Date posted: May 16, 2008 - Friday
Title: TW3 05/16/08
Current mood: content
The Politics of Frustration?
Republicans lost a third special election this week and another seat in the House of Representatives to a Democratic challenger. Pundits immediately predicted more losses, from moderate to catastrophic, in the November elections. There were also immediate calls from within the party for the resignation of the chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee.
Stories circulated about closed-door meetings where it was acknowledged the party may be out of touch with the mood of the country. Party leaders even sought to "rebrand" the party with a new slogan "The Change You Deserve." This backfired because it sounded too much like a slogan Barack Obama was using and echoed the advertising slogan for an antidepressant.
But it seems typical of Republican blunders in recent years -- assuming a new slogan was all that was needed to reverse the impression it is the party that doesn't give a damn about the common man and doesn't follow through on what it promises.
Adding to Republican worries is a recent poll conducted by Zogby Interactive shows nearly half of all likely voters are not satisfied with any of the political candidates for president. The poll also showed 76 percent of Republican voters were unsatisfied with their presumptive candidate.
There has been some movement on the part of Republican legislators to distance themselves from the Bush administration. There was even a farm subsidy bill passed in Congress this week that was supported by enough Republicans to make invulnerable to a threatened Bush veto.
Maybe all this was weighing on the mind of the president as he addressed the Knesset, Israel's parliament, on Israel's 60th anniversary and likened his political opponents to Nazis.
Leaving aside the insult to Israel by using a speech on its anniversary to jab at his political opponents, it takes the current prominent Republican tactic of questioning the patriotism of their opponents to a whole new level. Maybe Bush thought it would work for him. After all, Nixon built a whole political career out of calling his opponents communists.
With this kind of outrageous attack maybe the Republicans have even more to worry about than they think.
Super? Delegate
I wrote last week about super delegate Steve Ybarra in Sacramento who wanted to sell his vote to Obama or Clinton for $20 million. His motive was an attempt to improve the education and registration of legal Mexican-Americans who he called the "key to the White House."
OK, I've harped on the concept of the "super delegate" before. I think the idea stinks. It was an attempt to regain a measure of control over the Democratic party by party leaders. A number of years back the common voter and convention delegate came to the forefront in determining the party's presidential nominee. Over the last few years the power of the common delegate to the nominating convention has been diluted by the increasing number of super delegates; elected Democratic officials and party leaders.
So, knowing the background of the super delegates, and viewing this outright attempt to sell his vote, are there any inferences we can draw?
I think we can.
Ybarra made a very public and blatant attempt to sell his vote for what he wanted. I doubt very much he is the first person to barter or outright sell his vote to a possible presidential candidate. I also think it highly unlikely a common delegate to the nominating convention would have the access to, or influence upon, a possible candidate to broker a deal for their vote. Which leads us to the conclusion this may be a scenario which is more commonplace than extraordinary.
Say, for example, you're a Democratic state legislator (and thus a super delegate). Your state needs federal funds for highway projects or some other purpose. Your status gives you access to the potential candidates looking to lock up the nomination. What's to stop you, outside of your own conscience, from bartering your vote for a promise of federal assistance? Or, at a minimum, using access to the candidates to press the issue of your state's needs?
Far fetched? I don't think so. Reality? I doubt we'll ever know. But the scenario I propose here does raise the question of why should we have super delegates and place so much potential power and temptation in their hands.
It's Only MySpace
It took the Feds, but Lori Drew has been indicted.
A federal grand jury in Los Angeles indicted the 49-year-old Missouri woman on three counts of "accessing protected computers without authorization to obtain information to inflict emotional distress" and one count of conspiracy.
If you aren't familiar with the inciting incident which happened in 2006, Drew created a MySpace account under the assumed identity of 16-year-old boy, Josh Evans, and used it to perpetrate a hoax on a 13-year old girl. The girl eventually committed suicide. Drew claimed she established the account to find out what the girl, Megan Meier, was saying about her daughter.
What Drew allegedly did was use the assumed identity to flatter the girl, gain her confidence, start a romantic relationship with her and then "dump" her. Drew was joined by others who used the site in a four-week period to, the indictment says, "harass, abuse or harm," Meier.
Originally, the Missouri prosecutors declined to file charges against Drew, saying there was no law under which she could be charged. "There is no way that anybody could know that talking to someone or saying that you're mean to your friends on the Internet would crate a substantial risk," St. Charles County Prosecutor Jack Banas said.
Apparently U.S. Attorney Thomas P. O'Brien thought differently. "This adult woman allegedly used the Internet to target a young teenage girl, with horrendous ramifications," O'Brien said in a written statement. "Any adult who uses the Internet or social gathering Web site to bully or harass another person, particularly a young teenage girl, needs to realize that their actions can have serious consequences."
Drew's attorney, H. Dean Steward, intends to fight the indictment and claims the Los Angeles prosecutors were overstepping their jurisdiction. He thinks it is a Missouri case pure and simple and since prosecutors there let his client off the hook she shouldn't have to face charges in California.
Because MySpace is based in Beverly Hills, a grand jury investigated if the company was defrauded because Drew and others provided false information in establishing the account. This investigation eventually led to Thursday's indictment where Drew could face 20 years in prison.
What the Missouri prosecutors, and apparently Drew's attorney, seem unable to grasp is the concept of people being responsible for their actions. I have seen this personally when it comes to MySpace.
Some time ago I visited a MySpace site and left a comment on a picture. Upon checking back later another person had left a comment below mine suggesting something about me which was slanderous and potentially damaging to my reputation. I then messaged this person and suggested his comments were legally actionable and that he might be a little more circumspect in his comments about people. His reaction?
"Hey, relax man it's only MySpace."
That cavalier attitude seems far too prevalent in today's world. The Internet provides anonymity and a certain detachment to the user, but unfortunately it also seems to imbue them with a feeling of invulnerability. Because they aren't interacting with people face-to-face there seems to be a belief there are no consequences to anything that happens on the Internet.
Well the attitude is wrong. And in this case the irresponsible actions of a woman were deadly and perhaps criminal.
Psssst. Want A Green Card?
Last Friday federal officials arrested some 83 people for arranging and participating in phony marriages for the purpose of gaining U.S. citizenship.
While schemes like this have cropped up in the past, this one was more sophisticated and organized than most. Immigrants paid $10,000 for the paperwork and coaching on how to pass immigration checks on the validity of the phony marriages. The American spouses in these sham unions got $2,000 for their participation.
Most of the people who took advantage of the scam were from Central and South America and a number of them had criminal records. And these 'marriages' took place even in some cases where the two parties did not even speak the same language.
Three companies based in the Orlando, Florida area were incorporated as immigration assistance services, but perpetrated the sham marriage business. A fourth company in Daytona Beach was also part of the scam. One of the companies even had a showroom with fake wedding cake, wedding dresses in various sizes and table settings that had never been used.
A spokesman for the Immigration and Customs Enforcement office in Tampa called the marriage scam a threat to national security. (Funny how everything seems to be a threat to national security these days and not just a common crime.) He said of the American participants, "They did it for financial gain; they were willing to put our national security and domestic public safety at risk." The spokesman also said investigations of marriage fraud were being pursued with more frequency. While the agency looked at 2,300 cases in 2004 it has investigated some 5,200 in 2006 and the first half of 2007.
We have an outrageous divorce rate in this country. The idea of "love and honor" and "til death do us part" have pretty much been abandoned, but at least most marriages have some shred of legitimacy to them. Here it was, "give me the money" and I'll take me a mate.
The Continuing Cost of War
The Associated Press released internal documents from the Department of Veterans Affairs this week which paint a grim picture of the eventual cost of the Iraq war.
The agency currently spends $29 billion a year to help and compensate injured veterans. Even with the number of veterans declining, the agency expects to spend as much as $59 billion a year in the next 25 years; and the total could go much higher -- as much as 30 percent higher. Even factoring out inflation, the cost in today's dollars would rise to $33 billion.
Why the huge increase?
Worse wounds.
More disabilities.
More veterans who are aware of the benefits and quicker to take advantage of them.
Advanced medical care that allows today's veterans to survive more serious wounds that would have been fatal in past conflicts.
Time. As veterans age and are less able to work around disabilities the payments for their injuries increase.
The number or disabled veterans has jumped 25 percent since 2001. It has now reached 2.9 million. In the six year period before the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan the number of disabled veterans only rose 4 percent.
VA officials wouldn't respond when asked about the reasons for the increases. The agency did provide information that listed some of the causes enumerated above. Outside experts elaborated on the other reasons for the expected increased costs.
The VA lists more than 947,000 veterans receiving payments for disabilities connected with the Viet Nam war. There are another 181,000 veterans with disabilities from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. And over time the percent of disability for these veterans will increase as their conditions deteriorate.
A Court With Conflict
For the first time in at least 25 years the Supreme Court could not hear a case brought before it.
The court couldn't take up an apartheid dispute involving some of the nation's largest companies because too many of the justices had investments or other ties with the corporate giants.
The result is a $400 billion suit, filed by South African citizens in U.S. courts, accusing dozens of corporations of violating international law by assisting South Africa's former apartheid government will go forward. The companies had asked the Bush government and the court to intervene. Their argument was the lawsuit was damaging international relations and threatening the financial development of South Africa.
Because of the financial ties four of the nine justices had to sit out considerations of the case effectively preventing action. The law requires at least six of the nine justices must hear a case before the court. If the court can't consider an issue it is considered the same as a tie vote and no action is taken and no precedent is set.
Somewhat disturbing was the fact some of the justices could have divested themselves of some investments and participated in the case. While the issue of financial involvement has come up on some cases before, justices have dumped the stocks they owned in order to participate. This may have caused financial loss for the justices in the past, but that harm was limited by Congress a while ago when it passed a law which allows the justices to reinvest funds from a stock sale in mutual funds without paying a capitol gains tax. Arthur Hellman, an ethics expert at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law, thought the justices should be taking advantage of the law and divest themselves of investments which cause conflicts.
Supreme Court Justices have as much right as the next guy to invest their money where they want, but since they are appointed for life and probably don't have to worry about a retirement plan it would seem they could take a little more care with their investments in order to avoid conflicts which preclude them from doing their primary job.
Quickies
There was a little item on the web about Barry Bonds being indicted on 14 counts of lying to the Grand Jury this week. Nothing new here, just a revision of the previously filed charges ordered by the judge. The original indictment was for four counts, but it combined several different instances in single charges. The judge wanted each one filed as a separate charge.
What was really interesting to me was not the story, but the advertisement on the web page displaying the story.
Right there, demonstrating brass balls and a total disregard for the shame involved in Bonds' use of steroids, was a link where you could buy tickets to a San Francisco Giants baseball game.
Again the owners of major league teams show they just don't get it. Instead of trying to clean things up and prove to the public there is some consequence to cheating, all they want to do is hawk tickets and make money.
Congress can't seem to keep its' nose out of the professional sports arena. This week NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell declared the "spygate" mess to be over, but that wasn't good enough for Sen. Arlen Specter.
Admittedly Goodell's handling of the whole incident, and the possible underlying problem of cheating in the NFL, was slipshod at best and a cover-up at worst. Goodell even admitted he didn't accept coach Bill Belichick's explanation of what happened as being a harmless misinterpretation of NFL rules. But, the idea of Congress holding hearings over this crap is absurd and a total waste of time.
Specter's threat to ask the Senate Judiciary Committee to hold hearings on the NFL's anti-trust exemption if it doesn't conduct an independent investigation of "spygate" is bluster; and maybe even a little hypocritical.
It seems one of Specter's major campaign contributors is Comcast, a company embroiled in a dispute with the NFL over the placement of the NFL network on its' cable system. And the number one contributor to his political campaigns is Blank Rome LLP, a law firm that lobbies for Comcast.
There has to be serious doubt that Congress would ever revoke the anti-trust exemption of the NFL. And there are so many other problems in this country Congress should be spending its' time in considering. Thus the idea of an investigation is a gigantic waste of time.
The NFL and its' commissioner have shown themselves to be dismissive of any outside attempt to make the league more accountable or develop a reasonable way to deal with transgressions by teams or players. And so I propose heresy. I say let them all go hang.
Coming out next week is a book by another of O. J. Simpson's former associates. Mike Gilbert, who was a sports memorabilia dealer, says the former football player confessed to killing his wife after the trial was over.
Gilbert says Simpson was high on marijuana one night when he described the events of June 12, 1994.
Do we really need another tell-all book by an associate to know Simpson committed the murders? Put this book on you "don't bother" list.
Somebody at the Postal Service needs to get their story straight. With little fanfare (or maybe I just wasn't paying attention) the cost of a first-class stamp went up by a penny this week. The rate increase comes just one week after the Postal Service announced a $700 million loss in the second quarter of its' fiscal year.
And this is just the first of expected yearly postal rate increases. A new law regulating the service allows it to raise rates every May as long as they don't exceed the rate of inflation.
My question comes from personal experience. Having just bought 100 first-class stamps a few weeks ago, I had to stand in line to buy 100 one cent stamps this Monday. As I moved slowly forward in the line I heard one of the postal clerks explaining to a customer how the time to get a letter from one place to another was increasing because of the large volume of mail.
So if the Postal Service is losing so much money because people aren't using it so much (in favor of things like e-mail) how come it's taking longer to get a letter from one place to
