Congressman Virgil Goode (R-Virginia) has become the latest in a long list of Republicans and conservatives who are objecting to Representative-elect Keith Ellison (D-Minnesota)'s intention to take his oath of office on the Koran instead of the Bible.
But Congressman Goode went beyond that in his letter to constituents, which was released to CNN after it enquired about the letter. He wrote,
The Muslim representative from Minnesota was elected by the voters of that district and if American citizens don't wake up and adopt the Virgil Goode position on immigration there will likely be many more Muslims elected to office and demanding the use of the Quran.
"We need to stop illegal immigration totally and reduce legal immigration and end the diversity visas policy pushed hard by President Clinton and allowing many persons from the Middle East to come to this country.
Let's first address the whole issue of Representative Ellison and his desire to use the Koran (which according to his Muslim faith is a Holy Scripture, while he believes the Bible is not). It presents us with a very basic question:
Why is the Bible used to take an oath on?
Why don't lawmakers and other elected and appointed officials who take oaths of office simply swear an oath agreeing that they understand that if they fail to uphold the Consitution or the duties or responsibilities of their office then they may be subject to criminal prosecution, recall, censure, expulsion, impeachment, being fired, bad press resulting in not being re-elected or any of the other various punishments and penalties that the legal system, the legislative body, the executive or the voters can subject them to? Why is the Bible used at all?
The answer is that it is a matter of faith. By taking an oath on a book that is considered Holy Scripture (and often ending this oath with the words, 'so help me God') the public servant (whether elected or appointed) is not only agreeing to serve faithfully and to the best of his or her ability, but is in effect agreeing that if (s)he fails to carry out the duties of the office in an honest and ethical manner then (s)he may be subject to having to answer to God about having violated an oath taken in the name of God. This is supposed to strengthen a public servant, who even if (s)he might be tempted to misuse his or her position to get rich by influence peddling, make inappropriate sexual advances to teenage pages or otherwise abuse the system, is aware that the penalties for this type of behavior may not end at the grave.
Now it is true that swearing on the Bible has not always prevented people like Duke Cunningham, Mark Foley and Bob Ney from abusing their oath of office. What the effect will be beyond this life is between them and that God who they named in an oath with their hand upon Holy Scripture. What it does mean though is that Rep. Ellison absolutely should swear upon the Koran. If he swore on a scripture that he doesn't believe carries the weight of deity, then why would we expect that oath to be given any more credence by the fact that a Bible was there? On the other hand, if he as a Muslim swears on the Koran, then since he believes it is imbued with the power of God, isn't he more likely (for the same reasons mentioned above) to behave honestly and ethically in office, believeing that if he does not he will also have a debt to settle with Allah someday?
It seems to be that those who insist that Rep. Ellison should have to use the Bible exhibit the most profound lack of faith and lack of understanding of why the Bible is used at all.
The other issue that Representative Goode brings up is his continued hard line against immigration that resonates throughout his letter. And it, as well as his support for using the Bible only will probably help him in his conservative, edge-of-the-Bible-belt rural Virginia district.
It is sure to give Republicans headaches though. Not that party loyalty has ever meant much to Virgil Goode, of course-- he was elected as a Democrat in 1994 and then switched parties after the GOP took over the house for reasons of pure political opportunism.
The reason it will give Republicans headaches is this: This year the GOP felt that if they just turned out their base they could win the elections. True, they fell short of that goal in some places, but in others they did turn out the conservative base and they still lost the election.
One reason was their hard line stance on immigration. This year the GOP lost 14% of the Hispanic vote, falling from President Bush's share of Hispanics at 44% nationwide down to 30%. Without the GOP leaning votes of Cuban-Americans, it would be down into the 20% range, as it was in many Hispanic communities in the southwest. The reason is no mystery-- many Hispanics here have extended and immediate family that run across the spectrum-- some U.S. citizens, some living happily in Mexico or some other Latin American country, legal residents, illegal residents and some planning to come. An example is my cousin who is an American and married to a man from Latin America (he is a legal resident). Their kids are U.S. citizens (the oldest will probably be registering to vote in 2008) and they go down to visit his family every other year. I know they have other family here in America, and I haven't had a reason to ask about their legal status (plus I don't care whether they are legal or not-- they are still part of my family by marriage). And La Familia is very important among these people. So when Republicans threatened to build a wall this year, make some of their family members felons or carry out mass deportations, well you mess with a person's family and it's safe to say you've lost that person's vote. This loss of 14% among a group of voters who number into the tens of millions directly cost the GOP at least one congressional seat in Texas and probably two congressional seats here in Arizona (in both contests here, the GOP candidate was a conservative hardliner on immigration and got the conservative base out, but it was beaten by the direct loss of moderates and Hispanics that switched to the Democrats since 2004.) The irony of course is that immigrants from Mexico are 98% Christian, so if the concern is about the erosion of Christianity in America, they are shooting themselves in the foot by railing against undocumented immigrants.
Rep. Goode then goes on to cite 'diversity' in immigration and immigration from the Middle East. Now, I agree with most conservatives as well as most liberals that we need to get a handle on who is coming into the country (which is one reason a guest-worker program makes sense) so that we can figure out ways to keep terrorists and criminals from entering the country, and track immigrants when they do come in as a backup if we don't catch some of the criminals or terrorists at the border. What is disturbing about Rep. Goode's letter though is that he speaks about Muslims and people from the 'middle east' (incidentally, the most populous Muslim countries are in Asia, not the middle east). He appears to use that as an argument to clamp down on immigration, as if there is something intrinsically bad about people from that part of the world coming to America. Now there are certainly some bad apples from the middle east, which is one reason I just mentioned that we need to get a handle on who is entering the U.S. But most people there are not bad apples, nor are most Muslims. What it will do is cause those who become U.S. citizens to gravitate toward's Congressman Ellison's party, not Congressman Goode's.
But maybe Congressman Goode doesn't care about that either. As I said before, party loyalty has never been his strong suit.
Thursday, December 21, 2006
Wednesday, December 20, 2006
Iraq is a political, not a military failure.
Yesterday I wrote a post on how the White House, by admitting that a homegrown group of Iraqi insurgents had become even more powerful and a bigger threat than al Qaeda in Iraq, has in effect admitted that we are losing the war.
However, it needs to be made clear that it has been a political, not a military failure. Every time there has been any sort of offensive action undertaken by the military and every time our troops have been involved in combat, American troops have cleaned the clock on the enemy. That includes two offensives undertaken over the past couple of years against al-Sadr's Mahdi militia as well as offensives undertaken against Sunni insurgents and against members of al Qaeda in Iraq.
So why are we in the situation we are in? It has been because of repeated political failures. The political failure to see things through in Afghanistan before embarking on another war, the political failure to work with the rest of the world to obtain a sufficiently broad coalition, as Bush I did in 1990-1991, the political failure to be willing to consider any other option in dealing with Iraq than war, the political failure to give our forces a clearly defined and unchanging mission, or even for the most part to make it clear what exactly we are fighting for, and most importantly the political failure to explain to the American people what if any reason there is for continuing to fight in Iraq more than three and a half years after the fall of Baghdad.
Ultimately, this war, while again proving the superiority of American combat troops will be another political failure just as Vietnam was. In Vietnam 58,000 American troops were killed in combat versus 1.1 million Viet Cong and North Vietnamese regular soldiers, or about a 1-20 ratio. What made Vietnam a defeat for the U.S. however is that the Vietnamese communists were fighting a foreign invader and were willing to lose over a million troops in order to drive us out, while Americans could not see what was there that made it worth losing the tens of thousands of troops we did. In Iraq, we are approaching 3,000 American troops killed, and it is likely that the number enemy losses (including Saddam Hussein's army, the Mahdi militia, Sunni insurgents and al-Qaeda) is probably at least 20 times as much as the number of American losses. However, they are more willing to fight on even in the face of these losses, and for largely the same reasons as the Vietnamese were-- patriotism is not exclusive to Americans. Of all of these opponents, only al-Qaeda is one that the American people could remotely be persuaded that it is worth continuing to fight against, but then the question has to be raised as to why we have not put more emphasis on Afghanistan.
It is the incompetent political leadership that has led us into the situation we are in now, and it is both the present and future generations of Americans that are paying and will continue to pay the price for their bumbling failure to lead.
However, it needs to be made clear that it has been a political, not a military failure. Every time there has been any sort of offensive action undertaken by the military and every time our troops have been involved in combat, American troops have cleaned the clock on the enemy. That includes two offensives undertaken over the past couple of years against al-Sadr's Mahdi militia as well as offensives undertaken against Sunni insurgents and against members of al Qaeda in Iraq.
So why are we in the situation we are in? It has been because of repeated political failures. The political failure to see things through in Afghanistan before embarking on another war, the political failure to work with the rest of the world to obtain a sufficiently broad coalition, as Bush I did in 1990-1991, the political failure to be willing to consider any other option in dealing with Iraq than war, the political failure to give our forces a clearly defined and unchanging mission, or even for the most part to make it clear what exactly we are fighting for, and most importantly the political failure to explain to the American people what if any reason there is for continuing to fight in Iraq more than three and a half years after the fall of Baghdad.
Ultimately, this war, while again proving the superiority of American combat troops will be another political failure just as Vietnam was. In Vietnam 58,000 American troops were killed in combat versus 1.1 million Viet Cong and North Vietnamese regular soldiers, or about a 1-20 ratio. What made Vietnam a defeat for the U.S. however is that the Vietnamese communists were fighting a foreign invader and were willing to lose over a million troops in order to drive us out, while Americans could not see what was there that made it worth losing the tens of thousands of troops we did. In Iraq, we are approaching 3,000 American troops killed, and it is likely that the number enemy losses (including Saddam Hussein's army, the Mahdi militia, Sunni insurgents and al-Qaeda) is probably at least 20 times as much as the number of American losses. However, they are more willing to fight on even in the face of these losses, and for largely the same reasons as the Vietnamese were-- patriotism is not exclusive to Americans. Of all of these opponents, only al-Qaeda is one that the American people could remotely be persuaded that it is worth continuing to fight against, but then the question has to be raised as to why we have not put more emphasis on Afghanistan.
It is the incompetent political leadership that has led us into the situation we are in now, and it is both the present and future generations of Americans that are paying and will continue to pay the price for their bumbling failure to lead.
Tuesday, December 19, 2006
We are losing-- the White House all but says it.
The White House has said that the most dangerous insurgent force in Iraq is no longer al-Qaeda in Iraq, and is now Moqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi militia.
Could their admission that they are losing the war be any plainer?
Al-Qaeda, of course, has benefitted greatly from the U.S. invasion. The terrorists we claimed this would hurt have instead come flooding in from the outside so they could kill Americans, and regionally they have done a masterful job of recruiting because they have spun the Iraq war as proof that their contention that the U.S. is trying to 'occupy Muslim lands' is true.
But the Mahdi army did not exist at all while Saddam Hussein was running Iraq. Al-Sadr's father, when he spoke out even a little against Saddam, was killed by Saddam's regime.
So we now have a homegrown insurgent group (ironically led by a man and composed of people who were all suppressed under Saddam) becoming even a bigger threat to the U.S. and the stability of the country than al-Qaeda.
As I said, could the admission of failure be any more direct than that?
Could their admission that they are losing the war be any plainer?
Al-Qaeda, of course, has benefitted greatly from the U.S. invasion. The terrorists we claimed this would hurt have instead come flooding in from the outside so they could kill Americans, and regionally they have done a masterful job of recruiting because they have spun the Iraq war as proof that their contention that the U.S. is trying to 'occupy Muslim lands' is true.
But the Mahdi army did not exist at all while Saddam Hussein was running Iraq. Al-Sadr's father, when he spoke out even a little against Saddam, was killed by Saddam's regime.
So we now have a homegrown insurgent group (ironically led by a man and composed of people who were all suppressed under Saddam) becoming even a bigger threat to the U.S. and the stability of the country than al-Qaeda.
As I said, could the admission of failure be any more direct than that?
Monday, December 18, 2006
Married to the Mob.
Ever since the 2000 election, when Vietnam combat veteran John McCain burst onto the scene in the Republican Presidential primaries as a 'moderate alternative' to George W. Bush, it seems that he has led a charmed political life. George Bush is known to detest McCain personally, but he has needed him. Liberals held their fire because every now and then McCain throws them a bone (in fact John Kerry wasted valuable time and effort trying to convince McCain, who was the chair of the Bush campaign in Arizona, to defect and run on a ticket with him; what it also meant was that when John Kerry picked John Edwards for the ticket, everyone knew he was a second choice.) Independents ooze over the conservative McCain (and conservative he is, just look at his voting record,) as if they think he is one of them. Even Bush backers, like Pat Robertson (who thoroughly trashed McCain in South Carolina) have warmed up to him.
And one of McCain's biggest assets, according to most of these people is that he eschews negative campaigning.
There is a good reason for that though. It's a tale that involves organized crime, corruption and murder. Let's say that John McCain never runs a negative ad against his opponents because he doesn't want them to dig too hard.
It's because McCain is where he is because of his marriage to his second wife, Cindy. No, Cindy Hensley McCain is not where the story begins. She was a young 25 when McCain married her (he was 43). According to the Arizona Republic on June 5, 1999, McCain joked that his marriage was based on a 'tissue of lies.' Both he and she had lied to each other, she claiming to be older than she was and he claiming to be younger. Yeah, I know-- what a good foundation for a marriage to start off on. To their credit the McCains however have stayed together. Or maybe there are other reasons...
One wonders what Cindy told McCain about her father. When did McCain learn how his father-in-law Jim Hensley made his fortune? Sooner or later he had to be dealt in on the 'family jewels.' After all, they helped finance a run for Congress and not long after that for the Senate.
Jim Hensley and his brother Eugene went to work after World War II for Kemper Marley, a wealthy wholesale liquor distributor. Marley, in fact, had once been a bookie, getting his start working for the Transamerica Wire Service, a betting service established by mafiosi Gus Greenbaum (who was murdered with his wife when their throats were slashed in bed in 1958). Until 1947, liquor was rationed by the government. Apparently Marley did quite well in spite of the restrictions, and in 1948 the reason why became clear. Eugene and Jim Hensley were convicted of falsifying records on behalf of Marley's distributorship, United Liquor (along with fifty other Marley employees) to conceal the illegal distribution of hundreds of cases of liquor. Jim Hensley got a six month suspended sentence.
In 1953, Jim Hensley, then the General Manager for United Liquor, was once more charged for doing the same thing again. Marley paid for top notch legal representation though (future Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist.) Hensley still went to prison, but took the fall when the rest of the company was cleared. According to an article in American Mafia.com, Marley rewarded Hensley for his loyalty to the organization:
When Hensley strolled out of the joint, Marley bought his silence with a lucrative Phoenix-based Budweiser beer distributorship.
That distributorship and the rest of Marley's empire did very well over the decades for both Hensley and Marley, making both men multi-millionaires.
In fact, Marley was interested in more than just liquor. In 1976, then Gov. Raul Castro, a Democrat, appointed Marley, then a billionaire and the state's richest man, to the state racing commission.
And that's when one of those pesky investigative reporters got in the way. The reporter's name was Don Bolles and he worked for the Arizona Republic. Bolles discovered a land fraud ring and other crimes that appeared to lead to Sen. Barry Goldwater and other movers and shakers in Arizona. And he discovered that Kemper Marley, newly appointed to the State Board Racing Commission, had connections to the Mafia. In fact, Marley was a close associate of Peter Licavoli, the mob boss for Arizona. Marley had also served as Chairman of the Board for Valley National Bank, which helped bankroll Bugsy Siegel's construction of the Flamingo in Las Vegas. Digging into Marley's past also uncovered his earlier work for Gus Greenbaum. The revelations forced Marley to resign from the commission.
And Kemper Marley and his associates in the Mafia weren't people whose business you interfered with lightly.
On June 2, 1976, Bolles climbed into his car and was blown apart by a bomb under the driver's seat. Pieces of his body were strewn around the parking lot. Bolles amazingly survived for eleven days and said to investgators on the scene, "They finally got me. The Mafia. Emprise. Find John (Harvey) Adamson."
Adamson was later convicted of the murder. But who hired him? That trail was never really followed up on, according to members of the Arizona Project, a group of reporters who began looking into mob ties after the murder.
Following Bolles' death, more than 30 journalists from the then-newly formed Investigative Reporters and Editors (IRE) group arrived in Phoenix to carry out their late colleague's work....
Don Devereux, another Arizona Project reporter, feels the IRE team may have trusted the authorities too much. "We accepted very uncritically their scenario. In retrospect, we were very naive to get lead around. It really isn't something that we should be running around congratulating ourselves about," says Devereux of the IRE investigation...
"The biggest disservice we did to Bolles was not paying more attention to him," says Devereux. "His dying words were words we should have glommed onto a little more seriously, because when he was lying on the pavement he said: `Adamson, Emprise, Mafia. ... Emprise was almost Bolles' white whale. He was obsessed by them...."
Emprise, a Buffalo, NY based sports concessionire with known mob ties, had a circuit of Greyhound racing tracks in Arizona. So who was named to the Racing Commission was of vital interest to Emprise. Enter Kemper Marley. Exit Kemper Marley, courtesy of Bolles.
The Phoenix police theorized that Marley wanting revenge enlisted the help of local contractor Max Dunlap. Dunlap then allegedly hired Adamson to carry out the bombing. Adamson claimed that plumber James Robison assisted him.
Over the years, Dunlap and Robison have maintained their innocence. Dunlap remains incarcerated.** Although, Robison gained acquittal in a retrial, he is still awaiting release from prison on a related charge. Meanwhile, the state paroled Adamson [in 1996], and he disappeared into the federal witness protection program.
The Phoenix police never even arrested Marley, who died in 1990.
**-- Dunlap has since died in prison after the source article was published.
Meanwhile, Jim Hensley remained a close confidante and associate of Kemper Marley. In fact, it was Bolles who wrote that the Hensleys had bought Ruidoso Downs horse racing track in New Mexico on behalf of Marley. Eugene Hensley later sold the track to a buyer linked to Emprise (linked here as described in the Phoenix Gazette, Jan. 4, 1990.)
One thing that Marley and Hensley didn't have-- governmental authority themselves. They had to depend on their friends in government to help them out. But then Hensley got a gift-- his daughter married the former Navy pilot and decorated veteran of the Vietnam conflict, John McCain. Hensley knew right away what to do. According to an article published in 2000 by the Phoenix New Times,
[McCain] retired from the military in 1980, divorced his first wife, wed Arizona native Cindy Lou Hensley and moved here to plunge into the world of politics. His first job in Arizona was as a public affairs agent for Hensley & Company, one of the nation's largest beer distributors. He was paid $50,000 in 1982 to travel the state, touting the company's wares. But he was promoting himself as much as he was Budweiser beer. A better job description might have been "candidate."
Then in 1982, McCain ran for Congress. That takes some quick money, and McCain had access to it-- thanks to his father in law (whose employees at his liquor distributorship were 'persuaded' to donate thousands of dollars to McCain), and one of Hensley's friends, Charles Keating of the Lincoln S&L (I won't get into the Lincoln S&L scandal here because it is pretty well known by now that McCain was one of the 'Keating Five.') To seal the deal, Jim Hensley and Cindy Hensley McCain invested $359,100 in one of Keating's projects. In fact, when McCain first ran for the Senate, in 1986, even Kemper Marley, through his son Kemper Jr. (who was now running United Liquor-- Marley himself had become politically radioactive) donated money to him.
It has been said that the Mafia never really left, they have just moved upscale. That is certainly the case in Las Vegas, where the casinos are corporations and run in a businesslike manner (so a Bugsy Siegel would be an anachronism, but I'm also not sure I'd want to make an enemy out of some of the folks who have those offices on the top floor.) The original Cosa Nostra may have been largely broken up, but the remnants of the Mafia are still around, mostly in fat family bank accounts and people they have helped push into positions of power, and John McCain is privvy to one and is the other.
Cross-posted at Night Bird's Fountain and Coalition for a Republican-Free America.
And one of McCain's biggest assets, according to most of these people is that he eschews negative campaigning.
There is a good reason for that though. It's a tale that involves organized crime, corruption and murder. Let's say that John McCain never runs a negative ad against his opponents because he doesn't want them to dig too hard.
It's because McCain is where he is because of his marriage to his second wife, Cindy. No, Cindy Hensley McCain is not where the story begins. She was a young 25 when McCain married her (he was 43). According to the Arizona Republic on June 5, 1999, McCain joked that his marriage was based on a 'tissue of lies.' Both he and she had lied to each other, she claiming to be older than she was and he claiming to be younger. Yeah, I know-- what a good foundation for a marriage to start off on. To their credit the McCains however have stayed together. Or maybe there are other reasons...
One wonders what Cindy told McCain about her father. When did McCain learn how his father-in-law Jim Hensley made his fortune? Sooner or later he had to be dealt in on the 'family jewels.' After all, they helped finance a run for Congress and not long after that for the Senate.
Jim Hensley and his brother Eugene went to work after World War II for Kemper Marley, a wealthy wholesale liquor distributor. Marley, in fact, had once been a bookie, getting his start working for the Transamerica Wire Service, a betting service established by mafiosi Gus Greenbaum (who was murdered with his wife when their throats were slashed in bed in 1958). Until 1947, liquor was rationed by the government. Apparently Marley did quite well in spite of the restrictions, and in 1948 the reason why became clear. Eugene and Jim Hensley were convicted of falsifying records on behalf of Marley's distributorship, United Liquor (along with fifty other Marley employees) to conceal the illegal distribution of hundreds of cases of liquor. Jim Hensley got a six month suspended sentence.
In 1953, Jim Hensley, then the General Manager for United Liquor, was once more charged for doing the same thing again. Marley paid for top notch legal representation though (future Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist.) Hensley still went to prison, but took the fall when the rest of the company was cleared. According to an article in American Mafia.com, Marley rewarded Hensley for his loyalty to the organization:
When Hensley strolled out of the joint, Marley bought his silence with a lucrative Phoenix-based Budweiser beer distributorship.
That distributorship and the rest of Marley's empire did very well over the decades for both Hensley and Marley, making both men multi-millionaires.
In fact, Marley was interested in more than just liquor. In 1976, then Gov. Raul Castro, a Democrat, appointed Marley, then a billionaire and the state's richest man, to the state racing commission.
And that's when one of those pesky investigative reporters got in the way. The reporter's name was Don Bolles and he worked for the Arizona Republic. Bolles discovered a land fraud ring and other crimes that appeared to lead to Sen. Barry Goldwater and other movers and shakers in Arizona. And he discovered that Kemper Marley, newly appointed to the State Board Racing Commission, had connections to the Mafia. In fact, Marley was a close associate of Peter Licavoli, the mob boss for Arizona. Marley had also served as Chairman of the Board for Valley National Bank, which helped bankroll Bugsy Siegel's construction of the Flamingo in Las Vegas. Digging into Marley's past also uncovered his earlier work for Gus Greenbaum. The revelations forced Marley to resign from the commission.
And Kemper Marley and his associates in the Mafia weren't people whose business you interfered with lightly.
On June 2, 1976, Bolles climbed into his car and was blown apart by a bomb under the driver's seat. Pieces of his body were strewn around the parking lot. Bolles amazingly survived for eleven days and said to investgators on the scene, "They finally got me. The Mafia. Emprise. Find John (Harvey) Adamson."
Adamson was later convicted of the murder. But who hired him? That trail was never really followed up on, according to members of the Arizona Project, a group of reporters who began looking into mob ties after the murder.
Following Bolles' death, more than 30 journalists from the then-newly formed Investigative Reporters and Editors (IRE) group arrived in Phoenix to carry out their late colleague's work....
Don Devereux, another Arizona Project reporter, feels the IRE team may have trusted the authorities too much. "We accepted very uncritically their scenario. In retrospect, we were very naive to get lead around. It really isn't something that we should be running around congratulating ourselves about," says Devereux of the IRE investigation...
"The biggest disservice we did to Bolles was not paying more attention to him," says Devereux. "His dying words were words we should have glommed onto a little more seriously, because when he was lying on the pavement he said: `Adamson, Emprise, Mafia. ... Emprise was almost Bolles' white whale. He was obsessed by them...."
Emprise, a Buffalo, NY based sports concessionire with known mob ties, had a circuit of Greyhound racing tracks in Arizona. So who was named to the Racing Commission was of vital interest to Emprise. Enter Kemper Marley. Exit Kemper Marley, courtesy of Bolles.
The Phoenix police theorized that Marley wanting revenge enlisted the help of local contractor Max Dunlap. Dunlap then allegedly hired Adamson to carry out the bombing. Adamson claimed that plumber James Robison assisted him.
Over the years, Dunlap and Robison have maintained their innocence. Dunlap remains incarcerated.** Although, Robison gained acquittal in a retrial, he is still awaiting release from prison on a related charge. Meanwhile, the state paroled Adamson [in 1996], and he disappeared into the federal witness protection program.
The Phoenix police never even arrested Marley, who died in 1990.
**-- Dunlap has since died in prison after the source article was published.
Meanwhile, Jim Hensley remained a close confidante and associate of Kemper Marley. In fact, it was Bolles who wrote that the Hensleys had bought Ruidoso Downs horse racing track in New Mexico on behalf of Marley. Eugene Hensley later sold the track to a buyer linked to Emprise (linked here as described in the Phoenix Gazette, Jan. 4, 1990.)
One thing that Marley and Hensley didn't have-- governmental authority themselves. They had to depend on their friends in government to help them out. But then Hensley got a gift-- his daughter married the former Navy pilot and decorated veteran of the Vietnam conflict, John McCain. Hensley knew right away what to do. According to an article published in 2000 by the Phoenix New Times,
[McCain] retired from the military in 1980, divorced his first wife, wed Arizona native Cindy Lou Hensley and moved here to plunge into the world of politics. His first job in Arizona was as a public affairs agent for Hensley & Company, one of the nation's largest beer distributors. He was paid $50,000 in 1982 to travel the state, touting the company's wares. But he was promoting himself as much as he was Budweiser beer. A better job description might have been "candidate."
Then in 1982, McCain ran for Congress. That takes some quick money, and McCain had access to it-- thanks to his father in law (whose employees at his liquor distributorship were 'persuaded' to donate thousands of dollars to McCain), and one of Hensley's friends, Charles Keating of the Lincoln S&L (I won't get into the Lincoln S&L scandal here because it is pretty well known by now that McCain was one of the 'Keating Five.') To seal the deal, Jim Hensley and Cindy Hensley McCain invested $359,100 in one of Keating's projects. In fact, when McCain first ran for the Senate, in 1986, even Kemper Marley, through his son Kemper Jr. (who was now running United Liquor-- Marley himself had become politically radioactive) donated money to him.
It has been said that the Mafia never really left, they have just moved upscale. That is certainly the case in Las Vegas, where the casinos are corporations and run in a businesslike manner (so a Bugsy Siegel would be an anachronism, but I'm also not sure I'd want to make an enemy out of some of the folks who have those offices on the top floor.) The original Cosa Nostra may have been largely broken up, but the remnants of the Mafia are still around, mostly in fat family bank accounts and people they have helped push into positions of power, and John McCain is privvy to one and is the other.
Cross-posted at Night Bird's Fountain and Coalition for a Republican-Free America.
Time Person of the Year-- another 'feel-good' cheerleader award.
I thought Time magazine had already become hopelessly worried about bad press, when choosing their 'person of the year.' Remember, this is the same outfit who, when news was real news, didn't flinch at picking people like Adolf Hitler (1938), Josef Stalin (1939 and 1942) or Ayatollah Khomeini (1979)as their person of the year. Back then the award meant something, a person who (for better or worse) influenced the news and world events more than anyone else. In 1982, a year when relatively little news was made outside the Falkland Islands and we were entering the digital age, Time chose 'the computer.' And certainly a good case could be made for it at the time.
Sometimes they have picked groups of people, such as American scientists (1960), American women (1975) or philanthropists (last year-- though I would have jointly picked Michael Brown, Ray Nagin and Max Mayfield for 2005, and that's not a good thing). I'm not complaining about some of these choices, but it bothers me that lately their choices have seemed designed to choose the 'person' of the year primarily without ticking anyone off. They have picked George W. Bush twice-- in 2000 and 2004. What exactly did he do then? He won an election. Fine. And it does merit consideration. But it seems to me that a President has to do something besides just win an election (which could have been considered the case in 2004, but not in 2000). Bill Clinton similarly won in 1992 (though his other year, 1998, was a joint appearance with Kenneth Starr.) Then this year they just picked 'you.' OK, I guess we live in a feels-good puff-news culture.
Even when they have picked a person, it seems they have gone out of their way to 1) try to make it a surprise, and 2) make it a non-controversial pick. For example, in 2001, the obvious choice would have been bin Laden, but they could be excused for picking Rudy Giuliani, who certainly did a great job that day in New York. In 2004, Bush won the election but Karl Rove would have been a better choice (hey--I'm trying to stay non-partisan in this post-- and honestly Rove in 2004 should have gotten it.) This year there were several newsmakers who probably deserved it more than 'you.' And yes, a lot of them are Democrats (this just wasn't a good year for Republicans). But if they'd picked Nancy Pelosi or Rahm Emmanuel or Harry Reid or Howard Dean, of course the right wing bashers (who forget quickly the two time selection of Bush) would certainly have jumped all over them for it. And to a lesser extent so would I in the case of Pelosi and Reid-- let's see what they do, not just that they've won (though Dean or Emmanuel, as strategists, deserve consideration.) To be honest, the Republicans who made the most news this year were Jack Abramoff, Bob Ney and Mark Foley; I suppose you could pick them all together, but in fact this election was a Democratic win more than it was a Republican loss.
Internationally, Hezbollah leader Sayyed Nasrallah, Prime Minister al-Maliki of Iraq, Russian President-becoming-dictator Vladimir Putin and N. Korean dictator Kim Jong Il should be considered. Even Fidel Castro has made more news by his possible slow death than he has made in years when he was alive and vibrant. Keep in mind that I don't like any of those folks, but they largely drove the international news cycle.
That said, my own pick for man of the year is someone who I thoroughly despise, and who I would never want to have anything to do with. But in the true spirit of the award, intended to name the biggest news maker and person who has done the most to change the world for better or worse, not just the popular choice or choice without controversy, I would have to say
Mahmud Ahmadinejad.
And my guess is that if the publishers of Time who weren't afraid to pick someone like a Hitler or a Stalin, realizing they were writing with an eye to history instead of just the current sales cycle, were making the selection, that is who I suspect they would have named as well.
Sometimes they have picked groups of people, such as American scientists (1960), American women (1975) or philanthropists (last year-- though I would have jointly picked Michael Brown, Ray Nagin and Max Mayfield for 2005, and that's not a good thing). I'm not complaining about some of these choices, but it bothers me that lately their choices have seemed designed to choose the 'person' of the year primarily without ticking anyone off. They have picked George W. Bush twice-- in 2000 and 2004. What exactly did he do then? He won an election. Fine. And it does merit consideration. But it seems to me that a President has to do something besides just win an election (which could have been considered the case in 2004, but not in 2000). Bill Clinton similarly won in 1992 (though his other year, 1998, was a joint appearance with Kenneth Starr.) Then this year they just picked 'you.' OK, I guess we live in a feels-good puff-news culture.
Even when they have picked a person, it seems they have gone out of their way to 1) try to make it a surprise, and 2) make it a non-controversial pick. For example, in 2001, the obvious choice would have been bin Laden, but they could be excused for picking Rudy Giuliani, who certainly did a great job that day in New York. In 2004, Bush won the election but Karl Rove would have been a better choice (hey--I'm trying to stay non-partisan in this post-- and honestly Rove in 2004 should have gotten it.) This year there were several newsmakers who probably deserved it more than 'you.' And yes, a lot of them are Democrats (this just wasn't a good year for Republicans). But if they'd picked Nancy Pelosi or Rahm Emmanuel or Harry Reid or Howard Dean, of course the right wing bashers (who forget quickly the two time selection of Bush) would certainly have jumped all over them for it. And to a lesser extent so would I in the case of Pelosi and Reid-- let's see what they do, not just that they've won (though Dean or Emmanuel, as strategists, deserve consideration.) To be honest, the Republicans who made the most news this year were Jack Abramoff, Bob Ney and Mark Foley; I suppose you could pick them all together, but in fact this election was a Democratic win more than it was a Republican loss.
Internationally, Hezbollah leader Sayyed Nasrallah, Prime Minister al-Maliki of Iraq, Russian President-becoming-dictator Vladimir Putin and N. Korean dictator Kim Jong Il should be considered. Even Fidel Castro has made more news by his possible slow death than he has made in years when he was alive and vibrant. Keep in mind that I don't like any of those folks, but they largely drove the international news cycle.
That said, my own pick for man of the year is someone who I thoroughly despise, and who I would never want to have anything to do with. But in the true spirit of the award, intended to name the biggest news maker and person who has done the most to change the world for better or worse, not just the popular choice or choice without controversy, I would have to say
Mahmud Ahmadinejad.
And my guess is that if the publishers of Time who weren't afraid to pick someone like a Hitler or a Stalin, realizing they were writing with an eye to history instead of just the current sales cycle, were making the selection, that is who I suspect they would have named as well.
Friday, December 15, 2006
Choose one from column A and one from column B...
It's not hard to see why President Bush has pushed back his unveiling of the 'new' Iraq policy until January.
Just look at the advice he's been getting lately: Withdraw troops. Maintain current troop levels. Send more troops. Negotiate with Iraq's neighbors. Don't negotiate with them. Don't tinker with the Iraqi experiment in Democracy. Work to strengthen the Shiite-Kurd dominated government and focus on fighting the Sunni insurgency that is opposed to it. Shift the fight to Moqtada al-Sadr's Shiite militia and try to get the Sunnis to replace al-Sadr in the governing coalition. Give more responsibility to the Iraqis to police themselves. Take responsibility away by embedding small units composed of U.S. troops in larger Iraqi units. "Redouble" our efforts in Iraq by pouring in as many troops as we can and gamble everything on an all-out offensive to end the violence. De-emphasize Iraq and go on an all-out offensive in Afghanistan.
In other words, name your suggestion, and there is someone who is recommending it to the President.
But here is the rub: Whichever of these suggestions the President uses to cobble together the 'new' Iraq plan (I'm still not sure what the 'old' one was) he had it available to him for the past four years! But the President's by now well-known stubbornness and resistance to change cost us hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of lives before he even began working on the 'new' plan for Iraq.
Whatever he announces as the new Iraq plan (and IMO, any suggestion that gets us into the pool of quicksand any deeper must be opposed, while other suggestions make some sense), the simple fact that it has taken this long (and obviously even now he was only spurred to action by an election loss fueled by discontent over Iraq) for him to reconsider what we are doing in Iraq should prove the man's incompetence, if there was ever any doubt.
Just look at the advice he's been getting lately: Withdraw troops. Maintain current troop levels. Send more troops. Negotiate with Iraq's neighbors. Don't negotiate with them. Don't tinker with the Iraqi experiment in Democracy. Work to strengthen the Shiite-Kurd dominated government and focus on fighting the Sunni insurgency that is opposed to it. Shift the fight to Moqtada al-Sadr's Shiite militia and try to get the Sunnis to replace al-Sadr in the governing coalition. Give more responsibility to the Iraqis to police themselves. Take responsibility away by embedding small units composed of U.S. troops in larger Iraqi units. "Redouble" our efforts in Iraq by pouring in as many troops as we can and gamble everything on an all-out offensive to end the violence. De-emphasize Iraq and go on an all-out offensive in Afghanistan.
In other words, name your suggestion, and there is someone who is recommending it to the President.
But here is the rub: Whichever of these suggestions the President uses to cobble together the 'new' Iraq plan (I'm still not sure what the 'old' one was) he had it available to him for the past four years! But the President's by now well-known stubbornness and resistance to change cost us hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of lives before he even began working on the 'new' plan for Iraq.
Whatever he announces as the new Iraq plan (and IMO, any suggestion that gets us into the pool of quicksand any deeper must be opposed, while other suggestions make some sense), the simple fact that it has taken this long (and obviously even now he was only spurred to action by an election loss fueled by discontent over Iraq) for him to reconsider what we are doing in Iraq should prove the man's incompetence, if there was ever any doubt.
Thursday, December 14, 2006
Tim Johnson hospitalized
Senator Tim Johnson, (D-SD) is right now undergoing brain surgery for something. It was intially reported as a stroke, then as not a stroke, but now is apparently something serious enough to require emergency brain surgery in the middle of the night.
First of all, I am praying both for Sen. Johnson and his family at this difficult time. With conflicting reports out, the only thing that we can say for sure is that it will be some time, at least a day or two, before we know exactly what this is and how serious it is.
In the event that Johnson is unable to continue his service in the U.S. Senate, then South Dakota Governor Rounds, a Republican, will appoint his replacement. Rounds will appoint a Republican, as is his right, and it will, if it happens, undo one of the main results of the elections. In a year when more Democratic Senate seats than Republican seats were up for election in the Senate, Democrats managed to win six seats (including two by a combined 9,000 vote margin) and complete an improbable takeover of the Senate. With Justice Stevens' heart problems, this is of critical importance. Without it, it is conceivable that President Bush could appoint a fifth 'strict constructionist' justice to the Supreme Court and radically alter the direction of the court (which is now split 4-1-4, with Anthony Kennedy the center of the court.)
Now, I don't blame the GOP if they get the opportunity, for seizing it. Democrats would do the same. In fact, a few years ago, Paul Coverdell, a Republican Senator from Georgia died tragically in the middle of his term, and then Democratic Governor Roy Barnes selected a Democrat to replace him (though I would question Barnes' judgement in the matter; he selected his predecessor in the Governor's mansion, Zell Miller, who in his relatively brief stay in the Senate rarely voted with other Democrats and used his position to bash them, even going so far as to endorse President Bush for re-election.)
If there is a silver lining it is that even if the Senate becomes 50-50 with Dick Cheney breaking the tie and returning power to the Republicans, it will be moved much to the left from where it was, and Democrats will only need to convince a single Republican to join them (plus keep Joe Lieberman and Ben Nelson in line) in order to block anything. But that is still a lot different from having control.
First of all, I am praying both for Sen. Johnson and his family at this difficult time. With conflicting reports out, the only thing that we can say for sure is that it will be some time, at least a day or two, before we know exactly what this is and how serious it is.
In the event that Johnson is unable to continue his service in the U.S. Senate, then South Dakota Governor Rounds, a Republican, will appoint his replacement. Rounds will appoint a Republican, as is his right, and it will, if it happens, undo one of the main results of the elections. In a year when more Democratic Senate seats than Republican seats were up for election in the Senate, Democrats managed to win six seats (including two by a combined 9,000 vote margin) and complete an improbable takeover of the Senate. With Justice Stevens' heart problems, this is of critical importance. Without it, it is conceivable that President Bush could appoint a fifth 'strict constructionist' justice to the Supreme Court and radically alter the direction of the court (which is now split 4-1-4, with Anthony Kennedy the center of the court.)
Now, I don't blame the GOP if they get the opportunity, for seizing it. Democrats would do the same. In fact, a few years ago, Paul Coverdell, a Republican Senator from Georgia died tragically in the middle of his term, and then Democratic Governor Roy Barnes selected a Democrat to replace him (though I would question Barnes' judgement in the matter; he selected his predecessor in the Governor's mansion, Zell Miller, who in his relatively brief stay in the Senate rarely voted with other Democrats and used his position to bash them, even going so far as to endorse President Bush for re-election.)
If there is a silver lining it is that even if the Senate becomes 50-50 with Dick Cheney breaking the tie and returning power to the Republicans, it will be moved much to the left from where it was, and Democrats will only need to convince a single Republican to join them (plus keep Joe Lieberman and Ben Nelson in line) in order to block anything. But that is still a lot different from having control.
Tuesday, December 12, 2006
Nothing I could dream up is as bizarre as what the nutbag right really comes up with
Hat tip to Feministing.
According to the latest wacky theory being kicked around on the far right, A Devil Food is turning our kids into homosexuals.
No, that's the real headline.
According to the article,
There's a slow poison out there that's severely damaging our children and threatening to tear apart our culture. The ironic part is, it's a "health food," one of our most popular.
The dangerous food I'm speaking of is soy. Soybean products are feminizing, and they're all over the place. You can hardly escape them anymore...
Unfortunately, when you eat or drink a lot of soy stuff, you're also getting substantial quantities of estrogens.
Estrogens are female hormones. If you're a woman, you're flooding your system with a substance it can't handle in surplus. If you're a man, you're suppressing your masculinity and stimulating your "female side," physically and mentally....
Soy is feminizing, and commonly leads to... sexual confusion and homosexuality.
So that's it! The geniuses in the nutbag right have finally figured it out! Burn the U.S. soy bean crop and there will be no more homosexuals. Oh, and if you meet a guy from Iowa, just keep in mind that it is the soybean capitol of America (that's right, it wasn't Klinger, it was really Hawkeye all the time.) And go back to that headline-- obviously soybeans weren't put here for the benefit of civilization, no, they were planted by the devil. Buy a bottle of soy sauce, and you're bringing Lucifer home with you from the supermarket.
Yeesh! You have to admit, they have gotten pretty creative trying to justify their anti-homosexual ranting.
According to the latest wacky theory being kicked around on the far right, A Devil Food is turning our kids into homosexuals.
No, that's the real headline.
According to the article,
There's a slow poison out there that's severely damaging our children and threatening to tear apart our culture. The ironic part is, it's a "health food," one of our most popular.
The dangerous food I'm speaking of is soy. Soybean products are feminizing, and they're all over the place. You can hardly escape them anymore...
Unfortunately, when you eat or drink a lot of soy stuff, you're also getting substantial quantities of estrogens.
Estrogens are female hormones. If you're a woman, you're flooding your system with a substance it can't handle in surplus. If you're a man, you're suppressing your masculinity and stimulating your "female side," physically and mentally....
Soy is feminizing, and commonly leads to... sexual confusion and homosexuality.
So that's it! The geniuses in the nutbag right have finally figured it out! Burn the U.S. soy bean crop and there will be no more homosexuals. Oh, and if you meet a guy from Iowa, just keep in mind that it is the soybean capitol of America (that's right, it wasn't Klinger, it was really Hawkeye all the time.) And go back to that headline-- obviously soybeans weren't put here for the benefit of civilization, no, they were planted by the devil. Buy a bottle of soy sauce, and you're bringing Lucifer home with you from the supermarket.
Yeesh! You have to admit, they have gotten pretty creative trying to justify their anti-homosexual ranting.
Saturday, December 09, 2006
Wonder if his bank account is frozen, too.
Just a couple of days ago I wrote about how wise Democratic voters in Georgia had been to kick out Cynthia McKinney. And it is worth noting that Republican primary voters who didn't have the guts to pull the primary levers for James B. Harris in Ohio and Tom Campbell in Houston, instead voted for Bob Ney and Tom DeLay respectively (on the way to losing both districts to Democrats.)
So up until this evening, I could easily make the argument that Democrats had a better track record in terms of cleaning house on their own bad apples than Republicans did.
Unfortunately I can't make that argument right now. It looks like William Jefferson will retain his seat in a runoff against Karen Carter.
I know that Katrina has rearranged political reality there to a degree that is almost incomprehensible. And Carter was hurt in largely white Jefferson Parish (about 30% of the district is in Jefferson Parish) by a comment she made during Katrina that angered some people there. But while losing by almost 3-1 in Jefferson Parish, she ran slightly behind Jefferson in Orleans Parish (the city itself) as well.
Jefferson, of course is under investigation by the FBI. They found $90,000 in cold, hard cash in his freezer (emphasis on the word, 'cold' there). He has been named as one of the most corrupt members of Congress. I don't understand why anybody would vote for the man. And it's not even a matter of party loyalty, as Jefferson and Carter are both Democrats.
Maybe the FBI and/or the House Ethics Committee will do what the voters failed to do tonight. Fire him.
So up until this evening, I could easily make the argument that Democrats had a better track record in terms of cleaning house on their own bad apples than Republicans did.
Unfortunately I can't make that argument right now. It looks like William Jefferson will retain his seat in a runoff against Karen Carter.
I know that Katrina has rearranged political reality there to a degree that is almost incomprehensible. And Carter was hurt in largely white Jefferson Parish (about 30% of the district is in Jefferson Parish) by a comment she made during Katrina that angered some people there. But while losing by almost 3-1 in Jefferson Parish, she ran slightly behind Jefferson in Orleans Parish (the city itself) as well.
Jefferson, of course is under investigation by the FBI. They found $90,000 in cold, hard cash in his freezer (emphasis on the word, 'cold' there). He has been named as one of the most corrupt members of Congress. I don't understand why anybody would vote for the man. And it's not even a matter of party loyalty, as Jefferson and Carter are both Democrats.
Maybe the FBI and/or the House Ethics Committee will do what the voters failed to do tonight. Fire him.
Friday, December 08, 2006
Foley investigation shows Hastert 'negligent.'
A special four member House investigative panel consisting of two Democrats and two Republicans reported their conclusions today that the House Republican leadership, and in particular Speaker Dennis Hastert had been negligent and in fact had chosen to remain "remain willfully ignorant of the potential consequences," of former rep. Mark Foley's emails to teenage pages and former pages.
The report also singled out two other members of the Republican leadership: Majority Leader John Boehner and GOP house campaign committee chairman Tom Reynolds.
This report did come out after the election-- and likely spared Reynolds from losing his district in Congress (he beat back a challenge from Jack Davis by 2 percent).
The report does say that the GOP leadership "did not violate any Congressional rules."
I would assume not. They write the rules. If the best defense you can give is that you didn't 'violate the House rules (which you yourself wrote)' then you deserve to lose your job (as Hastert did.)
It did point one finger at a Democrat-- a congressional staffer who it says leaked this to the press. However, that only proves (once again) how stupid coverups are. If you are a politician and try to cover up something, then it rarely means it won't come out. Much more likely is that it will come out, but rather than when and how you choose, at a time and method of your opponent's choosing. But like many things, that seems like common sense to me but almost an impossible thought to most politicians.
The report also singled out two other members of the Republican leadership: Majority Leader John Boehner and GOP house campaign committee chairman Tom Reynolds.
This report did come out after the election-- and likely spared Reynolds from losing his district in Congress (he beat back a challenge from Jack Davis by 2 percent).
The report does say that the GOP leadership "did not violate any Congressional rules."
I would assume not. They write the rules. If the best defense you can give is that you didn't 'violate the House rules (which you yourself wrote)' then you deserve to lose your job (as Hastert did.)
It did point one finger at a Democrat-- a congressional staffer who it says leaked this to the press. However, that only proves (once again) how stupid coverups are. If you are a politician and try to cover up something, then it rarely means it won't come out. Much more likely is that it will come out, but rather than when and how you choose, at a time and method of your opponent's choosing. But like many things, that seems like common sense to me but almost an impossible thought to most politicians.
McKinney Bill of Impeachment will fail (and it should).
Cynthia McKinney (D-GA), the only incumbent Democrat voted out of office (pending the result of the Jefferson-Carter runoff in Louisiana) is leaving much as she held office-- in other words, anything but quietly.
McKinney introduced a bill to impeach the President.
WASHINGTON - In probably her final legislative act in Congress, outgoing Georgia Rep. Cynthia McKinney has introduced a bill to impeach President George W. Bush.
The legislation from the Democratic congresswoman has no chance of passage and serves as a symbolic parting shot not only at Bush but also at Democratic leaders. Incoming House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi has made clear that she will not entertain proposals to sanction Bush and has warned the liberal wing of her party against making political hay of impeachment.
There is a reason why the Democratic primary voters in Georgia decided to send Hank Johnson (a boring but earnest and hardworking DeKalb County commissioner) to Congress in place of McKinney. Corruption allegations and her much publicized run-in with Capitol Hill police aside, she is always grandstanding, and even on her way out of the House she is still doing the same.
Personally, I have never supported impeachment. There are two reasons for this. The first is on principle; impeachment was intended to be used for 'high crimes and misdemeanors,' and should not therefore be based on a President's policy decisions-- no matter how disastrous those may turn out to be. The second is practical; There is not enough support in the House to get there and certainly would cost much needed political momentum to do so, nor are there votes in the Senate to convict, the political price of such an overreaching would likely be that Democratic control of Congress would last for all of two years, and even if successful it would only make Dick Cheney the President.
But, even if there were to be impeachment, then there have to be some grounds for it. Even if some of my readers are right (and I know some of you who have posted here in the past support impeachment), then there would have to be a full investigation and accounting of why, not some half-baked bill like the one McKinney is offering.
Really, it is not a bill about George Bush at all. It is a bill about Cynthia McKinney. She is about to walk out of Congress tomorrow and into political obscurity. Because of her past behavior, it is unlikely that she will even be able to parlay her former office into a lobbying or consulting job like some retired congressmen do. Really, this is about her last chance to make a headline and in the process thumb the leadership in the eye, so she is taking it. And what it really points out is that even the long stream of Republicans who got booted this year are for the most part showing more class than Cynthia McKinney is on the way out.
McKinney introduced a bill to impeach the President.
WASHINGTON - In probably her final legislative act in Congress, outgoing Georgia Rep. Cynthia McKinney has introduced a bill to impeach President George W. Bush.
The legislation from the Democratic congresswoman has no chance of passage and serves as a symbolic parting shot not only at Bush but also at Democratic leaders. Incoming House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi has made clear that she will not entertain proposals to sanction Bush and has warned the liberal wing of her party against making political hay of impeachment.
There is a reason why the Democratic primary voters in Georgia decided to send Hank Johnson (a boring but earnest and hardworking DeKalb County commissioner) to Congress in place of McKinney. Corruption allegations and her much publicized run-in with Capitol Hill police aside, she is always grandstanding, and even on her way out of the House she is still doing the same.
Personally, I have never supported impeachment. There are two reasons for this. The first is on principle; impeachment was intended to be used for 'high crimes and misdemeanors,' and should not therefore be based on a President's policy decisions-- no matter how disastrous those may turn out to be. The second is practical; There is not enough support in the House to get there and certainly would cost much needed political momentum to do so, nor are there votes in the Senate to convict, the political price of such an overreaching would likely be that Democratic control of Congress would last for all of two years, and even if successful it would only make Dick Cheney the President.
But, even if there were to be impeachment, then there have to be some grounds for it. Even if some of my readers are right (and I know some of you who have posted here in the past support impeachment), then there would have to be a full investigation and accounting of why, not some half-baked bill like the one McKinney is offering.
Really, it is not a bill about George Bush at all. It is a bill about Cynthia McKinney. She is about to walk out of Congress tomorrow and into political obscurity. Because of her past behavior, it is unlikely that she will even be able to parlay her former office into a lobbying or consulting job like some retired congressmen do. Really, this is about her last chance to make a headline and in the process thumb the leadership in the eye, so she is taking it. And what it really points out is that even the long stream of Republicans who got booted this year are for the most part showing more class than Cynthia McKinney is on the way out.
Thursday, December 07, 2006
How stupid is stupid?
Remember the Dubai ports deal? Do you remember how the Bush administration didn't think that outsourcing our security to a company owned by the government of Dubai was a bad thing? This despite the fact that the government of Dubai was one of only three in the world to have recognized the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan (a move too radical even for Iran, Iraq or Syria), or that the 9/11 commission had pointed out that in February 1999 (six months after the African embassy bombings) the emir of Dubai had entertained bin Laden as a cherished guest at his hunting camp in Afghanistan.
Well, because most people have more common sense than the Bush administration (or those 'must wear blinders' conservatives who parrot every word in a White House press release), the Dubai ports deal never became reality. One would hope that the White House learned something from that and wouldn't repeat the mistake.
One would hope that, but one would be wrong. Today, it was announced that Dubai Ports World, the same firm that was eventually determined to be unacceptable for purposes of screening cargo coming into the U.S., will now be screening cargo coming in for nuclear material.
Yes, you read that right.
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Dubai Ports World, the Arab-owned company which set off a furor with its purchase of six U.S. port operations earlier this year, has been cleared to join a federal pilot program to test the methods used to screen U.S.-bound cargo for radiation.
The Security Freight Initiative involves the use of existing technology -- including streaming video and nuclear-detection devices -- at foreign ports, according to details announced Thursday by Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff.
The United States, however, "will not outsource our security," Chertoff said, adding that all decisions about whether cargo is allowed to continue to the United States "will be made 100 percent by U.S. officials."
And we are supposed to feel better because our guys will make the call on whether to let the cargo go? The whole concern is founded on whether Dubai's chumminess with bin Laden might allow some of bin Laden's people to infiltrate the system. Of course if an item fails an inspection it won't go, but then the goal of terrorists isn't to cause failed inspections. It's to figure a way out to sneak something past the inspectors. And if you are the inspector, well what else do I have to say?
Of course, it might not even be that any bin Laden sympathizers who are working for DPW would have to do slip anything past the inspection themselves. All they would have to do is learn enough about how the system works to figure out how to beat it.
I know that the Bush administration has trouble changing course. But even when they've already been forced to acknowlege the problem before, they still don't change their basic thinking.
Well, because most people have more common sense than the Bush administration (or those 'must wear blinders' conservatives who parrot every word in a White House press release), the Dubai ports deal never became reality. One would hope that the White House learned something from that and wouldn't repeat the mistake.
One would hope that, but one would be wrong. Today, it was announced that Dubai Ports World, the same firm that was eventually determined to be unacceptable for purposes of screening cargo coming into the U.S., will now be screening cargo coming in for nuclear material.
Yes, you read that right.
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Dubai Ports World, the Arab-owned company which set off a furor with its purchase of six U.S. port operations earlier this year, has been cleared to join a federal pilot program to test the methods used to screen U.S.-bound cargo for radiation.
The Security Freight Initiative involves the use of existing technology -- including streaming video and nuclear-detection devices -- at foreign ports, according to details announced Thursday by Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff.
The United States, however, "will not outsource our security," Chertoff said, adding that all decisions about whether cargo is allowed to continue to the United States "will be made 100 percent by U.S. officials."
And we are supposed to feel better because our guys will make the call on whether to let the cargo go? The whole concern is founded on whether Dubai's chumminess with bin Laden might allow some of bin Laden's people to infiltrate the system. Of course if an item fails an inspection it won't go, but then the goal of terrorists isn't to cause failed inspections. It's to figure a way out to sneak something past the inspectors. And if you are the inspector, well what else do I have to say?
Of course, it might not even be that any bin Laden sympathizers who are working for DPW would have to do slip anything past the inspection themselves. All they would have to do is learn enough about how the system works to figure out how to beat it.
I know that the Bush administration has trouble changing course. But even when they've already been forced to acknowlege the problem before, they still don't change their basic thinking.
Judge kicked out for sending late court arrivals to jail.
Today, according to a report on Ann Althouse's blog, the Florida Supreme Court has thrown Seminole County Judge John Sloop off the bench.
The reason is because two years ago, (apparently when Sloop was having a really bad hair day or something) he had eleven people who showed up late for court summarily arrested and put in jail. Then, when it turned out the reason they were late for court was because a courthouse employee had given them wrong directions, he still kept them there.
I'm surprised it took this long. If I did something that egregious at work, I'd be gone within a few hours (maybe a month if I insisted on fighting it.) To be honest it is frightening that someone with this kind of temperment was making decisions that affect other people's lives.
Of course, you do remember Seminole County don't you? That was the county where in the 2000 election, GOP campaign workers had been, in violation of the law, filling out and mailing absentee ballots themselves (truth is, Seminole County and the neighboring county of Martin were the two counties where the 2000 election was really stolen, while everyone was watching Palm Beach county.)
The reason is because two years ago, (apparently when Sloop was having a really bad hair day or something) he had eleven people who showed up late for court summarily arrested and put in jail. Then, when it turned out the reason they were late for court was because a courthouse employee had given them wrong directions, he still kept them there.
I'm surprised it took this long. If I did something that egregious at work, I'd be gone within a few hours (maybe a month if I insisted on fighting it.) To be honest it is frightening that someone with this kind of temperment was making decisions that affect other people's lives.
Of course, you do remember Seminole County don't you? That was the county where in the 2000 election, GOP campaign workers had been, in violation of the law, filling out and mailing absentee ballots themselves (truth is, Seminole County and the neighboring county of Martin were the two counties where the 2000 election was really stolen, while everyone was watching Palm Beach county.)
Wednesday, December 06, 2006
Iraq study group.
Today the Iraq Study Group report was released.
To be honest, for the most party it looks like an excuse to continue more or less what we are doing. There is no timetable for withdrawl, it says that we will have to turn things over to the Iraqis, but then that is what we are doing.
It is spiced with common sense, but of the variety that is new only because our leadership has been so tone deaf to reality for so long. For example, it acknowledges that if there ever was a window to turn Iraq into a stable democracy, that has long since been closed. It describes the situation as 'grave and deteriorating.' Well, D'oh. It talks about withdrawl, but not giving specific dates. It says that we have to deal with Iran and Syria. Well, yeah, when you talk about ending a war then you have to deal with people who are at least by proxy on the other side. I've heard some conservatives complain about that, and it only shows how out of it they are. George Bush could meet a hundred times with Tony Blair and al-Maliki but that wouldn't solve anything. It's like people who were opposed to ever negotiating with communists. Ultimately, we had to. In order to get out of Vietnam, Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger met with and negotiated with communists. Vietnamese communists, Soviet communists, Chinese communists. It doesn't mean that we should trust a guy like Ahmadinejad, but the reality is that he can make a lot of things happen in Iraq, both good and bad, that we have no control over, and Iran has become much, much more powerful as a player in the region than it was when we invaded Iraq. So if our goal is to bring peace (or at least some semblance of stability) to Iraq so that we can get out 'with honor,' then we are going to have to deal with Iran. That is aside from the issue of trust. We have dealt with a lot of people we don't trust, but have made agreements which were in their best interests to keep. Everyone knows that we will have to negotiate with Iran except for a few people who have their heads in the sand and are still living in a pre-Iraq world when the U.S. pretty much dictated to the rest of the world, so the report spells it out.
This report does have the potential to provide some direction, but on the whole it seems more like a 'cover your behind' type report, seeking to justify our continued presence while providing cover for the President and his administration when the inevitable overtures to Tehran and Damascus to talk about peace are made.
To be honest, for the most party it looks like an excuse to continue more or less what we are doing. There is no timetable for withdrawl, it says that we will have to turn things over to the Iraqis, but then that is what we are doing.
It is spiced with common sense, but of the variety that is new only because our leadership has been so tone deaf to reality for so long. For example, it acknowledges that if there ever was a window to turn Iraq into a stable democracy, that has long since been closed. It describes the situation as 'grave and deteriorating.' Well, D'oh. It talks about withdrawl, but not giving specific dates. It says that we have to deal with Iran and Syria. Well, yeah, when you talk about ending a war then you have to deal with people who are at least by proxy on the other side. I've heard some conservatives complain about that, and it only shows how out of it they are. George Bush could meet a hundred times with Tony Blair and al-Maliki but that wouldn't solve anything. It's like people who were opposed to ever negotiating with communists. Ultimately, we had to. In order to get out of Vietnam, Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger met with and negotiated with communists. Vietnamese communists, Soviet communists, Chinese communists. It doesn't mean that we should trust a guy like Ahmadinejad, but the reality is that he can make a lot of things happen in Iraq, both good and bad, that we have no control over, and Iran has become much, much more powerful as a player in the region than it was when we invaded Iraq. So if our goal is to bring peace (or at least some semblance of stability) to Iraq so that we can get out 'with honor,' then we are going to have to deal with Iran. That is aside from the issue of trust. We have dealt with a lot of people we don't trust, but have made agreements which were in their best interests to keep. Everyone knows that we will have to negotiate with Iran except for a few people who have their heads in the sand and are still living in a pre-Iraq world when the U.S. pretty much dictated to the rest of the world, so the report spells it out.
This report does have the potential to provide some direction, but on the whole it seems more like a 'cover your behind' type report, seeking to justify our continued presence while providing cover for the President and his administration when the inevitable overtures to Tehran and Damascus to talk about peace are made.
Monday, December 04, 2006
Padilla blindfolded just to go to the dentist
We all know that the government claimed that U.S. citizen Jose Padilla was part of a 'dirty bomb' plot, and therefore held him with no charges for more than three years. We also know that after several courts ruled against them, they finally got a favorable court ruling and then quickly filed charges in order to prevent an appeal to the Supreme Court (sort of playing the game until the moment they were ahead and then taking the 'precedent' and jumping out.) However, there is no excuse for their putting a blindfold on him, just to go to the dentist for a root canal.
There are charges and countercharges in regard to how he is being treated right now. I'm not going to get into that go around. Suffice to say that this treatment is unwarranted, especially now that Padilla has been formally charged (though at least one charge has already been thrown out for lack of evidence and the judge has advised the government that some of the other charges are 'unnecessarily vague.'; We will see where that leads.)
If he is in fact guilty of a crime, then he should be tried like anyone else accused of a crime. Until then there is no reason to blindfold him so he won't find out where the dentist's office is.
Saturday, December 02, 2006
Will Jim Pederson run for Congress?
Today I went to the Democratic meeting in Tucson. One of the speakers described the gains that Democrats made this year in Arizona (in addition to maintaining the Governorship and the Attorney General's office, the booty for the year includes a pickup of two U.S. house seats, a state Senate seat and six seats in the State House of Representatives.) After going through this list, one other item was added, "Jim Pederson has positioned himself well for a future race."
Of course, Pederson lost to incumbent Senator Jon Kyl in a competitive Senate race. Pederson started the race 22 points down and cut the lead in half before losing by nine.
So on the way home, I started thinking about that comment. And the answer quickly became obvious. There are no more Senate seats up here until 2010, when John McCain (who may well be weakened by a failed Presidential run) is up, but that is the same year that Governor Napolitano is term-limited out, and if she wants the Senate nomination, I am pretty sure that no one in the Democratic party would support anyone else for it. Ditto with A.G. Terry Goddard, in regard to running for Governor in four years.
But, four years seems a bit long anyway. Pederson is a can-do type of guy, who is likely to dust himself off after his defeat and get right back into the game. He has the attitude of the type of athlete who may not win every match, but wins championships because he gets up after being knocked down and keeps going after it hard.
OK. So think two years. It's an off year for state offices, except for the legislature. But after rebuilding the Democratic party as the party Chair and then running for the Senate, I don't see Pederson settling for the legislature. He has already had more to do with what people see when they visit and live in Arizona than most of the politicians in the legislature have, and he's aiming for an office in Washington.
So at this point the answer became as obvious as the headlights on the other side of the road. Pederson is from Casa Grande, which because of how the district lines are drawn, is in CD 1. The same district I live in (though I live hours from Casa Grande). Pederson, if he runs in 2008, will run against Rick Renzi.
And that's great news, too if he does. Renzi, even if he survives all the scandals and investigations now under way, has gotten himself elected primarily because of two factors: 1. he has raised a lot of money and buried his opponents under an avalanche of negative ads, and 2. he has been blessed with opponents who have not been aggressive enough on hitting back.
In 2002, Renzi's opponent was George Cordova, in 2004 it was Paul Babbitt and this year it was Ellen Simon.
His races against Cordova and Simon were virtually carbon copies of each other. Renzi outright lied about both of them-- claiming that Cordova had embezzled money from a business he was a partner in and wired it his uncle in Mexico. This was a fabrication (obviously, since Renzi was accusing Cordova of some very serious crimes but Cordova not only didn't get prosecuted for any crimes, but later sued Renzi for slander-- a case that was settled out of court for an undisclosed sum of money.) So this year, Renzi did the same to Simon, claiming she had been 'President of the ACLU' in order to tie her to a Massachusetts case involving the man-boy love association. I went to a meeting where Simon pledged she would 'not be swift-boated.' Well, she was. Further, I know from personal knowlege her campaign was given the suggestion to buy large newspaper ads (relatively cheap compared to TV advertising) in order to dispute this crap, and it was never disputed until after the election (when I received an email from Ellen Simon explaining all of this-- after the election, mind you. A bit late, wasn't it? And I already knew of the false charges, having blogged on them several weeks earlier. I'm not one of the people she had to set the record straight with.) Besides all of this, neither Cordova nor Simon could really go after Renzi on his Virginia residency because there were some carpet-bagger issues with them as well. And though by some standards they were well-financed, in the end Renzi's millions of dollars in unanswered negative ads sank both of them.
Jim Pederson, in contrast, does whatever it takes to rebut the smear charges and does so rapidly (as we saw in this campaign.) He won't have to sue or send out a letter of explanation after the election. And, Jim is from Casa Grande (mentioned above) so he is a legitimate resident of CD 1. And he's got the money to match whatever crooked money Renzi rakes in from his eastern connections (this is part of what the ongoing investigation of Renzi is centered on.)
Paul Babbitt was a different kind of race for Renzi. Babbitt was from the district, having been a former Mayor of Flagstaff and later a Coconino County commissioner. He also raised an amount of money comparable to what Renzi raised. However, Babbitt, while a strong candidate on paper, and very earnest personally (personally, I like Paul), was not a very good campaigner. Paul is a thoughtful man and he would sometimes spend half an hour talking to a single voter. That is great if you are running for school board in a town of a couple of hundred people, but if you are running for Congress in a district of 800,000 people, it's not an efficient way to campaign. Babbitt didn't campaign very much on the reservations (which are traditionally the strongest part of the district for Democrats-- and it was again in 2004-- Renzi carried the Navajo reservation 51-49%, which shows how badly things went for Babbitt). Part of it was that while Babbitt raised a lot of money he didn't spend it very well. At the end of the campaign there were cases and cases of unopened Babbitt literature. Babbitt didn't spend much on TV ads compared to Renzi. And Renzi's ads mostly focused on two things-- Babbitt's record and his family. Babbitt of course had a long record as mayor of Flagstaff and as a commissioner. So Renzi's people picked through all those years of service and found what they could use to attack Babbitt (i.e. voting for a tax, voting to spend money on a new prison, which they distorted to make it sound unnecessarily wasteful.) Now I don't think there is anything wrong with attacking a record (it's there, after all) but a response to distortions is also to be expected, and Babbitt again, maybe because he'd spent so much on literature, just didn't seem to have much to come back with against the ads. And Babbitt had to convince a lot of ranchers and others who use the land that he was not his brother (former interior secretary Bruce, who is still not liked by a lot of cattlemen.)
But Pederson, clearly is not afraid to advertise on TV, and having never served in office he has no specific voting record. He does have a business record, which Kyl attacked this year, but by now that is old news and not many people care about what happened 20 years ago. Further, Renzi does have a record. And it's not a good one. Nobody has really called him on all his votes against people in the district, and expect that Pederson would have both the will and the ability to call him out on them.
This may be idle speculation, but if indeed Jim Pederson makes a run at Rick Renzi, don't be surprised.
Of course, Pederson lost to incumbent Senator Jon Kyl in a competitive Senate race. Pederson started the race 22 points down and cut the lead in half before losing by nine.
So on the way home, I started thinking about that comment. And the answer quickly became obvious. There are no more Senate seats up here until 2010, when John McCain (who may well be weakened by a failed Presidential run) is up, but that is the same year that Governor Napolitano is term-limited out, and if she wants the Senate nomination, I am pretty sure that no one in the Democratic party would support anyone else for it. Ditto with A.G. Terry Goddard, in regard to running for Governor in four years.
But, four years seems a bit long anyway. Pederson is a can-do type of guy, who is likely to dust himself off after his defeat and get right back into the game. He has the attitude of the type of athlete who may not win every match, but wins championships because he gets up after being knocked down and keeps going after it hard.
OK. So think two years. It's an off year for state offices, except for the legislature. But after rebuilding the Democratic party as the party Chair and then running for the Senate, I don't see Pederson settling for the legislature. He has already had more to do with what people see when they visit and live in Arizona than most of the politicians in the legislature have, and he's aiming for an office in Washington.
So at this point the answer became as obvious as the headlights on the other side of the road. Pederson is from Casa Grande, which because of how the district lines are drawn, is in CD 1. The same district I live in (though I live hours from Casa Grande). Pederson, if he runs in 2008, will run against Rick Renzi.
And that's great news, too if he does. Renzi, even if he survives all the scandals and investigations now under way, has gotten himself elected primarily because of two factors: 1. he has raised a lot of money and buried his opponents under an avalanche of negative ads, and 2. he has been blessed with opponents who have not been aggressive enough on hitting back.
In 2002, Renzi's opponent was George Cordova, in 2004 it was Paul Babbitt and this year it was Ellen Simon.
His races against Cordova and Simon were virtually carbon copies of each other. Renzi outright lied about both of them-- claiming that Cordova had embezzled money from a business he was a partner in and wired it his uncle in Mexico. This was a fabrication (obviously, since Renzi was accusing Cordova of some very serious crimes but Cordova not only didn't get prosecuted for any crimes, but later sued Renzi for slander-- a case that was settled out of court for an undisclosed sum of money.) So this year, Renzi did the same to Simon, claiming she had been 'President of the ACLU' in order to tie her to a Massachusetts case involving the man-boy love association. I went to a meeting where Simon pledged she would 'not be swift-boated.' Well, she was. Further, I know from personal knowlege her campaign was given the suggestion to buy large newspaper ads (relatively cheap compared to TV advertising) in order to dispute this crap, and it was never disputed until after the election (when I received an email from Ellen Simon explaining all of this-- after the election, mind you. A bit late, wasn't it? And I already knew of the false charges, having blogged on them several weeks earlier. I'm not one of the people she had to set the record straight with.) Besides all of this, neither Cordova nor Simon could really go after Renzi on his Virginia residency because there were some carpet-bagger issues with them as well. And though by some standards they were well-financed, in the end Renzi's millions of dollars in unanswered negative ads sank both of them.
Jim Pederson, in contrast, does whatever it takes to rebut the smear charges and does so rapidly (as we saw in this campaign.) He won't have to sue or send out a letter of explanation after the election. And, Jim is from Casa Grande (mentioned above) so he is a legitimate resident of CD 1. And he's got the money to match whatever crooked money Renzi rakes in from his eastern connections (this is part of what the ongoing investigation of Renzi is centered on.)
Paul Babbitt was a different kind of race for Renzi. Babbitt was from the district, having been a former Mayor of Flagstaff and later a Coconino County commissioner. He also raised an amount of money comparable to what Renzi raised. However, Babbitt, while a strong candidate on paper, and very earnest personally (personally, I like Paul), was not a very good campaigner. Paul is a thoughtful man and he would sometimes spend half an hour talking to a single voter. That is great if you are running for school board in a town of a couple of hundred people, but if you are running for Congress in a district of 800,000 people, it's not an efficient way to campaign. Babbitt didn't campaign very much on the reservations (which are traditionally the strongest part of the district for Democrats-- and it was again in 2004-- Renzi carried the Navajo reservation 51-49%, which shows how badly things went for Babbitt). Part of it was that while Babbitt raised a lot of money he didn't spend it very well. At the end of the campaign there were cases and cases of unopened Babbitt literature. Babbitt didn't spend much on TV ads compared to Renzi. And Renzi's ads mostly focused on two things-- Babbitt's record and his family. Babbitt of course had a long record as mayor of Flagstaff and as a commissioner. So Renzi's people picked through all those years of service and found what they could use to attack Babbitt (i.e. voting for a tax, voting to spend money on a new prison, which they distorted to make it sound unnecessarily wasteful.) Now I don't think there is anything wrong with attacking a record (it's there, after all) but a response to distortions is also to be expected, and Babbitt again, maybe because he'd spent so much on literature, just didn't seem to have much to come back with against the ads. And Babbitt had to convince a lot of ranchers and others who use the land that he was not his brother (former interior secretary Bruce, who is still not liked by a lot of cattlemen.)
But Pederson, clearly is not afraid to advertise on TV, and having never served in office he has no specific voting record. He does have a business record, which Kyl attacked this year, but by now that is old news and not many people care about what happened 20 years ago. Further, Renzi does have a record. And it's not a good one. Nobody has really called him on all his votes against people in the district, and expect that Pederson would have both the will and the ability to call him out on them.
This may be idle speculation, but if indeed Jim Pederson makes a run at Rick Renzi, don't be surprised.
Friday, December 01, 2006
If you were on trial, would you want this jury to decide your future?
In the murder trial of a man accused of killing an Indiana college student, the jury was sequestered for two weeks at a hotel and engaged in some 'extracurricular activity' themselves
INDIANAPOLIS, Indiana (AP) -- Jurors in the trial of a man accused of killing an Indiana University student got "giggly" while sequestered at a hotel, records show -- with men racing each other wearing high heels, food fights, football and Frisbee.
The defense is not amused, but may not be able to do much about it.
A judge denied a defense attorney's motion for a mistrial based on the behavior, and a legal expert said jurors' antics did not constitute misconduct....
Defense attorney Patrick Baker said he would have "plenty to say" during the sentencing hearing about the jury's behavior.
"We will certainly raise those issues on appeal," he said....
On the morning of the verdict, attorneys and Judge Christopher Burnham questioned jurors and security officers in private about their drinking, communications and other behavior, according to a transcript of the interviews.
Jurors denied exceeding a two-drink limit imposed by Burnham but acknowledged some "giggly" behavior, including the food fights and painting some of the men's toenails.
It should not be surprising that jurors feel a need for relief when they are separated from their normal lives, Bradley said.
The judge appeared to share that view.
"They are 15 people who were removed from their families and sequestered together and controlled as to what they could do," Burnham said in the transcript. "I could see, I would expect normal behavior to let off a little steam."
The problem here is that this jury was supposed to be deciding a murder case. On one hand is justice for the victim, on the other hand is making sure that the accused is in fact guilty. Having a two week party at the state's expense may already be a questionable use of taxpayer funds, but what is really galling about this is the fact that this jury apparently was pretty busy with the nonsense to the extent that they clearly didn't have much time to focus on the case. And it may well have opened a hole in the case for which appeals will cost more money and could conceivably end up in a reversal of the decision.
I was on a grand jury several months ago (blogged on in the post My Grand Jury Experience) and I always thought that all of us on the Grand Jury took the business at hand seriously and did not engage in monkey business while we should be paying attention to a case.
And yes, there may be some need to 'blow off steam,' but clearly what this jury did was unusual enough to provoke a court challenge based on jury behavior. Juries are sequestered all the time in high profile cases, but that shouldn't be reason to run amok.
INDIANAPOLIS, Indiana (AP) -- Jurors in the trial of a man accused of killing an Indiana University student got "giggly" while sequestered at a hotel, records show -- with men racing each other wearing high heels, food fights, football and Frisbee.
The defense is not amused, but may not be able to do much about it.
A judge denied a defense attorney's motion for a mistrial based on the behavior, and a legal expert said jurors' antics did not constitute misconduct....
Defense attorney Patrick Baker said he would have "plenty to say" during the sentencing hearing about the jury's behavior.
"We will certainly raise those issues on appeal," he said....
On the morning of the verdict, attorneys and Judge Christopher Burnham questioned jurors and security officers in private about their drinking, communications and other behavior, according to a transcript of the interviews.
Jurors denied exceeding a two-drink limit imposed by Burnham but acknowledged some "giggly" behavior, including the food fights and painting some of the men's toenails.
It should not be surprising that jurors feel a need for relief when they are separated from their normal lives, Bradley said.
The judge appeared to share that view.
"They are 15 people who were removed from their families and sequestered together and controlled as to what they could do," Burnham said in the transcript. "I could see, I would expect normal behavior to let off a little steam."
The problem here is that this jury was supposed to be deciding a murder case. On one hand is justice for the victim, on the other hand is making sure that the accused is in fact guilty. Having a two week party at the state's expense may already be a questionable use of taxpayer funds, but what is really galling about this is the fact that this jury apparently was pretty busy with the nonsense to the extent that they clearly didn't have much time to focus on the case. And it may well have opened a hole in the case for which appeals will cost more money and could conceivably end up in a reversal of the decision.
I was on a grand jury several months ago (blogged on in the post My Grand Jury Experience) and I always thought that all of us on the Grand Jury took the business at hand seriously and did not engage in monkey business while we should be paying attention to a case.
And yes, there may be some need to 'blow off steam,' but clearly what this jury did was unusual enough to provoke a court challenge based on jury behavior. Juries are sequestered all the time in high profile cases, but that shouldn't be reason to run amok.
Thursday, November 30, 2006
Get over it, already.
Get over it, already.
Conservatives are having a screaming fit over the testy exchange between President Bush and Virginia Sen.-elect Jim Webb yesterday.
Apparently it didn't start off testy, with the President asking Sen.-elect Webb how his son (now serving in Iraq) was doing. Webb responded that he'd like them all out of Iraq. The 'them' obviously referred to both his son and all the other armed forces members in Iraq.
Now at that point, it would have been easy for the President to just say something about how he'd like that too, once the job is done or some similar answer that would have made his point that he disagrees with Jim Webb on when and how, without being discourteous.
But he didn't do that. He pushed the issue, saying, "I didn't ask you that, I asked you about your son."
Aside from the fact that I'm sure that Sen. Webb, like the parents of most of the kids in Iraq, prays every night that his son will return home intact, for the President to push like this almost invites a sharp response. What is Sen. Webb supposed to say? Is he supposed to say that his son is having a good time dodging bullets, IED's and other hazards as he fights in George Bush's war? And that's what it is-- it's not as if you or I asked Sen. Webb how his son was doing. His son is in the situation he is in because George Bush wanted this war. Wanted it, pushed for it, and started it. So now Lance Cpl. Jimmy Webb and thousands of others are out there every day risking death because our incompetent President not only started a war in which he didn't understand what he was getting this country into, but then didn't have a plan that went very far beyond getting rid of Saddam Hussein. For George Bush to ask Jim Webb how his son is doing would be like O.J. Simpson to ask his former in-laws how their other kids are doing.
But at that, Webb's response was not so bad-- he said, 'That's between me and my boy.' Later it has been reported, though not from any authoritative source that Webb said that he would have liked to slug the President, but he did not do so. To be honest, considering what the President had just asked him, Webb's response was mild. I suspect that a lot of people whose kids have been sent to fight in this stupid, unnecessary and tragic war feel much the same way he does.
Conservatives are having a screaming fit over the testy exchange between President Bush and Virginia Sen.-elect Jim Webb yesterday.
Apparently it didn't start off testy, with the President asking Sen.-elect Webb how his son (now serving in Iraq) was doing. Webb responded that he'd like them all out of Iraq. The 'them' obviously referred to both his son and all the other armed forces members in Iraq.
Now at that point, it would have been easy for the President to just say something about how he'd like that too, once the job is done or some similar answer that would have made his point that he disagrees with Jim Webb on when and how, without being discourteous.
But he didn't do that. He pushed the issue, saying, "I didn't ask you that, I asked you about your son."
Aside from the fact that I'm sure that Sen. Webb, like the parents of most of the kids in Iraq, prays every night that his son will return home intact, for the President to push like this almost invites a sharp response. What is Sen. Webb supposed to say? Is he supposed to say that his son is having a good time dodging bullets, IED's and other hazards as he fights in George Bush's war? And that's what it is-- it's not as if you or I asked Sen. Webb how his son was doing. His son is in the situation he is in because George Bush wanted this war. Wanted it, pushed for it, and started it. So now Lance Cpl. Jimmy Webb and thousands of others are out there every day risking death because our incompetent President not only started a war in which he didn't understand what he was getting this country into, but then didn't have a plan that went very far beyond getting rid of Saddam Hussein. For George Bush to ask Jim Webb how his son is doing would be like O.J. Simpson to ask his former in-laws how their other kids are doing.
But at that, Webb's response was not so bad-- he said, 'That's between me and my boy.' Later it has been reported, though not from any authoritative source that Webb said that he would have liked to slug the President, but he did not do so. To be honest, considering what the President had just asked him, Webb's response was mild. I suspect that a lot of people whose kids have been sent to fight in this stupid, unnecessary and tragic war feel much the same way he does.
Monday, November 27, 2006
You don't just talk peace with your friends-- the President finally getting that message.
President Bush, now that the Iraq study group has reported back, is under pressure to open talks with Syria and Iran over the future of Iraq. It is clear that he has to bend to some kind of reality if he expects to get any kind of continued support for his Iraq policy from the new Congress, and even Chuck Hagel, one of the leading spokesmen for his own party on the issue, said over the weekend that we should begin withdrawing from Iraq.
He should begin dialogue with Iran and Syria as soon as possible. Both countries have at least as much influence in Iraq right now as we do (though with no direct exposure and without firing a shot themselves), and any long term solution in Iraq will have to take into account both Syria and Iran. Neither country has an interest in Iraq as an anarchist hotbed of terrorism with the inevitable increase in refugees (which have already become a problem, especially for Iran).
So why now? Many of us have been saying for a long time that we should talk to ALL of Iraq's neighbors if we hope to have a chance to stabilize the situation, not just those like Kuwait and Turkey that the President enjoys talking to. Further, John Kerry in 2004 said that he favored a summit or other type of talks with all the nations in the region or involved in Iraq (including Syria and Iran), and that is in effect what the President is now getting around to saying. But conservatives were still holding onto the pipe dream that they could 'win' in Iraq. And the price of course is that we will enter into any such talks in a weaker position than we were in two years ago while Iran in particular will be much strengthened given the strong position its Badr militia holds by virtue of their infiltration of the Iraqi police and army, as well as the fruits that Iranian intransigence has already brought them in the face of our weakness.
Of course this could have happened two years earlier (or 1,500 American deaths earlier, or $200 billion earlier, if you prefer) if we had elected John Kerry, but it's good that the President at least is being forced to acknowlege this and open discussions with the Iranians and Syrians over the future of Iraq now.
He should begin dialogue with Iran and Syria as soon as possible. Both countries have at least as much influence in Iraq right now as we do (though with no direct exposure and without firing a shot themselves), and any long term solution in Iraq will have to take into account both Syria and Iran. Neither country has an interest in Iraq as an anarchist hotbed of terrorism with the inevitable increase in refugees (which have already become a problem, especially for Iran).
So why now? Many of us have been saying for a long time that we should talk to ALL of Iraq's neighbors if we hope to have a chance to stabilize the situation, not just those like Kuwait and Turkey that the President enjoys talking to. Further, John Kerry in 2004 said that he favored a summit or other type of talks with all the nations in the region or involved in Iraq (including Syria and Iran), and that is in effect what the President is now getting around to saying. But conservatives were still holding onto the pipe dream that they could 'win' in Iraq. And the price of course is that we will enter into any such talks in a weaker position than we were in two years ago while Iran in particular will be much strengthened given the strong position its Badr militia holds by virtue of their infiltration of the Iraqi police and army, as well as the fruits that Iranian intransigence has already brought them in the face of our weakness.
Of course this could have happened two years earlier (or 1,500 American deaths earlier, or $200 billion earlier, if you prefer) if we had elected John Kerry, but it's good that the President at least is being forced to acknowlege this and open discussions with the Iranians and Syrians over the future of Iraq now.
Saturday, November 25, 2006
DNA clears man after police lab refused to conduct tests.
In a story out of Chicago today, DNA has cleared a man who obtained the test after a police lab's refusal to carry it out.
CHICAGO, Illinois (AP) -- Authorities are reviewing the conviction of a man imprisoned for a 1992 rape after he was cleared by DNA tests that the original lab analyst refused to conduct.
Marlon Pendleton's lawyers received the results of the new tests Wednesday and filed a motion seeking to vacate his conviction. Prosecutors were reviewing the case and Pendleton's conviction in another rape, said John Gorman, spokesman for State's Attorney Richard Devine.
A hearing was set for next Thursday.
"It was no surprise to me," Pendleton, 49, told the Chicago Tribune on Thursday in an interview at the Dixon Correctional Center. "I always knew I was innocent."
Pendleton demanded DNA testing after his arrest, but police lab analyst Pamela Fish said there wasn't enough genetic material to test the evidence. Pendleton was convicted based on the victim's identification.
The expert who conducted the new tests, Brian Wraxall of Serological Research Institute, said Wednesday he was surprised at Fish's report "because I found a reasonable amount of DNA."
Fish's work has been challenged in the past, most notably in the cases of four men later cleared by DNA evidence of the 1986 rape and murder of medical student Lori Roscetti.
Now it this case it does appear to largely be the misdeed of a rogue analyst who no longer works for police department.
However, this is disturbing-- if you were accused of a crime which you did not commit you would scream out that all evidence be examined. The idea that a lab analyst was apparently too lazy to carry out the test is disturbing, to say the least.
And it dovetails with another theme that we have seen sometimes in the past-- investigators, who whether for reasons of workload or for other reasons, have failed to follow up on leads in cases-- leads which have sometimes been the ones they should have followed up on. Sometimes in these cases the person who has been prosecuted and sent to prison was not even the person who was guilty and they have later been exhonerated.
If funding is the issue here, then we should fully fund investigations. If it is something else-- like failure to uphold the duty to get it right, then people who are responsible for these cases must themselves be held liable for the consequences of the dereliction of their duty (in civil court if no place else.)
CHICAGO, Illinois (AP) -- Authorities are reviewing the conviction of a man imprisoned for a 1992 rape after he was cleared by DNA tests that the original lab analyst refused to conduct.
Marlon Pendleton's lawyers received the results of the new tests Wednesday and filed a motion seeking to vacate his conviction. Prosecutors were reviewing the case and Pendleton's conviction in another rape, said John Gorman, spokesman for State's Attorney Richard Devine.
A hearing was set for next Thursday.
"It was no surprise to me," Pendleton, 49, told the Chicago Tribune on Thursday in an interview at the Dixon Correctional Center. "I always knew I was innocent."
Pendleton demanded DNA testing after his arrest, but police lab analyst Pamela Fish said there wasn't enough genetic material to test the evidence. Pendleton was convicted based on the victim's identification.
The expert who conducted the new tests, Brian Wraxall of Serological Research Institute, said Wednesday he was surprised at Fish's report "because I found a reasonable amount of DNA."
Fish's work has been challenged in the past, most notably in the cases of four men later cleared by DNA evidence of the 1986 rape and murder of medical student Lori Roscetti.
Now it this case it does appear to largely be the misdeed of a rogue analyst who no longer works for police department.
However, this is disturbing-- if you were accused of a crime which you did not commit you would scream out that all evidence be examined. The idea that a lab analyst was apparently too lazy to carry out the test is disturbing, to say the least.
And it dovetails with another theme that we have seen sometimes in the past-- investigators, who whether for reasons of workload or for other reasons, have failed to follow up on leads in cases-- leads which have sometimes been the ones they should have followed up on. Sometimes in these cases the person who has been prosecuted and sent to prison was not even the person who was guilty and they have later been exhonerated.
If funding is the issue here, then we should fully fund investigations. If it is something else-- like failure to uphold the duty to get it right, then people who are responsible for these cases must themselves be held liable for the consequences of the dereliction of their duty (in civil court if no place else.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
