering into a recruiter's office and signing up for eight years of unknown danger, I want to hang with you in Vegas.
And I've got no problem with other people — the ones who were for the Iraq war — supporting the troops. If you think invading Iraq was a good idea, then by all means, support away. Load up on those patriotic magnets and bracelets and other trinkets the Chinese are making money off of.
But I'm not for the war. And being against the war and saying you support the troops is one of the wussiest positions the pacifists have ever taken — and they're wussy by definition. It's as if the one lesson they took away from Vietnam wasn't to avoid foreign conflicts with no pressing national interest but to remember to throw a parade afterward.

I guess he better hope that a platoon of Marines is not tasked on him. Or a squad of SEALS.

2006-01-24T08:27:00.000-05:00

Check This Out:

Some Soldier's Mom: CODE PINK NO LONGER AT WALTER REED -- WHOOOHOOO!!

Eminent Domain

2006-01-23T21:25:00.000-05:00

I want to give you my feelings on the issue of Eminent Domain and the drives that have been started to take property from Justices Stevens and Souter. This entire issue is fraught with emotions and questions about government power.

When I began this piece, I was out to lambaste a recent Supreme Court decision (Kelo vs. New London) as abetting an abuse of governmental power. I admit that I had a preformed notion and that my gut feeling was for the “little guy” – that the government should not have the power to take people’s homes and turn them over to a private development interest. That feeling has not changed. But as I read more of the case law behind the recent Supreme Court decision, I have come to understand why the vote on this case was so close – it was decided by a 5-4 margin.

I am not a lawyer, but I am able to read and form opinions by myself. Many of the people I debate with insist that since they are not lawyers, they can’t argue things using information from actual laws or court rulings. Personally I believe that is the lazy way out of a debate. As citizens we are bound by many, many laws. And as we all know, ignorance is not a defense. Therefore it is incumbent on us all to read and do our best to understand the laws that govern us, and the way those laws are being used.

Let’s start at the beginning. In this issue that would be Article V of the Constitution of the United States of America:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

The key phrase here is “…nor shall private property be taken for public use…”. I would guess that any regular person reading this, including me, would note that property should only be taken for public use. And that is the crux of the issue.

The Case

In 1997, Susette Kelo purchased a home in the Fort Trumbull section of New London, Connecticut. Fort Trumbull is an old-fashioned neighborhood of well maintained family homes, with views of Long Island Sound. There are families there with roots that go back over 100 years. Ms. Kelo planned to live there for many years.

The City of New London decided that the land of Fort Trumbull could put to better use. With that in mind they turned over their Eminent Domain power to a private corporation – the New London Development Corporation. NLDC put together plans for economic development of the Fort Trumbull area, and began the process of taking private property from the homeowners. According to the corporation’s web site their purpose is:

The New London Development Corporation (NLDC) is committed to creating public-private partnerships that act as an engine for economic development in New London. The goals of this private, not-for-profit organization are to increase the city's tax base, to promote an increase in the number of jobs available in the city and to enhance the quality of life for New London's residents.

In the long run, Ms. Kelo sued the City of New London on the grounds that the seizure of her, and the other family’s, property was in violation of her Fifth Amendment rights. The case eventually came before the Supreme Court, and on June 23, 2005 a decision was handed down in favor of New London. The decision in Kelo vs. New London was very close with a 5-4, split amongst the Supreme Court Justices. The decision in this is also considered quite controversial in that many people believe that it has undermined homeowner’s rights to protection against government seizure of their homes. And that is the source of the dissatisfaction with Justices Souter and Stevens.

The Supreme Court Ruling and the Definition of Public Use

In the Syllabus of the ruling for the Kelo vs. New London case, it is stated:

The city’s determination that the area at issue was sufficiently distressed to justify a program of economic rejuvenation is entitled to deference. The city has carefully formulated a development plan that it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community, including, but not limited to, new jobs and increased tax revenue. As with other exercises in urban planning and development, the city is trying to coordinate a variety of commercial, residential, and recreational land uses, with the hope that they will form a whole greater than the sum of its parts. To effectuate this plan, the city has invoked a state statute that specifically authorizes the use of eminent domain to promote economic development. Given the plan’s comprehensive character, the thorough deliberation that preceded its adoption, and the limited scope of this Court’s review in such cases, it is appropriate here, as it was in Berman, to resolve the challenges of the individual owners, not on a piecemeal basis, but rather in light of the entire plan. Because that plan unquestionably serves a public purpose, the takings challenged here satisfy the Fifth Amendment.

As I read through this part of the case, the thing that kept coming to the forefront is, “Well – what the heck does public use mean.” To me it seemed simple – parks, utilities, rail roads, etc. But apparently there has been years and years of legal debate on this particular subject. According to this article at FindLaw, it appears that my definition of “public use” was much too narrow (footnotes from original deleted – see the original for more; emphasis mine):

At an earlier time, the factor of judicial review would have been vastly more important than it is now, inasmuch as the prevailing judicial view was that the term ''public use'' was synonymous with ''use by the public'' and that if there was no duty upon the taker to permit the public as of right to use or enjoy the property taken, the taking was invalid. But this view was rejected some time ago. The modern conception of public use equates it with the police power in the furtherance of the public interest. No definition of the reach or limits of the power is possible, the Court has said, because such ''definition is essentially the product of legislative determinations addressed to the purposes of government, purposes neither abstractly nor historically capable of complete definition. . . . Public safety, public health, morality, peace and quiet, law and order--these are some of the . . . traditional application[s] of the police power. . . .'' Effectuation of these matters being within the authority of the legislature, the power to achieve them through the exercise of eminent domain is established. ''For the power of eminent domain is merely the means to the end.'' Traditionally, eminent domain has been utilized to facilitate transportation, the supplying of water, and the like, but the use of the power to establish public parks, to preserve places of historic interest, and to promote beautification has substantial precedent.

The Supreme Court has approved generally the widespread use of the power of eminent domain by federal and state governments in conjunction with private companies to facilitate urban renewal, destruction of slums, erection of low-cost housing in place of deteriorated housing, and the promotion of aesthetic values as well as economic ones. In Berman v. Parker, a unanimous Court ob served: ''The concept of the public welfare is broad and inclusive. The values it represents are spiritual as well as physical, aesthetic as well as monetary. It is within the power of the legislature to determine that the community should be beautiful as well as healthy, spacious as well as clean, well-balanced as well as carefully patrolled.'' For ''public use,'' then, it may well be that ''public interest'' or ''public welfare'' is the more correct phrase.

Reading this certainly opened my eyes. It would seem that the practice if legislating from the bench has been the reality for much longer than I had considered. It appears that to go from the traditional definition of “public use” to the one we have today was not done by “rule of law”, but rather by judicial decision. And while we see the Court deferring to the power of the individual states, as should be the case, there are times when it is necessary for someone to intervene for the “little guy” – for us regular citizens. And we can take it for granted that the homes of the Kennedy’s, Bush’s, Clinton’s, Kerry’s, and their like, will never be threatened.

The Opinions

As I said before, this case was very close. It is therefore necessary to do a review of the opinions of the Court. The first part quoted below is the majority opinion penned by Justice Stevens (as always, emphasis mine):

Two polar propositions are perfectly clear. On the one hand, it has long been accepted that the sovereign may not take the property of A for the sole purpose of transferring it to another private party B, even though A is paid just compensation. On the other hand, it is equally clear that a State may transfer property from one private party to another if future “use by the public” is the purpose of the taking; the condemnation of land for a railroad with common-carrier duties is a familiar example. Neither of these propositions, however, determines the disposition of this case.

As for the first proposition, the City would no doubt be forbidden from taking petitioners’ land for the purpose of conferring a private benefit on a particular private party. See Midkiff, 467 U.S., at 245 (“A purely private taking could not withstand the scrutiny of the public use requirement; it would serve no legitimate purpose of government and would thus be void”); Missouri Pacific R. Co. v. Nebraska, (1896). Nor would the City be allowed to take property under the mere pretext of a public purpose, when its actual purpose was to bestow a private benefit. The takings before us, however, would be executed pursuant to a “carefully considered” development plan. 268 Conn., at 54, 843 A.2d, at 536. The trial judge and all the members of the Supreme Court of Connecticut agreed that there was no evidence of an illegitimate purpose in this case. Therefore, as was true of the statute challenged in Midkiff, 467 U.S., at 245, the City’s development plan was not adopted “to benefit a particular class of identifiable individuals.”

On the other hand, this is not a case in which the City is planning to open the condemned land–at least not in its entirety–to use by the general public. Nor will the private lessees of the land in any sense be required to operate like common carriers, making their services available to all comers. But although such a projected use would be sufficient to satisfy the public use requirement, this “Court long ago rejected any literal requirement that condemned property be put into use for the general public.” Id., at 244. Indeed, while many state courts in the mid-19th century endorsed “use by the public” as the proper definition of public use, that narrow view steadily eroded over time. Not only was the “use by the public” test difficult to administer (e.g., what proportion of the public need have access to the property? at what price?), but it proved to be impractical given the diverse and always evolving needs of society. Accordingly, when this Court began applying the Fifth Amendment to the States at the close of the 19th century, it embraced the broader and more natural interpretation of public use as “public purpose.” See, e.g., Fallbrook Irrigation Dist. v. Bradley, 158—164 (1896). Thus, in a case upholding a mining company’s use of an aerial bucket line to transport ore over property it did not own, Justice Holmes’ opinion for the Court stressed “the inadequacy of use by the general public as a universal test.” Strickley v. Highland Boy Gold Mining Co., , 531 (1906). We have repeatedly and consistently rejected that narrow test ever since.

One of the cases the Supreme Court relied on in ruling in this case was Berman vs. Parker. In that case a store owner whose store was in the middle of a blighted area of Washington, DC, claimed that his store was in good shape – that it was not blighted. The Court ruled against his claim, and Stevens notes this in his opinion in Kelo:

The Court explained that “community redevelopment programs need not, by force of the Constitution, be on a piecemeal basis–lot by lot, building by building.” Id., at 35. The public use underlying the taking was unequivocally affirmed:

“We do not sit to determine whether a particular housing project is or is not desirable. The concept of the public welfare is broad and inclusive…. The values it represents are spiritual as well as physical, aesthetic as well as monetary. It is within the power of the legislature to determine that the community should be beautiful as well as healthy, spacious as well as clean, well-balanced as well as carefully patrolled. In the present case, the Congress and its authorized agencies have made determinations that take into account a wide variety of values. It is not for us to reappraise them. If those who govern the District of Columbia decide that the Nation’s Capital should be beautiful as well as sanitary, there is nothing in the Fifth Amendment that stands in the way.” Id., at 33.

Here the Court has overtly based the decision on both Midkiff and Berman. The problem with those cases, according to Justice O’Connor (see below) is that, “In both those cases, the extraordinary, precondemnation use of the targeted property inflicted affirmative harm on society–in Berman through blight resulting from extreme poverty and in Midkiff through oligopoly resulting from extreme wealth. And in both cases, the relevant legislative body had found that eliminating the existing property use was necessary to remedy the harm.” Stevens went on to say:

For more than a century, our public use jurisprudence has wisely eschewed rigid formulas and intrusive scrutiny in favor of affording legislatures broad latitude in determining what public needs justify the use of the takings power.

And finally the Court states:

Just as we decline to second-guess the City’s considered judgments about the efficacy of its development plan, we also decline to second-guess the City’s determinations as to what lands it needs to acquire in order to effectuate the project. “It is not for the courts to oversee the choice of the boundary line nor to sit in review on the size of a particular project area. Once the question of the public purpose has been decided, the amount and character of land to be taken for the project and the need for a particular tract to complete the integrated plan rests in the discretion of the legislative branch.” Berman, 348 U.S., at 35—36.

In affirming the City’s authority to take petitioners’ properties, we do not minimize the hardship that condemnations may entail, notwithstanding the payment of just compensation. We emphasize that nothing in our opinion precludes any State from placing further restrictions on its exercise of the takings power. Indeed, many States already impose “public use” requirements that are stricter than the federal baseline. Some of these requirements have been established as a matter of state constitutional law, while others are expressed in state eminent domain statutes that carefully limit the grounds upon which takings may be exercised.

As we can see, and as I discovered, it appears that the Supreme Court made the ruling in this decision on a few narrowly defined cases. Personally, I find myself more closely aligned with the dissenting opinion of Justice O’Connor. She states:

Over two centuries ago, just after the Bill of Rights was ratified, Justice Chase wrote:

“An act of the Legislature (for I cannot call it a law) contrary to the great first principles of the social compact, cannot be considered a rightful exercise of legislative authority…. A few instances will suffice to explain what I mean…. [A] law that takes property from A. and gives it to B: It is against all reason and justice, for a people to entrust a Legislature with such powers; and, therefore, it cannot be presumed that they have done it.” Calder v. Bull, 3 Dall. 386, 388 (1798) (emphasis deleted).

Today the Court abandons this long-held, basic limitation on government power. Under the banner of economic development, all private property is now vulnerable to being taken and transferred to another private owner, so long as it might be upgraded–i.e., given to an owner who will use it in a way that the legislature deems more beneficial to the public–in the process. To reason, as the Court does, that the incidental public benefits resulting from the subsequent ordinary use of private property render economic development takings “for public use” is to wash out any distinction between private and public use of property–and thereby effectively to delete the words “for public use” from the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Accordingly I respectfully dissent.

This is much closer to what I believe was the intent of the original framers of the Constitution (and admittedly, I am not an expert in this and can only rely on my basic intuition). And then Justice O’connor’s opinion turns specifically to the cases that the majority relied on:

This case returns us for the first time in over 20 years to the hard question of when a purportedly “public purpose” taking meets the public use requirement. It presents an issue of first impression: Are economic development takings constitutional? I would hold that they are not. We are guided by two precedents about the taking of real property by eminent domain. In Berman, we upheld takings within a blighted neighborhood of Washington, D.C. The neighborhood had so deteriorated that, for example, 64.3% of its dwellings were beyond repair. 348 U.S., at 30. It had become burdened with “overcrowding of dwellings,” “lack of adequate streets and alleys,” and “lack of light and air.” Id., at 34. Congress had determined that the neighborhood had become “injurious to the public health, safety, morals, and welfare” and that it was necessary to “eliminat[e] all such injurious conditions by employing all means necessary and appropriate for the purpose,” including eminent domain. Id., at 28. Mr. Berman’s department store was not itself blighted. Having approved of Congress’ decision to eliminate the harm to the public emanating from the blighted neighborhood, however, we did not second-guess its decision to treat the neighborhood as a whole rather than lot-by-lot. Id., at 34—35; see also Midkiff, 467 U.S., at 244 (“it is only the taking’s purpose, and not its mechanics, that must pass scrutiny”).

In Midkiff, we upheld a land condemnation scheme in Hawaii whereby title in real property was taken from lessors and transferred to lessees. At that time, the State and Federal Governments owned nearly 49% of the State’s land, and another 47% was in the hands of only 72 private landowners. Concentration of land ownership was so dramatic that on the State’s most urbanized island, Oahu, 22 landowners owned 72.5% of the fee simple titles. Id., at 232. The Hawaii Legislature had concluded that the oligopoly in land ownership was “skewing the State’s residential fee simple market, inflating land prices, and injuring the public tranquility and welfare,” and therefore enacted a condemnation scheme for redistributing title. Ibid.

The Court’s holdings in Berman and Midkiff were true to the principle underlying the Public Use Clause. In both those cases, the extraordinary, precondemnation use of the targeted property inflicted affirmative harm on society–in Berman through blight resulting from extreme poverty and in Midkiff through oligopoly resulting from extreme wealth. And in both cases, the relevant legislative body had found that eliminating the existing property use was necessary to remedy the harm. Berman, supra, at 28—29; Midkiff, supra, at 232. Thus a public purpose was realized when the harmful use was eliminated. Because each taking directly achieved a public benefit, it did not matter that the property was turned over to private use. Here, in contrast, New London does not claim that Susette Kelo’s and Wilhelmina Dery’s well-maintained homes are the source of any social harm. Indeed, it could not so claim without adopting the absurd argument that any single-family home that might be razed to make way for an apartment building, or any church that might be replaced with a retail store, or any small business that might be more lucrative if it were instead part of a national franchise, is inherently harmful to society and thus within the government’s power to condemn.

The last part is the key. In the current case, Kelo, it was not even claimed that a “harmful” condition existed. It was just that the city of New London wanted to harvest additional revenue. Justice O’Connor concludes with:

It was possible after Berman and Midkiff to imagine unconstitutional transfers from A to B. Those decisions endorsed government intervention when private property use had veered to such an extreme that the public was suffering as a consequence. Today nearly all real property is susceptible to condemnation on the Court’s theory. In the prescient words of a dissenter from the infamous decision in Poletown, “[n]ow that we have authorized local legislative bodies to decide that a different commercial or industrial use of property will produce greater public benefits than its present use, no homeowner’s, merchant’s or manufacturer’s property, however productive or valuable to its owner, is immune from condemnation for the benefit of other private interests that will put it to a ‘higher’ use.” 410 Mich., at 644—645, 304 N. W. 2d, at 464 (opinion of Fitzgerald, J.). This is why economic development takings “seriously jeopardiz[e] the security of all private property ownership.” Id., at 645, 304 N. W. 2d, at 465 (Ryan, J., dissenting).

Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random. The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms. As for the victims, the government now has license to transfer property from those with fewer resources to those with more. The Founders cannot have intended this perverse result. “[T]hat alone is a just government,” wrote James Madison, “which impartially secures to every man, whatever is his own.” For the National Gazette, Property, (Mar. 29, 1792), reprinted in 14 Papers of James Madison 266 (R. Rutland et al. eds. 1983).

I don’t know about you, but that fits my feelings about “big government” vs. the “little guy” much better. Hopefully, there will be a regression at some point to, at least on this issue, to take the Constitution more literally.

Where Does All This Lead

I started this discussion in relation to the efforts of two separate groups to take land from Justices Souter and Stevens using Eminent Domain. Underneath everything, I would like to see those efforts succeed. But, I think they will not. The reason is simple. Eminent Domain action can only be undertaken at the direction of a government entity – a legislative body. I suspect that the groups in question will find that a difficult hurdle to overcome.

Busy...busy...busy....

2006-01-19T09:15:00.000-05:00

Sorry I haven’t posted in a few days, but sometimes life here at the plantation just catches up. You know what I’m talkin’ about….

But, I am working on an article about Hillary and hope to post it today.

In the meantime, I’ve been keeping up with my reading. If you are in need of a laugh, take a look at Bear Creek Ledger and the Talking Deer (h/t: CrazyPolitico).

And over at Confederate Yankee there are a few commentors (ArthurStone and Fat Bastard) that claim that the Democratic party has no racists within.

That’s it for now. I will be putting my regular blog roll up sometime soon…..

Petitions Without Professional Lobbyists

2006-01-16T12:57:00.000-05:00

If you haven’t visited it yet, you should check out the Appeal from Center-Right Bloggers at Truth Laid Bear. It is interesting in that bloggers from different points of view are advocating the same thing – Clean it up! I think you will find it amazing the number of people supporting this.

For even more fun, check out this letter. In many respects I agree with this more than anything I’ve read lately – in an off-hand way. I mean, our original governmental structure was not set up to give full-time jobs to people, some of whom would not make it in the “real world”. But it is another interesting take on the issue.

Pelosi and Oversight

2006-01-15T20:36:00.000-05:00

Nancy Pelosi, the Democratic leader of the House of Representatives, has a somewhat convoluted op-ed piece in the Sunday, January 15, edition of washingtonpost.com. I call it convoluted because she seems to waffle back and forth about what “oversight” is. In one section she says:

“Congress is not an afterthought in assessing intelligence activities; federal law requires that it be kept informed of all such activities.”

This seems pretty clear, she insists that Congress be kept informed of all such activities. In the very next sentence though, things become less clear:

“But despite that clear statutory directive, the Bush administration consistently acts as though it alone owns intelligence information.”

You see the story has changed. Pelosi is not asking to be “kept informed of all such activities,” rather it seems that she wants access to the data. But here she has stated fact. There is a reason that the Bush administration acts like they own the intelligence information – that is because they do! Basically all of the intelligence gathering agencies – what I will term Intelligence Community (IC) for the rest of this essay – are owned by the Executive Branch, and therefore, the President and his administration. That fact alone gives him the right to decide who gets to see information gathered by the IC. It doesn’t get much simpler than that Congresswoman!

But, let’s talk about this for a minute. In intelligence gathering activities there is a reason that certain types of information are kept secret from all but a few people. Basically, release of that information could cause lives to be lost – either by letting the target of the activity know what is going on, or maybe even by revealing the source that is gathering the information. All of this revolves around the concept of “need to know” – only those who need to know should be given access to the information, whether it be raw data or finished material.

In 2004 Congress passed a law called the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-458; S.2845) which is sometimes pointed to as the authority for the Congress to see all intelligence data. Specifically, Sec. 102A.(a)(1)(D) states that the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) shall provide national intelligence to various government authorities including “the Senate and House of Representatives and the committees thereof…” Of course, there are no caveats in this section of the law as to what “national intelligence” consists of, nor any specifics as to who it must be given.

Here we have another instance of Congress passing a law that may (or may not) circumscribe the constitutionally based powers of the President. In a letter from the Congressional Research Service (CRS) to Senator Dianne Feinstein, Alfred Cumming, Specialist in Intelligence and National Security Foreign Affairs, Defense and Trade Division, lays out the type of intelligence data that typically is not shared with Congress (footnotes removed – see the letter for the references):

Congressional Access to Intelligence Information Not Routinely Provided in Four Areas
The executive branch generally does not routinely share with Congress four general types of intelligence information:

the identities of intelligence sources;

the "methods" employed by the Intelligence Community in collecting and analyzing intelligence;

"raw" intelligence, which can be unevaluated or "lightly" evaluated intelligence, which in the case of human intelligence sometimes is provided by a single source, but which also could consist of intelligence derived from multiple sources when signals and imagery collection methods are employed; and,

certain written intelligence products tailored to the specific needs of the President and other high-level executive branch policymakers. Included in the last category is the President's Daily Brief (PDB), a written intelligence product which is briefed daily to the President, and which consists of six to eight relatively short articles or briefs covering a broad array of topics. The PDB emphasizes current intelligence and is viewed as highly sensitive, in part, because it can contain intelligence source and operational information. Its dissemination is thus limited to the President and a small number of presidentially-designated senior administration policymakers.

The letter points out two important reasons why some information is not shared with Congress. I summarize below:

There is a need to protect the most sensitive information against “leaks” The bottom line is that the more people that know, the greater the chance information will be leaked and sources and methods compromised. Sources and methods need to be protected so that they can continue to be used.

The second concern is over access to the actual “raw” intelligence. If that material somehow makes its way into the wrong hands, there is a possibility that sources and methods can be determined by analyzing the data. In addition, since “raw” data has not been analyzed, there is a concern that a lawmaker could try to enact legislation based on incorrect information.

Mr. Cumming points out that in general Congress has access to a tremendous amount of the intelligence that is gathered. First and foremost is Congress access to “Finished Intelligence.” According to Cumming:

Congress generally receives access to most finished intelligence products that are published for general circulation within the executive branch. A finished intelligence product is one in which an analyst evaluates, interprets, integrates and places into context raw intelligence.
Although congressional access is limited to such finished products, the volume of such products provided to Congress has increased over time. Between 1947, when the National Security Act establishing the CIA was enacted, and the mid-1970s, the executive branch shared relatively little intelligence with Congress, and access to it was quite limited. But after two special congressional investigative committees headed by former Sen. Frank Church and Rep. Otis Pike launched investigations of the Intelligence Community in the mid-1970s, the executive branch permitted the Community to increase the volume of intelligence information it provided to Congress.

And if you follow the letter to Feinstein further, it is pointed out that Congress is also exposed to intelligence data via briefings and thirteen other sources. Congresswoman’s Pelosi’s contention that Congress should have access to all intelligence (no pun intended), is dubious is best. More likely it has been shown that they receive more than enough intelligence data to facilitate their “oversight” function.

When speaking of the IC, Pelosi asserts:

“Congress oversees and pays for them -- and thus has a responsibility to ensure that they are effective and carried out in a manner consistent with the Constitution, our laws and our values.”

In some respects I can not argue with this statement. But the question still becomes how much does Congress have to know to exercise their oversight responsibilities? With the number of leaks that have been attributed to Congress over the years, it makes sense that any administration would seek to keep legislators from the material.

The issue comes back to “need to know.” Pelosi argues that Congress should be able to decide, even though they do not own the information, who within their bailiwick has “need to know.” She says:

“In the executive branch, decisions about who should have access to intelligence are made on a "need to know" basis. Congress must adopt a similar principle. The members of the intelligence committees are entrusted by their colleagues with the responsibility for making sure that intelligence practices are consistent with our laws and our values. Unless the entire committee has access to the same information, under tight confidentiality rules, Congress cannot respond legislatively to intelligence activity by the executive branch.”

As Cumming pointed out to Feinstein, the President owns the IC, and the product which the IC produces. The Executive Branch decides who has the right to know. Not Congress.

So there you have Pelosi’s arguments. She feels that Congress needs to have access to intelligence data so they can properly oversee IC activities. That sounds reasonable. She argues that Congress should have access to all intelligence data. That is a lot less sensible, not only for the reasons listed above, but also the ludicrous picture of Congressional leaders trying to keep up with the amount of intelligence gathered each day (How does Pelosi propose to handle this? Hire extra staff?). Finally she argues that Congress should have the right to determine “need to know” basis within their own ranks. This is the least reasonable of all her arguments. In the post NSA-leak world, where there exists a real possibility that one of the leakers was a ranking Democratic member of an Intelligence Committee, we should be deciding how to tighten controls over national secrets, not trying to figure out how to let more people know.

Note: Thanks to Harry Arthur for reminding me the difference between Senators and Congresspeople. Sheesh – I had a mind slip on that one.

Dirty Money?

2006-01-14T14:40:00.000-05:00

Dirty Money?

You know, there is a lot of trouble in our capitol when it comes to our representatives, of both parties, taking money from lobbyists. Don’t get me wrong – lobbying has been a part of our traditions for as long as we have had a government. And it truly is one of the ways that private interests get requests in front of the government. But that doesn’t make the money issues – the abuse of money in these instances the right thing to do.

The latest “scandal” is Abramoff. It appears that the man, and his organization, gave money (a lot of it) to both sides of the aisle. But more than that, it appears that he also played a few tribes off against one another to line his own pockets.

The Democrats have tried to paint this problem as entirely a Republican issue. That is simply not the truth. If you look at the information provided by the Center for Responsive Politics on the opensecrets.org site, you will find that both parties are well represented (if I can use those words).

So the real question is not whether we should have lobbyists; it is not whether they should have access to government representatives. What is comes down to is how do we make the process transparent so that people like Abramoff don’t have the opportunity any more.

I Couldn't Resist

2006-01-14T14:13:00.000-05:00

I don't know if you have been following the Alito hearings, but I sure have. Unfortunately I stay up late and watch the reruns because I can't pay attention during the day - other things to do. But I really have to laugh about the lack of integrity shown by the Democratic Senators - especially the obviously addled Ted Kennedy.

The two biggest issues they seemed to be able to come up with were Vanguard and CAP. Vanguard was a non-starter from the beginning because Alito, even though he did not have to; and even though he did not break any law or ehtics rules, recused himself (after a request from one of the lawyers in the case) from the proceedings and asked that another panel from the 3rd Circuit decide the case.

But what was funnier was watching Kennedy read the same paragraph over and over again from the CAP magazine. For those of you who didn't follow - CAP was a conservative men's club at Princeton. According to many documents and interviews, the club was against the idea of women and minorities being placed ahead of others (particularly white men) simply because of their sex and race. This is the same old argument against Affirmative Action that has been used for many, many years.

To give you more background - what Kennedy was reading was one paragraph from one issue of the magazine, and the author was not Alito.

The questionable paragraph said:

"People nowadays just don't seem to know their place. Everywhere one turns blacks and hispanics are demanding jobs simply because they're black and Hispanic, the physically handicapped are trying to gain equal representation in professional sports, and homosexuals are demanding that government vouchsafe them the right to bear children."

With this in hand, Kennedy (and other Democratic Senators) started speaking - yes speaking meaning pontificating - not really questioning - about Alito being a bigot; a racist. At one point Kennedy stated point blank:

In an era when America is still too divided by race and riches, Judge "Alioto" has not written one single opinion on the merits in favor of a person of color alleging race discrimination on the job. In fifteen years on the bench, not one.

This quote was from the first day of the hearings during Kennedy's opening statement. Note that he did not even know the judges name at that point. Nevertheless, the statement was basically a lie. Alito has participated in over 4,000 cases and in many, many of them ruled in favor of minorities, people discriminated against on the job, etc. You can read some of the cases - actual cases, not rhetoric here.

And then yesterday, when seven judges that have worked with Alito over the years, including self-admitted liberal judges - including a black judge - many appointed by the Clinton Administration - when these judges came to the conference room to deliver their glowing reports on Alito, Schumer did not attend, Kennedy left....in fact the only Democrat that stayed for the proceedings was Dianne Feinstein. What kind of respect does that show? What kind of fair hearing is it that the Democratic Senators can spend their time not asking questions, but smearing a qualified person with lies and innuendo, and then not even being present when people who have worked with the judge for so many years want to clear the record.

And Kennedy - what a hypocrite. Are you aware of the all male conservative club he belongs to at his alma mater - Harvard? It is called the OWL Club and Kennedy just renewed his membership in September 2005. Their have been several stories about it this week, but here is one from the Washinton Times. I just quote one paragraph:

The club has long been reviled on campus as "sexist" and "elitist" and, in 1984, was booted from the university for violating federal anti-discrimination laws, authored by Mr. Kennedy.

So here we have Kennedy, who still belongs to a club like the one Alito bleonged to in his Senior year (and apparently not since), criticizing the philosophy of Alito's club, using associative innuendo to intimate that Alito is against women and is a racist, when he - Teddy "Splash" Kennedy still belongs to the same type of club. Well maybe not the same. Kennedy points to one paragraph from one article from one edition of a magazine. His entire club was kicked off campus for violating the anti-discrimination law.

Welcome Message

2006-01-14T13:34:00.000-05:00

Welcome to SpecterVision.Some of you may recognize my name. I have been around the Usenet and Blogging world for many years. Some members of one of the local sites I publish on got tired of me always being right and politely asked if I would start my own blog. Of course, they were of a different political persuasion than me. I do still post there, and will continue to post on many other blogs.I will tell you that I am an ardent fan of the "blogosphere". The reasons for this are probably much like many of yours - I got tired of trying to get real truth from newpapers, magazines, and television. I decided that I did not need some "talking head" to tell me what my opinions should be.I know now that I will not agree with all of you. I am by nature pretty conservative. But I do like lively debate, and will apologize in advance if I become a little overzealous. In that case, just slap me a little and bring me back to earth!I also think that the advantage here is that we can use this wonderful medium to hone our ideas and opinions, and maybe even to educate each other. And now....let's have some fun.Specter