Sue Bob's Diary

Hey Democrats--Do You Really Want an Investigation...

2005-11-04T19:07:00.000-08:00

into the pre-Iraq war intelligence?

Bring. It. On. Suckers.

Here's a taste:

Meanwhile, from as early as at least January 6 2003–prior to President Bush’s 2003 State of the Union address where the President made the African reference which Wilson criticizes–the Democratic National Committee was already circulating a memo planning a public relations strategy which would include “[c]laiming the Bush administration has ‘manufactured’ evidence against Saddam Hussein and used that would be used to encourage Britain and other allies to join the American fight against Iraq.”34

And...

OK, if - and this is all speculation here folks - Wilson was assisting folks in Pakistan, Libya and the AQ Kahn network in acquiring uranium, and the French were getting close to finding the deal out - some forged documents in 1999 pointing to Saddam would throw them off the trail real nicely. And again, in 2002, when the forgeries were out and there was the build up to war, maybe Wilson went to Niger to establish another cover (shipments to Iraq) or do something else. It would explain why Wilson never gets agitated about the build up to the war until after December of 2002, when the uninvestigated lead shifts attention away from uranium shipments out of Niger and onto something heading to Iraq. The financial Times article gives the impression there were legitimate monitor and control concerns in 1999. That means there could have been something going on for real.

And...

As I posted before, there is no doubt that Wilson went in 1999 (under the guise of investigating a 1998 deal), to broker what I believe were ongoing sales of Uranium from Niger to other rogue nations including Iraq. Of course detractors note that since France controlled the mines, this would be impossible, but the findings of the Oil for Food Scandal are shedding a differing light on COGEMA.

And...

Wilson’s business and political background raise questions about the motive behind his wife’s recruitment of him to assist the CIA’s Niger investigation, and about his subsequent politicization of the investigation to undermine the Bush administration’s Iraq policy. While the media has focused attention on the question of who leaked the fact that his wife worked for the CIA, Wilson has attempted to evade the natural question of what role his wife’s CIA connection played in the CIA’s decision to send him to investigate the Niger uranium report. In his book, published in April 2004, Wilson wrote, “Apart from being the conduit of a message from a colleague in her office asking if I would be willing to have a conversation about Niger’s uranium industry, Valerie had had nothing to do with the matter. She definitely had not proposed that I make the trip. The suggestion that Valerie might have improperly influenced the decision to send me to Niger was easy to disprove."35 But contrary to Wilson’s confident-sounding denial, in July 2004 a bipartisan Senate intelligence committee report found that, as The Washington Post reported, “Wilson. . .was specifically recommended for the mission by his wife, a CIA employee, contrary to what he has stated publicly. . .[A] CIA official told the Senate committee that Plame ‘offered up’ Wilson’s name for the Niger trip, then on Feb. 12, 2002, sent a memo to a deputy chief in the CIA's Directorate of Operations saying her husband ‘has good relations with both the PM [prime minister] and the former Minister of Mines (not to mention lots of French contacts), both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity.’"36 So it turns out that Wilson lied to conceal his wife’s role in procuring his CIA assignment. This raises the question: why?

I think that an investigation would be great!

Why Should We Listen To This Guy?

2005-10-30T14:49:00.000-08:00

Prince Charles is coming over to lecture us about tolerance. Isn't that rich? British nobility coming over to teach us former "colonials" a thing or two.

Who, exactly, is he to lecture anyone. This is a man in his late 50's whose life is still run by his mother. And--when I say "man", I am stretching a bit.

Remember this conversation he had with his mistress, Camilla. What kind of MAN says things like that?

I hate it when I hear about Americans going over to suck up to the the Royals in Great Britain. Like the Kennedy women during the 1930's practicing their "curtsey" before being presented to the King. This kind of obsequiousness is what my ancestors came over here to get away from.

President Bush should greet Charles with a big old wad of Red Man in his cheek and a giant Dr. Pepper bottle spit cup. Charles would probably faint--or die and reincarnate into a feminine product.

Classified vs. Covert

2005-10-29T07:35:00.000-07:00

In the indictment of Libby, the prosecutor describes Plame's employment as "classified", not covert. While he insinuated in his press conference yesterday that there was some violation of a law regarding National Security, I can't figure out what specific section of the Code was violated.

The statute protecting the identity of covert agents defines one as this:

(4) The term “covert agent” means— (A) a present or retired officer or employee of an intelligence agency or a present or retired member of the Armed Forces assigned to duty with an intelligence agency—
(i) whose identity as such an officer, employee, or member is classified information, and
(ii) who is serving outside the United States or has within the last five years served outside the United States; or (emphasis added)

It doesn't seem completely honest to go on in an indictment and a press conference about Plame's job being "classified" without addressing the question of whether her status meets all elements to be "covert". Further, I agree with Mark Levin. All we have in the indictment is an assertion that her job was classified.

Now, as for Plame being classified, I have read the indictment several times, and other than Fitzgerald's assertion, the fact is that we have nothing but an assertion. What exactly is her classification, and is it in fact classified? Of course the relevance of this will be explored by defense counsel, and this will be put to the test if necessary. Let me suggest that Fitzgerald didn't bring a straightforward charge on this point because, as Andy in truth concedes, he couldn't meet all the elements of the statute, and the statute itself is not typically used in this fashion.

I believe that one should always expect career prosecutors to push the envelope.

The Libby Indictment

2005-10-28T11:07:00.000-07:00

I confess that I don't understand what the prosecutor is saying in this indictment. Is Libby being indicted for lying to reporters? Or for lying to investigators? Or for lying to the Grand Jury? I can't figure out what the indictment is saying he did.

How do we know Tim Russert is telling the truth--or is remembering accurately.

Also, under the section about the matters material to the Grand Jury--why is not one of the matters the question regarding whether or not Valerie Plame was a covert agent?

Update:

Orin Kerr seems to understand it.

Update:

It looks like I'm not the only one confused by the indictment. I'm in good company here:

I think the indictment stinks. You have to parse it very carefully to figure out whether Libby is accused of lying to the grand jury or the FBI, or to journalists. Go look. I finally concluded that it says that Libby lied to the grand jury (and elsewhere the FBI) when he testified that he told (Cooper, Miller or Russert) things that in fact he did not tell (Cooper, Miller or Russert).

Also here is more on her "covert" status from the same link:

Then, I entirely agree with those who have said that Fitzgerald has introduced an entirely different rationale into this process. He was supposed to determine if anyone had outed a covert operative. In this indictment, and in his press conference, he just said that her identity was classified, and so he wants to prosecute people for improper use of classified information. I expect the defense will have fun with that one. Is it criminal to say that so and so works at CIA? If so, a lot of normal people and even some journalists should be prosecuted forthwith.

Update:

Here is a response to the above:

This entire claim is simply untrue. A central prong of the Indictment is that Libby lied to the Grand Jury and to the FBI not only about what he said to reporters, but also about when and how he first learned that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA.
According to the Indictment, Libby told the Grand Jury that he first heard of Plame's CIA employment during a July 10 telephone conversation with Tim Russert, and that he was "surprised" to learn of this during that conversation (see Paragraph 32(a)(ii)) (cited Indictment paragraphs are excerpted below).

That testimony is false, alleges the Indictment, because Libby had known about Plame CIA's employment well before he ever spoke with Russert. Indeed, the Indictment lists four (4) separate occasions prior to his conversation with Russert when Libby was informed that Plame worked for the CIA ((see Paragraph 33(a)(ii)), including his early June conversation with Vice President Cheney, his June 11 conversation with a "senior CIA officer," and his June 12 conversation with an Under Secretary of State.

(HT The Corner)

More On Able Danger

2005-10-19T18:59:00.000-07:00

As I drove home tonight, I listened to Michael Savage. He was playing a floor speech by Congressman Curt Weldon that may have happened tonight, I couldn't tell. I have looked all over the internet for a link to the speech, to no avail.

Basically, Weldon was lambasting the DIA for its retaliation against Col. Tony Shaeffer. He hi-lighted the ridiculousness of some of the charges brought agains Shaeffer. Curt Weldon is one brave guy.

Here is an article about an interview of Rep. Weldon that apparently took place prior to the floor speech:

Weldon told UPI he had written to the Department of Defense inspector general to ask for "an immediate formal inquiry, with people testifying under oath," into what he called "a clear witch-hunt" against Shaffer, who has been on administrative leave while minor allegations about some expenses are investigated.

Weldon's move comes after Shaffer said that boxes of his personal effects, returned to him by the DIA earlier this month, contained both government property and classified documents.

"Sending classified material through the mail is a felony, and much more serious than any of these minor, trumped up charges against (Shaffer)," he said, adding that "I want the appropriate persons held accountable."

Weldon said that the DIA had now taken steps to fire Shaffer. "It's outrageous and scandalous," he said.
A DIA spokesman had no immediate comment.

The part of the speech that floored me was Rep. Weldon's statement that he has another witness who was a leader of Able Danger--who corroborates Col. Shaeffer and who adds other information. It is Rep. Weldon's contention that the evidence will show that Able Danger warned the DOD not to send the U.S.S. Cole into the port in Yemen two weeks before the attack.

I have to figure out how to find speeches given on the floor of Congress on the internet. Anyone have a clue?

Update: Michelle Malkin was listening on Cspan and caught Rep. Weldon lambasting the DOD for its witchunt.

She says nothing about the USS Cole. Until I read the speech, I guess it is possible that I am incorrect about what I thought I heard.

NRO and A Question of Objectivity

2005-10-15T13:40:00.000-07:00

Beldar the Great performs a masterful fisking of the NRO's anti-Miers column, Start Over. He, very effectively, blows away the half-truths and "straw-man" reasoning of the NRO'ers. I love this part: (Beldar's fisking is in blue)

When President Bush nominated Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court, we called it a missed opportunity. The ensuing debate has confirmed that judgment. One would, of course, have to venture outside the confines of NRO to find both sides of such a debate, and neither can one find much inside NRO to suggest that its editors' and most of its contributors' minds were ever receptive to contrary evidence or argument. For all its fury, a consensus was reached early on that point. Indeed, inside NRO, a furious consensus was reached within approximately thirty minutes after the pick was announced, by which time NRO had already begun spreading vicious misinformation about Ms. Miers' law school and career records and her law firm's reputation (for which they've since properly apologized; but first impressions are what they are.) Leaving aside the president and his employees, even MiersÂs fiercest defenders allow that she was not their top pick Â or even their tenth. Leave aside too that the Constitution gives the privilege and duty of the pick to the President, and that not even Ms. Miers' fiercest defenders have his decade-long first-hand experience as her client.

In the comments section to Beldar's post, I found a link to an interesting post at The Strata-Sphere. The post discusses an editorial by Matthew Cully who worked with David Frum at the White House. It appears to me that Frum is leading the NRO charge against Miers. It also appears that he may have left the White House for reasons other than a planned career move. Considering appearances, how can we not question Frum's motives in leading this charge against Harriet Miers? It certainly raises questions in my mind.

Further, looking at Frum's bio raises my suspicions that he may not have given Harriet Miers a chance when he was working with her in the White House. His background is extremely different from the Texas background of Harriet Miers.

I am, in part, projecting. I have personally experienced condescension from those who believe that being raised in Texas makes one some sort of cultural barbarian.

Frum is a Canadian by birth and it doesn't appear that he's lived south of Washington D.C.. I'm guessing that Frum didn't know what to make of this woman who speaks with a distinct drawl; and who sported at the time, a good old Texas poodle cut and too much eyeliner. (Dallas women do like their makeup)

Was it distressing to Frum that this unfashionable woman, fifteen years his senior, had final say over whether his writing made it into the President's speech? Was he appalled that a graduate of SMU was judging his work? The work of a graduate from Yale and Harvard Law School? After all, had she taken the slings and arrows aimed at the heart of Conservative Intellectual thought? How could she? Before 2001, she had not resided in the epicenter of the great battle. She was not part of the "in-crowd".

As noted by AJ at the Strata-Sphere, Frum, according to his own book, didn't think much of the White House staffers.

"One seldom heard an unexpected thought in the Bush White House or met someone who possessed unusual knowledge. Aside from the witty and ingenious Mitch Daniels at the Office of Management and Budget and, of course, Karl Rove, who played the unusual dual role of political guru and leading intellectual, conspicuous intelligence seemed actively unwelcome in the Bush White House," he writes.
As a workplace, the Bush White House is formal--strictly blue and gray suits for men, few bright colors for women. Language is clean--even a mild "damn" is frowned on.
Frum, a self-described "not especially observant Jew," found himself working in "the culture of modern Evangelicalism" that prevails.

Is that condescending enough for you? Sounds like the sort of person I'd like to have working for me. Hah!

I evaluate Frum's protestations that Miers is a mediocrity as I would similar claims made by any employee who was apparently hustled out the door by his employer. That is, with a huge grain of salt and the realization that any competent non-Harvard-degree-holding lawyer, given the opportunity to cross-examine Frum, could tear his credibility on this issue into microscopic shreds.

Talk Radio & Born Fighting: How the Scots-Irish Shaped America

2005-10-10T14:14:00.000-07:00

Mychal Massie has, once again, invited me to guest host his weekly show, Straight Talk on Right Talk Radio. The show airs live on Tuesday, October 11, 2005 at 1 pm et. Tomorrow, I will have the honor of interviewing James H. Webb, Jr. the author of one of my favorite books, Born Fighting: How the Scots-Irish Shaped America.

James H. Webb, Jr, one of the most highly decorated Marines of the Vietnam war, has served as Assistant Secretary of Defense and as Secretary of the Navy during the Reagan Administration. He is the author of six bestselling novels including Fields of Fire.. His first work of nonfiction is the riveting, revelatory epic assertively titled BORN FIGHTING: How the Scots-Irish Shaped America published by Broadway Books. The book was initially published in October 2004 and is in its10th printing. On Tuesday, October 11, 2005 , Born Fighting is being released in paperback.

National Review said the following about this book: "Without really intending to do so, James Webb may have written the most important political book of 2004...A tour de force." We will be discussing Born Fighting, and the enduring impact of the Scots-Irish on America. You may find out more about James H. Webb, Jr. at http://www.jameswebb.com/.

If you go to his website, you will see that Mr. Webb has a different take on Iraq than most conservatives. That issue might come up during the show tomorrow and his opinions will surely be interesting. He's neither a Cindy Sheehan nor a Wesley Clarke--so I think that his insights are valuable.

John at Wuzzadem is at it again...

2005-10-07T18:48:00.000-07:00

Here and Here.

Gosh! My stomach hurts.

Be sure and read the comments section on the second post.

The Earle Swirl

2005-10-07T15:13:00.000-07:00

Will Ronnie Earle's latest indictment against Tom Delay swirl down the toilet like his first? Tom Delay's attorney has filed a motion to dismiss the indictment based on prosecutorial misconduct because of Earle's Grand Jury shopping this week and his concealment of the no bill by the first Grand Jury that considered the money laundering charge.

DeLay's attorney, Dick DeGuerin, alleged in a court motion that Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle unlawfully participated in grand jury deliberations when he went to a second grand jury last week to seek a second indictment against the congressman.

DeGuerin also alleged that Earle "attempted to browbeat and coerce" the second grand jury to change its decision not to indict DeLay so there would be no public record of a rejection.

For more on the browbeating and coercion charge, go here.

Update:

Also, about the foreman of the first Grand Jury that I wrote about here and here, look at his prior connections detailed in this article.

William Gibson, the foreman of the grand jury that returned the first indictment against DeLay, said in an interview with Austin radio station KLBJ on Wednesday that he was friends with a Democratic candidate who had been defeated by the corporately funded ad campaign run by the Texas Association of Business in 2002.

James Sylvester, one of the losing Democratic candidates who has sued the business group, worked at the Travis County sheriff's office. Gibson is retired from that same office.

Aren't Grand Juries supposed to be objective and without conflict of interest? From the jury oath:

You shall present no
person from envy, hatred or malice;

Agreement from an Unexpected Source

2005-10-06T14:21:00.000-07:00

Lars at Cheat Seeking Missiles agrees with me about the reaction of the "Beltway" types to Harriet Miers. And--he's a..a.. a CALIFORNIAN!

My E-Mail to The Corner

2005-10-06T11:54:00.000-07:00

Now y'all are reduced to proving to everyone that you are just regular guys who went to regular colleges in order to offset the impression you've given that you are a bunch of Eastern elite snobs?

It ain't working with me. You have no idea how bad you have looked to Texans (and I am sure, other Southerners) the past few days. When I heard about the nomination, I was surprised. But, when I read your stuff and heard Ann Coulter's pronouncements in that god-awful snooty accent of hers, all I wanted to do was fight YOU.

Harriet Miers is every bit as qualified as John Roberts in my opinion. It's just that her qualifications were developed here in Texas--not within the Beltway or on the East Coast. In fact, I didn't particularly like John Roberts BECAUSE he spent all his career in D.C. and I was afraid that he would be a snoot. The snobbery I have noted and perceived at NRO the past few days is exactly what I feared about John Roberts. You can protest all you want that regional and scholastic bigotry has nothing to do with your position--but that doesn't matter now. You convinced many of us by your delivery that this is exactly where you are coming from.

Had you presented only evidence that Harriet supported liberal causes, instead of snarkery about her school credentials and her Texas resume (which is considered stellar here in Texas), I might have been pre-disposed to listen to you.

You might want to take some time to understand born and bred Texans and Southerners (other than those old family types from Cavalier roots). When you insult us--we don't care if you are right. You are wrong to us.

If some of us Texan/Southern types are up there with you, then they have forgotten their roots. They probably spent too much time at NR cocktail parties with the rest of you as you blew smoke up each other's skirts.

The Earle of Incompetence

2005-10-05T10:30:00.000-07:00

Ronnie Earle is back in the news. The American Statesman (where the editorial staff loves him) is reporting that when Earle realized that he messed up by indicting Delay under a statute that didn't even exist in 2002, he rushed to a Grand Jury (a different one as the first had been discharged) and they NO BILLED the case last Friday. Earle, apparently hid that fact, and, on Monday, rushed to a third--and newly empannelled Grand Jury and got an indictment after that Grand Jury had been in existence for only four hours. (HT World Views)

How did Earle do that? Well, apparently prosecutors did a telephone poll of the Grand Jurors on the first Grand Jury over the weekend after the No Bill. Earle is claiming that the third Grand Juror indicted because he received new evidence over the weekend. What was this evidence? The results of the phone poll of the first Grand Jury whose foreman appears to have broken his Grand Juror Oath? Was that the "new evidence" discovered after three years of investigation.

This is outrageous. I have a feeling that Earle is going to get squashed like a bug.

Somebody needs to interview all of those Grand Jurors who were polled about the conversations on the telephone. They had been discharged and those conversations are fair game in my opinion.

Update:

The Foreman of the first Grand Jury, William Gibson, appeared on Talk Radio this morning here in Austin. He admitted that he made up his mind before he was empanelled because he was angry about some Texas Association of Business Ads that "told people how to vote." He indicted Delay on the basis of that--not the evidence. Rush has part of the transcript.

Remember the Jury Oath I posted here.

I'd say that Mr. Gibson had a bit of malice. It's a bit disconcerting that he was an investigator at the State Board of Insurance. I bet that he was a really fair one. Hm Hmmm. Real fair.

Beldar Compares Miers With Roberts

2005-10-04T17:45:00.000-07:00

Today I drove to Houston to meet with a client. I always drive when I have appointments in Houston because it doesn't take any longer to get there by driving than it does to be herded around the airport and onto Southwest Airlines.

I listened to Laura Ingraham as I drove. Now, don't get me wrong, I like and respect Laura and listen to her daily. But, today as I drove, I found myself getting angrier and angrier.

Laura lives in the Washington area and, in my opinion, is caught up in that Beltway garbage more than she cares to admit. She made two points that just got my goat.

In answer to the concern that Harriet Miers has no prior experience as a jurist, Laura acknowledged that Rehnquist had no such experience either. But, Laura was quick to point out that Rehnquist went to Staaaanford. Well big hoopdydoo.

When I was in college, I went to a meeting of the National Student Association in Washington D.C.. Besides a bad case of indigestion from the food at Pedro's Taco Stand--which was the only place I could afford to eat--I also got some exposure to the students from the Ivy League level colleges on the East and West Coasts like Stanford, Berkeley and Harvard. Do you want to know what those guy were worried about in 1975? They were concerned that the Board of Directors of the NSA have a Black seat, a Hispanic Seat, a Women's seat etc. etc. etc. I was reeeaaal impressed--I have to tell ya. (Someday I'll tell you the story about how I had to be physically dragged away from the greasy haired Radcliffe hippie chick who started in on the quality of Texas schools while a guest at a Texas A&M function up there.)

The smartest guy in the room in every meeting that I attended was one of the guys that I went to the conference with who was also from Texas A&M. He grew up in the little town of New Braunfels and he always had a snoot full of snuff and a spit cup in hand. He was a math genius who conceived and published an equation called the "four-color problem" or something like that. He later did go to Harvard Law School, where he helped found a conservative Law Journal to counter the leftist Harvard Law Review. The hippy-dippy guys from the Stanfords, etc. couldn't hold a candle to him at the NSA meeting.

The other thing that Laura Ingraham dwelled on is her fear that somehow being invited to cocktail parties is going to turn Harriet's head and she's going to turn into liberal mush as a result. Yeah, right. The little gal from Texas is going to be sooo impressed and awed by the snoots in the suits who hold the keys to the cocktail parties at which are served the best little quiches.

I don't think so.

I was much more concerned about the Roberts nomination, than Harriet's, because he spent his entire career immersed in the Beltway fishbowl. I bet he regularly goes to those cocktail parties. That's the only way that I could explain his participation in that gay pro bono case that people were up in arms about.

Beldar, in fact, has a great post up comparing Roberts and Miers. Miers comes out as good, if not better. In my book, she's better because she didn't spend her entire career in Washington D.C..

I predict that when Harriet starts doing a really good job that the heartland folks whom the NRO and Laura Ingraham are stirring up are going to eventually recognize this for what it is: regional, elitist snootery.

I'm not the only one who thinks like this. Note this from Marvin Olasky:

Ed Kinkeade, a federal district court judge who has known Harriet Miers for over 25 years, calls her "a superstar here in Dallas before George Bush ever entered the picture." His explanation for why she's getting dissed: "that she's not from the east or west coasts -- she's from flyover country -- rankles some people. Those people from the east or west who see nothing happening out here: they're just wrong... She's not in the Academy. Didn't go to an Ivy League law school. They don't like that. Tough."

I agree. Tough.

Harriet Miers & The East Coast Snobs

2005-10-04T05:43:00.000-07:00

I think that all the hoopla over at NRO against Harriet Miers is a big bunch of East Coast snobbery against Texas. I am with Beldar on this one.

I thought that Republicans were supposed to represent the Heartland. Instead, it seems that a lot of them think. that to be qualified, a candidate has to have a lot of "Beltway" sanctioned experience. That's a crock as far as I am concerned.

Go see Beldar's post that I linked above about how eminently qualified she is. Then go read his other posts here, here and here.

I, for one, am not going to let these East Coast elites yank my chain over this. I practice in Texas. I know how qualified Harriet Miers is.

Harriet Miers

2005-10-03T20:24:00.000-07:00

I think that the people who are upset that Harriet Miers voted for Democrats in the 1980's don't understand Texas history or politics. I doubt there are many Texans Harriet's age who haven't voted for Democrats--including me.

Texans, in general, didn't like Republicans up until Ronald Reagan. Of course, many split with the Democratic Party because of McGovern as well. You have to remember that Texas went through the Reconstruction. Southerners took the view during and after Reconstruction that Yankee Republicans economically "colonized" the South--to the economic detriment of all Southerners.

The fact that up until the 1990's, most Texas voted for Democrats does not mean that Texans were liberals. In fact, I would venture that most Texas Democrats were more conservative than many of the North Eastern Republicans during those years.

When I was a student at Texas A&M, two conservative Democrats had a huge impact on me. One was Tiger Teague, the second most decorated veteran of WWII. He was the Congressman for the district. He was, most decidely, not a liberal.

The other was a State Senator, Bill "Bull of the Brazos" Moore. I was involved in Student Government at Texas A&M. In my role as one of the Student Body Vice Presidents, I wrote Senator Moore a letter requesting that he support the funding of some student perk. He wrote a very tongue-in-cheek letter back to me that I have never forgotten (I could kick myself for not keeping the letter in my scrapbook). He wrote that he would "ensure that the students of Texas A&M" could continue to "feed at the public trough." I got the point. He was not liberal.

During and after law school, I worked for the Lubbock District Attorney, John Montford. He later went on to become a State Senator. He was tough on crime, and certainly did not have a record in the State Senate as a liberal. He was considered a conservative Democrat in the mold of Zell Miller. There were and probably still are such Democrats in Texas.

I'd vote for them before I'd vote for an Arlen Specter any day of the week.

Criminalizing Politics

2005-10-03T06:19:00.000-07:00

Robert Novak says it all about Ronnie Earle's probable motives, and about his past prosecutions of high-level Democrats:

That most of Earle's prosecutorial targets have been Democrats does not mean he is a straight shooter. A majority consisted of routine cases, but the big ones were tainted by politics. Earle lost a 1985 case against State Attorney General Jim Mattox, a political rival who accused the DA of using the case as a "stepping stone." His 1992 prosecution that drove Texas House Speaker Gib Lewis out of public life was viewed in political circles as a hit job influenced by Gov. Ann Richards. Earle investigated but never brought an indictment against Lt. Gov. Bob Bullock, who once called the prosecutor "a little boy playing with matches."

(HT Neal Boortz)

Earle The Messianic

2005-10-02T08:56:00.000-07:00

Through The Corner at NRO, we find this Washington Post article. It's hard to disagree with many of the statements made by Earle about the impact of money on politics. That said, again, he is a prosecutor and not a pundit or legislator or Governor. He is there to enforce the LAW. Not to enforce his own personal take on morality. He should also follow the rules applicable to prosecutors and lawyers and should refrain from using filmmakers and media in such a way that violates the rules or gives the appearance of impropriety. From the article:

A recurring theme among Earle's critics over the years -- and a centerpiece of DeLay's attacks -- has been that Earle courts media attention too aggressively. "During his investigation," DeLay said, "he has gone out of his way to give several media interviews in his office. The only days he actually comes into his office, I'm told." These critiques gained resonance last week when the National Review reported that Earle had allowed a film crew extensive access to his office while he worked on the DeLay case.

Explaining his cooperation with the media, Earle places it in the broader context of his mission. "Justice depends on the law," he said. "The law depends on democracy, democracy depends on free elections and free elections depend on freedom of the press. I see it as all of a piece."

Yes, justice depends on the law and Ronnie Earle should follow the law embodied by the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct:

a) In the course of representing a client, a lawyer shall not make an extrajudicial statement that a reasonable person would expect to be disseminated by means of public communication if the lawyer knows or reasonably should know that it will have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicatory proceeding. A lawyer shall not counsel or assist another person to make such a statement.

Earle appears just too good to be true in the Washington Post article. For instance:

Earle has an eccentric streak, clearly, sometimes in the service of projecting a squeaky-clean image. He once filed charges against himself for submitting a campaign finance report a day late. He asked a judge to fine him, His Honor obliged, and Earle was out $212.

Somehow, it seems more important to me that he fulfill his duty to protect the adjudicatory process from potential prejudice caused by his extrajudicial statements and participation with the press and filmmakers in making hit pieces on defendants than to engage in such gestures as described above.

Messianic people are often blind to such things. Years ago, I used to represent government whistleblowers who had been fired or retaliated against. There was often a streak of stubborn self-righteousness in them that caused them to see microscopic splinters in the eye of others, but that blinded them from seeing the huge redwood sized log in their own eye.

Earle is blind to the log in his own eye. He describes himself thusly.

Earle speaks of his role in understated terms. He sees himself as simply a fact finder, intent on rooting out the truth and bringing his case before a jury. "I really take seriously the duty to see justice is done," he said.

How "just" was it for him to tell the following story about Bob Bullock who is dead and can't defend himself:

Earle couldn't persuade the grand jury to indict Bullock, who was then the state's comptroller and struggling with a drinking problem. But years later, once Bullock had sobered up, the two men were recounting old times at Bullock's kitchen table.

"You know years ago when you investigated me?" Earle recalled Bullock telling him. "I was guilty as hell."

Clips of Ronnie Earle's Movie

2005-10-01T15:10:00.000-07:00

The Austin American Statesman has posted clips of the Big Buy at their website. Go see the clips and see whether you think that Ronnie Earle has made prohibited extrajudicial statements as I discussed here. It is arguable that each comment made by him in the clips if taken and examined separately may not rise to the level of a violation. Remember these are just clips picked by the Statesman and we don't know what all Earle may have said in other clips.

Even if Earle makes no such prohibited statements, if one views the entire documentary and it turns out to be, in its entirety, a prohibited commentary on (1) the character, credibility, reputation or criminal record of a party, suspect in a criminal investigation or witness; or the expected testimony of a party or witness, then the question becomes whether Earle improperly assisted the filmmakers in disseminating this statement.

According to the accompanying article:

Birnbaum said Earle signed a release allowing them to use the footage however they saw fit. He added that Earle never made any demands to influence the documentary and didn't see a first rough-cut until after it previewed at the Dallas Video Festival in August.

The rules require that a prosecuter:

(e) exercise reasonable care to prevent persons employed or controlled by the prosecutor in a criminal case from making an extrajudicial statement that the prosecutor would be prohibited from making under Rule 3.07.

(emphasis added)

Now look at the commentary for (e):

6. Sub-paragraph (e) does not subject a prosecutor to discipline for failing to take measures to prevent investigators, law enforcement personnel or other persons assisting or associated with the prosecutor, but not in his employ or under his control, from making extrajudicial statements that the prosecutor would be prohibited from making under Rule 3.07. To the extent feasible, however, the prosecutor should make reasonable efforts to discourage such persons from making statements of that kind.

Is it arguable that by having the opportunity to negotiate the terms of the release that he signed, that Earle exercised some control over the film as he could have ensured that he was not assisting the dissemination of an improper extrajudical statement(if the film does)? What reasonable efforts did he make to discourage the filmmakers from making a film, with which Earle was associated and featured, from making extrajudicial statements that could have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicatory proceeding against Delay or his co-defendants?

If the movie does make such statements, through individual remarks or its overall content, then isn't it arguable that Ronnie Earle has assisted in the dissemination?

(a) In the course of representing a client, a lawyer shall not make an extrajudicial statement that a reasonable person would expect to be disseminated by means of public communication if the lawyer knows or reasonably should know that it will have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicatory proceeding. A lawyer shall not counsel or assist another person to make such a statement.

PS: I agree with some of the general statements that Earle makes in some of the clips. I don't like the power of K street either. I think that I should have the same access as a K street lobbyist to make my views known to my representative.

Even so, Earle is a prosecutor, not a legislator or pundit. He is to indict and prosecute only those cases that are supported by probable cause. In one of the clips, he suggests that a corporation bought Delay's influence. Note that he did not indict Delay on that charge. He is really pushing the envelope with this documentary.

The Earle Grand Jury

2005-10-01T09:45:00.000-07:00

When empanelled, Texas Grand Jurors take the following oath:

When the grand jury is completed, the court shall appoint one of the number foreman; and the following oath shall be administered by the court, or under its direction, to the jurors: “You solemnly swear that you will diligently inquire into, and true presentment make, of all such matters and things as shall be given you in charge; the State’s counsel, your fellows and your own, you shall keep secret, unless required to disclose the same in the course of a judicial proceeding in which the truth or falsity of evidence given in the grand jury room, in a criminal case, shall be under investigation. You shall present no person from envy, hatred or malice; neither shall you leave any person unpresented for love, vear, favor, affection or hope or reward; but you shall present things truly as they come to your knowledged, according the best of your understanding so help you God.

So, when the foreman of the Grand Jury made the following statement in the Dallas Morning news, was in violation of the oath he took?

Grand jurors were presented a load of evidence, including testimony and
phone records, that led them to believe Rep. Tom Delay should be tried
on a conspiracy charge, the leader of the Travis County grand jury that
indicted the congressman said Friday.

"It was not one of those sugarcoated deals that we handed to [District Attorney] RonnieEarle," William M. Gibson said.
He added: "Mr. Earle has stacks and stacks of papers – evidence of telephone calls from Mr.Delay and everybody."

I'd like to know what else he told the paper that didn't make it into the story. I just got off the telephone with a criminal attorney who helps me with the matters of some of my clients. He was outraged when he read this article this morning. (And he is decidedly NOT a Republican)

Update:

Here is more on the Grand Jury Foreman from the Houston Chronicle. Note that he was a Sheriff's deputy during Earle's continuing tenure as D.A.. Note that he was a State Insurance Department Investigator and has voted in every Democratic Primary since 1990. The latter does not mean anything in Texas as many who vote Republican, also vote in Democratic Primaries. The fact that he was a state employee, to me, suggests that he is a Democrat, though. Note that the Grand Jury was mainly comprised of state and federal employees.
I don't know what to make of Delay's claim that he wasn't given a chance to testify, it seems that he was.

More On The Ronnie Earle Movie

2005-09-30T15:27:00.000-07:00

Byron York and NRO got the movie. Here's an excerpt from Byron's article:

In another scene, Earle describes how he deals with offenders in cases like the
campaign-finance investigation. "It's important that we forgive those who come
to us in a spirit of contrition and the desire for forgiveness. That's
important. But if they don't, then God help them." The film then dissolves to a
picture of DeLay.

Look at the rule and what I wrote about it last night:

(a) In the course of representing a client, a lawyer shall not make
an extrajudicial statement that a reasonable person would expect to be
disseminated by means of public communication if the lawyer knows or reasonably
should know that it will have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing
an adjudicatory proceeding. A lawyer shall not counsel or
assist another person to make such a statement.

Thus, the question is--did Ronnie Earle assist the filmakers to make an extrajudicial statement prohibited by the Rules? Look again at Byron's description:

In another scene, Earle describes how he deals with offenders in cases like
the campaign-finance investigation. "It's important that we forgive those who
come to us in a spirit of contrition and the desire for forgiveness. That's
important. But if they don't, then God help them." The film then dissolves to a
picture of DeLay.

Does that scene make a prohibited statement about Delay? What do you get out of Earle's statement and the accompanying imagery of the picture of Delay?

Does the scene convey anything to you about Delay's character?

(b) A lawyer ordinarily will violate paragraph (a), and the likelihood of a
violation increases if the adjudication is ongoing or imminent, by making an
extrajudicial statement of the type referred to in that paragraph when the
statement refers to:

(1) the character, credibility, reputation or criminal record of a
party, suspect in a criminal investigation or witness; or the expected testimony
of a party or witness;

And...

(4) any opinion as to the guilt or innocence of a defendant or suspect in a
criminal case or proceeding that could result in incarceration;

I don't know if Earle has actually committed violations, but participating in the movie certainly conveys the "appearance of impropriety."

Oh, and as a taxpayer of Travis County who has helped to foot the bills for Earle's failed prosecutions of Jim Mattox and Kay Bailey Hutchinson, I really resent this part of the movie as described in Byron's article:

At one point in the picture, Rosemary Lemberg, an assistant district attorney in
Earle's office, explains that Earle singlehandedly pushed forward the DeLay
investigation over the objections of colleagues. "Ronnie was the only person in
maybe a group of six or seven lawyers in a room who thought we ought to go ahead
and investigate and look at those things," Lemberg says. "We got sued every time
we turned around, we got taken to court over this, and Ronnie was the one who
just kept pushing forward with it, and saying 'I'll put more resources on this,
just keep hacking at it.'"

I'm going to find crime statistics and conviction rates in Travis County. I want my money spent on crimes in Travis County.

Ronnie Earle: Ethics Be Damned!

2005-09-29T20:21:00.000-07:00

Captain Ed points us to the WPo editorial questioning Earle's prosecution of Delay. However Byron York is reporting something ignored by WaPo that is much worse. Ronnie Earle participated in the making of a movie about the Delay case that began production two years ago:

For the last two years, as he pursued the investigation that led to Wednesday's indictment of House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, Travis County, Texas prosecutor Ronnie Earle has given a film crew "extraordinary access" to make a motion picture about his work on the case.

The resulting film is called The Big Buy, made by Texas filmmakers Mark Birnbaum and Jim Schermbeck. "Raymond Chandler meets Willie Nelson on the corner of Wall Street and Pennsylvania Avenue in The Big Buy, a Texas noir political detective story that chronicles what some are calling a 'bloodless coup with corporate cash,'" reads a description of the picture on Birnbaum's website, markbirnbaum.com. The film, according to the description, "follows maverick Austin DA Ronnie Earle's investigation into what really happened when corporate money joined forces with relentless political ambitions to help swing the pivotal 2002 Texas elections, cementing Republican control from Austin to Washington DC."

"We approached him [Earle], and he offered us extraordinary access to him and, to an extent, to his staff," Birnbaum told National Review Online Thursday. "We've been shooting for about two years."

Does this description of the movie give you an inkling of the agenda of the movie-makers?

Let's turn now to the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct--specifically

3.09 Special Responsibilities of a Prosecutor

The prosecutor in a criminal case shall:

(a) refrain from prosecuting or threatening to prosecute a charge that the prosecutor knows is not supported by probable cause;

(b) refrain from conducting or assisting in a custodial interrogation of an accused unless the prosecutor has made reasonable efforts to be assured that the accused has been advised of any right to, and the procedure for obtaining, counsel and has been given reasonable opportunity to obtain counsel;

(c) not initiate or encourage efforts to obtain from an unrepresented accused a waiver of important pre-trial, trial or post-trial rights;

(d) make timely disclosure to the defense of all evidence or information known to the prosecutor that tends to negate the guilt of the accused or mitigates the offense, and, in connection with sentencing, disclose to the defense and to the tribunal all unprivileged mitigating information known to the prosecutor, except when the prosecutor is relieved of this responsibility by a protective order of the tribunal; and

(e) exercise reasonable care to prevent persons employed or controlled by the prosecutor in a criminal case from making an extrajudicial statement that the prosecutor would be prohibited from making under Rule 3.07.

(emphasis added)

Now look at the commentary for (e):

6. Sub-paragraph (e) does not subject a prosecutor to discipline for failing to take measures to prevent investigators, law enforcement personnel or other persons assisting or associated with the prosecutor, but not in his employ or under his control, from making extrajudicial statements that the prosecutor would be prohibited from making under Rule 3.07. To the extent feasible, however, the prosecutor should make reasonable efforts to discourage such persons from making statements of that kind.

Look at this part of 3.07:

(a) In the course of representing a client, a lawyer shall not make an extrajudicial statement that a reasonable person would expect to be disseminated by means of public communication if the lawyer knows or reasonably should know that it will have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicatory proceeding. A lawyer shall not counsel or assist another person to make such a statement.

(b) A lawyer ordinarily will violate paragraph (a), and the likelihood of a violation increases if the adjudication is ongoing or imminent, by making an extrajudicial statement of the type referred to in that paragraph when the statement refers to:

(1) the character, credibility, reputation or criminal record of a party, suspect in a criminal investigation or witness; or the expected testimony of a party or witness;

(2) in a criminal case or proceeding that could result in incarceration, the possibility of a plea of guilty to the offense; the existence or contents of any confession, admission, or statement given by a defendant or suspect; or that persons refusal or failure to make a statement;

(3) the performance, refusal to perform, or results of any examination or test; the refusal or failure of a person to allow or submit to an examination or test; or the identity or nature of physical evidence expected to be presented;

(4) any opinion as to the guilt or innocence of a defendant or suspect in a criminal case or proceeding that could result in incarceration; or

(5) information the lawyer knows or reasonably should know is likely to be inadmissible as evidence in a trial and would if disclosed create a substantial risk of prejudicing an impartial trial.

I would argue that giving these film makers unprecedented access and fully participating in a movie that appears to be a hatchet job could be a violation of these rules. If so, I do not believe that Earle would have immunity because he actively participated and assisted in the production of a movie that, essentially, appears to be a big, fat, prejudicial extrajudicial statement in its entirety. That gives him a measure of control over the film makers, plus he is, arguably, assisting and counseling them.

If the movie turns out to be an extrajudicial statement of the type prohibited by these rules, Earle should suffer the consequence.

President Bush,: An Anomaly

2005-09-29T19:37:00.000-07:00

David Limbaugh has a really good article up about President Bush. A lot of conservatives feel betrayed by him over issues involving the Border and spending. David says:

I don't think President Bush has betrayed anyone. To me, he has been a study in contrasts since he emerged on the national stage. Contrary to thoughtless charges from the Left that he's an extreme conservative, his ideology has never been easy to pigeonhole.

He has always been somewhat of a political anomaly, conservative on many things, a bleeding heart on others, resolute and firm at times, tentative and malleable at others, righteously indignant about some policies and almost apologetic on others. He's a man who demands and returns deep loyalty, yet rewards some of his enemies, like Bill Clinton and Ted Kennedy, for stabbing him in the back. He has a tough side and a soft side, both genuine and both very much of part of who he is.

The strong president we saw taking charge after 9-11 is the authentic George W. Bush. But he is his father's son, and he apparently acquired from him the unfortunate notion that Republicans should be more compassionate and kinder and gentler.

I especially agree with the last paragraph I excerpted. I think that Bush's blue-blooded Yankee background gives him a bit of a noblesse oblige perspective that neither growing up nor competing in the oil business in Midland could knock out of him. I think that we can expect the contrasts that David cites in the above and in the rest of the article. Growing up and working in West Texas after being raised by people who are very different than most Texans is a life that is a study in contrasts.

I am presently re-obsessed with Born Fighting: How the Scots-Irish Shaped America. One of the historical studies in the book addresses the difference between the Yankee Puritans, the Southern Cavaliers and the Scotts-Irish (who comprised the vast bulk of the frontier settlers and pioneers). The Puritans established a top-down hierarchy, the Cavaliers a 3 tiered caste system (them--poor whites--blacks), the Scots-Irish a democratic system whereby they would follow strong leaders, all the while considering themselves the equals of their leaders regardless of wealth. In fact, many of the Scots-Irish leaders were not wealthy--but possessed of bravery and great fighting skill.

Bush was raised by descendants of the Puritans (there was a lone Scots-Irish in the woodpile). His formative and young working years were influenced by Texans. Most Texans are descended from or strongly influenced by Scots-Irish ancestors. Unimpressed by scions of wealthy Yankee families, they know that are just as good as some rich guy from Connecticut named George H. Bush--even if they live in a shack. I think that such an upbringing might cause competing inclinations in a person.

The Earle of Injustice

2005-09-29T12:43:00.000-07:00

Go read this 1996 editorial about Ronnie Earle published in the "teasip" paper:

While serious crime in Texas has decreased for the fourth consecutive year,
violent crime in Travis County has steadily increased. From 1994 to 1995, both
the murder and the rape rates increased by over 24 percent. During the same
period, assaults increased by a stunning 66 percent. In 1993 alone, Travis
County received 139 parolees for every 100 defendants sent to prison. If Earle's
stewardship has led to higher crime rates, then perhaps we should adopt another
approach.

Besides his traditional role as prosecutor, Earle, as Travis County
D.A., has the unique duty of heading up the state's Public Integrity Unit. His
witch hunt against Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison is representative of his misuse
of this duty.

Concerned more about publicity than facts, Earle routinely conferred
with the media about the case before informing Hutchison's lawyers. He stacked
the Grand Jury with his Democratic cronies and sought to inflate baseless
accusations with vague evidence.

On Earle's methods, the Dallas Morning News wrote "the impression of
partisan unfairness has certainly been reinforced by the leaks and public
comment about Hutchison's case from the District Attorney's office throughout
the summer. That the Grand Jury investigation has been conducted with so much
fanfare - such as the tip-offs to the new media when key records were seized
from the former treasurer's office - has added a darker tone to the cloudy
proceedings."

Hutchison wasn't the first political figure Earle persecuted. Earle's
vendettas have been bipartisan; he has used his office to go after his political
enemies in both parties. Besides Hutchison, Earle "investigated" Jim Mattox, Gib
Lewis and others. Earle's tactics earned him the appropriate nickname "Earle of
Injustice."

Ronnie Earle

2005-09-28T19:50:00.000-07:00

If you watched Hannity & Colmes tonight, you heard Congressman Delay say that Ronnie Earle has done the exact same thing he has accused Delay's co-defendants of doing (and Delay of agreeing too, ie. being in a conspiracy--the really unclear and confusing indictment is here). I found a July 2005 article in an Austin online publication about Earle here. It is quite interesting and I am looking forward to reading part II.

What is also interesting is this comment posted there:

Ronnie Earle says his motivations are not political, so why did he help inspire a new Democrat political action committee called, Texas Values in Action Committee (TEXVAC), whose mission is for Democrats to takeover the Texas state legislature from the GOP.
He even gave a speech at their recent fundraiser and helped bring in over $100,000 in donations. Printed on TEXVAC's Web-site is this disclaimer:
“Note that corporate contributions are prohibited by state law, and only personal checks or credit cards will be accepted.”
That statement is simply not true. Here is what Texas state law says:
“§ 253.100. EXPENDITURES FOR GENERAL-PURPOSE
COMMITTEE. (a) A corporation, acting alone or with one or more other corporations, may make one or more political expenditures to finance the establishment or administration of a general-purpose committee.”
Also, if Ronnie Earle is so concerned about the amount of corporate and labor money influencing campaigns in Texas then he should look at the Democrats who raised and spent more corporate and labor cash.
The following is an excerpt of a non-partisan report called “Passing the Bucks: Texas” compiled by Followthemoney.org.
"National party contributions to Texas state committees increased dramatically over the three election cycles. These committees gave just $2.3 million in 1998, $5.2 million in 2000 and $16.3 million in 2002. The Texas Democratic Party received the bulk of the 2002 contributions, taking in $11 million to the GOP's $5.2 million."
Ronnie Earle got an indictment against Jim Ellis because he claims that Ellis took $190,000 of corporate money raised in Texas (also called “soft” money,) and gave it to the Republican National Committee, and then over a period of two weeks, the RNC sent hard money back to Texas candidates in the exact amount.
Well, since the RNC's soft money account and the RNC State Elections Committee account of hard dollars are completely separate, Ellis' action was legal. And, the actual amount that the RNC gave to candidates in that election cycle in Texas equaled over $1 million during that election cycle.
(Also see a piece written by elections lawyer Cleta Mitchell.)
If Ronnie Earle is concerned about hard for soft or soft for hard money trades, read again an excerpt from “Passing the Bucks: Texas.”
“The Institute found eight trades of soft money for hard money, all between the Democratic National Committee and the Texas Democratic Party. In two trades in 1998, the DNC sent $172,500 in soft money to Texas, and the state party sent back $150,000 in hard money.
In two trades in 2000, the DNC sent $150,000 of soft money and received $125,000 in hard money. And over a series of four trades in 2002, the DNC gave the state party $255,000 in soft money, and the Texas Democratic Party sent $225,000 in hard money to the DNC.”
It seems clear to me that Ronnie Earle is partisan and is selectively prosecuting the TRMPAC case because he wants to taint Tom DeLay. TRMPAC fully disclosed their receipts and expenditures as required by the IRS.
If Ronnie Earle is concerned about a lack of full disclosure, just take a look at the filed reports of the Texas Trial Lawyers PAC that raised millions in the 2002 election cycle. Not one expenditure is listed other than campaign contributions. Is there no staff to pay for? No rent? No costs for fundraising? No telephone bills?
Maybe they didn't list those expenditures because they didn't want anyone to know who actually paid for it. Why doesn't Ronnie Earle ask that question? Maybe perhaps the Trial Lawyers PAC donated tens of thousands of dollars to Earle's campaigns for District Attorney?
Melissa Hopkins

Could Delay have been talking about TEXVAC or maybe the Trial Lawyers PAC?

Update:

Hmmm...The page seems to have disappeared since last night. Here's the cache, but it looks weird now.

Update:

I called the editor of the site and it is down because he is transferring it to WordPress.

Hollywood Unchained

2005-09-28T16:55:00.000-07:00

Lately, I've been writing about the really crummy movies put out by Hollywood. There are so many good historical and other stories out there, that I do not understand why Hollywood is recycling old sitcoms and putting out such stupid dreck. Even movies that are good quality are pushing an agenda that most Americans, in my opinion, don't support.

So I decided that I would start a second blog called Hollywood Unchained. There I would post ideas for good movies and TV shows derived from good books, history or current events.

I would love for some conservative bloggers to become contributors to this blog. Is anyone interested?

This Is Unbelievable

2005-09-27T14:15:00.000-07:00

Remember the days when the South was a bastion for the Democrats? Reading what Times-Picayune Editor Jim Amoss states in a news story to excuse MSM rumor-mongering about the Superdome takes me back to those days:

Times-Picayune Editor Jim Amoss cited telephone breakdowns as a primary cause of reporting errors, but said the fact that most evacuees were poor African Americans also played a part.

"If the dome and Convention Center had harbored large numbers of middle class white people," Amoss said, "it would not have been a fertile ground for this kind of rumor-mongering."

(HT Ace of Spades)

Mychal Massie has a relevant column up today on the very subject of Democrat subjugation of Black people in the South. It is called The Lie That Keeps Living:

The well worn and errant dogma that conservative Southern (read Democrat) bigots fled their party in the wake of the civil-rights era, taking up residence in the Republican Party – which has been used by ill-informed race baiters for decades – was trod out yet again for public consumption. Let it be understood I in no way classify the author as such, quite the opposite; but it is important to note that continued usage of said misinformation supplies the haters with ammunition.

I doubt seriously that the Editor is a Republican. Does anybody reading this remember how to find contributions to parties by name?

John at Wuzzadem has more.

I have to say that I am ashamed that I got quite caught up in the rumors of what went on in the Superdome. I've learned my lesson.

One Movie That I Refuse to See

2005-09-26T19:25:00.000-07:00

I've read somewhere (I forget where) that Jodi Foster's new movie, Flightplan, is good and compares favorably with those of Hitchcock in terms of suspense. (I may have read that at The Corner).

The previews look good. However, I will not be spending money to see the film after reading this post by Debbie Schlussel linking to her column uncovering its propagandist twist. I won't give you the details--it's up to you to go to the post and then to decide whether or not you want to read the "spoiler" part. (HT The Cassandra Page)

I will simply say that this movie is yet another Hollywood attempt to make Americans doubt reality and to weaken us in the service of the agenda of utopian fools.

I am, again, re-reading James H. Webb's Born Fighting: How the Scots-Irish Shaped America. This book contains historical stories that would make numerous inspiring and excellent movies about America's history and the pre-American history of a strong and brave people who contributed mightly to who we are. Someone needs to make those movies.

But, the reigning elite of Hollywood can't allow movies that would spiritually empower the American people as did movies made during WWII. Instead, they lower all standards, and us, by churning out amoral, sexualized dreck--or agenda-driven propaganda designed to show the rest of us how racist and jingoistic we are.

These self-anointed "elites" are human dandruff that needs to be flicked from our shoulders. When are we going to stop swooning over them and do a little flicking?

Corruption, Louisiana Style

2005-09-26T18:00:00.000-07:00

Captain Ed has a post about Aaron Broussard, the Jefferson Parish president "busted" by Wuzzadem. I found a particularly interesting comment by someone who was helping with rescue efforts. Bullshark says:

I was in Jefferson Parish on 31 August with 50 boats and over 100 volunteers. We went to the Parish EOC. They did not want volunteers, they wanted money. The sheriffs department told us that they had contracted with Poche brothers to make rescues. I was at Terrytown, Acadian Ambulance center behind the mall that was later burned by looters, so if someone in BR tells you that Aaron did a good job tell them they got their facts as screwed up as Aaron did. I went to city Park in NOLA and did take people out but not in Jefferson Parish where Aaron has been president since 1974!

(Emphasis added)

Does that strike you as rather odd and disturbing? I wouldn't give money to a Louisiana politician to save my life. Look at this article that predates Katrina:

Gov. Kathleen Blanco will lead a trade mission next month to the Pacific Rim countries of Japan, China and South Korea. Meanwhile, New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin and Congressman William Jefferson returned over the weekend from a one-week trade trip to Brazil with local business leaders, as well as federal, state and city officials. Louisiana ranks seventh among U.S. states exporting goods to Brazil, says Jefferson, who led a similar mission there in 2002. New trade opportunities cannot come soon enough for jobs-starved Louisiana. "We are continuing to capitalize on New Orleans' natural strengths by expanding into international markets," Nagin said just before leaving for Brazil on Aug. 6.
Unfortunately, Louisiana's notorious "weakness" in the economic development arena -- a decades-old reputation for widespread public corruption -- continues to undercut our efforts in competitive markets. Recent federal corruption investigations only reinforce that image.

Congressman Jefferson, for example, now finds himself at the center of the most sensational federal probe of a Louisiana official since former Gov. Edwin Edwards was convicted of corruption charges in 2000. Days before Jefferson left for Brazil, FBI agents in New Orleans and Washington executed search warrants on his vehicle, residences and offices. The focus of the investigation is not yet clear. Jefferson is entitled to the presumption of innocence and his day in court, if it comes to that.

Investors won't invest in Louisian because of corruption:

Our dubious reputation extends overseas, too. For example, the Japanese relocated much of their business from New Orleans to Houston long ago, citing Louisiana corruption as a factor, according to Benjamin Wren, a professor of Japanese history at Loyola University.

Go read the whole article for a litany of criminal charges against judges and politicians, including a judge in Jefferson Parish. American Taxpayers are about to become big saps.

What A Lack of Compassion..

2005-09-24T14:30:00.000-07:00

A disabled Katrina victim evacuated to Missouri was forced to put his dog (whom he uses as a service dog, albeit one without papers) in a local shelter so that he and his family could get a roof over their heads. He soon found housing that would allow the dog and he went back to the shelter to get his dog. One of the shelter employees or volunteers (it's not clear which) took the dog and refuses to give it back--claiming her family had become too attached to the dog during the 3 week period.

A lot of other members in the community are incensed by this and trying to pay her a lot of money to get her to do the right thing--to no avail. This woman has some sort of personality disorder, it appears. She even went on the radio claiming that the man was faking his Katrina status--a claim that has been disproven by FEMA.

When the rest of America is opening up hearts and wallets, here we have one example of cruelty and heartlessness. I don't know what I'd do if this happened to me.

Go here to watch the videos. The man is just devastated. I would be devastated too.

Update:

By slandering Mr. Wyrick on the radio, this heartless woman may have comitted Criminal Defamation:

21-4004

Chapter 21.--CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS PART II.--PROHIBITED CONDUCT Article 40.--CRIMES INVOLVING VIOLATIONS OF PERSONAL RIGHTS

21-4004. Criminal defamation. (a) Criminal defamation is communicating to a person orally, in writing, or by any other means, information, knowing the information to be false and with actual malice, tending to expose another living person to public hatred, contempt or ridicule; tending to deprive such person of the benefits of public confidence and social acceptance; or tending to degrade and vilify the memory of one who is dead and to scandalize or provoke surviving relatives and friends.

(b) In all prosecutions under this section the truth of the information communicated shall be admitted as evidence. It shall be a defense to a charge of criminal defamation if it is found that such matter was true.

History: L. 1969, ch. 180, § 21-4004; L. 1992, ch. 239, § 187; L. 1993, ch. 291, § 135; L. 1995, ch. 251, § 14; July 1.

One Reason I'm Proud To Be A Texan

2005-09-23T15:56:00.000-07:00

Don't mess with Texans (especially our cars).

Media Check

2005-09-23T15:38:00.000-07:00

Boy does Wuzzadem have it right. Warning: Spew Alert!

John at Wuzzadem points us to additional media stuff from Freedom Folks:

While attending the Move America Forward press conference this morning in Chicago I was struck by the paucity of media coverage.There were precisely two representatives of our local media present: a cameraman for the local ABC affiliate and a reporter from WBBM.

And then there is this from Media Blog at NRO:

After President Bush briefed reporters on his intention to visit the area affected by Hurricane Rita as soon as possible, one reporter yelled, "Sir, what good can you do going down to the hurricane zone? Might you get in the way?"
Bush, who had already started walking away, turned around:

BUSH: We're going to make sure we're not in the way of the operations. What I am going to do is observe the relationship between the state and local government.

Then a reporter (possibly the same one) yelled, "Well, critics are saying this is an overcompensation for the response to Katrina."

This is why it's impossible to have an intelligent debate about Bush's response to the hurricanes. The press hates him and blames him no matter what he does.

I think that Bush should quoted Gen. Honore: "Don't get stuck on stupid , reporters!"

"Naif-Gate"

2005-09-23T09:34:00.000-07:00

Hugh Hewitt has some advice for the young DSCC staffers who committed identity theft against Maryland Republican Michael Steele:

First, write down this number: 202-974-5600. That's the number for Chadbourne & Parke in DC, where you can reach Abbe Lowell. Lowell's a bit busy right now, but he is the city's best bet for criminal defense and he'll get you into competent hands within the firm. It is best to be the first one to the firm before conflicts kick in. Bring your wallet. Probably dad's wallet, if you are young staffer in over your head. In fact, you'd better tell dad right now. It isn't what he signed you up for, and he's going to pretty ticked that Schumer's gotten you into this mess, but it is better to tell him now rather than wait for the storm to pass over.

Point 2: Don't let a hometown lawyer advise you on what to do. That never works out well. If Lowell is taken, drop me a note at hugh@hughhewitt.com. There are some fine alternatives.

Hugh is also asking for suggestions on what to call this scandal.

My suggestion, given the youth of the fall guys (or gals) is Naif-Gate.

If True, This Stinks

2005-09-22T18:24:00.000-07:00

I don't like unions.

Why Am I Watching This?

2005-09-22T17:38:00.000-07:00

Why am I watching Million-Dollar Baby at the moment? I am watching it and questioning why. People have said that, except for the euthanasia moment, it's good. Why?

I'm sorry, the idea of women beating on other women for sport is ridiculous to me. I remember junior high in the 1960's.. There were some girls who carried razor blades to fight each other. They were considered to be trash.

I have no problem with women learning self-defense, like Krav Maga--or defensive Martial Arts. In fact, I encourage it.

Women boxers?

Not my cup of tea.

I have to tell you, movies these days really stink big time.

If I were in charge, all movies would star Mel Gibson and would be patriotic or religious. But, what do I know?

Update:

Okay. I can't even get to the euthanasia part. This stinks and I am turning it off.

Okay--it's still on and it's really getting more and more stupid.

Alexander: The Irish Metrosexual

2005-09-20T19:35:00.000-07:00

This past weekend, I made the mistake of watching Oliver Stone's movie, Alexander. It is one of those movies that makes you ask repeatedly: "why am I watching this?"

I'm sorry to say that, I not only couldn't stop watching it, I had to watch parts of it over in order to be sure of what I was seeing, it is so stupid. In that respect, it's worse than a car wreck.

Will someone tell me who this Colin Ferrell guy is? I never heard of him before this movie.

After watching this Ferrell guy, I kept trying to figure out what he reminds me of. Then I saw a picture of a pug dog and figured it out.

Ferrell looks like a pug dog. The thing is, throughout the movie, Ferrell looked like an angry pug dog. I couldn't find any angry pug dog pictures on the internet. That's probably because pug dog owners don't want to post pictures on the internet of their beloved pets looking as ridiculous as this...

This is Colin Ferrell trying to act like Alexander quelling a mutiny. He was really inspiring in this scene in an angry pug dog sort of way. (snigger...)

Will someone please explain to me why all the Macedonians sounded like Celts? They had Irish brogues and Scottish brogues. I know now that this Colin fellow is Irish--but why did Val Kilmer (who played Alexander's father, Philip) fake an Irish accent? (really badly by the way) That wasn't as bad as Alexander's mother played by Angelina Jolie, though. She sounded like Natasha in Bullwinkle.

I knew that the dramatic scenes were going to be bad. I sort of hoped that the battle scenes would be good. That was not the case.

The first battle involved the defeat of the Persian, Darius. Stone had it filmed on a dusty plain. You couldn't see a thing most of the time.

I thought this was a fluke until the last battle scene set in India. There was no dust in that scene. Instead, Stone filmed it overlaid with red, to symbolize blood, I guess. All you could occasionally make out was the terrified eye of one of the elephants ridden by the Indians.

And the camera work for all the battle scenes!! I think that Stone hired one of the amateurs who send in home movies to America's Funniest Home Videos because of the way the camera bounced around.

You would think that Stone would have focused on some of the really interesting battles mounted by Alexander such as the siege of Tyre. No such luck.

Instead, Stone focused on Alexander's drunken flirtations with his close male friends. No wonder the Greeks were so mad about this movie.

I am really disappointed in Stone. After all, he has his roots in one of the greatest epic movies of all time, Conan the Barbarian. That movie had great fight scenes enacted by Arnold and some of his body-builder buddies.

The sound track in Conan is inspiring and appropriate--unlike the one in Alexander. In Conan, Stone and his cohorts were smart enough to have Conan speak very. few. words. We weren't so lucky in Alexander. Most of the time, I couldn't understand what Colin Ferrell was saying. It reminded me of that scene in F.I.S.T. where Sylvester Stallone stands up and rants at a Congressional committee and you can't understand a word he says for at least 3 minutes.

All that aside, who is more inspiring?

Arnold as Conan?

Or this Colin Ferrell guy as Alexander?

Or Colin Ferell as Colin Ferrell?

I vote for Conan.

My New Motto: "Don't Get Stuck On Stupid"

2005-09-20T18:33:00.000-07:00

General Honore doesn't take guff from reporters:

.....Male reporter: General Honore, we were told that Berman Stadium on the west bank would be another staging area…
Honore: Not to my knowledge. Again, the current place, I just told you one time, is the convention center. Once we complete the plan with the mayor, and is approved by the governor, then we’ll start that in the next 12-24 hours. And we understand that there’s a problem in getting communications out. That’s where we need your help. But let’s not confuse the questions with the answers. Buses at the convention center will move our citizens, for whom we have sworn that we will support and defend…and we’ll move them on. Let’s not get stuck on the last storm. You’re asking last storm questions for people who are concerned about the future storm. Don’t get stuck on stupid, reporters. We are moving forward. And don’t confuse the people please. You are part of the public message. So help us get the message straight. And if you don’t understand, maybe you’ll confuse it to the people. That’s why we like follow-up questions. But right now, it’s the convention center, and move on....

(HT Radioblogger)

This is my new motto.

The Pizza Guy

2005-09-19T19:36:00.000-07:00

Remember the Pizza Guy, Brian Wells, who was killed when a bomb put around his neck exploded? Why have we never heard anything else about that?

The guy's brother was just on Greta Van Susteren. After it happened, I kept wondering why the Bomb Squad hadn't done anything before the bomb exploded. Don't bomb squads have technology for such things that would prevent members from danger? I'm not sure.

What I didn't know until tonight is that the police, allegedly, had Brian Wells in their custody for 32 minutes before they even called the Bomb squad. I don't understand that. The outcome was so pitiful.

Mr. Well's brother, tonight, said that the cops refused to believe anything Brian said. Now, the cops have published a picture of Brian walking into the bank with a cane--as if it was a weapon--apparently to make the point that he took a cane to a bank robbery. I always thought that the police response to this was weird.

Brian's brother is angry that the police don't appear to be adequately investigating the case. (I'd be trying to sue their collective asses, if I were him--if only to find out whether they followed their protocol and if they haven't investigated in order to CYA). Brian's brother has a website and is offering a $100,000 reward to find this man's murderers.

What Did We Expect?

2005-09-19T18:49:00.000-07:00

With regard to Clinton's criticisms of Bush over Katrina, why are we so surprised that Clinton would act like an ungrateful child towards the Administration after the President give Clinton a primo opportunity for face time by making him in charge of some aspects of Katrina relief with Bush I? Did we really expect that a serial philanderer would exhibit any modicum of loyalty? Especially when his self-interest is involved? After all, if Hilary gets into office as President, Bill will be right there. We shouldn't be surprised. He's a hypocrite.

But, I didn't understand the depths of his hypocrisy until I read The Cassandra Page tonight. It seems that Billy Boy had his own little flood, during which he did not behave to the standards to which he would hold President Bush.

According to Salt at The Cassandra Page:

If the "This Week" interviewer had been a real reporter instead of an MSM/DNC shill, he would have asked Bill Clinton about the Pennsylvania flood of January, 1996. In January, 1996 a flood [mild by Katrina standards] engulfed Harrisburg, knocked down a bridge, closed other bridges, chased countless people from their homes, destroyed businesses and isolated the capital of Pennsylvania.

Governor Tom Ridge took to the airwaves and condemned FEMA because FEMA would not even declare an official disaster [a disaster was later declared]. Soldiers would later patrol the streets to keep order.

Go read the whole thing.

My Trip To The Gun Show

2005-09-19T17:56:00.000-07:00

This past Saturday afternoon, a friend and I went to the Gun Show. I wish I had pictures. The one above looks exactly like one of the guns that I really liked. It's a Henry.

I now love gun shows. It was absolutely fascinating and I met many interesting people.

I met a man who bought an old knife factory in Mexico. He had a fantastic collection of knives with bone handles. He had skinning knives and cleavers. He had a little knife with a hook on it that is specifically for cutting prickly pears off cactus. You cut the prickly pear with the knife and then pull it toward you with the hook. I bought a really nice camping knife with about an eight inch blade.

Then I met a guy who looks like Buffalo Bill, handle-bar moustache and all. He was selling replicas of old guns. He had one like the Henry above. From him, I learned that we didn't have repeating rifles until 1862! I didn't know that.

Oh yeah, the knife guy also had some rawhide lariats. They were hand-made by Mexican vaqueros. Apparently, most Mexican cowboys get room and board and that's about all. So, during their downtime, they drink beer and weave rawhide lariats to sell. They also use them sometimes. All those ropes shown in Cowboy movies were apparently rawhide in real life.

I learned a lot at the Gun Show. It was a great way to spend a Saturday afternoon.

Court Zero

2005-09-19T17:47:00.000-07:00

My friend at Pirate Pundit has written a book. In true blogospheric fashion, he has published it on the internet as an audio book. The name of the the book is CourtZero, A Guide To Judicial Activism For Revolutionaries And Average Folks. Here is a description:

The judicial branch of our government is malfunctioning, and representative government is at risk. The meaning of the Constitution shifts with the attitudes of judges. This book explains the history and dangers of judicial activism in an easily understandable way. The author, founder of CourtZero.org explains in concise, plain, and powerful language, the decisions of the black-robed decision makers that affect us all. If you are interested in compelling social issues, the role of the ACLU, the plight of the Boy Scouts, the future of privacy, or the rise of state-sanctioned euthanasia, this book is for you.

You can download it here for free. I'm part way through and highly recommend it.

My Talk Radio Schedule

2005-09-19T17:44:00.000-07:00

I am scheduled to appear on two talk radio shows this week to talk about Katrina and its effect on nursing homes, specifically about St. Rita’s in New Orleans.

I will first appear on Mychal Massie’s Straight Talk on Right Talk Radio at about 1:18 ET. It streams accross the internet and can be listened to by clicking here and then clicking on channel 1. It will be replayed on subsequent channels on the hour throughout the rest of the day.

On Friday, September 23, I will again be Mychal Massie’s guest. He will interview me at about 1:06 ET on WDEL 1150 AM in Delaware. You can also listen to it through the internet by clicking here.

Feel free to call in and give me heck!

Political Junkies vs.The Rest

2005-09-14T18:30:00.000-07:00

Last night I went to dinner with a couple of good friends. They are intelligent, successful, educated and well informed. However, unlike most of us who blog or read blogs or follow every issue with intense--and almost addictive interest--they are fairly apolitical--except in the sense that they generally vote Republican.

We discussed Katrina. They expressed to me that they are totally disgusted by all the finger pointing that has come about because of Katrina. Their position is that Katrina was the biggest natural disaster to befall the continental US and that the fall-out was, not necessarily, anyone's fault. Even the local officials'. After all, the city actually did ride out the hurricane successfully. It was the break in the levee that caused the major problems from what I've read. No one expected that crack as far as I know.

The husband has a friend who is involved in some way with law enforcement or emergency relief in New Orleans. I asked about the submerged buses and the husband told me that his friend says that the media, which he believes is misreporting a lot of things, has failed to report that Mayor Nagin DID send buses around to evacuate people without transportation and the people WOULD NOT GET ON THE BUSES.

I have no corroboration about this--but note this article:

While concerned about his brother’s well-being, Booth also was saying a prayer for the residents of a nursing home in New Orleans where two of his friends work as nurses. The administrator of the nursing home had rented city buses to help transport residents from the facility. However, when Ray Nagin, mayor of New Orleans, commandeered the city’s bus fleet for a mandatory evacuation, that left the nursing home in a lurch.
“There were 150 senior citizens left with no way to move to safer ground. They were just stuck,” he said.

Did Mayor Nagin send some of those buses around? There is no followup to this. Does anyone know if any were actually deployed?

And if they were, note this U.S. News & World Report Article published in July 2005:

The Louisiana State Police recently unveiled a new evacuation plan that kicks in 50 hours before a hurricane is forecast to hit. Still, polls show the longer people have lived in New Orleans, the less likely they are to evacuate. "If it's going to happen, it's going to happen," says Ray Newman, 70, who kept his French Quarter bar, the Chart Room, open on the day Ivan was expected to strike last year. "But I'm an optimist."

I have to tell you, I'm not sure that Mayor Nagin COULD have evacuated all those people successfully--except at the point of a gun.

My point is that, given my friend's response to the finger-pointing, I don't think that those of us blogging on either side of this issue, the politicians or the media are necessarily impressing the majority of the people who are not as eaten up by politics as we are.

A Threat To A Judge?

2005-09-12T17:02:00.000-07:00

Remember when the left was accusing Tom Delay and others of "threatening" judges.? Remember when Law & Order had that stupid scene about it?

Now, out of Ohio, we have the Administrator of an abortion clinic actually and publically advocating the lynching of a State Judge:

It was the 24-hour requirement that was causing problems at the local clinic.
``This ruling came out at quarter to five on a Thursday night. It was impossible to get a hold of these patients,'' Westfall said. ``My opinion is, the judge should be lynched.''

(HT NRO's The Corner)

I hope that the judge summons her to court with her toothbrush and jails her for contempt.

The Flight that Fought Back

2005-09-11T19:57:00.000-07:00

I just finished watching The Flight That Fought Back on the Discovery Channel. It was both sad and inspiring. Having heard that the Discovery Channel is hoplessly liberal in its spin, I was pleasantly surprised. It was a good rendering of the event and effectively showed the heroism and can do attitude of the people on Flight 93.

Before that, I watched The Man Who Predicted 9-11 on the History Channel about Rick Rescorla. I read his biography a few months back. He was a true hero. The show didn't mention this, but Rick Rescorla actually did some of the heroic things that Mel Gibson's character in We Were Soldiers was portrayed as doing. Rescorla was very disappointed about that according to the book.

Both of these shows were well worth watching--and I am sure they will be repeated over the next few days.

The Spin Continues

2005-09-11T08:47:00.000-07:00

My Father sent me the link to this Knight Ridder article published in the Fort Worth Start Telegram. He wrote:

According to the Fort Worth Star Telegram (www.star-telegram.com) this morning, "unknown to New Orleans residents, multiple officials were aware August 29 that the levee system had collapsed hours before Katrina made landfall. Yet reports of the breach failed to spark action". My comment -- It's just not possible to help people who choose leaders that demonstrate incompetance (lethargy?). Looks like all the finger pointers need a vast amount of re-education. All these people who insist on living on the beaches of Florida or the mud hills of California or the gradually sinking New Orleans protect "their" turf with a vengence and then depend on the government to replace their private structures time after time. How long can we afford to do that?

(emphasis added by me)

Here is the full quote from the article:

Perhaps the most startling failure came in the reaction, or apparent lack of one, from federal, state and local officials to the discovery that New Orleans' fragile levee system had collapsed hours before Katrina's landfall. Engineers and emergency planners had warned for years that such a collapse would be catastrophic for the below-sea-level city and its people. Yet reports of the breach failed to spark action.

Look at the article. There is no source for that above bolded statement in the article. It is the first I've heard that the levee system allegedly collapsed before Katrina made landfall. In fact, the New Orleans' newspaper accounts seem to belie that.

Look at the timeline constructed from accounts by Times Picayne by Right Wind Nut House.

There is no mention of the levee system collapsing before Katrina hit land. Further, what does Knight Ridder mean by "collapsed"? Does it mean "overtopped" or "breaking"?
There is a difference. So,where did it collapse before Katrina hit and what kind of "collapse"?

My understanding is that there was some flooding from overtopping after landfall--then additional flooding after the break--but that all this happened after landfall. Scroll down for accounts.

Where is the substantiation for the claim that officials knew the levee had collapsed before landfall? And, how long before landfall? As the brunt of the storm began--after all don't storms precede the landfall of hurricanes?? How much could the officials have done in the midst of a storm?

Here is another quote that I find strange:

With New Orleans flooded and the extent of the devastation in such Mississippi cities as Biloxi and Gulfport becoming clear, FEMA's few publicly available reports show that it was deploying eight additional disaster medical-assistance teams, each with 35 members; that it had sent emergency crews to check out possible oil spills; that it was working with the Department of Agriculture to provide food and water and with the Department of Health and Human Services to supply doctors and medicine.

That was about it.

FEMA Director Brown had flown into Baton Rouge, La., on Sunday and had ridden out the storm at the state operations center there, confident that adequate preparations had been made. His agency had pre-positioned ice, water and MREs in three layers: in the storm zone, in adjacent states and at pre-existing logistical centers in Atlanta and Denton. But getting the supplies distributed was proving to be a daunting challenge.

Question. Why does this article not tell us the total number of emergency teams in addition to telling us the number of additional teams? Further, the article claims "That was about it" and then goes on to describe other actions by FEMA. That seems like strange writing to me.

Contrast this article with this analysis of FEMA's reponse by Jack Kelly:

Jason van Steenwyk is a Florida Army National Guardsman who has been mobilized six times for hurricane relief. He notes that:
"The federal government pretty much met its standard time lines, but the volume of support provided during the 72-96 hour was unprecedented. The federal response here was faster than Hugo, faster than Andrew, faster than Iniki, faster than Francine and Jeanne."

For instance, it took five days for National Guard troops to arrive in strength on the scene in Homestead, Fla. after Hurricane Andrew hit in 2002. But after Katrina, there was a significant National Guard presence in the afflicted region in three.

Further, regarding that Knight Ridder statement: "That was about it" see this part:

You cannot speed recovery and relief efforts up by prepositioning assets (in the affected areas) since the assets are endangered by the very storm which destroyed the region.

"No amount of yelling, crying and mustering of moral indignation will change any of the facts above."

"You cannot just snap your fingers and make the military appear somewhere," van Steenwyk said.

Guardsmen need to receive mobilization orders; report to their armories; draw equipment; receive orders and convoy to the disaster area. Guardsmen driving down from Pennsylvania or Navy ships sailing from Norfolk can't be on the scene immediately.

Relief efforts must be planned. Other than prepositioning supplies near the area likely to be afflicted (which was done quite efficiently), this cannot be done until the hurricane has struck and a damage assessment can be made. There must be a route reconnaissance to determine if roads are open, and bridges along the way can bear the weight of heavily laden trucks.

And federal troops and Guardsmen from other states cannot be sent to a disaster area until their presence has been requested by the governors of the afflicted states.

(HT Captain Ed)

As Captain Ed adds:

These are the reasons why FEMA makes clear that local and state authorities should plan on having their own resources in place for the first 72-96 hours after a disaster strikes. In this case, FEMA had significant resources in place prior to the disaster, and followed up with a massive response within their time frame after the levees broke and the disaster overwhelmed New Orleans and Louisiana. Unless people think that, as Kelly quotes a Guardsman, we can have Scotty beam the military down from the USS Enterprise at the snap of the fingers, the fact is that FEMA responded as designed to this disaster.

Also, read this U.S. News & World Report Article on Hurricane Pam:

Category 3 storm could deposit up to 27 feet of water in some neighborhoods. A few years ago, the American Red Cross ranked the prospect of a hurricane's hitting New Orleans as the country's deadliest natural disaster threat, with up to 100,000 dead. Still, many Big Easy denizens insist they'll stay put for the next one. "There's a reason New Orleans has a drink called the hurricane," says Jeanne Hurlbert, an LSU sociology professor. "The culture here is 'we don't evacuate.'"

There is a quote from Mayor Nagin as well:

"If a Category 5 storm enters the Gulf, I don't think we'll have to encourage people to leave--it'll be an easy sell," says New Orleans Mayor C. Ray Nagin. Category 3 or 4 storms, though, "are more dangerous . . . the community says, 'We might ride this out.'"

How strange. The Mayor was concerned about Category 3 or 4 storms--yet dithers about when a Catagory 5 bears down on New Orleans. Also, you can't easily "sell" an evacuation to those who have no cars, Mayor. That's what these were for:

Buses
Posted by Picasa

This Is Extremely Disappointing

2005-09-10T19:00:00.000-07:00

I've donated money to the Katrina effort--and I will donate more. I am, however, going to be careful to whom I donate and will keep an eye on whom the charity is serving.

My patience is gone and my compassion is dwindling in light of reports from volunteers like this one.

My sister, on the other hand, has been working with some evacuees who got out before the storm. She reported to me about the gratitude and graciousness of those she has helped. That's where my money is going.

The Levee Repairs

2005-09-10T09:48:00.000-07:00

Dr. Jack Wheeler, at To The Point News, is concerned about the pols in New Orleans getting their hands on taxpayer money in the aftermath of Katrina. He also raises questions about the break in the levee, which had been repaired at the same spot last year. I hope that someone investigates the quality of the material and repairs as well as the money trail.

Also, go look at this Engineering and Physics forum. It's really interesting how these guys conduct themselves. They are all about facts, analysis and getting things fixed. I can tell some of them don't like the war in Iraq--but there doesn't seem to be a one of them lowering themselves to say anything stupid like "Bushitler." It's refreshing.

Those Nursing Home Residents

2005-09-08T18:15:00.000-07:00

I know that many of you have written about the nursing home residents found dead in facilities in New Orleans. Many of you are probably assuming that the staff cavalierly ran off and deserted these people. I'm not so sure.

At my firm blog, I write about this. I keep it separate from this blog. Not all my clients are as conservative as I am.

I want to tell you that I have represented nursing homes for many years. I LOVE it. The people involved in Long Term Care are the salt of the earth. It angers me greatly that the MSM is not telling the whole story and is suggesting that the staff of these nursing homes are prima facia guilty of something. BS!! Read my other blog.

Is This True?

2005-09-07T15:45:00.000-07:00

Posted on 09/07/2005 3:30:30 PM PDT by carlr

Major Garrett is talking with Britt and reported that a Red Cross representative told him the LA state homeland security department refused them permission to take food and water to the Superdome because they did`nt want to encourage people to go there.
They wanted to get people out and were afraid that providing support would be a "magnet" atttracting more displaced persons.
To paraphrase,the state was looking to discourage people through hardship out of the Superdome.All the aid in the world wouldnt have gotten through.

More On The Great Raid & Context

2005-09-06T18:35:00.000-07:00

I just had someone post an extremely profound comment at my post about The Great Raid. Rod's comment emphasizes the importance of historical context when judging present events. Just read it--it says quite enough on it's own:

Sue Bob - - I lived near a "China Marine" from 1946 - 1949. One of the worst things FDR ever did was order them to surrender. The Regimental commander would not take MacA's order and talked directly to FDR before surrendering.
This survivor of "Death March" was a basket case. If you saw Ross Perot's running mate on the VP debate 13 years ago you have a weak idea of what a shell of a man he was. But he was part of the 9% that live to tell the tale. It would have been much better for the Marines to fight to the death as we are trained to do. At least that way they would have taken 10,000 - 20,000 Japs with them.
In three years the Japs killed over 90% of the men. women and children taken prisoner at the end of 1941.
Had this raid not taken place it would have been over 92%. Think about that the next time Larry King cals America a land of torturers!

It was this experience that convinced me when I was fighting the real JFK's war I would not be taken alive.
It is why I get so mad when Pelosi, Durbin and Reid compare Gitmo to the Japs or the Socialist Labor Party's death camps.

Reading Rod's comment makes me all the madder at not learning about this military action in history class--even at the college level. If we were properly educated in history, I believe that 99% of us would horse-laugh Pelosi, Durbin and Reid into political oblivion.

Thank God for Bill Whittle's gray sheepdogs. I think that Rod is one of them.

I Just Don't Get This...

2005-09-06T17:45:00.000-07:00

Homosexuals celebrate in ravaged New Orleans
2 dozen 'gays' march up Bourbon Street, reslate Southern Decadence for tomorrow

Posted: September 6, 2005
1:00 a.m. Eastern

By Joe Kovacs
© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com

Despite the devastation and ongoing suffering by thousands from Hurricane Katrina, homosexuals paraded on Bourbon Street in New Orleans over the weekend, and have rescheduled their "Southern Decadence" event for tomorrow.

I'm not one of those who believes that New Orleans was targeted by the Lord for its decadence. I believe that the world is full of tragedy because of our collective sin and rejection of God. And by collective, I mean every single one of us. I know that I have had a few mean thoughts the last few days after learning about the thuggery inside the Superdome and after reading Mark Steyn today that add to the collective sin.

Clearing that up--I cannot understand why the homosexuals would want to do this in light of the continued misery of their fellow citizens of New Orleans. Is it defiance against the results of the storm and an attempt to get back to "normal". I don't know. It just doesn't sit well with me.

A Reality Check Is DEFINITELY In Order

2005-09-04T19:34:00.000-07:00

Tex the Pontificator posted this on Friday. My sympathy is wearing thin. And if you don't like it--go read someone else's blog.:

My daughter and her husband live essentially across the street from the Astrodome. She says the police sirens are virtually constant. I have heard from a Dallas policeman of the strain on Dallas police resources created by the refugees sent there. He spoke of riot conditions. It is my understanding we have received several thousand refugees here in San Antonio, but they are being placed in the Joe and Harry Freeman Coliseum, which is a considerable distance from where I live. I do not know the police situation here.

Are We As Tough As Our Grandfathers?

2005-09-04T16:55:00.000-07:00

I just came back from seeing The Great Raid. I am going to buy the movie. (I rarely buy movies) I am also changing my profile to list it.

Others have written better reviews than I could. I have just two observations.

I became extremely angry during the movie. Not just at the brutal, godless Japs who were burning our POW's to death as the Americans were retaking the Phillipines. I am angry because I was never taught about this action. It was the greatest rescue in the history of the American military, and I was never taught about it in the public schools I was subjected to. WHY?

I bet they don't teach about it now, either. They are too busy teaching our children about what racists, imperialists we have supposedly been. What about a little context? Nobody has ever been a brutal or imperialistic as the Japanese during the years leading up to and during WWII, in my opinion.

I'm just lucky that I was educated in Texas during the 60's and early 70's. At least I learned Texas history before the kinds of idiots who made the last movie version of The Alamo got hold of our school systems.

Second, think about this. The POW's held by the Japanese in the Phillipines went without adequate food, water and sanitation for THREE YEARS--not three or four days. They truly had cause to believe they were forgotten by our government.

Heck, I'll add a third. After seeing that movie, I feel a bit of shame about driving a Honda. I found myself kind of skulking through the parking lot back to it.

Is It Time For A Reality Check?

2005-09-04T07:00:00.000-07:00

I like to think that most people are compassionate, empathetic and usually heed the call of their higher nature. My fellow Texans have exhibited those qualities amply in responding to the needs of fellow human beings who have been subjected to Katrina.

That said, in light of this article, it may be time to realistically assess the impact that a number of the evacuees may have on our State in terms of what happened to the foreign tourists in the Superdome:

Realising that foreigners were a target, Mr Hopes and the other Aussies gathered tourists from Europe, South America and elsewhere into one part of the building.
"There were 65 of us, so we were able to look after each other -- especially the girls who were being grabbed and threatened." Mr Hopes said.
He said they had organised escorts for the women when they had gone for food or to the toilet, and rosters to keep guard while others slept.
"We sat through the night just watching each other, not knowing if we would be alive in the morning."

<>I truly hope that the perspective of these people was off when they said the following:

<>Mr Hopes, 32, said: "That was the worst place in the universe. Ninety-eight per cent of the people around the world are good. In that place, 98 per cent of the people were bad.
"Everyone brought their drugs, they brought guns, they brought knives. Soldiers were shot.
"It was like a refugee camp within a prison.
"It was full on. It was the worst thing I have seen in my life. I have never been so frightened."

I doubt they were wrong. I truly fear that many good-hearted people from Texas or other States are going to become victims of some of the people from NO that they try to help.

I don't believe for one minute that it was soley the conditions caused them to behave in this manner in the Superdome. After all, in Mississippi, they are suffering too--but not killing:

Mississippi hurricane survivors looked around Saturday and wondered just how long it would take to get food, clean water and shelter. And they were more than angry at the federal government and the national news media.

Richard Gibbs was disgusted by reports of looting in New Orleans and upset at the lack of attention hurricane victims in his state were getting.

"I say burn the bridges and let 'em all rot there," he said. "We're suffering over here too, but we're not killing each other. We've got to help each other. We need gas and food and water and medical supplies."

Gibbs and his wife, Holly, have been stuck at their flooded home in Gulfport just off the Biloxi River. Water comes up to the second floor, they are out of gasoline, and food supplies are running perilously low.

In fact, over there, they are helping each other until the Federal Government gets there:

"Something should've been on this corner three days ago," Chapman, 60, said Saturday as he whipped up dinner for his neighbors.

He used wood from his demolished produce stand to cook fish, rabbit, okra and butter beans he'd been keeping in his freezer. Although many houses here, about five miles inland, are still standing, they are severely damaged. Corrugated tin roofs lie scattered on the ground.

"I'm just doing what I can do," Chapman said. "These people support me with my produce stand every day. Now it's time to pay them back."

Perhaps there are more good stories than bad out of New Orleans and the Superdome. It doesn't seem like it. I still think that we should help them--just cautiously.

This is Sound Advice

2005-09-03T18:26:00.000-07:00

From a really good blog: Shots Across The Bow

Do you have a "go bag" or "bug out kit?"

Do you have enough drinking water stowed away to last your family for a week?

Do you have an alternative source of power, batteries or a generator?

Do you have a battery powered or dynamo powered radio so you can get information?

Do you have several flashlights, all with good batteries and extra bulbs?

Do you have a basic first aid kit stocked and ready to go?

Do you have spare prescription eyeglasses?

Do you have a place to bug out to, in the event that you have to evacuate?

Do you routinely keep your car topped off with gas and serviced regularly?

Do you have a firearm and are you competent in its use?

I'm starting on the list tomorrow.

I REALLY Like This Post

2005-09-03T16:29:00.000-07:00

So I am not going to waste my breath on who called who. Not wasting my time on weather the Governor, the Mayor, or the President dropped the ball. Even an investigation into what went wrong would only become a political CYA session. After everyone is safe, the Mayor, the Governor, and the President need to sit down behind closed doors and hash it all out. Then they should EACH release a statement about where they could have done BETTER. No one should mention a word about what the others should have done. They need to concentrate on their own roles and offer what they learned in order to help others learn from the mistakes made so we can ALL be better prepared in the future.

If This Won't Convince You to Buy a Gun...

2005-09-03T11:32:00.000-07:00

Mahone Dunbar at Paxety Pages has written a terrifyingly realistic analysis about the thuggery outbreak in New Orleans. He pulls no punches here:

We have flirted with evil. We have plied it with rehabilitation programs, lettered professors have made excuses for it, and we volleyed cannonades of money at it. We have bribed it. It has grown. Today, there is a schism, an unbridgeable gulf, between urban amerika and the rest of us. But I fear, since political futures and political power are vested in empowering the welfare culture, that we are either headed for total destruction as a society or a testing and liberating fire that may make the Civil War seem like a tea party. New Orleans may be the first shot in that war.

You must, MUST go read this.

I'm Guest Blogging Elsewhere

2005-09-03T09:35:00.000-07:00

This weekend, I will be filling in for Salt over at The Cassandra Page. Salt is a wonderful blogger and I am honored that he would ask me to do this.

A Good Timeline

2005-09-02T19:42:00.000-07:00

After reading Stolen Thunder tonight, I think that I have indulged in a bit of emotionalism. Go read his timeline. It puts things into perspective.

If Something Happens to this Guy, I'm Gonna Be Livid!

2005-09-02T18:26:00.000-07:00

After all, the other buses are under water:

Eighteen-year-old Jabbor Gibson jumped aboard the bus as it sat abandoned on a street in New Orleans and took control.

"I just took the bus and drove all the way here...seven hours straight,' Gibson admitted. "I hadn't ever drove a bus."

The teen packed it full of complete strangers and drove to Houston. He beat thousands of evacuees slated to arrive there.

"I t's better than being in New Orleans," said fellow passenger Albert McClaud, "we want to be somewhere where we're safe."

During a long and impatient delay, children popped their heads out of bus windows and mothers clutched their babies.

One 8-day-old infant spent the first days of his life surrounded by chaos. He's one of the many who are homeless and hungry.

Authorities eventually allowed the renegade passengers inside the dome. But the 18-year-old who ensured their safety could find himself in a world of trouble for stealing the school bus.

About That Argument That The Guardsmen Are All In Iraq

2005-09-02T12:19:00.000-07:00

James Robbins at National Review Online dispels that canard:

A look at the numbers should dispel that notion. Take the Army for example. There are 1,012,000 soldiers on active duty, in the Reserves, or in the National Guard. Of them, 261,000 are deployed overseas in 120 countries. Iraq accounts for 103,000 soldiers, or 10.2 percent of the Army.

That’s all? Yes, 10.2 percent. That datum is significant in itself, a good one to keep handy the next time someone talks about how our forces are stretched too thin, our troops are at the breaking point, and so forth. If you add in Afghanistan (15,000) and the support troops in Kuwait (10,000) you still only have 12.6 percent.

So where are the rest? 751,000 (74.2 percent) are in the U.S. About half are active duty, and half Guard and Reserve. The Guard is the real issue of course — the Left wants you to believe that the country has been denuded of its citizen soldiers, and that Louisiana has suffered inordinately because Guardsmen and women who would have been available to be mobilized by the state to stop looting and aid in reconstruction are instead risking their lives in Iraq.

Not hardly. According to Lieutenant General H. Steven Blum, chief of the National Guard Bureau, 75 percent of the Army and Air National Guard are available nationwide. In addition, the federal government has agreed since the conflict in Iraq started not to mobilize more than 50 percent of Guard assets in any given state, in order to leave sufficient resources for governors to respond to emergencies.

Volunteers Could Do A Better Job

2005-09-02T06:21:00.000-07:00

Almost every disaster, I hear stories about how the "authorities" stymie efforts by volunteers to bring in food, water or ice. I'm not one who thinks that we should sit back and let the government do everything for us in a disaster. My position is strengthened by reading things like this from The Interdictor:

Three days ago, police and national guard troops told citizens to head toward the Crescent City Connection Bridge to await transportation out of the area. The citizens trekked over to the Convention Center and waited for the buses which they were told would take them to Houston or Alabama or somewhere else, out of this area.

It's been 3 days, and the buses have yet to appear.

Although obviously he has no exact count, he estimates more than 10,000 people are packed into and around and outside the convention center still waiting for the buses. They had no food, no water, and no medicine for the last three days, until today, when the National Guard drove over the bridge above them, and tossed out supplies over the side crashing down to the ground below. Much of the supplies were destroyed from the drop. Many people tried to catch the supplies to protect them before they hit the ground. Some offered to walk all the way around up the bridge and bring the supplies down, but any attempt to approach the police or national guard resulted in weapons being aimed at them.

There are many infants and elderly people among them, as well as many people who were injured jumping out of windows to escape flood water and the like -- all of them in dire straights.

Any attempt to flag down police results in being told to get away at gunpoint. Hour after hour they watch buses pass by filled with people from other areas. Tensions are very high, and there has been at least one murder and several fights. 8 or 9 dead people have been stored in a freezer in the area, and 2 of these dead people are kids.

The people are so desperate that they're doing anything they can think of to impress the authorities enough to bring some buses. These things include standing in single file lines with the eldery in front, women and children next; sweeping up the area and cleaning the windows and anything else that would show the people are not barbarians.

The buses never stop.

Before the supplies were pitched off the bridge today, people had to break into buildings in the area to try to find food and water for their families. There was not enough. This spurred many families to break into cars to try to escape the city. There was no police response to the auto thefts until the mob reached the rich area -- Saulet Condos -- once they tried to get cars from there... well then the whole swat teams began showing up with rifles pointed. Snipers got on the roof and told people to get back.

He reports that the conditions are horrendous. Heat, mosquitoes and utter misery. The smell, he says, is "horrific."

He says it's the slowest mandatory evacuation ever, and he wants to know why they were told to go to the Convention Center area in the first place; furthermore, he reports that many of them with cell phones have contacts willing to come rescue them, but people are not being allowed through to pick them up.

I can't help thinking that if a bunch of Americans, freed from the maddening rules hamstringing governmental authorities, just got together and formed a convoy--supplies would get through better and transportation out of there could be better organized. It appears that if we did something like that--the authorities wouldn't let us through--and the people would just continue to sit there receiving damaged supplies thrown off a bridge.

I hate this idea that we should hand over our means of survival to the government. Have you ever seen how governmental employees act when you need help? Go to the post office some time.

Update:

I just heard a caller to a local Talk Radio Show suggest that we get a bunch of retired Marine Officers and NCO's to take over the FEMA functions. I wish that a bunch of them from Texas would just get together to stage a rescue--and if any Fema Bureaucrat gets in the way--flick them off like a piece of dandruff.

I am rethinking my FEMA remarks after reading this.

Then again, there is this from WSJ:

Big public bureaucracies are going to get us killed. They already have. One may argue that this is an inevitable result of living in an advanced and complex democracy. Yes, up to a point. An open political system indeed breeds inefficiencies (though possibly the Jeb Bush administration that dealt with the 2004 hurricanes is more competent than Gov. Blanco's team in Louisiana). And perhaps low-lying, self-indulgent New Orleans understood its losing bargain with a devil's fate.

But we ought to at least recognize that our increasingly tough First World problems--terrorism, viruses, the rising incidence of powerful natural disasters--are being addressed by a public sector that too often is coming to resemble a Third World that can't execute.

I'll go further. We should consider outsourcing some of these functions, for profit, to the private sector. In recent days, offers of help have come from such companies as Anheuser-Busch and Culligan (water), Lilly, Merck and Wyeth (pharmaceuticals), Nissan and GM (cars and trucks), Sprint, Nextel and Qwest (communications gear and phone cards), Johnson & Johnson (toiletries and first aid), Home Depot and Lowe's (manpower). Give contract authority to organize these resources to a project-management firm like Bechtel. Use the bureaucracies as infantry.

Blogging for Katrina Relief

2005-09-01T07:48:00.000-07:00

My chosen charity is Samaritan's Purse. Here is some of what they are doing:

Two Samaritan's Purse Disaster Relief Units have reached Alabama and are assessing where best to work to help victims of Hurricane Katrina. The units initially will be based in Mobile and work westward into Mississippi and Louisiana as conditions permit.

Samaritan’s Purse is working with local churches and mobilizing hundreds of volunteer workers to help repair as many homes as possible. Two tractor-trailers loaded with emergency supplies and equipment will provide crews with chain saws and heavy equipment to remove fallen trees from houses and streets. Other teams will cover damaged roofs with weatherproof plastic. Generators can provide emergency electricity for the sick or elderly. Flooded houses can be pumped dry and cleaned of debris.

Billy Hennesey is spearheading a Homes for Katrina Victims movement. I thought about this and then my lawyer brain kicked in. I'm probably going to get a lot of criticism for what I am about to say--so be it.

Anyone who participates in this needs to consult an attorney who practices in the area of Landlord-Tenant laws. If you simply let a person into your house, you may not be able to get them out without resorting to legal means (eviction proceedings), regardless of how long they've stayed or how they have behaved.

In Texas, a lease is defined as:

(3) "Lease" means any written or oral agreement between a landlord and tenant that establishes or modifies the terms, conditions, rules, or other provisions regarding the use and occupancy of a dwelling.

Note the oral agreement part. Your first duty is to your family. Just because someone is a victim of Katrina does not mean they won't take undue advantage of your generosity.

Talk to an attorney about how you can protect yourself. Forewarned is forearmed.

Gasoline Prices & Katrina

2005-09-01T05:55:00.000-07:00

With the rise of gasoline prices because of Katrina, I have been concerned that price controls would be instituted. I remember the 1970's and the long lines at the gas stations that resulted from government inteventions because of their adverse impact on supplies.

Yesterday, I heard Michael Savage ranting in favor of gasoline price controls. I decided then to ask a person who knows more about oil than anyone else I know personally, my Father--who is also named Jerry Ward.

Mr. Ward is a graduate of Texas A&M. He holds a Bachelor of Sciences degree in Petroleum Engineering. He has been a petroleum engineer since 1954 after serving in Korea. He retired in 1995. He has worked for independents and large oil companies. He has worked out in the field and as an executive in Corporate Headquarters. Here is my interview of Jerry Ward:

Jerri: Gasoline prices were rising before Hurricane Katrina, do you have any opinions about what was causing that? What role does refining capacity have?

Jerry:

Gasoline prices have been rising for three reasons:

The rising price of crude oil (from which most gasoline is extracted).
Increasing demand for gasoline.
Limited refining capacity, in the U.S., and the resulting disruption in steady andadequate supplies when one refinery is knocked off line by a fire or natural disaster.

Explanation of the three reasons:

World daily demand for crude oil is on the threshold of exceeding world daily oil production and price is following the simple economic rule of supply and demand. (The U.S. produces far less than half of what it consumes and thus has no control over oil prices).

The US market, with it’s wide open spaces and it’s obsession for big, heavy SUV’s, pick-up trucks, Hummers and luxury automobiles is the world’s biggest consumer of gasoline and probably has led the parade in demand increases. China and India have become major players in industrial growth and private automobile ownership and will disrupt our near monopoly of the gasoline market, to an even greater extent in the future.

Jerri. I have heard some Talk Radio Show Hosts advocate price controls on gasoline at the pump, what is your opinion of that idea?

Jerry:

Price controls on gasoline will encourage more big heavy SUV’s, trucks and automobiles and greater consumption of gasoline, more oil imports, higher world oil prices, faster depletion of oil reserves and worsening of the U.S. balance of payments. As world oil prices increase, the cost to make gasoline will increase and the supply of gasoline will dry up when controls require it’s sale at an unprofitable price.

Refiners have simply chosen to not face all the expensive environmental requirements and liability risks imposed on them and have not built a refinery in the U.S. in thirty years. Additionally, refining costs have increased significantly at existing refineries due to imposition of gasoline additive mandates. Refining for U.S. markets will be outsourced outside the U.S.

Jerri: You were working for Tenneco in the 1970's during the Oil Crises, what do you remember was the cause of that?

Jerry:

The oil embargo of the 70’s was started when Israel was attacked and exercised military dominance over the Arab countries. Because we lost a significant volume of daily oil to consume, the price went up – for a while. Other countries filled our needs and soon the Arabs wanted our money more than they wanted to punish us. Later, Carter aggravated the whole thing when he turned a non-shortage into one by disrupting the U.S. gasoline delivery system and dictating where the gasoline was to be shipped.

Jerri: At some point, price controls or some government interventions were instituted, what do you remember about how those worked?

Jerry:

I don’t remember price controls but I do remember that Carter imposed punitive taxes on oil producers (windfall profits tax).

Jerri What do you remember about lines at the gas stations after government interventions were instituted?

Jerry:

I remember the gasoline lines and the limited supply of gasoline in some areas. Other areas had surplus gasoline. So much for government controls.

Jerri: What lessons should we have taken away from the events during the 1970's?

Jerry:

I hope that we have learned that government interference will only cause disruptions, increase costs and reduce supplies.

Jerri: If the government does not establish price controls, will the market increase the supplies? How?

What would you suggest this country do in the short run about gasoline and oil prices? What about in the long run?

Jerry:

Not having price controls will not increase gasoline supplies. Discovery and development of more oil fields is the only way we can get that increase. We might, however, make gasoline supplies a little more dependable if more refineries are built.

Me:

I hope that this idea of price controls will be reconsidered. For those of you who fear the impact of rising prices on the poor and middle class, think about Jerry's point regarding the Hummers. I'm hoping that the higher prices will incentivize the Saudi's to sell us more oil.

Update:

Neal Boortz discusses this issue eloquently. Look at the analogy he makes between gasoline and motel rooms:

Here's an example I used yesterday. Hotel and motel rooms. In the aftermath of the hurricane -- especially Hurricane Charley -- there was a huge demand for rooms for displaced hurricane victims. So, here come the politicians with their laws restricting what motel owners could charge for rooms. The result was that fewer families could find a place to stay. Here's why: A family of four arrives seeks shelter at a hotel where rooms rates are being held down by anti-price gouging laws. They decide to get two rooms when one would do. One room for mom and dad, the adjoining room for the children. Along comes the second family of four, only to find that there are no more rooms. Sorry, out of luck. Now, if prices had been allowed to rise with the demand that first family might have decided to make do with one room instead of two. That would have left a room available for the next family to arrive.

This is exactly the point my Father made about over-consumption of gasoline by some when price controls are imposed.

Update II: I knew that Nixon imposed price controls on oil. Here is the story from an old Reason Magazine article.

This Is Terribly Disturbing

2005-08-31T15:30:00.000-07:00

From The Interdictor's Live Journal:

Looting: The police are looting. This has been confirmed by several independent sources. Some of the looting might be "legitimate" in as much as that word has any meaning in this context. They have broken into ATMs and safes: confirmed. We have eyewitnesses to this. They have taken dozens of SUVs from dealerships ostensibly for official use. They have also looted gun stores and pawn shops for all the small arms, supposedly to prevent "criminals" from doing so. But who knows their true intentions. We have an inside source in the NOPD who says that command and control is in chaos. He reports that command lapses more than 24 hours between check-ins, and that most of the force are "like deer in the headlights." NOPD already had a reputation for corruption, but I am telling you now that the people we've been talking to say they are not recognizing the NOPD as a legitimate authority anymore, since cops have been seen looting in Walmarts and forcing people out of stores so they could back up SUVs and loot them. Don't shoot the messenger....

One of my commentors at a previous post found this article about Europe finally responding. I think that the Europeans may have to rethink this perspective:

Throughout Europe, concerned citizens were keeping a close eye on events as they lamented the loss of life and the damage caused to New Orleans, often described as one of the North America's most "European" cities. (emphasis added)

Then there is this from The Corner:

JEFF GOLDBLATT... [Rich Lowry]
...just said, if I heard correctly, that police are leaving the city for their own safety...
Posted at 10:08 PM

The Compact of Civilization

2005-08-31T09:10:00.000-07:00

Rick Moran over at The American Thinker has a great piece up about the looting and rampaging going on in New Orleans:

This is the compact of civilization. I won’t kill you if you won’t kill me. It’s maintained by something even more tenuous: faith. Faith in the strictures an organized society places on people who break the compact as well as faith in the people and institutions who are charged with the task of enforcing those strictures. This shared community of faith works pretty well for all except the social misfits and anti-social galoots who prey upon the weak like predators in a jungle. For the rest of us, we form little islands of support in this larger community – neighbors, our church, our sports teams – which allows us the luxury of feeling less vulnerable to the predators, less alone amidst the millions of strangers.

Rick links to the The Interdictor's Live Journal:

Right now we're trying to show you all the looting. Guys pushing shopping carts with 40 Nike boxes in them. People breaking into cars. Assaulting ATM machines. It's hard just to sit by and do nothing. That's property that belongs to other people and these animals are just taking it. You know, this crisis is going to end. One day it is going to be over, and people are going to have to live with themselves and the knowledge of how they behaved. The cowards, the thieves, the murderers...

Going back to Rick, I thought that this part was interesting:

But something has happened in New Orleans that is unprecedented. We’ve seen it happen on a smaller scale during other natural disasters. The looting, the anger, the despair was evident in the aftermath of Hurricane Andrew in Florida. However, while the area damaged by Andrew may have been just as large as the swath of total destruction left by Katrina, Andrew never quite destroyed the spirit of community and shared faith which allowed Floridians to maintain a patina of civilization that kept them from lunging at each other’s throats and descending to the level of animals whose only thought was of obeying the primal instinct present in all of us for self preservation.

When things are somewhat stabilized, I think that the Churches should send Missionaries to New Orleans to serve as a civilizing influence. Some of the people there seem to need more than food and shelter.

Where Are Those We've Helped?

2005-08-30T16:40:00.000-07:00

Michelle Malkin describes scenes akin to what happened in Asia with the Tsunami last year. The Mayor of Biloxi even calls it "our Tsunami."

Remember how fast our country sprang into action to help those afflicted by the Asian Tsunami? I keep googling and looking for comments or statements about our disaster and Katrina from Kofi Annan or other countries who were quick to say we weren't doing enough last year. So far, I've found nothing.

Has anyone else?

Update:

Apparently Captain Ed has found foreign comment. It's just not what I had in mind.

The Politicos on the 911 Commission Wasted Our Money

2005-08-29T20:25:00.000-07:00

Stephen Hayes writes about the Commission's fecklessnes at The Weekly Standard. (HT The Corner)

I heard Representative Weldon say on one of the Fox News Shows last week that the Commission spent 15 million dollars. Obviously, we didn't get our money's worth.

Showdown in Crawford

2005-08-28T08:01:00.000-07:00

I went to Crawford, Texas yesterday for the opening of Fort Qualls and the "You Don't Speak For Me, Cindy" rally. It was a wonderful experience and I'll tell you about it here.

When I arrived, I immediately found Bill Johnson and Gary Qualls whom I interviewed on The Daley Report at Right Talk Radio this past Wednesday. I presented each with a CD of the program. Then I joined the rest of the crowd.

I made the mistake of wearing a pink shirt--and somebody asked me if I was with Code Pink. So, I hustled into the Yellow Rose Gift shop owned by Bill Johnson and got a Support The Troops sign and an American flag.

Outside the gift shop was the only completely accurate replica of the Liberty Bell. This bell travels the country. It was rung often during the day.

There is also a huge stainless steel angel that was sculpted by a lady from Pennsylvania. She scuplted one for the field where Flight 93 came down and, I believe for the Pentagon. She is sending one to London as well. I wish that I could remember more about who she is . I should have taken a pad to write down things.

Update: Jenny at Free Republic pointed me to further information about the angel and the lady who made it.

In front of the angel, were crosses with the name of fallen heroes. These signs had been repossessed from Cindy Sheehan's camp by parents.

There were people performing patriotic songs and booths with information concerning Operation Building Bridges which involves helping the soliders. The people who were there are the hardworking, God-fearing people who built this country.

The program at Fort Qualls started at about 11 am. A series of people with loved ones in Iraq spoke with pride about them. The parents of fallen heroes spoke of their pride about the heroic sacrifice of their loved ones. Elderly veterans from WWII , Korea and Vietnam, and who had been POW's during those conflicts spoke or had others read prepared comments for them. Bill Johnson talked from horseback about what makes this country great and how we are at war with those who would tear our country apart from the inside.

George Lucas, a black conservative preacher who is originally from New York, but who now resides in Florida gave a barn burner of a speech. This is a man who met with Ronald Reagan back in the 1980's . He gave a truly inspiring speech about what it means to be an American. He is a veteran of the Korean and Vietnam wars. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton were rumoured to be coming to Crawford (though I never saw them or saw any media reports that they were actually there) and Mr. Lucas came to counter them. He was extremely critical of the fact that these men hold themselves out to be Christian Reverends and yet never let the words "Jesus Christ" cross their lips.

Gary Qualls, father of Lance Corporal Louis W. Qualls, United States Marine Corp, gave a moving account of his son's bravery and of his story about repossessing his son's cross from the Sheehan camp. Then the official opening of Fort Qualls happened.

After that, I went over to the airconditioned hall reserved to allow us to get out of the heat. I was looking for Gary Qualls so that he could sign my Support The Troops poster. Before I spoke to Mr. Qualls, I went and sat with a pony tailed free lance reporter from Philadelphia. He was supposed to be on his vacation, but thought it important that he be in Crawford to report what was going on. He had apparently been there for a few days and it was apparent that he had developed a good deal of respect for Mr. Qualls. After talking with him, though, I believe that he has liberal leanings--but he was very respectful of the people in our camp.

After that, I walked with a couple from Houston I met over to the the grounds of the Crawford Community Center to see the Move America Forward rally. Update: The husband of the couple blogs at Dave Perkins and Dave blogs his perspective about the day in Crawford here.

Update: Dave sent me some photos he took of me at the event:

Me at the You Don't Speak For Us Rally ( I looked really yucky by then)

Me in front of an interesting bumper sticker. Click on the photo to enlarge (I'm going on a diet)

Thanks Dave!

Back to the original post...
The Rally was packed. I'm not good with numbers, but I believe that there were thousands of people there. The speakers were fantastic.

There was a little disturbance in the crowd when a Protest Warrior went through with one of the group's ironic signs. I couldn't see exactly what happened, but there was a surge of people toward him. I was standing near a big trailor. On top of the trailor were some fairly young veterans who were yelling toward him and I told them who the guy was. Perhaps the Protest Warriors should carry different signs when they are at a Pro-America rally.

The rally ended with some of the military families heading out to get the crosses with their family member's names from the Sheehan protestors to take back to Fort Qualls. Before we left, one of the leaders announced that there was a rumor that the Democratic Underground had torn down the crosses so that the family members couldn't get them. This was apparently false, as I heard later that family members were allowed to take the names off crosses (though not to take the crosses--which is reasonable since the Sheehan protestors made them) and to bring back the names to Ft. Qualls.

After the rally, I went into the Community Center with a couple from a town nearby. Their son is serving in the military. We sat with a military wife. Her husband is SSG William J. Bowels (I can't read his writing on my sign. It might be spelled Bouels) Her husband had been in Iraq with Blackhawk Troop. He was also there and I met him a little later and got him to sign my poster. He is headed back to Iraq this fall. I believe that she told me that he re-enlisted.

Mrs. Bowels told me of an interaction that she had with an American Statesman reporter. She thought his name is Matthew Rourke, but I note that is not the byline on the article in the Statesman today. She showed me a picture of the reporter on her digital camera and he was a reporter I had noticed over at Fort Qualls earlier. I noticed him because he wears a Texas Aggie ring. What she told me next made me want to go rip it off his finger. (I'm an Aggie)

Mrs. Bowels gave me a pamphlet with pictures from Iraq. It was from Blackhawk Troop, 1st Squadron, 7th United States Cavalry Regiment. This regiment had been awarded the Draper Leadership Award from January 1, 2004 through January 1, 2005 for their role in restoring and improving essential services for the Iraqi people, in helping stimulate the economy, in the promotion and legitimization of local government, in partnership training and mission execution with Iraqi forces, and in significant operations undertaken against enemny forces. The pamphlet is full of information about this.

Mrs. Bowels tried to give a copy to the Austin American Statesman reporter and he refused to take it. She asked him, "Don't you want to know about the good things that our troops are accomplishing over there?" His reply? "Lady, you are trying to manipulate me."

When I have more time, I will blog about the information she gave me. If giving information is manipulation, then I'm willing to be manipulated.

After that, I moseyed back to the Yellow Rose and listened in and joined conversations with the locals. They are sick of Cindy Sheehan and her cohorts--including those at the Crawford Peace House. One lady said that, out at Camp Casey, the protestors --rather than springing for the cost of Porto-Potties, were using buckets. It finally reached the point where they were just using the bathroom in the bar ditch right in front of other people. I bet that the owner of the property is going to end up regretting letting the protestors use his land when this is all over. In fact, I asked the local ladies why he volunteered the land. She told me that his brother said that the rancher was a veteran who doesn't support the war. However, this particular rancher actually lives in Waco (he leases out at least part of the land to others who graze their cattle there) so he is not having to deal with the protestors on a daily basis like the locals. It will be interesting to see how many of the locals end up renewing their grazing leases with this guy.

There is a local swimming hole close to the Peace House. The local lady said that the people from the Peace House go swim in it in their underwear or even naked. She pointed out another local lady and told me that the lady's young son came to his mother and told her that he had seen a woman in her 60's from the Peace House swimming buck naked in the swimming hole. This story should tell you how much respect the Sheehan protestors have for the locals.

After a while, I left and drove down to look at Camp Casey. I drove a little ways down but turned around when it became apparent it was a little chaotic down there. On one side of the road was the Sheehan camp--on the other were the counter protestors at Camp CaseyII. (Update: Camp Casey II is another anti-war camp and not counter-protestors as I thought. Camp Reality, the camp of some counter-protestors was one I passed before I got to the two Camp Casey's. I couldn't tell its relative size to the others because I was seeing it up too close as I passed by.) That side looked as big or bigger to me although my perspective may not have given me an accurate picture. I was so exhausted from the heat and the length of day that I elected to head home at that point.

I met some great people and heard some inspiring speeches yesterday. I'm glad that I went. I took some photos with a camera that is not digital. I will post them after I get them developed.

Gary Qualls

2005-08-24T11:37:00.000-07:00

I just finished guest hosting for Kay Daley at The Daley Report at Right Talk Radio. I announced it here.

Gary Qualls and Bill Johnson did a FANTASTIC JOB!! Go listen to the replays. Look for the channel with The Daley Report on it.

I also had a surprise guest named Rob Garcia who is a veteran of Operation Iraqui Freedom and a member of Protest Warriors. He was EXTREMELY GREAT!!!

I was blessed to have these people on with such short notice.

Abramoff

2005-08-23T20:39:00.000-07:00

We need to watch the story about Jack Abramoff. I realize that Michelle Malkin's initial response is that he is a sleazbag. Let me tell you, in my job I have had some exposure as to how the Feds "make" fraud cases and I would not jump to conclusions.

You all need to read this free article at To The Point News, Dr. Jack Wheeler's publication. He has excellent contacts and sources. Take this whole thing with a grain of salt:

With Abramoff, the Feds had to be sadists with a purposefully cruel publicity stunt: arresting and handcuffing him without warning on a street in Los Angeles while he was with his 12 year-old daughter.

I hope there is a special place in hell for such folks. I hope it is also a chilling reminder that our beloved government has the ability and the will to be completely fascist whenever and wherever it wants to. Most all of us are allowed to live our lives in peace. But if a prosecutor decides to come after you, on whatever whim he dreams up, you are simply screwed.

Jack Abramoff was frogmarched into Railroad City, nationally humiliated in front of his daughter, and has been the target of a left-wing media vendetta, for one and one reason only: to use him to try and get Tom DeLay.

The Democrats and the their media buddies could care less about Abramoff. That he was close to DeLay is all that matters. So they harped on and ramped up scandals about him – over a dozen front page stories in the WaPo alone – until they had the fascist egos of prosecutors sufficiently lathered up.

The Democrats and the their media buddies could care less about Abramoff. That he was close to DeLay is all that matters. So they harped on and ramped up scandals about him – over a dozen front page stories in the WaPo alone – until they had the fascist egos of prosecutors sufficiently lathered up.

So let’s take a close look at the indictment. It alleges “wire fraud” on the basis of a fax which “appeared to confirm a transfer of money” from Kidan’s bank account which at the time had already been closed. The fax was signed by Kidan and a fellow named Ben Waldman.

Jack Abramoff’s signature was not on the fax, it was not sent from his office (it was sent from Kidan’s), and Abramoff has consistently claimed he had no knowledge of it. Yet it was he who was frogmarched while Kidan was allowed to politely surrender to the FBI in private – and Ben Waldman is not part of the indictment at all.

The game is now to threaten total ruination of Kidan’s and Abramoff’s lives, years in jail and massive fines, unless they “plea-bargain” with enough incriminating testimony to indict the single most powerful Republican on Capitol Hill, Tom DeLay.

Go read the whole thing. I'd really like to know if that is all the evidence the prosecutors have. I simply cannot take this case against Abramoff at face value.

I Am Hosting Talk Radio Tomorrow!

2005-08-23T19:28:00.000-07:00

This time, I am filling in for Kay Daley for her show The Daley Report on Right Talk Radio. at 12 pm ET. I am honored---HONORED to host Mr. Gary Qualls and Mr. Bill Johnson tomorrow.
Gary Qualls is the father of Cpl. Louis Wayne Qualls, 20, who died in Iraq last fall. He has founded Fort Qualls in Crawford, Texas. Fort Qualls named after his fallen hero son, was founded to counter the protests fronted by Cindy Sheehan at Camp Casey. Mr. Bill Johnson is Texas Rancher and the owner of the Yellow Rose gift shop in Crawford. He fully supports and has been instrumental in the founding of Fort Qualls. He has also been active in the Adopt-a-Soldier program.

We will be discussing these gentlemen's encounters with the Sheehan protestors, the arrival of other parents of fallen heroes intent on getting their children's crosses away from the Sheehan protestors, and what is in store for Fort Qualls in the coming days and weeks. Don't miss this program!

Go to the Right Talk link and click on Channel 1 at 12 pm CT. If you miss it, it will replay for the rest of the day on the hour.

The Most Entertaining Box So Far

2005-08-21T18:55:00.000-07:00

Curtis at a-sdf is reviewing one of the boxes assigned by Radioblogger. He has the most entertaining post that I have so far read:

I feel obliged to note that this was, personally, the most entertaining portion of the entire box. Among those placed on the Ethics Dishonor Roll is a woman named Majory E. Mecklenburg, who apparently "schedul[ed] an HHS [Health and Human Services] workshop in Denver so that she could watch her son play in a Broncos-Vikings football game." (Emphasis added)

Another amusing addition is R. Leonard Vance, Director of Health Standards, Oocupational Health and Safety Administration, Department of Labor. "He accused his staff of using 'communistic' 'language and having been 'trained in Moscow.' He notified Congress that he could not turn over his logs because his 'dog had barfed all over them.'..."

I'm glad that I wasn't drinking anything when I read his post.

Box 'O John Roberts Docs, Part 3

2005-08-21T09:22:00.000-07:00

I've taken on a third box of documents put out by the Reagan Library and concerning John Roberts. Radioblogger has been making the assignments. The box is Box 17-JGR/(Department of Justice)DOJ Daily Reports.

There are a couple of memos to John Roberts from Roger Clegg passing on information. The first is dated Feb. 1, 1985 and appears to pass on a background description of the Amicus Brief filed by the Reagan Administration in Devereux v. Geary as well as the actual brief. The memo from Clegg merely says "Per our conversation this morning."

The Geary case was brought by five white police officers in Massachusetts challenging via intervention the promotion of a lessor qualified black officer over them pursuant to a consent decree. The District Court ruled that the intervention was untimely because the consent decree had been signed in 1979. The promotion, however, had not taken place until 1984. For historical context, the courts had adopted this strange theory called the "collateral attack doctrine." As far as I can tell, this was a doctrine used by the courts to deny victims of reverse discrimination arising from consent decrees their day in court. This doctrine required that they see into the future, realize the possible prejudicial impact of consent decrees on their employment and file interventions at that time (even if they weren't parties to the litigation from which the consent decree arose--or even old enough to be employed at the time). The Amicus brief argued that the District Courts position denied due process, among other things.

The second thing that the District Court did was to deny that a case called United States v. Paradise, Firefighters Local Union No. 1784 v. Stotts made hiring quotas unlawful. The Reagan Administration disagreed with this position, and the Amicus Brief argues this point.

The background memo on the case acknowledges that the Reagan Administration may be criticized for opposing employment quotas. The proposed response is that such quotas are wrong and that the fundemental principle "embodied in our Constitution and civil rights laws should never be used as a basis for treating people differently. This is true regardless of whether the person being hurt is white or black. More discrimination is simply not the way to end discrimination."

The other possible criticism is the position that the Administration is "incorrectly interpreting" Stotts as precluding all quota relief. The response is that Stotts is clear on that point.

The Background memo is unsigned. There is no indication that Roberts wrote it. In fact, I get the impression this was all sent to him for his review, given that it is pretty clear that the second memo to Roberts from Clegg was transmitting a similar Background memo.

There are no handwritten notations on the documents. The arguments seem consistent with what has been reported was his position at the time. There is nothing here that is inflammatory on its face. Of course, some Civil Rights groups who embrace quotas may use this to criticize Roberts' record, as they are already doing--though I don't know how since it is not clear he wrote any of this.

The second memo(dated 3-12) to John Roberts, again from Roger Clegg, passes on a background memo on PVA v. CAB with the message: "I don't think this case is getting any press, but I send you the attached anyway".

The issue presented here concerned Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act prohibiting discrimination on the basis of handicap in federally assisted program. The Paralyzed Veterans of America and other groups were arguing that airlines--who received no federal funds--should be made subject to this law and the regulations because of their use of airports receiving federal funds. A Court of Appeals agreed. The Reagan Administration was arguing that this would be an undue imposition of federal control on those who have never received or asked for federal funds.

The memo anticipates that a criticism could arise that the Administration was taking a narrow view. The response counters that, because the airlines have never received federal funds, they do not fit the definition under the act of "recipient." The talking points proposed by the memo are that the Court of Appeals in the case was wrong in holding that federal grants to airports constituted "federal financial assistance to airlines. Further, Judicial extension of regulation into areas not authorized by Congress is improper.

The last document in the box is a handwritten note dated 3-23 that may concern the airline issue. It seems consist of questions and suggestions about clarity of wording and argument. It is unsigned, and somewhat illegible. I can see nothing particularly striking about the notes. Moreover, the notes are unsigned.

Again, this is an issue that may be, unfairly, used to paint Roberts as unsympathetic to the rights of the disabled. All I see is proper legal analysis and attempts by the Reagan Administration to challenge activist courts attempting to expand government power beyond that permitted by the law.

In fact, that is all I see in this box.

The Silly State of the MSM

2005-08-20T20:35:00.000-07:00

The fact, as pointed out by Hugh Hewitt, that this is not yet being reported by the U.S. MSM says it all:

SCOTLAND YARD believes it has thwarted an Al-Qaeda gas attack aimed at ministers and MPs in parliament. The plot, hatched last year, is understood to have been discovered in coded e-mails on computers seized from terror suspects in Britain and Pakistan.

Instead, the MSM gives us minute by minute coverage of the circus up in Crawford. And--they give us gratuitious and idiotic juxtapositions of Sheehan pontifications in stories about other things, like Lance Armstrong's bike ride with President Bush today (Via Drudge):

Bush says exercise helps sharpen his thinking.

But some of his critics view his exercise obsession as an indulgence that takes time away from other priorities.

Among them is Cindy Sheehan, the Vacaville, California, mother of a soldier killed in Iraq, who until late last week was camped out down the road from Bush's ranch seeking a meeting with him to discuss her opposition to the war.

Sheehan, who left her vigil on Thursday to tend to her sick mother, has said she believes Bush should take fewer bike rides to have more time to focus on the "the nation's work."

Box 'O John Roberts Docs, Part 2

2005-08-20T17:44:00.000-07:00

I got another assignment from Radioblogger for Box 9-JGR/Chadha re: District of Columbia(12).

This box contains page D1219 from the Congressional Record--Daily Digest for September 25, 1984. The page appears to have nothing to do with the rest of the documents in the box as far as I can tell.

The rest of the box concerns HR 3932 which was a bill to amend the District of Columbia Self-Government and Governmental Reorganization Act. The date of the bill is 9-21-83 . For historical context, this bill was being considered in light of the United Supreme Court case of Immigration and Naturalization Service vs. Chadha.

Contained in the box is a copy of the Committee on the District of Columbia's Report on the bill dated September 28, 1983. It makes it clear that the House was acting to amend the "Home Rule Act where a congressional veto is allowed, it is changed to require a joint resolution". Prior to Chadha, one House of Congress could veto an Excutive Act (in the Chadha, the INS attempted to allow Chadha, who was eligible for deportation, to stay. The House vetoed the INS's attempt, Chadha sued and the S. Ct. affirmed the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decision declaring legislative veto to be unconstitutional. )

Also contained in the box is a slip from the White House Library with John Robert's name on it and which seems to indicate that he borrowed the books from which these documents were taken. The date indicated is 9-26-84. There are no notes by Roberts or anyone else on any of these documents.

At the time, John Roberts was Associate Counsel Counsel to the President under Fred Fielding. Because the Chadha case stripped power from Congress, Georgia Congressman Elliott Levitas, wrote to demand a conference on power sharing among the branches of government in the aftermath of the Supreme Court's 1983 Chadha decision limiting legislative authority over executive agency rulemaking,

Roberts wrote a memo to Fred Fielding that has been discussed in the article linked in the last paragraph. (I don't know the date of that memo) In the memo, he said ("dismissively" as described byThe Chicago Tribune) :

"There already has, of course, been a `Conference on Power Sharing' to determine `the manner of power sharing and accountability within the federal government.' It took place in Philadelphia's Constitution Hall in 1787."

From what I can find, it doesn't appear that the above-mentioned bill was enacted into law. I did find this story from 2002 about Chadha and reorganization:

In the 1983 INS vs. Chadha decision, the Supreme Court ruled against legislative vetoes, so the reorganization act had to be revisited by Congress. Shortly thereafter, in 1984, the act expired and no reorganization acts have been enacted since. We have reverted to restructuring government by the legislative process.

There nothing created, written or noted by John Roberts on any of the documents in this box. I note at Radioblogger that others are looking at Chadha boxes.

Update: Dafyd blogging at Captain's Quarters looked at another of the Chadha boxes and has more here.

Box 'O John Roberts Docs

2005-08-20T14:11:00.000-07:00

I volunteered to look at some of the documents regarding John Roberts produced by the Reagan Library. Hugh Hewitt and Radioblogger asked for volunteers. The purpose of this is to look for anything that could be twisted and spun by the MSM in the service of its left-wing masters.

Specifically I looked at Box 3-JGR/Appointee Clearances 10/01/1985-11/13/1985 . This set consists of 37 pages (including the title page), and concerns the following prospective nominees:

Here is a summary such as what I would do for exhibits when getting ready for trial:

1. Withdrawal Sheets from Ronald Reagan Library describing three memos from Roberts. Memo 1 and 2 are to Richard Hauser. Memo 1 regards J. Roberts phone conversation with prospective nominee (nominee appears to be Rockwell Schnabel-Reagan appointed him Ambassodor to Finland) Memo 2 is from Roberts to Hauser regarding the prospective nominee. Memo 3 is from Roberts to William Gressman regarding Rockwell Schnabel.

Me: None of the above memos are actually in this set of documents. Each seems to me to be protected by Executive Privilege.

2. The box contains a document entitled: A Summary Description of The Morgan, Olmstead, Kennedy & Gardner Executive Benefit and Wealth Accumulation Plan. The transmittal sheet is from Rockwell A. Schnabel who was with that firm, which is an investment banking firm.

3. The rest of the box contains:

Memos from Fred. F. Fielding to Robert H. Tuttle on which John Roberts is copied as follows:

Nov. 5, 1985 regarding accomplishment of all necessary clearances and that Rockwell A. Schnabel is ready for nomination to be Ambassador to Finland
Oct.16, 1985 indicating same as above for Laurence W. Lane Jr. to be Ambassador to Australia and the Republic of Naura
Oct. 22, 1985 indicating same as above for Paul Matthews Cleveland to be Ambassador to New Zealand
Oc. 25, 1985 indicating same as above for William R. Kinter to be Member, Board of Directors U.S. Institute of Peace
Nov. 13, 1985 indicating same as above for Francis B. Morse, Jr. to be Member of the National Highway Safety Advisory Committee
Oct. 1, 1985 indicating same as above for W. Scott Thompson to by a Member, Board of Directors U.S. Institute of Peace

There are four press releases from The White House Office of the Press Secretary one, dated Oct. 22, 1985, announcing President Reagan's intent to appoint a persons named in the release to the President's Commission on White House Fellowships. One dated October 17, 1985 announcing his intent to appoint Rockwell Schnabel as indicated above. One dated November 12, 1985 announcing that Schabel's nomination and the nomination of others was sent to the Senate. The fourth announces other nominations being sent to the Senate and is dated October 17, 1985.

(Me) None of the nominees in the above documents appear to be controversial names upon googling them.

There is a memo dated Oct. 2, 1985 from Fred F. Fielding to Susan Borchard, Associate Director Presidential Personnel regarding the appointments of Diane Wolf and Pascal Regan to the Commission of Fine Arts. John Roberts is not copied on the memo nor does his name appear on it.
The only memo in this box written by John Roberts is to Richard A. Hauser and concerns the appointments of James Q. Wilson and Albert J. Wohlstetter to the President's Intelligence Advisory Board. It is dated November 5, 1985. In it Roberts indicates that he has "no objection to proceeding with the appointments". Roberts indicates that James Q. Wilson's PDS (?--Scriptfox--one of the commentors to this post thinks this means Personal Data Sheet. That makes sense.) "presents no problems". With regard to Wohlstetter, Roberts writes that he contacted him to inquire "about possible conflicts of interest" and Wohlstetter said that he couldn't "conceive" of any. Roberts indicates in the memo that he cautioned him to "be alert for conflict problems and to seek our advice on any that might arise."

(me--Wohlstetter has apparently been linked in with so-called neo-conservatives by lefties. According to Wikipedia he "was at the origin of the rethinking of the traditional doctrine known as 'mutual assured destruction' (MAD, in its English acronym), which was the basis for deterrence. According to this theory, two blocs capable of inflicting upon each other irreparable damages would cause leaders to hesitate to unleash the nuclear fire. For Wohlstetter and his pupils, MAD was both immoral -- because of the destruction inflicted on civilian populations -- and ineffective: it led to the mutual neutralization of nuclear arsenals. No statesman endowed with reason, and in any case no American president, would decide on 'reciprocal suicide.' Wohlstetter proposed on the contrary a 'graduated deterrence,' i.e. the acceptance of limited wars, possibly using tactical nuclear arms, together with 'smart' precision-guided weapons capable of hitting the enemy's military apparatus. He criticized the politics of nuclear arms limitations conducted together with Moscow. It amounted, according to him, to constraining the technological creativity of the United States in order to maintain an artificial equilibrium with the USSR.")

This box seens innocuous to me. The only nomination that seems remotely controversial is of Wohlstetter. From the documentation I reviewed it is apparent that Roberts' only role was to screen possible conflicts of interest and had nothing to do with ideology. If the MSM wants to make more of that issue, they will have to make things up. I can't conceive of any way that this should impact Roberts in the role of Supreme Court Justice.

This is Disgusting

2005-08-19T20:26:00.000-07:00

The Currency Lad has been following the punishment of the Bali bomber who is to soon be released from jail because he has been acting like a good little Muslim:

"Abu Bakar Ba'asyir deserves a remission because he is behaving very well. All he does in prison is devote himself to religious service," said Dedi Sutardi, head of Cipinang penitentiary in Jakarta where Ba'asyir is being held. Sutardi said he expects Ba'asyir to be free in April next year."

Here we have a mass murderer about to be released because he bows in prayer 5 times per day and washes his hands umpteen times per day. Note that there is nothing in the above indicating remorse or evidence of desire for redemption.

We are talking about mass murder here. I guess that the mass murder of Aussies, "infidels" and "heretics" who frequent nightclubs just doesn't matter.

(Go read all The Currency Lad's posts. I wish that I could write like him. He's better at English than I am. I mainly write Texan)

I Want Keane's Restaurant Receipts!

2005-08-18T09:11:00.000-07:00

Captain Ed deserves a Pulitzer for his work on Able Danger. Here he blasts holes in the blame-shifting, excuse- making of Thomas Kean, the Pontiff of the Panel of Pomposity that comprised the 9-11 Commission.

I still think that the Commission wasted our money. I want to see any restaurant receipt from Keane that he charged to Commission work.

If the curtain is torn back from the wizard and it turns out the "efforts" of the Commission were just a bunch of political jockeying--I think that we are entitled to a detailed report on the money spent by the Commission and how it was spent.

Can We Get Our Money Back?

2005-08-17T13:04:00.000-07:00

Captain Ed is blogging up a storm about Able Danger and has an article posted at The Daily Standard. TKS and NRO have some great posts.

I really think that this is the beginning of a huge crack in the facade of the 911 Commission. I realize that some people are focusing on the share of blame that the Clinton Administration may have because of the mishandling of the information. Personally, I think that Administrations going as back to Carter deserve criticism for handling of terrorism.

The fact is that we spent a heck of a lot of money on the 9-11 Commission for a "do-over" of our intelligence systems. That do-over should have been focusing on EVERYTHING and EVERYONE with total objectivity and purpose. That is what a do-over is.

What did we get for it? Political Hacks posturing for "face time" on the Sunday morning news. A refusal to kick off a member with a palpable conflict of interest. And now, we find that they may have been cherry-picking information and throwing away significant evidence so that their conclusions fit a preconceived notion.

I'm of the mind that when you do "do-overs" you shouldn't excoriate or crucify people for the past mistakes you find. When you do that, it makes people not want to participate. The only exception would be for something criminal. So, finding out the Clinton Administration made mistakes does not make me want to go after anyone. My concern is that things get fixed.

Getting things fixed was the purpose of the Commission. You can't fix things if you don't consider important information. The Commission apparently failed.

I want our money back--and I want every hack on the Committee who has or is contemplating writing a book about those months of pomposity to turn over any profit from said book to the American People. Anybody know how we can get the expense reports of the 9-11 Commission members to start recoupment procedures? I'm going to be really angry if I found they charged us for eating in fancy restaurants or anything like that.

John at Wuzzadem Takes On The 911 Commission

2005-08-16T15:36:00.000-07:00

With hilarious results.

*Warning: Do not eat or drink while reading this. Eating or drinking while reading this may result in choking, strangulation and/or loss of a keyboard from spurting liquid out your nose.

I'm Guest Hosting Talk Radio Tomorrow

2005-08-15T19:53:00.000-07:00

I will be guest hosting Mychal Massie's show Straight Talk on Right Talk Radio tomorrow at 1:00 PM Eastern. Click on Channel 1 here at 1 pm to listen.

My guest is Dr. Jack Wheeler. Jack Wheeler is the publisher and editor of To The Point, a geopolitical intelligence subscription website at www.tothepointnews.com. He has been called the “Indiana Jones of the Right” by the Washington Post, the “creator of the Reagan Doctrine” which dismantled the Soviet Union by the Wall Street Journal, and holds a Ph.D. in philosophy from the University of Southern California with a speciality in Aristotle. He is the owner of Wheeler Expeditions, leading numerous expeditions to Tibet, Mongolia, the Sahara, Himalayas, the Amazon, 21 expeditions to the North Pole, and is listed in the Guinness Book of World Records for the first free fall parachute jump onto the North Pole.

Dr. Wheeler is a fascinating man. I like To The Point News so much that I became an affiliate. (in the interest of full disclosure) I'm going to cover Able Danger, Islamism, Korea, Taiwan and anything else that we have time for during the program.

Atta & Iraq?

2005-08-15T19:39:00.000-07:00

I haven't read anything new on the Weldon vs. 911 Commission issue that I posted about here . But now there is this today by Ben Johnson:

And here we get to the crux of the matter. The movements of Atta prior to the terrorist attack as detailed by “Able Danger,” if acknowledged, would support statements by the Czech Republic that link Atta, and hence the al-Qaeda attack on America, irrefutably to Saddam's covert intelligence operatives. This is something that surfaced shortly after 9/11. A former Czech deputy foreign minister, later ambassador to the UN, gave statements that he personally expelled a high raking Iraqi embassy official in Prague for being a covert foreign intelligence agent after the latter was discovered to have met with Mohammed Atta in the international lounge at the Prague airport in August 2001. There the Iraqi transferred a large amount of cash to Atta, sufficient to fund the completion of the September 11 attack. Despite cruel pressure from mainstream media, the hard Left, the U.S. State Department, and the CIA, the Czechs insisted that their report was correct. Former Congressman John LeBoutellier was furious at the Bush administration for bowing to CIA pressure to discount the Czech report because it verified a vital deadly connection within the covert terrorist community. Now it appears as if the Czechs – and those who supported their account – were right.

This Atta-Iraqi meeting did not track well with some of the 9/11 Commission's pre-ordained agenda and had to be firmly discounted. They were able to accomplish this through a lame credit card receipt that could have been signed by any of Atta's cell. But a report with the weight of the Department of Defense and highly credible intelligence operatives behind it would expose the flimsy nature of the evidence that Atta was in the States. Hence, as Flzenberg said, with unflappable arrogance, “if we missed anything we will say so, but we doubt that we did.”

snip

If there was, in fact, covert direction from the top of the Commission to key members of its staff to cloak any link between Saddam and the September 11 attacks, to obfuscate evidence tying the Iraqi regime to al-Qaeda and Mohammed Atta, and to paint the most positive possible picture of the Clintons as implacable terror-warriors, then “Able Danger” had to be ignored and covered up. It fits the pattern of revisionist historical interpretations that seems to be the only authentic legacy from the Clinton years. Further, in Washington staffers tell their bosses what the latter want to hear. They are not rewarded for initiative. As Peters says, when told to think outside the box by a superior, a subordinate knows his job is to “come back with fresh reasons why the in-house position was right all along.”

By acknowledging the Iraq/al-Qaeda ties, not only to terrorism in general but to the September 11 attack, the war becomes completely justifiable as exactly what the Bush administration claimed it was: a defensive, if preemptive, war to protect the United States from a regime with cordial ties to anti-American terrorists. This outcome is so repugnant to the hard Left that it will justify even the most extraordinary suppression of evidence or promulgation of an outright lie in order to achieve its ends.

Sickening.

Update on Able Danger

2005-08-14T15:56:00.000-07:00

Uh oh. Could it be that the problem here is not just with the 911 Commission and the Gorelick wall, but also with the paralytic fear that government employees have about the retaliation being a whistleblower can bring about? Jim Geraghty links to columnist Mike Kelly on the issue:

Perhaps just as alarming, even the Able Danger team understood its limits. When lawyers blocked Able Danger's request to approach the FBI, the team simply went back to its work and kept quiet - even after the 9/11 attacks occurred.

Why? If the Able Danger team was so concerned about U.S. security, why didn't it approach Congress or even the press to sound an alarm?

When I posed that question in my interview with the Able Danger team member, he fell silent. Listening on a speaker phone, a congressional staffer interrupted: "Have you ever seen what happens to whistleblowers?"

Geraghty goes on to say:

In my previous post, I had stated that the accounts of Weldon’s guy and the 9/11 Commission were so different that this can’t be a simple misunderstanding – somebody’s lying. And an account with a lot of details (like the Commission’s Friday release) tends to seem more plausible than a vague one. Well, this account offers a lot of details. Anybody in North Jersey want to contact the Wayne Inn? They remember anybody who looked like Atta staying a year? Do they still have their pre-2001 guest records?

It still would be helpful if any one of these eleven guys in Able Danger could come forward and answer these questions publicly, not just with print reporters. I realize they have careers to think of, but as the tag line for “Patriot Games” said, “Truth needs a soldier.”

Years ago, I represented a few whistleblowers against state and local governmental entities. They had their own problems, but the petty vindictiveness launched against them after they blew the whistle was appalling. It wasn't all orchestrated. Some of it was spontaneous pettiness akin to what you see take place in junior and senior high schools acrosss the country.

I can't imagine what it would be like for whistleblowers at the federal level. There are laws to protect them, but the bottom line is that they have to hire lawyers to obtain justice after the fact. These Able Danger guys must have reason to believe that such retaliation can't be stopped retrospectively and that the whistleblower laws aren't effective (except possibly to enrich lawyers).

That said, I agree that when the issue touches upon our country's survival, we should hope that someone would take the risk.

Podhoretz On Able Danger

2005-08-14T08:53:00.000-07:00

John Podhoretz is reporting at The Corner regarding what has been perceived as ommission and sloppiness by the 911 Commission regarding the Able Danger issue. He reports that the right-of-center blogosphere may be off base in attributing bad motives or malpractice on the part of the Commission:

The 9/11 Commission has put out a very detailed memo defending itself that basically says Rep. Curt Weldon and the unnamed Navy officers who have made a big stink about Able Danger are stretching it bigtime. The basis of their charge is two-fold:

First, that 9/11 staffers met with folks in Afghanistan in 2003 who told them about Able Danger and that Mohammed Atta had been identified by that military-intelligence operation. Here's what the commission says: "As with their other meetings, Commission staff promptly prepared a memorandum for the record. That memorandum, prepared at the time, does not record any mention of Mohamed Atta or any of the other future hijackers, or any suggestion that their identities were known to anyone at DOD before 9/11. Nor do any of the three Commission staffers who participated in the interview, or the executive branch lawyer, recall hearing any such allegation."

What's more, in February 2004, commission staff members read Able Danger documents at the Pentagon: "None of the documents turned over to the Commission mention Mohamed Atta or any of the other future hijackers. Nor do any of the staff notes on documents reviewed in the DOD reading room indicate that Mohamed Atta or any of the other future hijackers were mentioned in any of those documents.

"That's about as strong a denial as there can be, and it sounds credible to me.

Go read the whole thing.

I haven't blogged about this issue but I have been following it at Captain Ed's place. I have to admit that I have been skeptical of anything put out by the 911 Commission. I became skeptical from the moment I noticed some of the members jockying for face time on the TV. That deepened when I learned that Jamie Gorelick had an apparent conflict of interest. Or, at least the appearance of one given her participation in the memo that prohibited the flow of information.

Also, given that I deal daily with bureaucracies, I am always surprised when investigations spearheaded by commissions full of bureaucrats and politicos are given such deference and credulous attention. I mean, this Commission was full of people who live for the rarified air of a Washington D.C. existence. That's not the real world to me. Nor is the environment of Washington D.C. one that cultivates integrity, in my opinion.

The Best Response To Cindy Sheehan on the Blogosphere

2005-08-13T10:34:00.000-07:00

Comes from Iraq the Model. (HT Sister Toldjah and Libertas )

Hmmm...this is interesting too.

The Right Nation

2005-08-13T08:06:00.000-07:00

This looks like a good book. Read the excellent review here.

I'm In Fightin' Mood Tonight

2005-08-12T21:51:00.000-07:00

I've felt pretty loyal to the Republican Party for the last couple of decades. During the 1970's, I supported some conservative Democrats who I absolutely respected like Tiger Teague and "Bull of the Brazos" Bill Moore.

When I was in college at Texas A&M during the 1970's, I got to hobnob with Texas State Senator Bill Moore (D). I once wrote him a letter supporting some program for Texas college students. He wrote me back, tongue in cheek, assuring that he would do all he could to enable Texas A&M students to "feed at the public trough". I represent to all of you that at that time in our history, there were plenty of Southern Democrats who wanted to protect taxpayer pocket books a hell of a lot better than some of the Yankee Republicans.

Last week, I went North to meet with one of my clients. He is a Democrat. He is not one of those "Bush is Hitler" Democrats. He is, however, incensed at what he perceives as Republican disregard for the position of the Democrats by Karl Rove and Republicans in Washington.

I have to confess that I didn't fully understand what he was talking about. All I can say is that he is, in my opinion, a reasonable person.

So, my question is--how can we separate out the ravings of the Bush=Hitler nuts and consider the opinions of well-meaning Democrats? I don't know. All I know is that my client is a compassionate and caring person. He deserves regard. I want to give it to Democrats like him.

How do we do that?

I'm A Sexist

2005-08-12T20:58:00.000-07:00

Look at these two guys. Do they look like they've ever mowed a lawn? Could they put up a tent? Are they capable of fixing things around the house? Have they set foot in Home Depot?

I doubt it. These guys are Justice Breyer and Justice Souter. They are the poster children of why I will not hang around with most lawyers. Each of these out-of-touch guys have decided that they can justify Walmart using your local government to take your land for the next superstore. Now, each may lose their own land because of libertarians determined to make these snobby asshat justices live with the consequences of their own decision in Kelo.

I've been a lawyer for 25 years. Quite frankly, I'm ashamed of our justice system. I'm ashamed of a system that allows decisions like Kelo. I'm ashamed of a system that makes lawyers out to be the elite--rather than the servants of freedom. I'm ashamed of a system that breeds lawyers more concerned with monograms on their shirts than their clients.

I don't like John Roberts because he came of "lawyer age" in Washington and thinks it's okay to do pro bono work for people who want homosexuals to have special rights. For this particular issue, I cannot act as a rah rah cheerleader for President Bush. And, that is despite the fact that people I respect are doing everything they can to support Roberts.

To me, he is a Washington lawyer personified. That's all I need to know to bow out on the issue of supporting him.

I know that in this post I am not being an intellectual like the guys at Power Line or Hugh Hewitt. They probably think intellectual lawyer guys who don't mow the lawn are okay. I don't. I'm a hick from Texas and I like manly men with brains. Not weenies with brains who don't have a clue what it might be like for people who have their land taken for a fricken' Walmart.

My Daddy is a petroleum engineer. He mows his own lawn and knows how to fix things. He would never play Justice Scalia to allow apologists for those supporting special homosexual rights to hone their skills at argument in moot court practice. He's my hero. I can't think of one living lawyer who tops him.

Lawyers stink. Especially if they've don't mow their own lawns.

Bashing Catholics

2005-08-09T18:52:00.000-07:00

I was born in the 50's and still remember Jack Kennedy's election and the questions about his Catholicism. I thought that kind of thinking was laid to rest then. Of course, it wasn't.

Mychal Massie has a great column on this issue and the Roberts nomination:

Supreme court nominee John Roberts has come under scurrilous attack from the left and their minions, which in and of itself is not surprising – the fact that he is being attacked for daring to be a Catholic who adheres to his faith is morally opprobrious. It shows nothing is out of bounds, nothing is sacred.

Mychal also discusses the impact of the abortion cash cow in this fight. Abortion is big business involving tons of money. That fact should not be forgotten in this fight.

I Think That Greta Rocks!

2005-08-08T18:38:00.000-07:00

Greta is mopping up the ratings on Aruba and the Natalee Holloway story. I keep reading criticisms about this story--even from heroes of mine like Michelle Malkin. I disagree.

Last week, I was on a flight from Baltimore and I met a woman whose best friend is an attorney as obsessed with this story as I am. I listened to her and realized that this sets me free! Heck yeah, I'm obsessed!

This story is not about an obsession with pretty, missing, blonde white women. It's a story about criminal justice systems and how they work--or don't work--for victims. For years we've been bombarded with stories and court cases and commentary about the rights of defendents from investigation through trial, appeal and ultimate sentence. Natalee's story is about victims and how effectively these systems protect them and deliver justice to them.

Yes, Natalee is a beautiful, white, blonde young girl from a family with resources. But, the fact that this family has resources and the ability to attract the media will help all victims. So, I say, Beth Twitty--go for it.

This story is about the investigation and how it may have been directed by a Chief of Police with connections and affinity for a suspect's father. It's about the level of competence of a judiciary. One thing that I have learned from reading Wesley J. Smith's books about the Dutch legal system (when he talks about euthanasia cases) is that is is often not adversary and the prosecutor often tailors the case to reach a certain result that is not always the conviction of the defendent. That raises the question: "Where does the prosecutor in this case stand on the issue of convicting a murderer without a body?" It's about whether or not Aruba is willing to do the right thing in this investigation.

Every time we focus on a case involving an Elizabeth Smart, Laci Peterson, Michael Jackson or Natalee Holloway--we are focused on how well a complete system works on behalf of the victim. That's not just fodder for the tabloid. I am a proud reader of Scared Monkeys and a proud viewer of Greta Van Susteren as a result.

Sunday Night Outrage

2005-08-07T19:30:00.000-07:00

Drudge is reporting this: NY TIMES QUESTIONED LEGALITY OF JUDGE ROBERTS ADOPTIONS; SUPREME COURT NOMINEE 'DISAPPOINTED' . Anonymous sources inside the Times have said this: TIMES editors were determined to find any possible legal irregularities in the adoptions, insiders claim.

FOXNEWS's Brit Hume reported late last week how the TIMES has been asking lawyers that specialize in adoption cases for advice on how to get into the sealed court records:

"Sources familiar with the matter tell FOXNEWS that at least one lawyer turned the TIMES down flat, saying that any effort to pry into adoption case records, which are always sealed, would be reprehensible.

Of course, the Times is outraged by the revelation. But, they do admit to making inquiries into the adoptions. I'd ask--for what purpose? These were apparently foreign adoptions from South America. I don't suppose to know about the legal labryinths that may be part and parcel of adoptions from countries rampant with quasi-legalized corruption. If an "i" is not dotted or a "t" not crossed--does the Times relish the idea that these children might be ripped from the only parents they have known over a technicality?

Journalists do have a published Code of Ethics. I've written about it before during Rathergate. One of the sections is:

Minimize Harm
Ethical journalists treat sources, subjects and colleagues as human beings deserving of respect.
Journalists should:
Show compassion for those who may be affected adversely by news coverage. Use special sensitivity when dealing with children and inexperienced sources or subjects.

I wrote about McLuhan in my last post. Although, he was talking about electronic rather than print media in this next quote--I rather think it applies to the out-of-control amorality of the New York Times:

PLAYBOY: If man can't prevent this transformation of himself by technology -- or into technology -- how can he control and direct the process of change?

McLUHAN: The first and most vital step of all, as I said at the outset, is simply to understand media and its revolutionary effects on all psychic and social values and institutions. Understanding is half the battle. The central purpose of all my work is to convey this message, that by understanding media as they extend man, we gain a measure of control over them. And this is a vital task, because the immediate interface between audile-tactile and visual perception is taking place everywhere around us. No civilian can escape this environmental blitzkrieg, for there is, quite literally, no place to hide. But if we diagnose what is happening to us, we can reduce the ferocity of the winds of change and bring the best elements of the old visual culture, during this transitional period, into peaceful coexistence with the new retribalized society.

If we persist, however, in our conventional rearview-mirror approach to these cataclysmic developments, all of Western culture will be destroyed and swept into the dustbin of history. If literate Western man were really interested in preserving the most creative aspects of his civilization, he would not cower in his ivory tower bemoaning change but would plunge himself into the vortex of electric technology and, by understanding it, dictate his new environment -- turn ivory tower into control tower.

I treasure the First Amendment. But--what should we do when the New York Times comports itself as MSM Sturmabteilung?

Sunday Evening Desert

2005-08-07T17:54:00.000-07:00

Ahh, August!! My garden is ripe with tomatos and sweet watermelon and tasty green beans. I picked a huge watermelon and it tastes unlike anything I've ever had from the grocery story. The sun ripened tomatos are everything that the ones from the store are not.

Lazing in my hammock on the porch, I have continued reading Francis Schaeffer's Complete Works. He makes references to Marshall McLuhan, a name truly blasting from the past. When I was in high school and college, McLuhan was all the rage--at universities other than the one I went too--at least to those of us in the student body which was overwhelmingly more conservative than the faculty.

I tried reading some of his stuff back then, but it was pretty much over my head and outside my interests. He spoke too approvingly of hippies-- or at least not disapprovingly enough for my taste. Reading him now, I find that he postured as being totally non-judgmental.

Piqued with interest by Schaeffer's sometimes cryptic comments about McLuhan. I unearthed this old Playboy interview, The Playboy Interview: Marshall McLuhan. I find that, like Schaeffer, he discusses the alienation and despair experienced by many in our deterministic, man-as-machine culture. He comes to different conclusions and solutions than did Schaeffer, of course-- McLuhan being a Darwinist. Some of the interview is very cogent to the ethnic balkanization of our country by the ethnicity-mongers and to the age of the internet. Like this part:

PLAYBOY: If personal freedom will still exist -- although restricted by certain consensual taboos -- in this new tribal world, what about the political system most closely associated with individual freedom: democracy? Will it, too, survive the transition to your global village?

McLUHAN: No, it will not. The day of political democracy as we know it today is finished. Let me stress again that individual freedom itself will not be submerged in the new tribal society, but it will certainly assume different and more complex dimensions. The ballot box, for example, is the product of literate Western culture -- a hot box in a cool world -- and thus obsolescent. The tribal will is consensually expressed through the simultaneous interplay of all members of a community that is deeply interrelated and involved, and would thus consider the casting of a "private" ballot in a shrouded polling booth a ludicrous anachronism. The TV networks' computers, by "projecting" a victor in a Presidential race while the polls are still open, have already rendered the traditional electoral process obsolescent.

In our software world of instant electric communications movement, politics is shifting from the old patterns of political representation by electoral delegation to a new form of spontaneous and instantaneous communal involvement in all areas of decision making. In a tribal all-at-once culture, the idea of the "public" as a differentiated agglomerate of fragmented individuals, all dissimilar but all capable of acting in basically the same way, like interchangeable mechanical cogs in a production line, is supplanted by a mass society in which personal diversity is encouraged while at the same time everybody reacts and interacts simultaneously to every stimulus. The election as we know it today will be meaningless in such a society.

PLAYBOY: How will the popular will be registered in the new tribal society if elections are passè?

McLUHAN: The electric media open up totally new means of registering popular opinion. The old concept of the plebiscite, for example, may take on new relevance; TV could conduct daily plebiscites by presenting facts to 200,000,000 people and providing a computerized feedback of the popular will. But voting, in the traditional sense, is through as we leave the age of political parties, political issues and political goals, and enter an age where the collective tribal image and the iconic image of the tribal chieftain is the overriding political reality. But that's only one of countless new realities we'll be confronted with in the tribal village. We must understand that a totally new society is coming into being, one that rejects all our old values, conditioned responses, attitudes and institutions. If you have difficulty envisioning something as trivial as the imminent end of elections, you'll be totally unprepared to cope with the prospect of the forthcoming demise of spoken language and its replacement by a global consciousness.

Then, as sort of a New Age Rousseau-Kierkegaarde synthesizing with a Man-as-Machine- Descarte, he goes on:

McLUHAN: Let me help you. Tribal man is tightly sealed in an integral collective awareness that transcends conventional boundaries of time and space. As such, the new society will be one mythic integration, a resonating world akin to the old tribal echo chamber where magic will live again: a world of ESP. The current interest of youth in astrology, clairvoyance and the occult is no coincidence. Electric technology, you see, does not require words any more than a digital computer requires numbers. Electricity makes possible -- and not in the distant future, either -- an amplification of human consciousness on a world scale, without any verbalization at all.

PLAYBOY: Are you talking about global telepathy?

McLUHAN: Precisely. Already, computers offer the potential of instantaneous translation of any code or language into any other code or language. If a data feedback is possible through the computer, why not a feed-forward of thought whereby a world consciousness links into a world computer? Via the computer, we could logically proceed from translating languages to bypassing them entirely in favor of an integral cosmic unconsciousness somewhat similar to the collective unconscious envisioned by Bergson. The computer thus holds out the promise of a technologically engendered state of universal understanding and unity, a state of absorption in the logos that could knit mankind into one family and create a perpetuity of collective harmony and peace. This is the real use of the computer, not to expedite marketing or solve technical problems but to speed the process of discovery and orchestrate terrestrial -- and eventually galactic -- environments and energies. Psychic communal integration, made possible at last by the electronic media, could create the universality of consciousness foreseen by Dante when he predicted that men would continue as no more than broken fragments until they were unified into an inclusive consciousness. In a Christian sense, this is merely a new interpretation of the mystical body of Christ; and Christ, after all, is the ultimate extension of man.

PLAYBOY: Isn't this projection of an electronically induced world consciousness more mystical than technological?

McLUHAN: Yes -- as mystical as the most advanced theories of modern nuclear physics. Mysticism is just tomorrow's science dreamed today.

There is food for thought here. At least in recognizing that none of us--even the most ardent adherents to Darwinism--actually want to live out its logical conclusions.

The Thinking Toolbox: A Lesson in Separating the Wheat From the Chaff

2005-08-07T13:23:00.000-07:00

Therefore every tree which does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire. His winnowing fan is in His hand, and He will thoroughly clean out His threshing floor, and gather His wheat into the barn; but He will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.” Matthew 3

We live in the time of the dialetic. Constructed by Hegel and turned on its head by Marx, the time-tested tools of finding truth, thesis and antithesis, have been corrupted by the dialetic corruption of "synthesis". Thus, we descend into moral relativism. As Francis Schaeffer said in How Should We Then Live:

Instead of antithesis (that some things are true and their opposite untrue), truth and moral rightness will be found in the flow of history, a synthesis of them. This concept has not only won on the other side of the Iron Curtain (me: this book was written in 1976); it has won on this side as well. Today, not only in philosophy but in politics, government, and individual morality, our generation sees solutions in terms of synthesis and not absolutes. When this happens, truth, as people had always thought of truth, has died.

How do you combat and turn back this kind of thinking? Arm yourself and your children with the tools of reasoning so that you can see through moral, philosophic and scientific compromise that passes as truth.

The Thinking Toolbox: Thirty-Five Lesson That Will Build Your Reasoning Skills by Nathaniel Bluedorn and Hans Bluedorn will provide invaluable to that cause. The book provides Tools for Thinking to determine what is fact versus inference and opinion. This is invaluable in a world rife with propaganda eminating from the media, college professors and scientists.

Speaking of scientists, the book discusses Tools for Science such as peer review. This was of particular interest to me after reading Wesley J. Smith's book, Consumer's Guide to A Brave New World, wherein he laments the decline of the use of peer review in bio-tech research in favor of immediately obtaining patents--leading, in part to such travesties as the dogmatic attachment of the media elites and others to embryonic stem cell research despite unproven and wholly inferred "benefits" in the face of the real and concrete benefits coming from research and use of adult stem cells. (as documented by Smith in his book)

Other tools are offered in The Thinking Toolbox to equip one in weighing opposing viewpoints. These are tools that aid in identifying and separating objective evidence from that shaped by bias, a desire for personal gain and lack of personal knowledge. These lessons teach one how to look for corroborating evidence and to weigh and evaluate circumstantial evidence.

The book is chock full of exercises where one can apply its lessons. This makes the book a perfect addition to the lesson plans for homeschoolers--or for adults making up for an education deficient in formal logic. These tools will enable you to effectively separate the wheat from the chaff.

* I received this book as a gift from the publisher in order to write this review for Mind & Media .

Sunday Morning Coffee

2005-08-07T09:26:00.000-07:00

Two pieces caught my attention this morning-- different subjects--but with a common thread. I started with Requiem for the Left: They're All Stalinists (and Hypocrites) Now from Frontpage Magazine. This bit sticks with me:

Leftists have a very real reason for wanting their moral status -- their moral superiority -- to be established in that way (as opposed to more conventional, "reactionary" ones). When challenged for any studies supporting the claim that feminist censorship would stop rape, Susan Brownmiller responded: "The statistics will come. We supply the ideology; it's for other people to come up with the statistics." All right, so let's move from the issue of women's safety to that of women's health, where feminist laetrile peddlers are claiming that their product will stop breast cancer. When pressed for any kind of proof, a representative releases this: "The statistics will come. We supply the ideology; it's for other people to come up with the statistics." Moving back to the original context, is Brownmiller's statement any less corrupt, any less contemptible?

When Viva magazine editor Patricia Bosworth made revisions in an article submitted by Andrea Dworkin, Dworkin "threw me to the ground and practically pinned me. She physically held me there and said, 'I won't let this run until the cuts are restored.' If you know how slight I am and how big she is, you can imagine my dilemma. We reached a compromise and the piece, which was about the horrors of Chinese footbinding, ran." The horror of a physical assault of a woman in the workplace, however, didn't prevent Dworkin from going on to provide the introduction to 1992's Sexual Harassment: Women Speak Out. ("The verbal assaults and some physical assault are endemic in the environment, a given, an apparently inevitable emanation of the male spirit.")

It sticks out to me especially in light of David Bernstein's post at The Volokh Conspiracy linked by Sister Toldjah regarding criticism of Michelle Malkin consisting of references to her female anatomy rather than her work. To make your Sunday morning coffee taste really bitter, go read some of the apologia for these sorts of remarks in the comments to Bernstein's post.

So what's the common thread? Go back to the first article from Frontpage:

Leftism constantly reveals itself for what so many have called it: a religious dogma. The religious aspects are innumerable, including the doctrine of a sinful humanity that needs the saving gospel of an elect that itself cannot fall from grace, an elect ordained to construct and control an earthly theocracy. The dogma is to be found in the attempts to juggle internal contradictions and insulate itself from empirical falsification. When the vision before one's eyes is eclipsed by the vision behind one's eyes, dogmas become outright delusions. And just as the sun itself is useless to a blind man, all the reality in the world will not liberate a mind enslaved by delusions, be they of grandeur or anything else.

Woe be to the average person who dares say a single word that can be construed as racist or sexist. That's now the sole purview of leftist elites to be employed by them as punishment against women and minorities who dare to think for themselves.

Update:

Go look at this comment discussing the fact that Michelle Malkin posts an "(attractive) picture of herself placed prominently on the front page, thus leveraging her sex appeal for audience hits." Perhaps the commentor thinks that Michelle should wear a burka.

The Root Cause of Feral Behavior in Children

2005-08-01T09:21:00.000-07:00

Carolyn Graglia at the Claremont Institute writes a review of Mary Eberstadt's book, Home-Alone America: The Hidden Toll of Day Care, Behavioral Drugs, and Other Parent Substitutes . I particularly like this part of the review:

We have long known that being in day-care centers increases illnesses among children, but Eberstadt analyzes this problem from the child's, not the adult's, perspective. What must it be like for a sick child, dosed with Tylenol to disguise an illness before being dropped off at the center? "Anyone actually charged with the care of little children," she observes, "knows that a sick baby or toddler is a uniquely pitiful thing, in part because such a child is too young to understand why." Through the eyes of children, Eberstadt details the numerous areas in which their lives have worsened during the period when increasing numbers of mothers left the home, and she establishes the connections between parental absence and children's present afflictions.

Parental absence, she demonstrates, is implicated in the savage behaviors of serial and teenaged killers and in increased feral behaviors ranging from elementary school violence to suicides (those born in the 1970s and 1980s are three to four times more likely to commit suicide than people of a comparable age who were born at mid-century). Parental absence is also implicated in the obesity epidemic among children, which occurred when adults were no longer around to police children's eating habits and when shorter periods of breast-feeding by working mothers deprived babies of the protection against obesity that breast-feeding affords. She connects parental absence to the explosion in the number of children diagnosed with mental disorders: depression rates in children have risen tenfold since the end of World War II and children in single-parent families are two to three times more likely to have emotional and behavioral problems. And parental absence is again implicated in the staggering increase in the number of children and teenagers diagnosed with attention deficit disorder, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, conduct disorder, oppositional defiance disorder, obsessive-compulsive disorder, and autism.

Eberstadt makes a powerful case that these disorders are overdiagnosed and that the psychotropic drugs used to treat them—which are so hard on the children, who are their harshest critics—are overprescribed. Prescription drug use is growing faster among children than among the elderly and baby boomers (Ritalin production increased more than 700% between 1990 and 2000). These drugs have been available for decades, but the revolution in their use began only in the 1990s. The reason, says Eberstadt, is that the too busy parents and teachers want to make children easier to deal with; "yesterday's children—which is to say today's adults—enjoyed the luxury of being considered 'normal' in ways that today's children increasingly do not." The parents of yesterday had a wider experience with their children and thus "a more expansive idea of child normality." Parents who spend less time with their children "find their behavior more problematic and in need of alteration." And so, encouraged by a psychiatric profession that refuses to consider a child's environment and believes that antisocial behavior stems only from an underlying disorder, parents acquiesce in what Eberstadt calls "the pharmaceutical outsourcing of childhood."

Left-wingers are extremely keen to dicuss, dissect and manufacture excuses for the root causes for terrorism. Do you think that they will even entertain the above analysis of root cause for the troubling behavior of many kids these days?

The Moral Confusion of Frist

2005-07-30T17:17:00.000-07:00

Jeff at The Dawn Treader writes an insightful post on Frist and his support of Federal Funding of embryonic stem cell research:

Can you say fact-value split? Frist, like many Christians, successfully demonstrates the two story model of thinking that Francis Schaeffer taught us about (and Nancy Pearcy reminded us of). Scientific knowledge (read fact) live in the lower story, faith (read values) live in the upper story. We try to live in both stories but we can't. At the end of the day, we act on our knowledge because it is real and faith is not. How did I get that out of this speech? Frist gave it away when he said:

"I am pro-life. I believe human life begins at conception. It is at this moment that the organism is complete -- yes, immature -- but complete. An embryo is nascent human life. It’s genetically distinct. And it’s biologically human. It’s living. This position is consistent with my faith. But, to me, it isn’t just a matter of faith. It’s a fact of science."

Just a matter of faith? It's a fact of science? Bingo. Fact-value split. Frist does not seem to have a clue what faith means. And it shows in his divided thinking in the speech.

I have written a number of times about Nancy Pearcey and her book Total Truth and also Francis Schaeffer. Jeff also mentions Shaeffer's book, Whatever Happened to the Human Race? . This book was written in the early eighties by Schaeffer and Koop and, as Jeff says, was truly prophetic about the direction being taken by bioethecists.

Go read Jeff's post. It explains with clarity how Christians too often compartmentalize their worldview from their actions.

Don't Sit On The Furniture

2005-07-29T20:12:00.000-07:00

Did they let them sit on those benches in front of the paintings?

VIENNA, Austria -- Vienna's prestigious Leopold Museum is usually a pretty buttoned-down place, but on Friday, some of the nudes in its marble galleries were for real.
Scores of naked or scantily clad people wandered the museum, lured by an offer of free entry to "The Naked Truth," a new exhibition of early 1900s erotic art, if they showed up wearing just a swimsuit _ or nothing at all.

Get a load of this:

"We find a naked body every bit as beautiful as a clothed one," said Elisabeth Leopold, who founded the museum with her husband, Rudolf. "If they came only out of lust, we have to accept that. We stand for the truth."

The world is full of very silly people. They seem to cluster in the Baby Boomer age group:

Most of those who showed up in little or no attire Friday opted for swimsuits, but a few hardy souls dared to bare more. Among them was Bettina Huth of Stuttgart, Germany, who roamed the exhibition wearing only sandals and a black bikini bottom.

Although she used a program at one point to shield herself from a phalanx of TV cameras, Huth, 52, said she didn't understand what all the fuss was about.

"I go into the steam bath every week, so I'm used to being naked," she said. "I think there's a double morality, especially in America. We lived in California for two years, and I found it strange that my children had to cover themselves up at the beach when they were only 3 or 4 years old. That's ridiculous."

An Umbrella for Judge John Coughenour

2005-07-28T09:41:00.000-07:00

Found at Amazon.com

You walked into the courtroom
Like you were walking onto a yacht
Your arrogance strategically dipped below Our Eyes
Your opinion is that you’re hot
You had one eye in the mirror
As you watched yourself verbally gavotte
And all the terrorists dreamed
That they'd come before you
They'd come before you, and....

You're so vain
You probably think this song is about you
You're so vain
I'll bet you think this song is about you
Don't you? Don't you?

Huge Hewitt and Michelle Malkin are blogging about Judge Coughenour's appalling decision to give the Millenium bomber a measly 22 years. The Judge decided to pontificate in dicta about how constitutionally pure he is:

"Okay. Let me say a few things. First of all, it will come as no surprise to anybody that this sentencing is one that I have struggled with a great deal, more than any other sentencing that I've had in the 24 years I've been on the bench.

"I've done my very best to arrive at a period of confinement that appropriately recognizes the severity of the intended offense, but also recognizes the practicalities of the parties' positions before trial and the cooperation of Mr. Ressam, even though it did terminate prematurely
The message I would hope to convey in today's sentencing is twofold:

"First, that we have the resolve in this country to deal with the subject of terrorism and people who engage in it should be prepared to sacrifice a major portion of their life in confinement.

"Secondly, though, I would like to convey the message that our system works. We did not need to use a secret military tribunal, or detain the defendant indefinitely as an enemy combatant, or deny him the right to counsel, or invoke any proceedings beyond those guaranteed by or contrary to the United States Constitution.

"I would suggest that the message to the world from today's sentencing is that our courts have not abandoned our commitment to the ideals that set our nation apart. We can deal with the threats to our national security without denying the accused fundamental constitutional protections.

"Despite the fact that Mr. Ressam is not an American citizen and despite the fact that he entered this country intent upon killing American citizens, he received an effective, vigorous defense, and the opportunity to have his guilt or innocence determined by a jury of 12 ordinary citizens.

"Most importantly, all of this occurred in the sunlight of a public trial. There were no secret proceedings, no indefinite detention, no denial of counsel.
"The tragedy of September 11th shook our sense of security and made us realize that we, too, are vulnerable to acts of terrorism.

"Unfortunately, some believe that this threat renders our Constitution obsolete. This is a Constitution for which men and women have died and continue to die and which has made us a model among nations. If that view is allowed to prevail, the terrorists will have won.
"It is my sworn duty, and as long as there is breath in my body I'll perform it, to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. We will be in recess."

Hugh suggests that we send umbrellas to tell the Judge that we think that he is an appeaser in the mold of Chamberlain. I found the above umbrella at amazon.com. You can also send a message with the umbrella. Here is his address: (clarification--this is the address of the courthouse where he presides)

Judge John C. Coughenour
700 Stewart St
Seattle, WA 98101-1271
United States

Update: Captain Ed and his guest blogger Dafydd have some great information about the arrogance of this Judge. There really needs to be term limits on these Federal Judges. Any lawyer who practices in Federal Court can attest to the egotism that begins to infect these guys after a while.

Update II:

Scott at Power Line adds the following:

Judges are not to engage in political activity, period. For a federal judge in his judicial capacity to render irrelevant editorial criticism of the president's conduct as commander in chief is an extraordinary abuse of office. Yet federal judge John Coughenour did so during his sentencing of millenium bomber Ahmed Ressam to a 22-year prison term yesterday (13 years short of the sentence sought by the government -- with credit for five years in custody, he may be free in 14 years): "Ressam judge decries U.S. tactics."

It is almost beside the point -- almost, but not entirely -- that the judge's comments were stupidly ignorant of the most basic legal distinctions. Given the judge's poor use of his own powers in sentencing a man who sought to kill thousands of Americans, the judge should worry less about the president's use of his constitutional powers and more about his own. And he should leave the editorials to the folks with egos equally as large as his in the fourth branch.

Here is an excerpt out of the ABA Model Code of Judicial Conduct:

B. A judge shall not allow family, social, political or other relationships to influence the judge’s judicial conduct or judgment. A judge shall not lend the prestige of judicial office to advance the private interests of the judge or others; nor shall a judge convey or permit others to convey the impression that they are in a special position to influence the judge. A judge shall not testify voluntarily as a character witness.

Commentary:
Maintaining the prestige of judicial office is essential to a system of government in which the judiciary functions independently of the executive and legislative branches. Respect for the judicial office facilitates the orderly conduct of legitimate judicial functions. Judges should distinguish between proper and improper use of the prestige of office in all of their activities.

Bio-tech Fodder?

2005-07-27T11:35:00.000-07:00

Human Events Online publishes Dangerous Human Egg Harvesting Targeted at Poor Women Is Costing Lives by Dr. Pia de Solenni:

Recently, I wrote about the effects on women of cloning and embryonic stem cell research. While scientists, ethicists, and activists have all been going back and forth, little attention has been brought to the facts surrounding the extremely painful and risky egg harvesting procedure called ovarian hyperstimulation [OHS] that millions of women will be required to undergo for embryonic stem cell research to be widely used.

As in most cases, it often helps to put a face on the people who will be involved. The process of ovarian hyperstimulation is not one that normally attracts women. OHS is an intense regimen of hormone shots followed by an extremely uncomfortable egg harvesting procedure and poses the risk of impaired future fertility, stroke and even death.
The question remains, how is it that women will be enticed to part with their eggs? Naturally, when you want someone to do something that’s not at all pleasant, you find someone who really doesn’t have a say in the matter, someone without a voice or an alternative option. Egg harvesting would be targeted at women with financial difficulties, typically ethnic minorities, students, and the like.

There’s no need to guess about how the procedure affects the women who choose it. The real life stories already exist.

Then via The Evangelical Outpost we find a series of articles on human trafficking. (ht Hugh Hewitt) Care to speculate where all those eggs for embryonic stem cell research might come from in the future?