After posting two consecutive stories on corrupt Republicans, I checked the news again and discovered this story, about William Jefferson, the Louisiana Democratic congressman who is being investigated by the FBI and who was found to have $90,000 in cash in his freezer:
Jefferson loses endorsement of Democratic Party.
BATON ROUGE, La. - An eight-term Democratic Louisiana congressman whose Capitol Hill office was raided earlier this year as part of a bribery investigation failed Saturday to win the endorsement of the state's Democratic Party.
Rep. William Jefferson was passed over by the party's State Central Committee in favor of state Rep. Karen Carter.
Of course House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi had earlier this year tried to strip Jefferson of his committee assignments, sending a clear message that she won't put up with any of this. This stands her in sharp contrast to Dennis Hastert.
Further, Republicans in Texas had no problem with handing Tom DeLay victory in his primary (though it backfired on DeLay as he fumbled his resignation a month later and has all but handed the seat to Democrat Nick Lampson). Republicans in Ohio willingly renominated Bob Ney even though by the May primary he was already hip deep in corruption. The result looks like it may be another Democratic pick-up for Zack Space because of Ney's backing for his handpicked successor as GOP nominee. Republicans here in my district in Arizona willingly renominated my own ethically challenged Congressman, Rick Renzi. A poll out this week by majority watch shows Renzi four points behind Ellen Simon.
Contrast that to ethically challenged Democratic congressmen. The Democratic voters in Georgia fired Cynthia McKinney earlier this year, and now it looks like the Democratic party in Louisiana is getting ready to fire William Jefferson (In Louisiana they have an open primary; Carter and Jefferson are among a number of candidates who will appear on the ballot. If no one wins a majority, which seems likely, there will be a runoff in December between the top two. Carter will have the full support of the party organization both during the November election and the runoff.)
So the bottom line is this: Democrats are proving through the actions of our voters, our House leadership and our state parties that we don't tolerate corruption and we are willing to police ourselves. Would you rather have Democrats running things or count on Republicans who don't seem to be able to part with a corrupt congressman until literally the day when he is driven from office by the criminal justice system?
Saturday, October 14, 2006
Curt Weldon investigated by FBI
Hoo, boy.
I just get done posting one story on a corrupt Republican congressman and I check the news and another one comes right up. And it's a name that some people may recognize.
FBI probes Curt Weldon.
WASHINGTON - The FBI is investigating whether Rep. Curt Weldon, R-Pa., used his influence to secure lobbying and consulting contracts for his daughter, two people familiar with the inquiry said Saturday.
We will see where the investigation leads. Of course some Republicans will claim that the Democrats are behind it. I guess they pretty much have to say that because they can say nothing else, leading up to the election. But the last time I checked, the FBI was a branch of the Justice Department, which is part of the executive branch, which is headed by President Bush. So to claim that Democrats are behind this one would be quite a stretch.
Of course it was Weldon who last year told the New York Times that Clinton official Jamie Gorelick had in September had prevented the FBI and the CIA from sharing information about terrorists, including Mohammed Atta. This was immediately seized upon by the right. They of course conveniently forgot that even if everything Congressman Weldon said was true (ignoring his partisan motivation) then said policy existed for four months of the Clinton administration and eight months of the Bush administration (which John Ashcroft could have reversed with the stroke of a pen), but hey, it was a chance to bash Bill Clinton so the right was quick to the feeding trough.
That policy has of course been reversed since 9/11. So I guess we can presume that whatever the FBI has learned about Curt Weldon, the CIA has access to it.
UPDATE (Monday): The FBI this morning raided the home of Weldon's daughter.
I just get done posting one story on a corrupt Republican congressman and I check the news and another one comes right up. And it's a name that some people may recognize.
FBI probes Curt Weldon.
WASHINGTON - The FBI is investigating whether Rep. Curt Weldon, R-Pa., used his influence to secure lobbying and consulting contracts for his daughter, two people familiar with the inquiry said Saturday.
We will see where the investigation leads. Of course some Republicans will claim that the Democrats are behind it. I guess they pretty much have to say that because they can say nothing else, leading up to the election. But the last time I checked, the FBI was a branch of the Justice Department, which is part of the executive branch, which is headed by President Bush. So to claim that Democrats are behind this one would be quite a stretch.
Of course it was Weldon who last year told the New York Times that Clinton official Jamie Gorelick had in September had prevented the FBI and the CIA from sharing information about terrorists, including Mohammed Atta. This was immediately seized upon by the right. They of course conveniently forgot that even if everything Congressman Weldon said was true (ignoring his partisan motivation) then said policy existed for four months of the Clinton administration and eight months of the Bush administration (which John Ashcroft could have reversed with the stroke of a pen), but hey, it was a chance to bash Bill Clinton so the right was quick to the feeding trough.
That policy has of course been reversed since 9/11. So I guess we can presume that whatever the FBI has learned about Curt Weldon, the CIA has access to it.
UPDATE (Monday): The FBI this morning raided the home of Weldon's daughter.
Too little too late-- the Speaker says he will fire Ney.
Representative Bob Ney struck a deal with prosecutors in September in which he agreed to plead guilty to multiple counts of corruption. He announced he was vacating his nomination to seek re-election, and then worked to see that the GOP nominated Joy Padgett to replace him on the ballot. Not that it has done much good since Padgett is now running behind Democrat Zack Space in the polls-- voters there consider her too close to Ney.
House Speaker Dennis Hastert didn't mind letting Ney continue to serve in Congress though after he agreed to plead guilty. So why is he promising to expel Ney if he doesn't resign before Congress returns in November for the lame duck session? Yesterday's guilty plea-- for which Ney faces up to two years in prison-- is only the formality that culminates the agreement he reached with prosecutors in September. Has Hastert suddenly decided that Ney's corruption, including a $150,000 golf trip he took to Scotland with convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff, is now wrong, something Hastert didn't think was the case in September?
No, not exactly. I don't think Hastert has had a sudden change of mind on what is wrong and what isn't. What has changed is that it is politically damaging. At least Mark Foley had the good sense to resign. This despite the fact that Foley has not as yet been charged with a crime, and he may not be charged with a crime. In fact, Foley, had he remained in the House would probably have received a censure but been allowed to remain as long as the voters in his district let him. This was the punishment handed out to former Congressmen Gerry Studds (D-MA) and Dan Crane (R-IL) in 1983 for scandals involving pages.
Ney, however, is going to prison (maybe he will even get to share a cell with Duke Cunningham, his colleague in the present Congress.) And after the Foley resignation the questions that have been raised since September (in fact before that in many quarters) about whether Ney should remain in the house have grown louder and more annoying to Hastert. So Hastert, still under fire for allegations that he covered up key aspects of the Foley case is now willing to cast Ney overboard-- an act which he should have done last month, but to say it now only shows it as a political calculation.
For Ney, it means he may be the first congressman who will lose his Congressional pension after being expelled-- a 'reform' that Congress passed in the wake of the Cunningham scandal.
But the Republicans' problem with corruption has now moved beyond Bob Ney. It is Dennis Hastert who now has the most to lose. And if he loses his speakership it will be a good move towards cleaning the House.
House Speaker Dennis Hastert didn't mind letting Ney continue to serve in Congress though after he agreed to plead guilty. So why is he promising to expel Ney if he doesn't resign before Congress returns in November for the lame duck session? Yesterday's guilty plea-- for which Ney faces up to two years in prison-- is only the formality that culminates the agreement he reached with prosecutors in September. Has Hastert suddenly decided that Ney's corruption, including a $150,000 golf trip he took to Scotland with convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff, is now wrong, something Hastert didn't think was the case in September?
No, not exactly. I don't think Hastert has had a sudden change of mind on what is wrong and what isn't. What has changed is that it is politically damaging. At least Mark Foley had the good sense to resign. This despite the fact that Foley has not as yet been charged with a crime, and he may not be charged with a crime. In fact, Foley, had he remained in the House would probably have received a censure but been allowed to remain as long as the voters in his district let him. This was the punishment handed out to former Congressmen Gerry Studds (D-MA) and Dan Crane (R-IL) in 1983 for scandals involving pages.
Ney, however, is going to prison (maybe he will even get to share a cell with Duke Cunningham, his colleague in the present Congress.) And after the Foley resignation the questions that have been raised since September (in fact before that in many quarters) about whether Ney should remain in the house have grown louder and more annoying to Hastert. So Hastert, still under fire for allegations that he covered up key aspects of the Foley case is now willing to cast Ney overboard-- an act which he should have done last month, but to say it now only shows it as a political calculation.
For Ney, it means he may be the first congressman who will lose his Congressional pension after being expelled-- a 'reform' that Congress passed in the wake of the Cunningham scandal.
But the Republicans' problem with corruption has now moved beyond Bob Ney. It is Dennis Hastert who now has the most to lose. And if he loses his speakership it will be a good move towards cleaning the House.
Thursday, October 12, 2006
Fines: just another way to do business, Wal-Mart style
There is not much to say anymore about Wal-Mart. We know about the foreign sweatshops, where workers, including children, are paid pennies a day to make sure they have 'always low prices.' We know about their long history of operating some local stores at a loss for as long as it takes to drive nearby local competitors out of business.
And we know about their history of legal problems. We know about the sex discrimination lawsuit they lost some years ago when they thought they could pay women less for doing the same jobs as men. We know about their violations of child labor laws, when they have been caught making teenage employees work longer than they legally could, during school hours, or making them work in dangerous jobs they were not qualified for. We know about the lawsuit they settled out of court a couple of years ago after their cleaning crews in 23 states were found to include undocumented aliens, some of whom were paid as little as $2 for a night's work.
We know that Wal-Mart screws their employees. We know that in many, many places full time Wal-Mart employees are uninsured because the only health insurance they are offered will eat up almost half of their paycheck, that Wal-Mart employees are often on public assistance, and that they in effect are forcing taxpayers in those communities to subsidize their employment costs by helping pay those employees enough so that they can live. We know that last year they were caught circulating a memo on how to terminate employees who were approaching the time with the company when they would become eligible for retirement benefits.
We know Wal-Mart screws their customers. Our Attorney General, Terry Goddard recently filed suit against Wal-Mart for systematically misleading customers about the price of items they were purchasing.
So should I really be surprised when today a Pennsylvania jury ruled that Wal-Mart was guilty of forcing employees to work during breaks or off the clock for no pay at all? The jury recommended that Wal-Mart pay $62 million in restitution and damages. Pennsylvania becomes the third state in which a jury has reached the same verdict against Wal-Mart (Colorado and California are the other two; Wal-Mart paid the Colorado damage award and is appealing the California award.)
Now why would a company that is trying to get people to buy its products want to always be in the news for something like this? Well, we can get a hint from their settlement on the undocumented worker case. They agreed to donate $11 million to programs designed to deter illegal immigration. Then they rang that up on their cash registers over the next ninteen minutes.
So maybe its because for Wal-Mart, any fines or other consequences they receive as a result of their brazen disregard for the law of for society have already been factored in-- "just the cost of doing business."
And we know about their history of legal problems. We know about the sex discrimination lawsuit they lost some years ago when they thought they could pay women less for doing the same jobs as men. We know about their violations of child labor laws, when they have been caught making teenage employees work longer than they legally could, during school hours, or making them work in dangerous jobs they were not qualified for. We know about the lawsuit they settled out of court a couple of years ago after their cleaning crews in 23 states were found to include undocumented aliens, some of whom were paid as little as $2 for a night's work.
We know that Wal-Mart screws their employees. We know that in many, many places full time Wal-Mart employees are uninsured because the only health insurance they are offered will eat up almost half of their paycheck, that Wal-Mart employees are often on public assistance, and that they in effect are forcing taxpayers in those communities to subsidize their employment costs by helping pay those employees enough so that they can live. We know that last year they were caught circulating a memo on how to terminate employees who were approaching the time with the company when they would become eligible for retirement benefits.
We know Wal-Mart screws their customers. Our Attorney General, Terry Goddard recently filed suit against Wal-Mart for systematically misleading customers about the price of items they were purchasing.
So should I really be surprised when today a Pennsylvania jury ruled that Wal-Mart was guilty of forcing employees to work during breaks or off the clock for no pay at all? The jury recommended that Wal-Mart pay $62 million in restitution and damages. Pennsylvania becomes the third state in which a jury has reached the same verdict against Wal-Mart (Colorado and California are the other two; Wal-Mart paid the Colorado damage award and is appealing the California award.)
Now why would a company that is trying to get people to buy its products want to always be in the news for something like this? Well, we can get a hint from their settlement on the undocumented worker case. They agreed to donate $11 million to programs designed to deter illegal immigration. Then they rang that up on their cash registers over the next ninteen minutes.
So maybe its because for Wal-Mart, any fines or other consequences they receive as a result of their brazen disregard for the law of for society have already been factored in-- "just the cost of doing business."
Sooner or later, you knew this story would become reality.
A homeless, jobless, sixty three year old man has found a way to keep a roof over his head and enough food to survive on. He robbed a bank explicitly to go to prison.
COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) -- A man who couldn't find steady work came up with a plan to make it through the next few years until he could collect Social Security: He robbed a bank, then handed the money to a guard and waited for police.
On Wednesday, Timothy J. Bowers told a judge a three-year prison sentence would suit him, and the judge obliged.
"At my age, the jobs available to me are minimum-wage jobs. There is age discrimination out there," Bowers, who turns 63 in a few weeks, told Judge Angela White.
The judge told him: "It's unfortunate you feel this is the only way to deal with the situation."
Bowers said he had been able to find only odd jobs after the drug wholesaler he made deliveries for closed in 2003...
He pleaded guilty to robbery, and a court-ordered psychological exam found him competent.
"It's a pretty sad story when someone feels that's their only alternative," said defense attorney Jeremy W. Dodgion, who described Bowers as "a charming old man."
Prosecutors had considered arguing against putting Bowers in prison at taxpayer expense, but they worried he would do something more reckless to be put behind bars.
"It's not the financial plan I would choose, but it's a financial plan," prosecutor Dan Cable said.
Of course we have seen Republicans cut, cut and cut more from the social safety net until there are holes that are big enough for a truck to fall through. And all of it to finance the trillions in corporate welfare that they have handed out in legislation like the energy bill and the prescription drug bill.
So now we finally see the day when voluntarily committing a felony in order to go to prison is the only option left for an honest citizen who just wasn't one of the winners in the new game of Social Darwinism.
COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) -- A man who couldn't find steady work came up with a plan to make it through the next few years until he could collect Social Security: He robbed a bank, then handed the money to a guard and waited for police.
On Wednesday, Timothy J. Bowers told a judge a three-year prison sentence would suit him, and the judge obliged.
"At my age, the jobs available to me are minimum-wage jobs. There is age discrimination out there," Bowers, who turns 63 in a few weeks, told Judge Angela White.
The judge told him: "It's unfortunate you feel this is the only way to deal with the situation."
Bowers said he had been able to find only odd jobs after the drug wholesaler he made deliveries for closed in 2003...
He pleaded guilty to robbery, and a court-ordered psychological exam found him competent.
"It's a pretty sad story when someone feels that's their only alternative," said defense attorney Jeremy W. Dodgion, who described Bowers as "a charming old man."
Prosecutors had considered arguing against putting Bowers in prison at taxpayer expense, but they worried he would do something more reckless to be put behind bars.
"It's not the financial plan I would choose, but it's a financial plan," prosecutor Dan Cable said.
Of course we have seen Republicans cut, cut and cut more from the social safety net until there are holes that are big enough for a truck to fall through. And all of it to finance the trillions in corporate welfare that they have handed out in legislation like the energy bill and the prescription drug bill.
So now we finally see the day when voluntarily committing a felony in order to go to prison is the only option left for an honest citizen who just wasn't one of the winners in the new game of Social Darwinism.
Getting Local
A lot goes on locally in various states that the polls and national stories may not pick up. For that reason, I tend to rely on the experience and views of local bloggers, at least those who I believe are reliable.
Of course in my links I have two Arizona bloggers who focus mainly on local stories, Tedski at Rum, Romanism and Rebellion (who is unabashedly a Democrat, in fact recently a candidate until he lost a primary race for state legislature) and Jane Arizona at Arizona Congress Watch who, as the name implies, focuses nearly exclusively on the eight members of our Congressional delegation, our two Senators, and their opponents and the races for those seats this year.
I've now started a new section, down below 'Blogs not on the Left.' If you know of a good local blog in your state, please give me the URL and I will check it out. These should be blogs which focus exclusively or almost exclusively on local political matters, which have the integrity to (even if there is obvious spin or bias) report things essentially as they are, and which are updated daily or a reasonably close approximation to daily (so if the last post is dated in August don't bother to tell me about it no matter how good the blog looks.) I will look it over and if it looks good enough I will include it in the new sidebar. I've already found a handful.
Of course in my links I have two Arizona bloggers who focus mainly on local stories, Tedski at Rum, Romanism and Rebellion (who is unabashedly a Democrat, in fact recently a candidate until he lost a primary race for state legislature) and Jane Arizona at Arizona Congress Watch who, as the name implies, focuses nearly exclusively on the eight members of our Congressional delegation, our two Senators, and their opponents and the races for those seats this year.
I've now started a new section, down below 'Blogs not on the Left.' If you know of a good local blog in your state, please give me the URL and I will check it out. These should be blogs which focus exclusively or almost exclusively on local political matters, which have the integrity to (even if there is obvious spin or bias) report things essentially as they are, and which are updated daily or a reasonably close approximation to daily (so if the last post is dated in August don't bother to tell me about it no matter how good the blog looks.) I will look it over and if it looks good enough I will include it in the new sidebar. I've already found a handful.
Wednesday, October 11, 2006
Chris Shays tries to steal anti-war slogan, not realizing the irony.
Chris Shays, attempting to excuse Dennis Hastert's fumbling response to the congressional page scandal, brought up Chappaquiddick and said that in the page scandal, 'at least no one died.'
And yes, he is right that one person did die as a result of Ted Kennedy's drunk driving binge in 1969.
However for Shays, who supported the Iraq war from the beginning, and is now questioning it only because he is facing a tough re-election fight against an anti-war Democrat, to use this phrase is the height of irony.
I wonder how many times he has seen the now ubiquitous anti-Iraq war slogan, 'when Clinton lied, no one died?' a reference to the Downing Street memo and reports of cooked intelligence before the war.
No wonder Chris Shays is behind in the polls.
And yes, he is right that one person did die as a result of Ted Kennedy's drunk driving binge in 1969.
However for Shays, who supported the Iraq war from the beginning, and is now questioning it only because he is facing a tough re-election fight against an anti-war Democrat, to use this phrase is the height of irony.
I wonder how many times he has seen the now ubiquitous anti-Iraq war slogan, 'when Clinton lied, no one died?' a reference to the Downing Street memo and reports of cooked intelligence before the war.
No wonder Chris Shays is behind in the polls.
Monday, October 09, 2006
Whoops, an oversight of the first magnitude
I made a post before we left this weekend for vacation describing how I was featured on Sar's blog. I forgot to mention (though I've since edited and corrected the matter) that I am also the featured guest on Shayna's music highway project. In it Shayna asks a blogger each week four questions designed to draw out a little bit of personality.
I may have been dreaming of pumpkins the size of small refrigerators but that is hardly and excuse.
Shayna as usual has done an excellent job.
I may have been dreaming of pumpkins the size of small refrigerators but that is hardly and excuse.
Shayna as usual has done an excellent job.
North Korean Nuclear Test
It appears based on news reports out early this morning that North Korea has carried through with its pledge to test a nuclear weapon.
There will of course be sanctions voted on the hard line Stalinst regime by the U.N. Security Council.
I'd like to make a number of observations.
1. The sanctions won't amount to anything. Most of the world already conducts very little trade with North Korea, and as it is the people there are starving because the government prioritizes long range missile and nuclear weapons development ahead of food. The only country that could really hurt North Korea in terms of sanctions is China, but China won't because 1) the old line communist regime on its Manchurian border is less of a threat to China politically than a democracy would be there, and 2) serious sanctions would send a flood of refugees into China, which the Chinese don't need.
2. The North Koreans once again show the U.S. to be impotent. We can scold them, but we can't do anything about them militarily. True, there are some good reasons for that and they predate the Bush administration (including the fact that the North Koreans have 10,000 artillery pieces trained on Seoul that could all but obliterate the South Korean capital within minutes if we attacked them, and also the fact that the last time the U.S. invaded North Korea the Chinese counterattacked with 2 million troops, and the possibility that history could repeat itself has to enter into any U.S. military calculation.) However, that said, the failure to respond militarily to North Korea helps radical Islamicists who suggest that the U.S. is only interested in making war upon Muslim countries (and in particular Muslim countries with large oil reserves, as in Iraq and Iran.) It does not matter if the Islamicists are right about that or not. That is how it is read in the Muslim world, and that is how they pitch it. It also points out how thinly stretched our military is, so that we can't even threaten to deploy enough troops to the region to make the North Koreans break a sweat because we don't have them available.
3. It is laudible to attempt to 'keep the nuclear genie in the bottle,' but let's be honest-- it left the bottle years ago. For us to think that technology that we developed sixty years ago is somehow inaccessible to other countries is to delude ourselves. Not that we shouldn't continue to make the effort to make it difficult for countries to obtain and trade nuclear technology, parts and fuel, but we have to be realistic and acknowlege that it will happen. It is happening, maybe even in some countries where we've never suspected it, and it will continue to happen no matter how hard we try. On my second ever blog post, On nuclear proliferation and Iran, I dealt with this and suggested that we move the 'line in the sand,' which has been made a joke out of repeatedly by the rising tide of nuclear proliferation to a higher 'line in the sand,' in which we pledge to retaliate militarily against any nation that USES a nuke (as opposed just to building one). This post was written before the continuing failures in Iraq made it clear that a war against the U.S. is no longer to be feared as a deterrent as it once was, but if we could get other countries to go along with it, so that any nation that actually used a nuclear weapon would immediately be at war with all of the nations that signed on to this 'new line,' (with luck the five permanent members of the security council though that might be hard) it could have the potential to hold firm.
4. Given the availability of nukes in the world, we have to follow the recommendations of the 9/11 commission and inspect 100% of cargo containers coming into the country. Right now, only 2% are inspected. Yet this is the most likely scenario for a nuclear attack in the U.S. I'm not saying we should discount the possiblity of a nuclear missile strike on our territory from, say, North Korea (missile defense being one of the few issues in which I've reversed my position from where it was just a few years ago, in light of small rogue states which may be less rational than were the Soviets,) but I do think that we have to focus more on smaller weapons which a single person can transport (and which, unlike a crude ICBM, can with 100% accuracy be guided to their exact target before detonation.)
5. We also have to redouble our efforts to catch and get rid of the leadership of al-Qaeda. Unlike the various small disorganized cells around the world, the leadership (likely still) possesses the kind of cash that could get the attention of the North Koreans or other potential sellers. Obviously if bin Laden or one of his senior leadership were to arrange such a deal and obtain a nuke, there is little doubt that they, being no more at danger for it than they are now, would in fact use it.
6. And finally, don't panic. We had nuclear armed opponents during the Cold War. But we survived that. We did it by appealing to the people in those countries, not by military force, but by the advantages of our system. It took a long time, but eventually it worked. Like I wrote in a post not so long ago, also about Iran, in contrast to ineffective sanctions, trade with them until they can't stand it any longer.
we have the perfect weapon to deal with Tehran. The same weapons that brought down the thousands of nukes in the former Soviet Union, and the same weapons that we haven't used against North Korea or Cuba (hint: alone among old line traditional communist societies, they still stand.)
Disney. McDonalds. Hillary Duff. MTV.
And with products, inevitably follow ideas.
I'm surprised conservatives (who are still railing for an invasion of Iran, as if we have some secret armies somewhere that are just waiting for the command) don't see this. If anyone would see it, I'd expect it to be conservatives.
In North Korea, millions of people are oppressed and have no freedom, no food, in fact pretty much nothing at all. So I'd think this would work just as well (if not better) with North Korea than it would with Iran.
Cross posted at Night Birds Fountain
There will of course be sanctions voted on the hard line Stalinst regime by the U.N. Security Council.
I'd like to make a number of observations.
1. The sanctions won't amount to anything. Most of the world already conducts very little trade with North Korea, and as it is the people there are starving because the government prioritizes long range missile and nuclear weapons development ahead of food. The only country that could really hurt North Korea in terms of sanctions is China, but China won't because 1) the old line communist regime on its Manchurian border is less of a threat to China politically than a democracy would be there, and 2) serious sanctions would send a flood of refugees into China, which the Chinese don't need.
2. The North Koreans once again show the U.S. to be impotent. We can scold them, but we can't do anything about them militarily. True, there are some good reasons for that and they predate the Bush administration (including the fact that the North Koreans have 10,000 artillery pieces trained on Seoul that could all but obliterate the South Korean capital within minutes if we attacked them, and also the fact that the last time the U.S. invaded North Korea the Chinese counterattacked with 2 million troops, and the possibility that history could repeat itself has to enter into any U.S. military calculation.) However, that said, the failure to respond militarily to North Korea helps radical Islamicists who suggest that the U.S. is only interested in making war upon Muslim countries (and in particular Muslim countries with large oil reserves, as in Iraq and Iran.) It does not matter if the Islamicists are right about that or not. That is how it is read in the Muslim world, and that is how they pitch it. It also points out how thinly stretched our military is, so that we can't even threaten to deploy enough troops to the region to make the North Koreans break a sweat because we don't have them available.
3. It is laudible to attempt to 'keep the nuclear genie in the bottle,' but let's be honest-- it left the bottle years ago. For us to think that technology that we developed sixty years ago is somehow inaccessible to other countries is to delude ourselves. Not that we shouldn't continue to make the effort to make it difficult for countries to obtain and trade nuclear technology, parts and fuel, but we have to be realistic and acknowlege that it will happen. It is happening, maybe even in some countries where we've never suspected it, and it will continue to happen no matter how hard we try. On my second ever blog post, On nuclear proliferation and Iran, I dealt with this and suggested that we move the 'line in the sand,' which has been made a joke out of repeatedly by the rising tide of nuclear proliferation to a higher 'line in the sand,' in which we pledge to retaliate militarily against any nation that USES a nuke (as opposed just to building one). This post was written before the continuing failures in Iraq made it clear that a war against the U.S. is no longer to be feared as a deterrent as it once was, but if we could get other countries to go along with it, so that any nation that actually used a nuclear weapon would immediately be at war with all of the nations that signed on to this 'new line,' (with luck the five permanent members of the security council though that might be hard) it could have the potential to hold firm.
4. Given the availability of nukes in the world, we have to follow the recommendations of the 9/11 commission and inspect 100% of cargo containers coming into the country. Right now, only 2% are inspected. Yet this is the most likely scenario for a nuclear attack in the U.S. I'm not saying we should discount the possiblity of a nuclear missile strike on our territory from, say, North Korea (missile defense being one of the few issues in which I've reversed my position from where it was just a few years ago, in light of small rogue states which may be less rational than were the Soviets,) but I do think that we have to focus more on smaller weapons which a single person can transport (and which, unlike a crude ICBM, can with 100% accuracy be guided to their exact target before detonation.)
5. We also have to redouble our efforts to catch and get rid of the leadership of al-Qaeda. Unlike the various small disorganized cells around the world, the leadership (likely still) possesses the kind of cash that could get the attention of the North Koreans or other potential sellers. Obviously if bin Laden or one of his senior leadership were to arrange such a deal and obtain a nuke, there is little doubt that they, being no more at danger for it than they are now, would in fact use it.
6. And finally, don't panic. We had nuclear armed opponents during the Cold War. But we survived that. We did it by appealing to the people in those countries, not by military force, but by the advantages of our system. It took a long time, but eventually it worked. Like I wrote in a post not so long ago, also about Iran, in contrast to ineffective sanctions, trade with them until they can't stand it any longer.
we have the perfect weapon to deal with Tehran. The same weapons that brought down the thousands of nukes in the former Soviet Union, and the same weapons that we haven't used against North Korea or Cuba (hint: alone among old line traditional communist societies, they still stand.)
Disney. McDonalds. Hillary Duff. MTV.
And with products, inevitably follow ideas.
I'm surprised conservatives (who are still railing for an invasion of Iran, as if we have some secret armies somewhere that are just waiting for the command) don't see this. If anyone would see it, I'd expect it to be conservatives.
In North Korea, millions of people are oppressed and have no freedom, no food, in fact pretty much nothing at all. So I'd think this would work just as well (if not better) with North Korea than it would with Iran.
Cross posted at Night Birds Fountain
Friday, October 06, 2006
Guest post on Sar's blog leads to 'Fuzzy Math in a Nutshell'
I won't be here for the weekend, as we are going to head over to Moriarty, NM, where we used to live and take the kids to McCall's pumpkin patch (they get to pick out a pumpkin, but that is the last thing you do-- before that, the family we who runs it has made it a business and it's a lot of fun for the kids to go through their hay maze (or a fifteen acre corn maze if they are really adventurous) and play games (like 'gemstone panning' with a sluice box and lassoing and pedal cart racing) and just generally having a good time.
So what I would recommend you do if you want to read/comment on what I write is head over to Sar's blog, Belle of the Brawl, where I am honored to be the guest poster this week and posted why conservatives can't be trusted to lead the war on terrorism. I will probably repost it here next week sometime but I promised Sar I wouldn't post it anywhere else for a few days. Also, I am featured this week on Shayna's Music Highway Project.
I also will mention here that I got into a slightly off topic discussion in the comments over there in that a commenter started discussing fiscal conservatism and the deficit, so I made the following response (which has nothing to do with the war on terror but it's worth cutting and pasting here):
He [Bush] claims he is fiscally conservative as he cuts everything from the national parks to the veteran's administration. But look WHY the budget deficit has exploded (aside from the hundreds of billions in tax cuts, which were also geared towards the wealthy): Trillions handed out in corporate welfare, and almost all of it to industries or companies (like pharmaceutical companies and oil companies and credit card companies) that would be making billions even without all this government largesse.
True, the same industries gave millions to the GOP (and much smaller though still substantial amounts to Democrats) over the years.
So here is your fuzzy math: The wealthy corporations give millions to (mainly but not exclusively Republican) politicians, and also pay lobbyists to wine and dine said politicians when they are in Washington. They can do this because they are earning billions in profits. So then the politicians pass laws like the energy bill and the prescription drug bill that give them trillions in corporate welfare.
Oh, and then they go back home and campaign as 'fiscal conservatives' because they have tightened the rules on individual welfare and so cut some more people off the roles, even though the amount spent by the government on individual welfare is a tiny fraction by now of what is spent on corporate welfare, which they voted for.
So what I would recommend you do if you want to read/comment on what I write is head over to Sar's blog, Belle of the Brawl, where I am honored to be the guest poster this week and posted why conservatives can't be trusted to lead the war on terrorism. I will probably repost it here next week sometime but I promised Sar I wouldn't post it anywhere else for a few days. Also, I am featured this week on Shayna's Music Highway Project.
I also will mention here that I got into a slightly off topic discussion in the comments over there in that a commenter started discussing fiscal conservatism and the deficit, so I made the following response (which has nothing to do with the war on terror but it's worth cutting and pasting here):
He [Bush] claims he is fiscally conservative as he cuts everything from the national parks to the veteran's administration. But look WHY the budget deficit has exploded (aside from the hundreds of billions in tax cuts, which were also geared towards the wealthy): Trillions handed out in corporate welfare, and almost all of it to industries or companies (like pharmaceutical companies and oil companies and credit card companies) that would be making billions even without all this government largesse.
True, the same industries gave millions to the GOP (and much smaller though still substantial amounts to Democrats) over the years.
So here is your fuzzy math: The wealthy corporations give millions to (mainly but not exclusively Republican) politicians, and also pay lobbyists to wine and dine said politicians when they are in Washington. They can do this because they are earning billions in profits. So then the politicians pass laws like the energy bill and the prescription drug bill that give them trillions in corporate welfare.
Oh, and then they go back home and campaign as 'fiscal conservatives' because they have tightened the rules on individual welfare and so cut some more people off the roles, even though the amount spent by the government on individual welfare is a tiny fraction by now of what is spent on corporate welfare, which they voted for.
Thursday, October 05, 2006
How Bill O'Reilly makes sure Republicans don't get blamed for scandals
The right wing is always trying to claim that this scandal plagued Congress is 'bipartisan' scandal-plagued. Now, I'm not going to argue that there haven't been a couple of Democrats who have gotten into hot water, such as William Jefferson (the guy with the cash in his freezer) or Cynthia McKinney (who was thankfully defeated in a primary earlier this year). And there was the episode with Rep. Kennedy being drunk at 3 AM.
However, Democrats have a short list (and as the McKinney primary and Minority Leader Pelosi trying to strip Jefferson of his duties shows, the list they have, they take seriously). Comparing that to the scandal-plagued Republican Congress is like comparing a nice looking colt to Barbaro. There is a difference in magnitude that is astounding.
So, Bill O'Reilly, that 'fair and balanced' news anchor from FOX News, has hit on a new way to make it appear that scandals are bipartisan. Just label Republicans as Democrats. On a segment dealing with Mark Foley, the letter 'D' was carefully used in place of an 'R.' And then he repeated this on two other occasions, making it seem unlikely that it was a mere error.
What a sleazy tactic, but I can't say I'm surprised.
Hat tip to my lovely and charming sister, Miriam.
Wednesday, October 04, 2006
GOP plans victory party for Iraq.
In the movie, A Bridge Too Far, about the ill conceived and poorly planned allied parachute attack on Arnhem during World War II, there is one scene I will always remember.
The paratroopers in the movie are in desperate straits, with communication lost, and the airdrop zone where they are to be resupplied with food and ammunition in the hands of the enemy. In one scene, one of the crates that is being dropped with supplies misses the drop zone and falls tantalizingly close to the men, but out in the open where the Germans can shoot at anyone who tries to get near it. Because things are so desperate and the allied troops are almost out of ammunition and water, one of them risks his life and runs out to the crate. He grabs it and it looks as if he might make it back, when he is cut down by a burst of machine gun fire. The crate falls open. It is full of red, ceremonial hats-- sent by commanders who have apparently been reading their own propaganda and want the paratroopers to be ready for the victory parade.
I was reminded of this scene when I read this article: Congress plans for victory party.
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The military's top generals have warned Iraq is on the cusp of a civil war and that U.S. troops must remain in large numbers until at least next spring. But if the winds suddenly blow a different direction, Congress is ready to celebrate with a $20 million victory party.
Lawmakers included language in this year's defense spending bill, approved last week, allowing them to spend the money. The money for "commemoration of success" in Iraq and Afghanistan was originally tucked into last year's defense measure, but went unspent amid an uptick in violence in both countries that forced the Pentagon to extend tours of duty for thousands of troops.
Republicans have yet to claim responsibility for the provision. Democrats say it was likely added by the Senate's majority Republicans, and less than five weeks from congressional elections are pointing to it as another example of where the GOP has gone astray handling the war in Iraq.
Apparently someone in the GOP still thinks that victory is just around the corner (note that this is the authorization bill for this year only). This kind of out of touch with reality attitude is downright scary. But it goes along with what we've been hearing for the past three and a half years now, about how victory had already been achieved or was just about to happen, or whatever drivel they were framing on that day.
The paratroopers in the movie are in desperate straits, with communication lost, and the airdrop zone where they are to be resupplied with food and ammunition in the hands of the enemy. In one scene, one of the crates that is being dropped with supplies misses the drop zone and falls tantalizingly close to the men, but out in the open where the Germans can shoot at anyone who tries to get near it. Because things are so desperate and the allied troops are almost out of ammunition and water, one of them risks his life and runs out to the crate. He grabs it and it looks as if he might make it back, when he is cut down by a burst of machine gun fire. The crate falls open. It is full of red, ceremonial hats-- sent by commanders who have apparently been reading their own propaganda and want the paratroopers to be ready for the victory parade.
I was reminded of this scene when I read this article: Congress plans for victory party.
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The military's top generals have warned Iraq is on the cusp of a civil war and that U.S. troops must remain in large numbers until at least next spring. But if the winds suddenly blow a different direction, Congress is ready to celebrate with a $20 million victory party.
Lawmakers included language in this year's defense spending bill, approved last week, allowing them to spend the money. The money for "commemoration of success" in Iraq and Afghanistan was originally tucked into last year's defense measure, but went unspent amid an uptick in violence in both countries that forced the Pentagon to extend tours of duty for thousands of troops.
Republicans have yet to claim responsibility for the provision. Democrats say it was likely added by the Senate's majority Republicans, and less than five weeks from congressional elections are pointing to it as another example of where the GOP has gone astray handling the war in Iraq.
Apparently someone in the GOP still thinks that victory is just around the corner (note that this is the authorization bill for this year only). This kind of out of touch with reality attitude is downright scary. But it goes along with what we've been hearing for the past three and a half years now, about how victory had already been achieved or was just about to happen, or whatever drivel they were framing on that day.
Tuesday, October 03, 2006
The GOP-- too gutless to either support or refute Pierce
Well, at least we know where Russell Pierce stands on the issue.
The Republican legislator, who is best known for his hardline stance on undocumented workers, late last week praised "Operation Wetback," a 1950's mass deportation program in which millions of people were rounded up forcibly (in some cases violently) and trucked back across the border, and recommended reinstating it and doing the same thing fifty years later. Pierce then reiterated it today in the face of calls for him to take his remarks back, and said that he is proud to stand behind them.
The Hispanic community was outraged at Pierce, along with Democrats. The Arizona Democratic party issued a statement condemning Pierce's remarks, as have all the Democratic candidates running for statewide office. Then the party invited the Republicans to join them in condemning this sort of bigoted anti-immigrant attitude. We know where we stand on this. I stand with the rest of the Democratic party. The problem is not illegal immigration, it is illegal employment. Put people who hire illegally in prison, then the job magnet will dry up and they will no longer have the incentive to come.
So what have the Republicans said about it? Very little to talk about there, except of course for Pierce's buddy, Randy Graf, who agrees with Pierce. Gubernatorial candidate Len Munsil did comment on Pierce's remarks. He called the name of the program, 'offensive' and said he didn't support doing the same thing today because 'it's not practical.' I would assume from that tepid response that if they changed the name to say, "Operation sugar-coat" and could figure out a way to do it practically, then Munsil's objections would be satisfied and he would then side with Pierce.
The rest of the state Republicans have said nothing at all. Nada. Zilch. Zip. The state GOP actually came out and said that they are not taking a position and won't say anything about it. Their candidates are clearly taking a cue from the state party organization. Even Munsil's weak, weak response was better than what we are (or in this case aren't) hearing from most Republicans.
Well, at least it is nice to know they are all taking a position on Pierce's remark. They stand firmly in favor of not taking a position.
The Republican legislator, who is best known for his hardline stance on undocumented workers, late last week praised "Operation Wetback," a 1950's mass deportation program in which millions of people were rounded up forcibly (in some cases violently) and trucked back across the border, and recommended reinstating it and doing the same thing fifty years later. Pierce then reiterated it today in the face of calls for him to take his remarks back, and said that he is proud to stand behind them.
The Hispanic community was outraged at Pierce, along with Democrats. The Arizona Democratic party issued a statement condemning Pierce's remarks, as have all the Democratic candidates running for statewide office. Then the party invited the Republicans to join them in condemning this sort of bigoted anti-immigrant attitude. We know where we stand on this. I stand with the rest of the Democratic party. The problem is not illegal immigration, it is illegal employment. Put people who hire illegally in prison, then the job magnet will dry up and they will no longer have the incentive to come.
So what have the Republicans said about it? Very little to talk about there, except of course for Pierce's buddy, Randy Graf, who agrees with Pierce. Gubernatorial candidate Len Munsil did comment on Pierce's remarks. He called the name of the program, 'offensive' and said he didn't support doing the same thing today because 'it's not practical.' I would assume from that tepid response that if they changed the name to say, "Operation sugar-coat" and could figure out a way to do it practically, then Munsil's objections would be satisfied and he would then side with Pierce.
The rest of the state Republicans have said nothing at all. Nada. Zilch. Zip. The state GOP actually came out and said that they are not taking a position and won't say anything about it. Their candidates are clearly taking a cue from the state party organization. Even Munsil's weak, weak response was better than what we are (or in this case aren't) hearing from most Republicans.
Well, at least it is nice to know they are all taking a position on Pierce's remark. They stand firmly in favor of not taking a position.
Keep on working hard, you know they're desperate when they stoop this low.
It looks like some Republicans are starting to become unglued. I just received information that this past Friday, vandals targetted the Democratic Party's Headquarters in Tucson. Police haven't made any arrests yet, but the investigation is ongoing. The vandalism was clearly designed to interfere with campaign activities, as for example phone lines used for canvassing voters were cut and this has pointed suspicion directly at someone who wants the Democrats to fail.
This sort of thing is inexcusable no matter who is doing it, or who they are doing it to (for example, I also condemned at the time the tire slashing of some vehicles at a GOP headquarters in Wisconsin on election day of 2004 which delayed giving some voters rides to the polls.)
However, this also seems like a desperate act. With the Republicans nominating an extremist with high negatives who is now down 10% in the race for the (currently Republican) open Congressional seat in southern Arizona, it seems they are starting to resort to dirty, dangerous and illegal tactics.
This sort of thing is inexcusable no matter who is doing it, or who they are doing it to (for example, I also condemned at the time the tire slashing of some vehicles at a GOP headquarters in Wisconsin on election day of 2004 which delayed giving some voters rides to the polls.)
However, this also seems like a desperate act. With the Republicans nominating an extremist with high negatives who is now down 10% in the race for the (currently Republican) open Congressional seat in southern Arizona, it seems they are starting to resort to dirty, dangerous and illegal tactics.
Monday, October 02, 2006
George walked loudly and now only holds the splintered handle of a stick.
Theodore Roosevelt understood the value of deterrence. He once said, 'speak softly and carry a big stick.' What he meant was, that with the U.S. then an emerging power, with such clear symbols of great power status as the 'Great White Fleet' (a fleet of the most modern steam powered dreadnaughts then on the sea) and with the recent example of the Spanish-American war to show that the U.S. could kick butt on other countries, any European power that thought of challenging American hegemony over the western hemisphere (where the U.S. felt free to overthrow governments, invade countries or carry out police actions as befit her, but would brook no interference from other countries) or in the northern Pacific (Hawaii and the Philippines) would have to face the wrath of that Great White Fleet, which under the leadership of Admiral Dewey and armed with longer range and more accurate guns, had wrecked the Spanish fleet at Manila at the cost of a single dead American sailor. But the key is that he never went to war against any of the European powers. As long as he had the deterrent intact and limited conflicts to occasional short, intense episodes against some petty latin American dictator who had worn out his welcome in Washington, 'gunboat diplomacy' worked. True there was a brief rebellion in the Philippines that Roosevelt brutally suppressed but he did so by pouring in enough Americans to crush it and then pulled out the marines in time so that they were still a credible deterrent.
Today though, we see another story out: Don Rumsfeld is worrying about the military buildup on the part of Washington's latest nemesis, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. Though I have myself said some good things about the democratically elected Chavez in the past, clearly recently he has been taking a path that is increasingly bellicose.
In terms of belligerence, however, he is still way behind North Korea and Iran. Why are these nations all trying to pull Washington's tail right now?
Not hard to see why. George Bush used the big stick. Our military is now trapped in Iraq, and we have no way to get it out any time soon. Recent call backs of former service members and national guardsmen who had left the military are effectively a draft (though one which is politically less damaging and avoids the thorny issue of the 'gays in the military' policy which if a full draft were implemented, then claiming to engage in homosexual activity would become a way to dodge the draft.) What this shows is that our military is stretched to the limit. And we well know why-- the Rumsfeld doctrine, which was designed to use a 'leaner, meaner' military and put less troops on the battlefield has in fact left us more vulnerable and weaker, as the insurgency which General Shinseki feared would be planted in Iraq if we occupied initially with anything less than 400,000 troops, has in fact occurred. It has grown to the point that even if we could scrape together 400,000 troops today (which would have to almost all be American since most of our coalition partners have bailed on us) it would be a matter of too little, too late. The eventual reconfiguration of Iraq as three separate nations has already begun, and the sooner the Bush administration realizes it the better off we will all be. For that matter, we have muffed the war in Afghanistan (and the biggest muff there IS Iraq) so that we are now stuck in a much more difficult and deteriorating situation there too, thanks again to the 'Rumsfeld doctrine.'
So we no longer have the deterrent that the Iranians and others once had to fear. And they know that until we can extricate ourselves from the quicksand of Iraq, they have no reason to fear it or to be deterred from anything.
Just remember that George Bush took over a superpower. When he leaves office, the U.S. still will be the strongest power in the world, but 'superpower' status probably won't be accurate anymore.
Today though, we see another story out: Don Rumsfeld is worrying about the military buildup on the part of Washington's latest nemesis, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. Though I have myself said some good things about the democratically elected Chavez in the past, clearly recently he has been taking a path that is increasingly bellicose.
In terms of belligerence, however, he is still way behind North Korea and Iran. Why are these nations all trying to pull Washington's tail right now?
Not hard to see why. George Bush used the big stick. Our military is now trapped in Iraq, and we have no way to get it out any time soon. Recent call backs of former service members and national guardsmen who had left the military are effectively a draft (though one which is politically less damaging and avoids the thorny issue of the 'gays in the military' policy which if a full draft were implemented, then claiming to engage in homosexual activity would become a way to dodge the draft.) What this shows is that our military is stretched to the limit. And we well know why-- the Rumsfeld doctrine, which was designed to use a 'leaner, meaner' military and put less troops on the battlefield has in fact left us more vulnerable and weaker, as the insurgency which General Shinseki feared would be planted in Iraq if we occupied initially with anything less than 400,000 troops, has in fact occurred. It has grown to the point that even if we could scrape together 400,000 troops today (which would have to almost all be American since most of our coalition partners have bailed on us) it would be a matter of too little, too late. The eventual reconfiguration of Iraq as three separate nations has already begun, and the sooner the Bush administration realizes it the better off we will all be. For that matter, we have muffed the war in Afghanistan (and the biggest muff there IS Iraq) so that we are now stuck in a much more difficult and deteriorating situation there too, thanks again to the 'Rumsfeld doctrine.'
So we no longer have the deterrent that the Iranians and others once had to fear. And they know that until we can extricate ourselves from the quicksand of Iraq, they have no reason to fear it or to be deterred from anything.
Just remember that George Bush took over a superpower. When he leaves office, the U.S. still will be the strongest power in the world, but 'superpower' status probably won't be accurate anymore.
Saturday, September 30, 2006
Hastert's latest shows why he needs to go.
Ever hear of Buck Weaver? Probably not, unless you are either a baseball history buff or interested in the history of legal issues surrounding sports.
Buck Weaver played third base for the Chicago White Sox from 1912-1920. He was a member of the 1919 Chicago White Sox team that, though heavily favored lost the World Series against the Cincinnati Reds, five games to three. After that season baseball's most infamous moment, the 'Black Sox scandal' broke. Eight of Weaver's teammates including Joe Jackson (who would otherwise be in the Hall of Fame today) and Ed Cicotte (who might otherwise, had he continued his pitching career, have made it to the Hall of Fame) were revealed to have taken bribes from gamblers in exchange for making key mistakes, serving up fat pitches, or striking out at key times during the world series.
Commissioner Kennesaw Mountain Landis took quick action. He suspended nine players for life (and according to the Hall of Fame committee, they remain suspended today, even though they have passed beyond this life.) NINE? There were, of course only EIGHT 'Black Sox' (subject of the recent movie, 'Eight men out.'
Well, the ninth man was Buck Weaver. He did not take a dollar from anyone to throw the series, nor did he play anything other than his best. So why was he suspended along with the other eight? Simple. Because Buck Weaver knew about the crime and did not tell anyone about it. Had he done so, it would have been uncovered before the series, whatever action was appropriate then would have been taken, and the integrity of the game would have been preserved. So in the end, Buck Weaver was every bit as guilty and culpable as the eight men who took the bribes. This is also why the Service Academies and some other high quality educational institutions enforce anti-cheating policies in which anyone who learns about a fellow student cheating and fails to report it is dealt with in exactly the same manner as the cheater is.
Yesterday, as we all know, Florida Congressman Mark Foley resigned from Congress after it was disclosed that he sent sexually suggestive emails to a fifteen year old page for another Congressman, Rodney Alexander of Louisiana.
All of which makes two of today's stories together sound like a bizarre and sick irony. The first states that Speaker Denny Hastert knew of these emails months ago and did nothing, apparently believing that it was not a serious problem.
"Rodney Alexander brought to my attention the existence of e-mails between Mark Foley and a former page of Mr. Alexander's," Reynolds, chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee, said in a written statement Saturday.
"Despite the fact that I had not seen the e-mails in question, and Mr. Alexander told me that the parents didn't want the matter pursued, I told the speaker of the conversation Mr. Alexander had with me," Reynolds said.
Hastert said he does not remember talking to Reynolds about the Foley e-mails, but did not dispute Reynolds' account.
"While the speaker does not explicitly recall this conversation, he has no reason to dispute Congressman Reynolds' recollection that he reported to him on the problem and its resolution," Hastert's aides said in a preliminary report on the matter issued Saturday.
The report includes a lengthy timeline detailing when they first learned of the worrisome e-mail in the fall of 2005, after a staffer for Alexander told Hastert's office the family wanted Foley to stop contacting their son. Alexander's staffer did not share the contents of the e-mail, saying it was not sexual but "over-friendly," the report says.
And there was absolutely no indication that between that time and Foley's surprise resignation on Friday, that Speaker Hastert did anything about the emails or Congressman Foley at all, even not having a problem with his remaining co-chair of the caucus on missing or exploited children.
So then today we nearly simultaneously see the following story out: House leaders call for Foley investigation.
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The top three Republicans in the House assailed Rep. Mark Foley Saturday over his e-mails to a teenage male page and said his resignation was not enough.
Calling the incident "an obscene breach of trust," the congressmen released a statement saying, "[Foley's] immediate resignation must now be followed by the full weight of the criminal justice system."
"The improper communications between Congressman Mark Foley and former House congressional pages is unacceptable and abhorrent. It is an obscene breach of trust," read the statement issued by Majority Leader John Boehner of Ohio, House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert of Illinois, and Majority Whip Roy Blunt of Missouri.
I fear for the speaker's health. Within a few hours he has gone from not thinking this was a serious problem to calling it 'an obscene breach of trust' and demanding a criminal probe. With a flip-flop that fast, it would be like throwing a car that is going sixty miles an hour into reverse gear. Aside from risking the destruction of his vehicle (in this case any credibility the House Republican leadership has left post-DeLay), Hastert risks a severe case of whiplash.
What changed in the intervening hours? Not really a whole lot, except for one thing-- the emails became public knowlege, and Foley's formerly safe district was added to the long list of Republican held districts that could elect a Democrat (which threatens Hastert's seat of power). So once the whole thing was out in the open, in contrast to his ignoring it when he was one of the very few people who had both the knowlege and the power to do something about it, Hastert is trying to reposition himself as the chief inquisitor. While I agree with his new position and hope that a criminal probe does take place (if you've read this blog for very long you well know that I have strong opinions about child abuse), for Denny Hastert, Speaker of the House, the man who knew about the Foley emails last year but swept them under the rug, to now claim to take the lead on this is ludicrous.
Hastert, who has mainly used his position as speaker to become the 'prince of pork' (since about 1/3 of new Federal spending for the state of Illinois ends up in his district, about five percent population-wise of the state) has presided over the house since Newt Gingrich resigned after the Clinton impeachment fiasco cost Republicans seats in 1998, and Gingrich's handpicked successor, Bob Livingston of Louisiana, stepped out because of another sex scandal. During his tenure, Hastert has presided over a corrupt Republican caucus, that was led by Tom DeLay (who as Majority Leader did Hastert's bidding). Just in the past year we've seen one member of his Republican caucus go to prison for bribery, another (DeLay) resign after being indicted for alleged crimes directly related to why Hastert even has a majority), another plead guilty just the other day on a corruption charge, and many others under investigation as the Abramoff probe widens. Virtually the entire caucus took questionable money raised by DeLay. Hastert did nothing. Only a fool would suggest that Hastert didn't know a great deal about DeLay's dealings.
But what this latest episode involving Mark Foley does show is that Speaker Hastert is morally bankrupt, a man with no backbone or sense of right and wrong, who is only looking out for his 'majority' (read 'his job') and who will do anything to win an election.
All I have to say is this: Republicans running in close races in some districts in 'red' states have tried to scare people by saying that if Democrats take over Congress, "San Francisco Liberal Nancy Pelosi" will become speaker. Well, if anyone is worried about that (and I know that some conservatives are, though I think that Pelosi has largely been inaccurately portrayed by the right), just consider what else happens if Republicans lose control of Congress. Denny Hastert won't be speaker anymore. And that day has been overdue for a long, long time.
Buck Weaver played third base for the Chicago White Sox from 1912-1920. He was a member of the 1919 Chicago White Sox team that, though heavily favored lost the World Series against the Cincinnati Reds, five games to three. After that season baseball's most infamous moment, the 'Black Sox scandal' broke. Eight of Weaver's teammates including Joe Jackson (who would otherwise be in the Hall of Fame today) and Ed Cicotte (who might otherwise, had he continued his pitching career, have made it to the Hall of Fame) were revealed to have taken bribes from gamblers in exchange for making key mistakes, serving up fat pitches, or striking out at key times during the world series.
Commissioner Kennesaw Mountain Landis took quick action. He suspended nine players for life (and according to the Hall of Fame committee, they remain suspended today, even though they have passed beyond this life.) NINE? There were, of course only EIGHT 'Black Sox' (subject of the recent movie, 'Eight men out.'
Well, the ninth man was Buck Weaver. He did not take a dollar from anyone to throw the series, nor did he play anything other than his best. So why was he suspended along with the other eight? Simple. Because Buck Weaver knew about the crime and did not tell anyone about it. Had he done so, it would have been uncovered before the series, whatever action was appropriate then would have been taken, and the integrity of the game would have been preserved. So in the end, Buck Weaver was every bit as guilty and culpable as the eight men who took the bribes. This is also why the Service Academies and some other high quality educational institutions enforce anti-cheating policies in which anyone who learns about a fellow student cheating and fails to report it is dealt with in exactly the same manner as the cheater is.
Yesterday, as we all know, Florida Congressman Mark Foley resigned from Congress after it was disclosed that he sent sexually suggestive emails to a fifteen year old page for another Congressman, Rodney Alexander of Louisiana.
All of which makes two of today's stories together sound like a bizarre and sick irony. The first states that Speaker Denny Hastert knew of these emails months ago and did nothing, apparently believing that it was not a serious problem.
"Rodney Alexander brought to my attention the existence of e-mails between Mark Foley and a former page of Mr. Alexander's," Reynolds, chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee, said in a written statement Saturday.
"Despite the fact that I had not seen the e-mails in question, and Mr. Alexander told me that the parents didn't want the matter pursued, I told the speaker of the conversation Mr. Alexander had with me," Reynolds said.
Hastert said he does not remember talking to Reynolds about the Foley e-mails, but did not dispute Reynolds' account.
"While the speaker does not explicitly recall this conversation, he has no reason to dispute Congressman Reynolds' recollection that he reported to him on the problem and its resolution," Hastert's aides said in a preliminary report on the matter issued Saturday.
The report includes a lengthy timeline detailing when they first learned of the worrisome e-mail in the fall of 2005, after a staffer for Alexander told Hastert's office the family wanted Foley to stop contacting their son. Alexander's staffer did not share the contents of the e-mail, saying it was not sexual but "over-friendly," the report says.
And there was absolutely no indication that between that time and Foley's surprise resignation on Friday, that Speaker Hastert did anything about the emails or Congressman Foley at all, even not having a problem with his remaining co-chair of the caucus on missing or exploited children.
So then today we nearly simultaneously see the following story out: House leaders call for Foley investigation.
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The top three Republicans in the House assailed Rep. Mark Foley Saturday over his e-mails to a teenage male page and said his resignation was not enough.
Calling the incident "an obscene breach of trust," the congressmen released a statement saying, "[Foley's] immediate resignation must now be followed by the full weight of the criminal justice system."
"The improper communications between Congressman Mark Foley and former House congressional pages is unacceptable and abhorrent. It is an obscene breach of trust," read the statement issued by Majority Leader John Boehner of Ohio, House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert of Illinois, and Majority Whip Roy Blunt of Missouri.
I fear for the speaker's health. Within a few hours he has gone from not thinking this was a serious problem to calling it 'an obscene breach of trust' and demanding a criminal probe. With a flip-flop that fast, it would be like throwing a car that is going sixty miles an hour into reverse gear. Aside from risking the destruction of his vehicle (in this case any credibility the House Republican leadership has left post-DeLay), Hastert risks a severe case of whiplash.
What changed in the intervening hours? Not really a whole lot, except for one thing-- the emails became public knowlege, and Foley's formerly safe district was added to the long list of Republican held districts that could elect a Democrat (which threatens Hastert's seat of power). So once the whole thing was out in the open, in contrast to his ignoring it when he was one of the very few people who had both the knowlege and the power to do something about it, Hastert is trying to reposition himself as the chief inquisitor. While I agree with his new position and hope that a criminal probe does take place (if you've read this blog for very long you well know that I have strong opinions about child abuse), for Denny Hastert, Speaker of the House, the man who knew about the Foley emails last year but swept them under the rug, to now claim to take the lead on this is ludicrous.
Hastert, who has mainly used his position as speaker to become the 'prince of pork' (since about 1/3 of new Federal spending for the state of Illinois ends up in his district, about five percent population-wise of the state) has presided over the house since Newt Gingrich resigned after the Clinton impeachment fiasco cost Republicans seats in 1998, and Gingrich's handpicked successor, Bob Livingston of Louisiana, stepped out because of another sex scandal. During his tenure, Hastert has presided over a corrupt Republican caucus, that was led by Tom DeLay (who as Majority Leader did Hastert's bidding). Just in the past year we've seen one member of his Republican caucus go to prison for bribery, another (DeLay) resign after being indicted for alleged crimes directly related to why Hastert even has a majority), another plead guilty just the other day on a corruption charge, and many others under investigation as the Abramoff probe widens. Virtually the entire caucus took questionable money raised by DeLay. Hastert did nothing. Only a fool would suggest that Hastert didn't know a great deal about DeLay's dealings.
But what this latest episode involving Mark Foley does show is that Speaker Hastert is morally bankrupt, a man with no backbone or sense of right and wrong, who is only looking out for his 'majority' (read 'his job') and who will do anything to win an election.
All I have to say is this: Republicans running in close races in some districts in 'red' states have tried to scare people by saying that if Democrats take over Congress, "San Francisco Liberal Nancy Pelosi" will become speaker. Well, if anyone is worried about that (and I know that some conservatives are, though I think that Pelosi has largely been inaccurately portrayed by the right), just consider what else happens if Republicans lose control of Congress. Denny Hastert won't be speaker anymore. And that day has been overdue for a long, long time.
Congressman Foley resigns over emails.
Today, Florida Congressman Mark Foley resigned over a series of sexually suggestive emails to a fifteen year old page.
What is even more apalling about this story is that Foley is the co-chair of the Missing and Exploited Children's Caucus. Foley had introduced legislation in July to protect children from exploitation by adults over the Internet. He also sponsored other legislation designed to protect minors from abuse and neglect.
And therein lies the rub.
I consider Foley's resignation to have been entirely appropriate. But I don't consider that Bill Clinton should have been impeached. Why is this? Is it because I'm a Democrat?
No, it has nothing to do with that. It has to do with a number. The page was 15. Monica Lewinsky was 22.
15 < 18. 22 > 18.
It's that simple. I may not agree with what consenting adults do with each other, but in the end it really isn't our business. But when a child is exploited, it become everybody's business.
What this does do, aside from opening up a seat he should have hung unto easily just weeks ahead of the election, is reinforce the stereotype that all Congressmen are corrupt, crooks or otherwise sleazy. And I don't even think it is true-- I believe that many are but I'd still like to believe that at least a majority are still good people. But then they don't make headlines so we learn a lot more about the bad ones.
What is even more apalling about this story is that Foley is the co-chair of the Missing and Exploited Children's Caucus. Foley had introduced legislation in July to protect children from exploitation by adults over the Internet. He also sponsored other legislation designed to protect minors from abuse and neglect.
And therein lies the rub.
I consider Foley's resignation to have been entirely appropriate. But I don't consider that Bill Clinton should have been impeached. Why is this? Is it because I'm a Democrat?
No, it has nothing to do with that. It has to do with a number. The page was 15. Monica Lewinsky was 22.
15 < 18. 22 > 18.
It's that simple. I may not agree with what consenting adults do with each other, but in the end it really isn't our business. But when a child is exploited, it become everybody's business.
What this does do, aside from opening up a seat he should have hung unto easily just weeks ahead of the election, is reinforce the stereotype that all Congressmen are corrupt, crooks or otherwise sleazy. And I don't even think it is true-- I believe that many are but I'd still like to believe that at least a majority are still good people. But then they don't make headlines so we learn a lot more about the bad ones.
Wisconsin school shooting. What should we do?
Today, there was yet another school shooting, this time in Wisconsin. A fifteen year old male special ed student, who had received a disciplinary note just a couple of days ago, shot the principal of his high school in the head, chest and leg. After several hours of surgery, it is being reported that the principal has died. This continues a deadly trend that seems to happen every year, but which never happened when I grew up.
Why is this?
It is tempting for some to blame the availability of guns, but that is exactly wrong. Guns were more available when I was a kid than they are now, what with background checks, limits on who can buy them and on sellers. Guns have always been readily available for those who want them, whether for good or evil, but the fact is that when I was a kid (mostly in the 1970's) no one thought about shooting anyone at school. In fact, when I was in ROTC in high school we had marksmanship and training with guns (and that isn't where I first learned to handle one either-- my father started taking me out shooting when I was seven.) But no one thought about shooting people at a school.
One could argue that media coverage of school shootings plays into why there are now more of them. In fact, just a few days before today's shooting, a deranged man in Colorado barged into a school and took six female hostages, molested all of them, and then killed one of them and himself. Did news coverage of that event lead today's shooter to consider a gun as a way to 'get back' at the principal for the disciplinary note? Perhaps, but not enough is known and the two cases are different other than the fact that they both involve guns in schools.
On the more general question of whether news coverage of school shootings has at least put the idea into the heads of disturbed kids who may then act on it, that does seem a rational explanation, but we have to be very careful then about not jumping to the simplistic conclusion that if the news would no longer cover these events then they wouldn't happen anymore.
For one thing, asking the media not to cover anything is risky. There are some cases in which information is left out of the news-- for example the rape shield exemption in which the victim of an alleged rape is not named, along with the reluctance of most news outlets to name minors accused of a crime (which may not apply in this case because the crime is murder), or if the information detrimental to national security (I've myself chosen not to discuss a couple of items I either know or have considered as possible threats on this blog because of security concerns, even though I would put the likelihood of terrorists actually reading Deep Thought as very low.) However, when we start asking the media to actually not even report that something has happened, then we enter a slippery slope towards censorship. Far better to try and figure out how to stop 'copycat crimes,' even when they are as serious as this, than that we move in any way towards a world in which news is not reported. That said, we could consider how important this news is.
A school shooting is certainly huge news in the community where it occurs and the people who live there deserve to know it, as do residents of surrounding communities which might be involved. But at a larger, national level is it really worth breaking into coverage of other TV programs for, as happened tonight? This is certainly a horrible thing for the citizens of a rural region in Wisconsin, but then so too is a fatal traffic accident or any other murder, but living in Arizona I don't hear about every traffic fatality nor every murder that occurs in the state of Wisconsin. And there is no reason why I should. If the scale of the murder is very large or if there are other issues (i.e. Columbine) then a school shooting rampage certainly does require a national discussion, but unless this is the case maybe the media does oversensationalize these particular crimes. But if they want to quit reporting them nationally, that is a decision that the media should make by themselves and not because Congress or anyone else tells them what to report on.
It is also unfair to just blame the media. There are a multitude of reasons why these crimes occur. And to start with, most kids by the time they are in high school know that as a historical fact there have been school shootings (they exist) but they themselves don't feel compelled to go get a gun and start firing. So the better question to ask is what makes the kids who do that different? What predictors can be used.
And we have several. In almost every case the shooter has been described as a 'loner,' and often has been the victim of bullying while in school. Schools as a result have become much more aggressive in combatting bullying than they used to, and that is a good thing. It is especially a good thing for the bullies, who often it turns out have an unstable home life and with the renewed emphasis it is in some cases allowing those families to be identified and get the help they need or in rare cases the kids to be removed from the home if it is unsuitable for raising children.
We have also seen that in a number of cases (as was the case here) the shooter has gotten into trouble at school. Perhaps conseling may be needed to help kids who get into trouble at school move forward with addressing their problems instead of just shuffling them off into detention or suspension and welcoming them back when it is over.
Many school shooters have written online or in emails to friends exactly what they are thinking. We need to be better adept at finding it on the web before it becomes reality.
There are many other reasons which are sometimes cited, though I cannot say which if any of them are valid-- some of them include violent video/computer games, violence on TV and the movies, drugs, abusive parents, difficulty with schoolwork, and the all-too-familiar 'That couldn't be MY kid, it's somebody else's' type parent.
We don't fully know yet how to prevent school shootings but certainly any ideas are welcome.
Why is this?
It is tempting for some to blame the availability of guns, but that is exactly wrong. Guns were more available when I was a kid than they are now, what with background checks, limits on who can buy them and on sellers. Guns have always been readily available for those who want them, whether for good or evil, but the fact is that when I was a kid (mostly in the 1970's) no one thought about shooting anyone at school. In fact, when I was in ROTC in high school we had marksmanship and training with guns (and that isn't where I first learned to handle one either-- my father started taking me out shooting when I was seven.) But no one thought about shooting people at a school.
One could argue that media coverage of school shootings plays into why there are now more of them. In fact, just a few days before today's shooting, a deranged man in Colorado barged into a school and took six female hostages, molested all of them, and then killed one of them and himself. Did news coverage of that event lead today's shooter to consider a gun as a way to 'get back' at the principal for the disciplinary note? Perhaps, but not enough is known and the two cases are different other than the fact that they both involve guns in schools.
On the more general question of whether news coverage of school shootings has at least put the idea into the heads of disturbed kids who may then act on it, that does seem a rational explanation, but we have to be very careful then about not jumping to the simplistic conclusion that if the news would no longer cover these events then they wouldn't happen anymore.
For one thing, asking the media not to cover anything is risky. There are some cases in which information is left out of the news-- for example the rape shield exemption in which the victim of an alleged rape is not named, along with the reluctance of most news outlets to name minors accused of a crime (which may not apply in this case because the crime is murder), or if the information detrimental to national security (I've myself chosen not to discuss a couple of items I either know or have considered as possible threats on this blog because of security concerns, even though I would put the likelihood of terrorists actually reading Deep Thought as very low.) However, when we start asking the media to actually not even report that something has happened, then we enter a slippery slope towards censorship. Far better to try and figure out how to stop 'copycat crimes,' even when they are as serious as this, than that we move in any way towards a world in which news is not reported. That said, we could consider how important this news is.
A school shooting is certainly huge news in the community where it occurs and the people who live there deserve to know it, as do residents of surrounding communities which might be involved. But at a larger, national level is it really worth breaking into coverage of other TV programs for, as happened tonight? This is certainly a horrible thing for the citizens of a rural region in Wisconsin, but then so too is a fatal traffic accident or any other murder, but living in Arizona I don't hear about every traffic fatality nor every murder that occurs in the state of Wisconsin. And there is no reason why I should. If the scale of the murder is very large or if there are other issues (i.e. Columbine) then a school shooting rampage certainly does require a national discussion, but unless this is the case maybe the media does oversensationalize these particular crimes. But if they want to quit reporting them nationally, that is a decision that the media should make by themselves and not because Congress or anyone else tells them what to report on.
It is also unfair to just blame the media. There are a multitude of reasons why these crimes occur. And to start with, most kids by the time they are in high school know that as a historical fact there have been school shootings (they exist) but they themselves don't feel compelled to go get a gun and start firing. So the better question to ask is what makes the kids who do that different? What predictors can be used.
And we have several. In almost every case the shooter has been described as a 'loner,' and often has been the victim of bullying while in school. Schools as a result have become much more aggressive in combatting bullying than they used to, and that is a good thing. It is especially a good thing for the bullies, who often it turns out have an unstable home life and with the renewed emphasis it is in some cases allowing those families to be identified and get the help they need or in rare cases the kids to be removed from the home if it is unsuitable for raising children.
We have also seen that in a number of cases (as was the case here) the shooter has gotten into trouble at school. Perhaps conseling may be needed to help kids who get into trouble at school move forward with addressing their problems instead of just shuffling them off into detention or suspension and welcoming them back when it is over.
Many school shooters have written online or in emails to friends exactly what they are thinking. We need to be better adept at finding it on the web before it becomes reality.
There are many other reasons which are sometimes cited, though I cannot say which if any of them are valid-- some of them include violent video/computer games, violence on TV and the movies, drugs, abusive parents, difficulty with schoolwork, and the all-too-familiar 'That couldn't be MY kid, it's somebody else's' type parent.
We don't fully know yet how to prevent school shootings but certainly any ideas are welcome.
Thursday, September 28, 2006
Insurgency was anticipated. Rumsfeld just doesn't admit it.
Don Rumsfeld claims that no one anticipated the strength of the insurgency in Iraq.
"Well, I think that anyone who looks at it with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight has to say that there was not an anticipation that the level of insurgency would be anything approximating what it is," Rumsfeld told CNN for the documentary, "CNN Presents Rumsfeld -- Man of War," which debuts Saturday at 8 p.m. ET.
Well, he could be right, if he said that 'Don Rumsfeld didn't anticipate the strength of the insurgency.' For that matter, neither did George Bush, Dick Cheney, Condoleeza Rice, Paul Wolfowitz or the rest of the neocon idiots that planned this war.
But it is wrong to say that no one anticipated it.
Gen. Eric Shinseki anticipated it. He calculated before the war that the U.S. would need 400,000 troops after the fall of Baghdad in order to prevent an insurgency from taking root. This directly contradicted the 'Rumsfeld doctrine' of supposedly being able to do this lightly (read cheaply-- this is what happens when you have fiscal conservatives running a war.) Rumsfeld remained fixed on his initial estimate of 100,000 troops and-- in a clear signal to the rest of the military leadership-- forced Gen. Shinseki to retire. Gen. Casey, who knew better than to openly confront the boss, sweet talked him up to 150,000 but that was still a woefully inadequate number.
And remember all that talk from Bush and Rumsfeld about not taking decisions on the ground away from the generals, and about how 'if they ask for more forces on the ground then we will give it to them?'
Well, also from the linked article:
One of those is the man who led the 1st Infantry Division in northwest Iraq in 2004. Former U.S. Army Maj. Gen John Batiste said he asked for more troops and was turned down.
"We're in a real fix right now [in Iraq]," Batiste told CNN. "We're there because Secretary Donald Rumsfeld ignored sound military advice, dismissed it all, went with his plan and his plan alone."
By 2004 the insurgency was in full swing and we had heard that promise of letting the generals make the call multiple times on TV. It was all a big fat lie, but they said it anyway because they were trying to win an election.
It's bad enough that we are led by incompetents. But it is worse that their incompetence is mixed with an unwillingness to let the military leaders do their jobs.
"Well, I think that anyone who looks at it with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight has to say that there was not an anticipation that the level of insurgency would be anything approximating what it is," Rumsfeld told CNN for the documentary, "CNN Presents Rumsfeld -- Man of War," which debuts Saturday at 8 p.m. ET.
Well, he could be right, if he said that 'Don Rumsfeld didn't anticipate the strength of the insurgency.' For that matter, neither did George Bush, Dick Cheney, Condoleeza Rice, Paul Wolfowitz or the rest of the neocon idiots that planned this war.
But it is wrong to say that no one anticipated it.
Gen. Eric Shinseki anticipated it. He calculated before the war that the U.S. would need 400,000 troops after the fall of Baghdad in order to prevent an insurgency from taking root. This directly contradicted the 'Rumsfeld doctrine' of supposedly being able to do this lightly (read cheaply-- this is what happens when you have fiscal conservatives running a war.) Rumsfeld remained fixed on his initial estimate of 100,000 troops and-- in a clear signal to the rest of the military leadership-- forced Gen. Shinseki to retire. Gen. Casey, who knew better than to openly confront the boss, sweet talked him up to 150,000 but that was still a woefully inadequate number.
And remember all that talk from Bush and Rumsfeld about not taking decisions on the ground away from the generals, and about how 'if they ask for more forces on the ground then we will give it to them?'
Well, also from the linked article:
One of those is the man who led the 1st Infantry Division in northwest Iraq in 2004. Former U.S. Army Maj. Gen John Batiste said he asked for more troops and was turned down.
"We're in a real fix right now [in Iraq]," Batiste told CNN. "We're there because Secretary Donald Rumsfeld ignored sound military advice, dismissed it all, went with his plan and his plan alone."
By 2004 the insurgency was in full swing and we had heard that promise of letting the generals make the call multiple times on TV. It was all a big fat lie, but they said it anyway because they were trying to win an election.
It's bad enough that we are led by incompetents. But it is worse that their incompetence is mixed with an unwillingness to let the military leaders do their jobs.
Monday, September 25, 2006
Did Bill Montgomery hire illegal immigrants to make a commerical about illegal immigration?
Attorney General Terry Goddard has filed a complaint against Republican challenger Bill Montgomery, alleging that Montgomery hired illegal aliens in a campaign commercial (which has not been aired yet) in which the men were portraying illegal aliens being arrested, and further did so using clean elections funds allocated for the primary, and not the general election.
While I actually suspect that Montgomery may technically be right on the second charge (the commercial was apparently filmed and paid for on September 12, the date of the primary, before the polls closed) he clearly is abusing the intent of the law.
On the more serious charge, Montgomery only says this:
Montgomery said he does not know the immigration status of the men filmed for the commercial, who were hired by a company contracted to produce the spot.
OK. This is a man who wants to become the chief law enforcement officer for the state, and he can't even guarantee that his own campaign is in compliance with the law.
It does seem that someone knows about the immigration status of the men:
A Gilbert town employee, Matt LaMotte, watched as the commercial was filmed Sept. 12 at Freestone Park. He filed a town incident report documenting what he saw.
LaMotte's report was included in the Clean Elections complaint. He wrote: "The camera operator informed me that the commercial is about illegal immigration, the groups of Hispanic men are illegal immigrants, and they were being paid for their services."
In response to that charge, Montgomery questioned whether the camera operator knows the immigration status of the men. So, he knows what information the camera operator has access to, but he does not know whether his campaign was hiring undocumented workers.
Let's put the best face on this for Mr. Montgomery and assume that he really doesn't know this. Don't you think that since this story first broke on Saturday he'd have taken the time to find out, so that he could prove that they were not, if they're not, or at least issue an apology if they are? Is this the kind of lack of a real investigation that Bill Montgomery will conduct if he becomes Attorney General and someone brings him a complaint that it is not convenient for him to investigate? Terry Goddard took some real risks as Attorney General and made some enemies in order to crack down on everything from consumer fraud to polygamy involving teen brides. But Bill Montgomery can't even investigate his own campaign.
What other conclusion is there? That maybe he does know the truth, and that it is that he did indeed hire indocumented workers, and now he wants to make the whole story go away so he's saying nothing about it? Maybe, in which case we definitely don't need him as Attorney General.
While I actually suspect that Montgomery may technically be right on the second charge (the commercial was apparently filmed and paid for on September 12, the date of the primary, before the polls closed) he clearly is abusing the intent of the law.
On the more serious charge, Montgomery only says this:
Montgomery said he does not know the immigration status of the men filmed for the commercial, who were hired by a company contracted to produce the spot.
OK. This is a man who wants to become the chief law enforcement officer for the state, and he can't even guarantee that his own campaign is in compliance with the law.
It does seem that someone knows about the immigration status of the men:
A Gilbert town employee, Matt LaMotte, watched as the commercial was filmed Sept. 12 at Freestone Park. He filed a town incident report documenting what he saw.
LaMotte's report was included in the Clean Elections complaint. He wrote: "The camera operator informed me that the commercial is about illegal immigration, the groups of Hispanic men are illegal immigrants, and they were being paid for their services."
In response to that charge, Montgomery questioned whether the camera operator knows the immigration status of the men. So, he knows what information the camera operator has access to, but he does not know whether his campaign was hiring undocumented workers.
Let's put the best face on this for Mr. Montgomery and assume that he really doesn't know this. Don't you think that since this story first broke on Saturday he'd have taken the time to find out, so that he could prove that they were not, if they're not, or at least issue an apology if they are? Is this the kind of lack of a real investigation that Bill Montgomery will conduct if he becomes Attorney General and someone brings him a complaint that it is not convenient for him to investigate? Terry Goddard took some real risks as Attorney General and made some enemies in order to crack down on everything from consumer fraud to polygamy involving teen brides. But Bill Montgomery can't even investigate his own campaign.
What other conclusion is there? That maybe he does know the truth, and that it is that he did indeed hire indocumented workers, and now he wants to make the whole story go away so he's saying nothing about it? Maybe, in which case we definitely don't need him as Attorney General.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
