Kentucky Blog

Crazy Pat Robertson

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

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

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

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

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

Anyway, the "prayer points" are just creepy:

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

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

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

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

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

Greenspan Has Jumped the Shark

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

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

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

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

The money quote? Try this:

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

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

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

Oppose John Roberts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm Back Bitches

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

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

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

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

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

The Rude Pundit explains life in "Gitmo America":

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

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

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

How un-American can you get?

Where The Wild Things Are

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

What are you doing here?

All the action's here.

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

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

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

Perhaps Reform Is In Order

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

From Seattle:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sympathies

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

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

Preparing For War

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

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

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

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

Jerry Lundergan, Boy Genius

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why Does Italy Hate America and Love Terrorists?

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

Uh oh.

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

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

And another six are being investigated.

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

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

Open Letter to Rep. Northup and Senators Bunning and McConnell

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely yours,

Pete

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

Saving the Bluegrass

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

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

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

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

Do people really get naked in the Derby Infield?

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

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

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

Compliance

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

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

In fact, total compliance is best.

Missing the Forest

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

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

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

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

The Next Wedge

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

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

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

Long Live The Last Sane Ralph Long

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

Ralph Long makes an important point in this post:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Random Thoughts on Privatizating Social Security

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

All God's Children Got the Blues

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

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

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

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

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

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

Spinning the Indictment Wheel

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bye Bye Keith, We Hardly Knew Ya

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

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

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

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

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

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

Eating the Young

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

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

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

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

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

Chicago

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

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

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

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

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

Judicial Nominations

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

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

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

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

Keeping Bad Company

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Who will get to Meadows first?

When All Else Fails, Change the Rules

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

Astonishing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just a thought.