Segregation Museum on the Washington Mall

Mall Site Is Chosen for Black History Museum

By Jacqueline Trescott
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, January 31, 2006; Page A01

The National Museum of African American History and Culture should be built on the Mall near the Washington Monument, the Smithsonian's Board of Regents decided yesterday.

Congress, which has had the museum under consideration since the 1980s, had instructed the Regents to pick among four sites, two on the Mall and two nearby. The location they selected, at the southwest corner of 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW, had drawn widespread support.

"We believe we have picked the best possible site for this museum," said Roger W. Sant, chairman of the Regents executive committee. At an afternoon news conference announcing the selection, Sant said the location rose above the others because of its "cleanliness," beauty and iconic placement.

No permanent structure has ever been built on the land -- hence its "cleanliness" -- but the location is familiar as an assembly point for tourist groups, a shortcut for joggers and as the home of a temporary snack bar.

Backers of the museum hope it will open by 2016.

The five-acre plot has belonged to the government since 1791 and was endorsed as a suitable place for a building by both the major plans for downtown Washington, the L'Enfant Plan of 1791 and the McMillan Plan of 1901-02. The State Department planned to build there in the early 20th century and there was talk of putting the World War II Memorial there in 1995.

Many advocates for the museum -- including Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.), who in 1988 introduced legislation to establish it -- argued that a central location was imperative.

"I am more than happy and pleased," Lewis said yesterday afternoon. "I'm gratified and thankful that the Board of Regents saw fit to name this site for the museum. The Mall is really the front door to America, the front door to our democracy. If you want to see America and know America, including the history of the struggles, the Mall is the place to be."

Lewis was driving on the Selma to Montgomery National Historic Trail, which commemorates the famous 1965 civil rights march, when he got the news. Lewis, a civil rights worker in 1965, was beaten and almost died at the hands of police at the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma on "Bloody Sunday" when blacks began the historic march.

Yesterday's announcement was a significant step in making the long-sought museum a reality. As early as 1916 supporters asked Congress to erect a monument for black veterans and other notable African Americans. Various plans simmered until the 1980s, when members of Congress, historians and others pushed to have a museum that would be part of the Smithsonian Institution.

Lewis and two other Democrats, Rep. Mickey Leland of Texas and Sen. Paul Simon of Illinois, advanced the plan by fits and starts. In 1994 a bill passed the House but Jesse Helms blocked it in the Senate. Undaunted, Lewis, along with Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.), continued to push and in 2003 a bill authorizing the museum was signed by President Bush. Neither Leland nor Simon lived to see the bill signed.

Yesterday's Board of Regents vote was taken in a closed-door session. Chief Justice John Roberts is by custom chancellor of the Smithsonian and head of the Regents. Sant said the vote was not unanimous. Of the 17 regents, only Vice President Cheney was absent.

So now we are going to place this obscenity on the Washington Mall. I say obscenity because it perpetuates one of the Liberal Myths, that Black History is different from American History. This is similar to the myths that blacks have a different justice from whites, that women have a different justice from men, etc.

Do we now need a Women's History Museum? What about a Hispanic History Museum or a Chinese History Museum? I suggest an Irish History Museum, or Italian History Museum would be appropriate next.

Liberals love to "Balkanize" the American people. It falls under the old divide and conquer strategy. Democrats and Liberals know that they cannot win on the merits of their arguments, so they select target audiences and tell them how oppressed and different they are; that they need to vote their own self-interest rather than voting for what is good for all Americans.

Full Story: Memorial to Balkanization

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Will Justice Kennedy Withstand the Liberal Assault

Kennedy Seen as The Next Justice In Court's Middle
Alito Expected to Tilt Conservative

By Charles Lane
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, January 31, 2006; Page A04

Should Samuel A. Alito Jr. be confirmed to the Supreme Court today, as expected, it will mark the beginning of a new Supreme Court era -- and, perhaps more important, the end of an old, familiar one.

For much of the past 24 years, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, whom Alito would replace, has wielded the swing vote on a split court, usually casting her lot with the court's four other conservative justices, but siding with liberals on such crucial issues as abortion, affirmative action and campaign finance reform.

Alito's arrival, however, may turn the O'Connor Court into the Kennedy Court. If, as many expect, Alito forms a four-vote conservative bloc with Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, that would leave Justice Anthony M. Kennedy -- a conservative who has occasionally voted with liberals on gay rights, the death penalty and abortion -- as the court's least predictable member.

"Assuming the predictions about Alito's views are correct, he turns Justice Kennedy into a swing vote on a lot of issues," said Pamela Karlan, a professor of law at Stanford University who teaches a course on the current Supreme Court.

No case illustrates the new dynamic better than the challenge to a Republican-drafted congressional redistricting plan for Texas, which the court will hear on March 1. The stakes in the case are huge and could include eventual control of the closely divided House.

The Texas plan, drafted at the request of then-House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R) and rammed through the state legislature in 2003 over Democratic protests, created a first-ever majority-Republican congressional delegation to match the state's overall GOP voting preference.

But opponents say it was an unconstitutional, partisan gerrymander. The court has split down the middle on such claims in the past, with the four liberal justices -- John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer -- saying that the court can and should decide when partisanship goes too far.

Conservatives -- the late Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, O'Connor, Scalia and Thomas -- said the courts should stay out of this political thicket.

Kennedy, however, said that he would not rule out the possibility that a partisan gerrymander could violate the Constitution, although such a plan had not yet been found.

On this issue, at least, Alito, who acknowledged at his confirmation hearings that he was a youthful skeptic about the court's past efforts to fix legislative districts in the name of "one person, one vote," could vote as O'Connor did. If, as expected, Roberts followed suit, that would leave Kennedy to decide the case.

Another issue on which Alito faced sharp questioning at his hearings -- presidential war powers -- is also on the court's docket. The key case is a challenge to President Bush's plan to try terrorist suspects at military tribunals.

A former aide to Osama bin Laden, Salim Hamdan, claims that his pending trial before a tribunal is unlawful because it has not been authorized by a statute or the Constitution. He also argues that the federal courts should be allowed to enforce his rights as a prisoner of war under the Geneva Conventions.

This is no revelation, Kennedy has always been the predictable swing justice in a newly Conservative SCOTUS. In actuallity it is now just a balanced court. Kennedy has been almost as unpredictable as was Sandra Day O'Conner. The truth is all of the so-called Conservative Justices are unpredictable if you are results oriented. A true justice (and this has been the originalist argument all along) must be process oriented. The law is what it is, as stated in the Constitution and legislated by Congress. The problem with the Liberal view of what a SCOTUS justice should be is that it makes the Court a political football. When a justice is results oriented, then he is politicizing the one branch which must remain a political. It is only by remaining true to originalism and the Constitution as written and amended, that the SCOTUS can remain above the fray and hand down unbiased, objective decisions.

Full Story: The Importance of Remaining Conservative

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Katrina Recovery: Relying on Big Government Spending Means Big Bureaucracy Problems

Post-Katrina Promises Unfulfilled
On the Gulf Coast, Federal Recovery Effort Makes Halting Progress

By Spencer S. Hsu
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, January 28, 2006; Page A01

Nearly five months after Hurricane Katrina swamped New Orleans, President Bush's lofty promises to rebuild the Gulf Coast have been frustrated by bureaucratic failures and competing priorities, a review of events since the hurricane shows.

While the administration can claim some clear progress, Bush's ringing call from New Orleans's Jackson Square on Sept. 15 to "do what it takes" to make the city rise from the waters has not been matched by action, critics at multiple levels of government say, resulting in a record that is largely incomplete as Bush heads into next week's State of the Union address.

The problems include the slow federal cleanup of debris in Mississippi and Louisiana; a lack of authority for Bush's handpicked recovery coordinator, Donald E. Powell; the shortage and poor quality of housing for evacuees; and federal restrictions on reconstruction money and where coastal communities can rebuild.

With the onset of the hurricane season just four months away, there is no agreement on how to rebuild New Orleans, how to pay for that effort or even who is leading the cross-governmental partnership, according to elected leaders. While there is money to restore the city's flood defenses to protect against another Category 3 hurricane, it remains unclear whether merely reinforcing the levees will be enough to draw residents back.

New strains emerged this week when Bush aides rejected a plan by Rep. Richard H. Baker (R-La.) to set up a government corporation that would buy back the mortgages of storm-damaged homes around New Orleans. Instead, the government limited the use of $6.2 billion in grants to the rebuilding of 20,000 homes destroyed outside federally insured flood zones.

Dismayed state and local officials said the president's approach does not provide help for an additional 185,000 destroyed homes. They warned that the federal government's halting recovery effort is undermining, at a critical juncture, the confidence of homeowners, insurers and investors about returning.

"They gave us a ladder to reach all of our housing needs, but the top rungs are missing," Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Babineaux Blanco (D) said in statement from Baton Rouge. "You can't fix a $12 billion problem with $6 billion."

Without a government mechanism to compensate homeowners and then clean up and repackage entire, devastated neighborhoods for developers, much of the city will never be rebuilt, Baker said.

Below are some of the major promises Bush made in his Jackson Square speech, and how the government has fared:

· Housing. Bush promised to empty shelters quickly, meet the immediate needs of the displaced, register victims, and provide housing aid in the form of rental assistance and trailers.

In Mississippi, 33,378 occupied trailers are meeting 89 percent of the estimated housing needs. But there have been 34,000 repair requests and maintenance complaints, according to Rep. Gene Taylor (D-Miss.).

In Louisiana, trailers have been provided for about 37 percent of the estimated 90,000 displaced families in need of housing. Officials acknowledge production bottlenecks and in-state battles over sites. Trailer costs have swelled from $19,000 to $75,000 apiece.

You had to know that this would happen, promising $200 Billion in government money to Louisiana politicians is like chumming for Great White Sharks, there's gonna be some blood spilled. First, big bailout programs ignore the greater problem, New Orleans is a sinkhole both figuratively and actually. Figuratively because it is one of the most corrupt and crime ridden cities in the Nation. It is a classic example of what happens in a socialist state. Actually because the city is mostly below sea level and is sinking every year. Simply funnelling in money on a decidedly blank check "whatever it takes" is asking for the kinds of rampant inflation or prices cited above. I am again reminded of Janice Rogers Brown statement:

Where government moves in, community retreats, civil society disintegrates, and our ability to control our own destiny atrophies. The result is: families under siege; war in the streets; unapologetic expropriation of property; the precipitous decline of the rule of law; the rapid rise of corruption; the loss of civility and the triumph of deceit. The result is a debased, debauched culture which finds moral depravity entertaining and virtue contemptible.

To which I would add when the government checkbook opens, corruption moves in on a massive scale. New Orleans before and after Katrina is a bald, unfiltered look at what Judge Brown was describing. When an entire city has been destroyed in the manner in which New Orleans was destroyed, it will require far more than a few months to recover. Meanwhile, we are rapidly approaching the start of another season, which we are foretold will be another corker. Do we really want to spend all that money for another disaster?

Full Story: Pouring Money into a Bottomless Bureaucratic Sinkhole

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

John Kerry-Heinz: Yodelling in a Vacuum

Kerry Defends Senate Filibuster on Alito as 'a Vote of History'

By Charles Babington
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, January 28, 2006; Page A08

Sen. John F. Kerry cut short a European trip yesterday and returned to Washington, where he was greeted with praise from liberal groups and ridicule from Republicans for his role in postponing a confirmation vote for Supreme Court nominee Samuel A. Alito Jr.

In a largely empty Capitol, Kerry (D-Mass.) defended his call for a filibuster that effectively delayed until Tuesday the Senate confirmation vote, which both parties say Alito will win. "Why are we so compelled to accept in such a rush a nominee who has so clearly been chosen for political and ideological reasons?" Kerry said in a 30-minute floor speech. "This is not the vote of Monday afternoon. This is a vote of history."

He departed by a back staircase and kept walking as reporters chased him and asked why he had decided to interrupt his trip to a world economic forum in Davos, Switzerland. "I knew ahead of time that if there was a filing" to end debate, "I would be back," Kerry said before entering his car.

Kerry, the Democrats' 2004 presidential nominee, is considering another bid in 2008, and liberal groups that urged a filibuster will play important roles in the early primary process. Those groups strongly defended Kerry, Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) and others who refused to end debate on Alito this week despite the urging of Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.).

The Alliance for Justice "commends Senators Kerry and Kennedy for using all the means available to them to continue to fight the Alito nomination," said its president, Nan Aron. "We will continue to mobilize activists to support these senators in their principled stand."

If 60 senators vote Monday to end debate, the chamber will vote Tuesday on whether to confirm Alito, 55, to succeed retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. Reid told reporters yesterday that he will vote against "cloture" -- or ending debate -- to emphasize that President Bush made a "bad choice" in tapping Alito. But he added: "Everyone knows there are not enough votes to support a filibuster."

Four of the Senate's 44 Democrats have signaled they are inclined to vote to confirm Alito. Three of them -- Kent Conrad (N.D.), Ben Nelson (Neb.) and Robert C. Byrd (W.Va.) -- face reelection this year in states that Bush carried against Kerry. Sen. Tim Johnson (D-S.D.) also supports Alito, and several other Democratic senators have said they will not support a filibuster.

Republicans mocked Kerry's role in extending the debate from Europe on Thursday, and they continued their sarcasm yesterday. The filibuster strategy "was apparently hatched in Davos, Switzerland, where Senator Kerry now is with those masters of the universe that are out there trying to figure our world economy out," Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) said in a Senate speech, even though Kerry was back in Washington by then. White House press secretary Scott McClellan told reporters, "Even for a senator, it takes some pretty serious yodeling to call for a filibuster from a five-star ski resort in the Swiss Alps."

Too funny Scott. I guess J.F.Kerry-Heinz and Albert Gore, Jr. can battle for the least relevent politician award. I am disappointed that common sense has returned to a majority of Senate Democrats. I really got my hopes up when Kerry first made this call for a filibuster, nothing like watching Democrats making idiots of themselves. No one does that better than Tweedle-Dee-Heinz and Tweedle-Dum, Jr. (or is it the other way around, I get confused). I guess the only real surprise in the floor debate was Sentor Byrd's announcement of support for Alito. I really have a hard time figuring him out. Last spring, he couldn't have worked harder to prevent President Bush's Conservative picks from being approved for the Circuit Courts, yet there he was Thursday talking about how he favors a Conservative Judiciary. I guess the best explanation was one I heard on some program, that Byrd loves his Constitution, but he loves his party more and didn't like the way the Democrats looked during the Alito hearings. He was embarrassed for his Party, and didn't want them to suffer any further black-eye. Sounds about right for that conniving old fool.

Full Story: The New York Lies Barks, Kerry-Heinz Jumps

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

New York Times-Jazeerah Calls for Filibuster

Senators in Need of a Spine

Published: January 26, 2006
New York Times Editorial

Judge Samuel Alito Jr., whose entire history suggests that he holds extreme views about the expansive powers of the presidency and the limited role of Congress, will almost certainly be a Supreme Court justice soon. His elevation will come courtesy of a president whose grandiose vision of his own powers threatens to undermine the nation's basic philosophy of government — and a Senate that seems eager to cooperate by rolling over and playing dead.

It is hard to imagine a moment when it would be more appropriate for senators to fight for a principle. Even a losing battle would draw the public's attention to the import of this nomination.

At the Judiciary Committee hearings, the judge followed the well-worn path to confirmation, which has the nominee offer up only the most boring statements and unarguable truisms: the president is not above the law; diversity in college student bodies is a good thing. But in what he has said in the past, and what he refused to say in the hearings, Judge Alito raised warning flags that, in the current political context, cannot simply be shrugged away with a promise to fight again another day.

The Alito nomination has been discussed largely in the context of his opposition to abortion rights, and if the hearings provided any serious insight at all into the nominee's intentions, it was that he has never changed his early convictions on that point. The judge — who long maintained that Roe v. Wade should be overturned — ignored all the efforts by the Judiciary Committee's chairman, Arlen Specter, to get him to provide some cover for pro-choice senators who wanted to support the nomination. As it stands, it is indefensible for Mr. Specter or any other senator who has promised constituents to protect a woman's right to an abortion to turn around and hand Judge Alito a potent vote to undermine or even end it.

But portraying the Alito nomination as just another volley in the culture wars vastly underestimates its significance. The judge's record strongly suggests that he is an eager lieutenant in the ranks of the conservative theorists who ignore our system of checks and balances, elevating the presidency over everything else. He has expressed little enthusiasm for restrictions on presidential power and has espoused the peculiar argument that a president's intent in signing a bill is just as important as the intent of Congress in writing it. This would be worrisome at any time, but it takes on far more significance now, when the Bush administration seems determined to use the cover of the "war on terror" and presidential privilege to ignore every restraint, from the Constitution to Congressional demands for information.

No surprise here. The New York Lies has always been anti-Constitution. They Don't believe in Congress, they believe in a dictatorial Judiciary. They believe in the old socialist line that man exist to serve the state. Liberals have deteriorated into a comedy act, hardly worth paying attention to. Chicken littles running around spreading panic simply because they finally are beginning to figure out that they no longer have any political power. People like Kennedy and Kerry-Heinz are nothing but sad caricatures of the Democrats of old and the Times-Jazeerah is but a yellow shadow of its formerly great self.

Full Story: Gray Lady Down
Fu

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

You Go John Kerry-Heinz! Filibuster Alito Now!

Kerry Gets Cool Response to Call to Filibuster Alito

DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK
Published: January 27, 2006

WASHINGTON, Jan 27 — Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts could not attend the Senate debate on the Supreme Court nomination of Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr. on Thursday. He was in Davos, Switzerland, mingling with international business and political leaders at the World Economic Forum.

In Newark, opponents demonstrated outside the Essex County Courthouse.
But late Thursday afternoon, Mr. Kerry began calling fellow Democratic senators in a quixotic, last-minute effort for a filibuster to stop the nomination.

Democrats cringed and Republicans jeered at the awkwardness of his gesture, which almost no one in the Senate expects to succeed.

"God bless John Kerry," said Don Stewart, a spokesman for Senator John Cornyn, a Texas Republican on the Judiciary Committee. "He just cinched this whole nomination. With Senator Kerry, it is Christmas every day."

Steve Schmidt, a White House spokesman working on the nomination, said Mr. Kerry's move "says a lot less about Alito than it does about the Iowa primary in 2008," suggesting that Mr. Kerry, who lost the presidential race in 2004, was playing to his party's liberal base in a bid to recapture its nomination.

Senator Harry Reid, the Democratic leader, sounded almost apologetic about Mr. Kerry's statements.

"No one can complain on this matter that there hasn't been sufficient time to talk about Judge Alito, pro and con," Mr. Reid said on the Senate floor. "I hope that this matter will be resolved without too much more talking."

And on Friday, Senator Joseph Biden, a Delaware Democrat and member of the Judiciary Committee who voted against Mr. Alito there, said he would not support a filibuster and doubted one would happen.

Speaking in a televised interview on CNN, Mr. Biden said that he thought the Republicans would inevitably force a decision, so Democrats should use their votes to "make a statement" without seeking a delay.

Mr. Kerry's call for a filibuster, an effort to stop confirmation by refusing to close debate and hold a vote, was joined by his fellow Democratic senator from Massachusetts, Edward M. Kennedy.

Under Senate procedures, their objections blocked the Senate Democratic and Republican leaders from setting Tuesday as the date for a vote on confirmation.

Instead, the Senate will vote Monday on whether to close debate. Sixty votes are required for a full Senate vote on Judge Alito. More than 60 senators have already pledged to support him, and the leaders of both parties said they expected to hold the full vote on Tuesday.

Mr. Kerry offered an explanation for his position in a post on a liberal blog, the Daily Kos.

"People can say all they want that 'elections have consequences,' " he wrote. "Trust me, more than anyone I understand that. But that seems like an awfully convoluted rationale for me to stay silent about Judge Alito's nomination."

Mr. Kerry was celebrated by leaders of the coalition of liberal groups opposing Judge Alito's nomination.

"Senator John Kerry has called for a filibuster of the Alito nomination, heeding your calls to do everything possible to defeat it," People for the American Way cheered in an e-mail message to its supporters.

Mr. Kennedy said a filibuster might help focus attention on the nomination and give its opponents a last chance to sway the public and the Senate.

He acknowledged some "divisions in the caucus" over the advisability of a filibuster, but he said the effort had the support of a few others, including Senator Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, the Democratic whip.

A spokesman for Mr. Durbin confirmed that he would vote against closing debate.

"It is an uphill climb at this point," Mr. Kennedy said of a filibuster. "But it is achievable."

I know this surprises some of my readers, but I support Senator Kerry-Heinz's call for a filibuster. Go, Go, Go! Do it now. We want a filibuster! We want a filibuster! Nothing like watching Liberals make asses out of themselves. I encourage that whenever there's a chance for it to happen. Kerry-Heinz, Lady-killer Kennedy, Dullard Durbin; gimme more, gimme more! C'mon Chucky "Microphone Moth" Schumer, where is the courage of your convictions? Let's do it! The folks at DemocratUnderground and dailyKos are in your corner.

I doubt they will, I doubt they would have the guts to go it alone. I sure wish they would though. Talk about suicide. Talk about fun...if only.

Full Story: Kerry-Heinz/Kennedy for Filibuster

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Living in a Fantasy World

Al Gore, Sundance's Leading Man
'An Inconvenient Truth' Documents His Efforts To Raise Alarm on Effects of Global Warming

By William Booth
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, January 26, 2006; Page A01

PARK CITY, Utah -- Has ever a little indie film faced a greater hurdle? Imagine this sales pitch: Babe, it's a movie about global warming. Starring Al Gore. Doing a slide show.

With charts.

About "soil evaporation."

Improbable? Perhaps. So it's all the more amazing that "An Inconvenient Truth" had its world premiere at the Sundance Film Festival on Tuesday night before an enthusiastic audience that gave the former vice president and his movie a big standing O.

Among the film's lessons: Earth's glaciers are melting, the polar bears are screwed, each year sets new heat records. Al Gore sometimes flies coach. He also schleps his own bags.

The morning after his debut as leading man, Gore pronounces this whole Sundance thing "a most excellent time." He is wearing earth tones again. He seems jolly . He brought Tipper and the kids. He is attending parties and posing for pictures with his fans and enjoying macaroni and cheese at the Discovery Channel soiree. He's palling around with Larry David of "Curb Your Enthusiasm," who says, "Al is a funny guy." But he is also a very serious guy who believes humans may have only 10 years left to save the planet from turning into a total frying pan.

The core of the film is a one-man, ever-evolving multimedia slide show that Gore assembled himself. A little-known fact: Since his defeat by George W. Bush in 2000, Gore has traveled the globe with his bar graphs, staging event after event for small, invited audiences. Free of charge. And he's presented one version or another of this slide show, by his own estimation, a thousand times.

The official Sundance Film Festival guide calls the documentary a "gripping story" with "a visually mesmerizing presentation" that is "activist cinema at its very best."

In the film, Gore presents the latest evidence to demonstrate how the accumulation of carbon dioxide and other pollutants of the industrial age are increasing temperatures. In addition to timelines and bell curves and stuff about oxygen isotopes in Greenland ice cores, Gore includes several cartoons, one featuring a Mister Sunbeam trapped by the bullies known as Greenhouse Gases.

Gore argues -- with scientific evidence projected on big screens at his back -- that global warming may soon lead to catastrophic sea level rises, which could inundate cities such as New York (flooding the former site of the World Trade Center), producing scary nonlinear runaway spasms of extreme weather (bigger, badder hurricanes and typhoons), global pandemics and, depending on where you live, torrential rains or decade-long drought. It is not a pretty picture.

Gee, here's a novel revelation, Al Bore, discussing Global Warming, at Sundance, gets a standing ovation. Man, I never would have guessed that. A looney talking to loonies. Only an environmental extremist would even have considered this a good topic for a Sundance "Indie" movie.

The only real surprise here is the reporters expressed amazement that this film would be well received by the audience. "Has ever a little indie film faced a greater hurdle?" Answer, yes, any film about a Conservative politician shown at the Sundance film festival. The real question would be "Has any film been more of a shoo-in?"

Full Story: "There's a Sucker Born Every Minute," and They Were All at Park City

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Erring on the Side of Caution Where Chemicals are Concerned is Wise

Harmful Teflon Chemical To Be Eliminated by 2015

By Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, January 26, 2006; Page A01

Eight U.S. companies, including giant DuPont Co., agreed yesterday to virtually eliminate a harmful chemical used to make Teflon from all consumer products coated with the ubiquitous nonstick material.

Although the chemical would still be used to manufacture Teflon and similar products, processes will be developed to ensure that perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) would not be released into the environment from finished products or manufacturing plants.

PFOA -- a key processing agent in making nonstick and stain-resistant materials -- has been linked to cancer and birth defects in animals and is in the blood of 95 percent of Americans, including pregnant women. It has also been found in the blood of marine organisms and Arctic polar bears.

The voluntary pact, which was crafted by the Environmental Protection Agency, will force companies to reduce manufacturing emissions of PFOA by 95 percent by no later than 2010. They will also have to reduce trace amounts of the compound in consumer products by 95 percent during the same period and virtually eliminate them by 2015.

The agreement will dramatically reduce the extent to which PFOA shows up in a wide variety of everyday products, including pizza boxes, nonstick pans and microwave-popcorn bags.

While not as sweeping as the federal ban on DDT in 1972, yesterday's agreement is expected to have profound implications for public health and the environment. An independent federal scientific advisory board is expected to recommend soon whether the government should classify the chemical as a "likely" or "probable" carcinogen in humans, which could trigger a new set of federal regulations.

"The science is still coming in on PFOA, but the concern is there," said Susan B. Hazen, acting assistant administrator of EPA's Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances. "This is the right thing to do for our health and our environment."

The move, which came just a month after DuPont reached a $16.5 million settlement with EPA over the company's failure to report possible health risks associated with PFOA, drew applause from environmental groups that have frequently criticized both the administration and DuPont.

"This is one of those days when the Environmental Protection Agency is at its best. With its announcement today, the EPA is challenging an entire industry to err on the side of precaution and public safety, and invent new ways of doing business," said Ken Cook, president of the Environmental Working Group, an advocacy organization. "As harshly as we have singled out DuPont for criticism for its past handling of PFOA pollution, today we want to single out and commend the company and acknowledge its leadership going forward."

As someone who has spent more than twenty years working in the chemical industry, I have always believed that corporations should err on the side of caution. Too often, we have merely assumed that the chemicals we use are safe. The reality is most chemicals pose a threat and should be controlled where possible.

I do not agree with those who would ban chemicals, like DDT for instance, but tighter controls on the manufacture and use of the chemical, especially where casual emissions are concerned, is only prudent.

It was the government that mandated oxygenating chemicals like MTBE to be added to gasoline, and it was the corporations who chose MTBE over other alternatives. Both decisions proved to be disasterous. MTBE is now ubiquitous in our water supply, and is next to impossible to eliminate.

Bad decisions where chemicals are concerned are very often irreversible, hence caution and care should be the rule, not banning or carelessness.

Full Story: EPA Makes Good Move

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Houston Texans: Reeves to Replace Casserly?

Well, my contacts (I admit that I have very few in sports) tell me that Dan Reeves' visit to Houston this past year was no accident. "Advisor" Reeves is rumored to be the long expected replacement for Charley Casserly.

(courtesy of Google Images)

Dan Reeves

The source says that Casserly will remain the titular head of the team for the next several months, but that Reeves will be "eased in" to the front office position. This is the best news since Kubiak's selection.

(Courtesy of Denver Broncos Organization)

Gary Kubiak

In other news, it is also rumored that the "big choice" will fall primarily to Kubiak. Reportedly Mr. McNair has decided to allow Coach Kubiak to have his pick.

For my money, I would rather have a classic "pocket quarterback" like USC's Matt Leinart and drop the extra money on additional protection up front. A team without an effective offensive line will always be a loser.

Yes it's true that both Vince Young and Reggie Bush are great players, but it's a cinch that Bush, like all other "great" running backs, will not be able to run against the pros the way he ran in college ball, so the potential is there but there are no guarantees.

(Courtesy of USC Trojans Organization)

Matt Leinart-/-Reggie Bush

As for Vince Young, I know he's "bigger, faster, stronger, breaks the mold, etc." We've heard this over and over with McNabb, then with McNair, then with Vick, and now with Vince Young.

(Courtesy of OrangeBloods.com)

Vince Young

So far, the "Superman Quarterback" paradigm has yet to have panned out. Super Bowl teams have pocket quarterbacks with great throwing motions. They can still be big and strong and mobile, but they have to have a great arm.

Now I don't claim to be a great football sage, and any and all of these guys could prove me wrong. I do know that whatever happens, it's going to be a great and exciting time in Houston Texan's Football.

GO TEXANS!

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Nightline's Lies Exposed: More on Justice Scalia Story

Controversy Enters Day 2
Conservative Legal Group Calls for Investigation of ABC Report

by Robert B. Bluey
Posted Jan 25, 2006

Lawyers at the Federalist Society are drafting a letter to ABC News President David Westin calling for an internal investigation of two ABC News journalists responsible for a “Nightline” segment that accused Justice Antonin Scalia of ethical lapses, a source close to the conservative legal group tells HUMAN EVENTS.

ABC News Chief Investigative Correspondent Brian Ross reported Monday for ABC’s “Nightline” that Scalia was out of town at a Federalist Society legal seminar on the day of Chief Justice John Roberts’ swearing-in ceremony. Ross’ report showed Scalia playing tennis at the hotel where he stayed—video that might have been obtained illegally, according to the Federalist Society.

In an effort to stem criticism of its report, ABC News on Tuesday invited Federalist Society Executive Vice President Leonard Leo to appear on “Nightline,” but reneged twice after insisting that Ross conduct the interview or at least appear on the program following Leo’s appearance to defend his report, the source told HUMAN EVENTS. “Nightline” anchor Terry Moran was originally supposed to conduct the interview.

One of the attendees to the seminar, who has chosen to remain anonymous as "Rebelyell" on the Huffington Post, states:

"I was an attorney present at the Continuing Legal Education seminar taught by Justice Scalia and Professor Thomas Baker. He kept his engagment to speak because it had been planned for more than six months.

On the day he played tennis he taught a course from 8 a.m. to almost 1 p.m. We then took a four-hour break and he chose to play tennis. We met again at 5 p.m. for two more hours of lectures.

Each of us paid around $300 to attand this lecture, which is in line with what similar seminars cost.

Bottom line is that Justice Scalia was either lecturing, answering questions or on the podium ready to debate or be questioned by Professor Baker for about 12 hours over two days. I find the claim that this was a "junket" offensive.

We attorneys are required to take these courses, and there is nothing unethical about jurists teaching them. I found the course to be the finest I've ever attended, and would eagerly attend one taught by an outstanding jurist on either side of the politcal fence."

It appears that ABC is about to get a "black eye" similar to that received by CBS for the Rather/Mapes scandal. It is great to finally have the MSM called to the carpet for this kind of yellow jounalism. They have had a free reign for too long.

Full Story: Bearding the ABC Lion

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

ABC's Callow Attempt to Impugn Justice Salia

EXCLUSIVE: Supreme Ethics Problem?

What Was Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia Doing on Day of Supreme Court Swearing-In?

Brian Ross
abc News
Jan. 23, 2006

At the historic swearing-in of John Roberts as the 17th chief justice of the United States last September, every member of the Supreme Court, except Antonin Scalia, was in attendance. ABC News has learned that Scalia instead was on the tennis court at one of the country's top resorts, the Ritz-Carlton hotel in Bachelor Gulch, Colo., during a trip to a legal seminar sponsored by the Federalist Society.
Not only did Scalia's absence appear to be a snub of the new chief justice, but according to some legal ethics experts, it also raised questions about the propriety of what critics call judicial junkets.

"It's unfortunate of course that what kept him from the swearing-in was an activity that is itself of dubious ethical propriety," said Stephen Gillers, a New York University law professor, who is a recognized scholar on legal ethics.

Scalia Mum

Scalia spent two nights at the luxury resort lecturing at the legal seminar where ABC News also found him on the tennis court, heading out for a fly-fishing expedition, and socializing with members of the Federalist Society, the conservative activist group that paid for the expenses of his trip.

At a press conference, almost two weeks later, Scalia was not inclined to tell reporters his whereabouts during Roberts' swearing-in.
"I was out of town with a commitment that I could not break, and that's what the public information office told you," he said.

It "doesn't matter what it was. It was a commitment that I couldn't break," Scalia continued when questioned further.

According to the event's invitation, obtained by ABC News, the Federalist Society promised members who attended the seminar an exclusive and "rare opportunity to spend time, both socially and intellectually" with Scalia.

"I think Justice Scalia should not have gone on that trip for several reasons," Gillers commented. "They are a group with a decided political-slash-judicial profile."

Quelle suprise? An avowed anti-Scalia New York University "recognized scholar" is critical of Justice Scalia's seminar trip. I'm shocked! Shocked, I tell you, to discover that ABC news would attempt to assassinate Justice Scalia's reputation. Don't these idiots ever get tired of doing the same old hack journalism they've been doing for so long. A pipsqueak Leftist reporter doing a hatchet job on a distinguished member of the Supreme Court, why am I not surprised. It would be nice to see a reporter actually do some serious journalism and completely research a story rather than trying for the cheap shot. Nothing like consulting only Liberal professors to get insight on the activities of a conservative jurist.

John Leo, in the Huffinton Post points out Justice Stephen Breyer attends Renaissance Weekends in Charleston, South Carolina, each New Year's...Renaissance...is a liberal group (I was one of seven or eight identifiable conservatives there this year, out of a total attendance of about 1,800) And there are lots of liberal lawyers around to shmooze with Breyer the way the conservative lawyers shmoozed with Scalia in Colorado...[it is run]as a non-political event, with no partisan comments allowed on panels, and no booing of the visiting conservative specimens either. Still, when panelists use the word "we," it's usually a reference to the Democratic party." [I provide the above link in case you think my editing for brevity might alter the meaning.]

Ther is nothing unethical about the trip, or about Justice Scalia (or Justice Breyer for that matter). What is unethical is the selective editing of information, by a reporter, in order to skew the information to promote a particular point of view, as hack reporter Brian Ross has done.

Full Story: Brian Ross' Hatchet Job

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Conservatives Win in Canada!

Canadian Voters Oust Incumbent for Conservative

By CLIFFORD KRAUSS
Published: January 24, 2006

TORONTO, Jan. 23 - Stephen Harper and his Conservative Party defeated the long entrenched Liberal Party in Canadian elections on Monday. A Conservative victory is a striking turn in the country's politics and is likely to improve Canada's strained relations with the Bush administration.

Prime Minister Paul Martin had hoped to build on a string of four consecutive Liberal national election victories in the past 13 years, but his campaign was damaged by two years of investigations into party scandals that spurred a backlash and a desire for change.

Mr. Martin tried to cut into Mr. Harper's lead in the final days with a campaign of rancorous advertising, as opinion polls indicated that many urban voters were wary of allowing the country to veer into uncharted ideological waters.

But in the end, Mr. Harper seemed to reassure the public that he had evolved into a centrist in recent years and that his government would emphasize cutting taxes and cleaning up corruption, rather than social issues like abortion and gay rights.

In a concession speech, Mr. Martin announced that he would leave the party leadership before the next national election. "I telephoned Stephen Harper and congratulated him on being chosen by the people of Canada," he said. "We differ on many things, but we all share the belief of the potential and the promise of Canada and the desire of our country to succeed."

Preliminary data showed that the Conservatives won more than 36 percent of the popular vote, and fell short of a majority in the 308-seat House of Commons.

Incomplete results showed the Conservatives leading in 125 districts to 102 for the Liberals, followed by the Bloc Québécois with 51 districts and the labor-aligned New Democratic Party with 29. One independent candidate won.

The Bloc Québécois fell well short of its goal of winning a symbolically important majority in Quebec because of the Conservative gains. The Conservatives showed strength across the country, but particularly in rural and suburban areas.

Mr. Harper, 46, is a free-market economist who expressed strong support for Washington at the time of the American-led invasion of Iraq and shares the Bush administration's skepticism of the Kyoto climate control protocol, which Canada has signed and ratified. His party was formed three years ago as a coalition of two conservative parties.

Such positions are in sharp contrast with those of Prime Minister Martin, who rejected cooperation with President Bush's missile defense program, ratcheted up criticism of American trade policies and caustically criticized Washington during the campaign for not supporting the Kyoto protocol.

Mr. Harper did not emphasize his closeness to the Bush administration during the campaign, and there was no indication that Canadians had suddenly embraced American foreign policy. Mr. Harper pointedly promised not to send Canadian troops to Iraq, and said he would be a tough bargainer in trade talks with the United States.

But he did promise $5 billion in new military spending, which would go to forming a new airborne battalion and buying large transport aircraft to airlift troops and supplies during world crises.

By falling far short of winning a clear majority in the House of Commons, Mr. Harper may lead a shaky government and could face another national election within two years.

He will probably have to compromise with lawmakers from three left-of-center parties to pass legislation and remain in power. But in foreign policy the prime minister has broad powers, and he is expected to reach out quickly to Washington to improve a relationship that has been declining since the invasion of Iraq in 2003, which Canada opposed.

"It is in the DNA of this Harper government to improve the relationship with Washington," Janice Stein, director of the Munk Center for International Studies at the University of Toronto, said before the vote was counted."

In domestic affairs, Mr. Harper promised to provide allowances to families with children under age 6 to help with child care, to introduce mandatory prison sentences for serious drug trafficking and gun crimes, to reduce the national sales tax and to provide tax breaks for retirees.

Good riddance to Paul Martin, what a loser he was. I'm glad to see our neighbors from the North waking up.

Another warning for the Democrats, but they won't pay heed. Their arrogance won't allow them to believe that these results have anything to do with them and their approaching campaigns.

They will just continue down the same road of "no suggestions, only complaints" that they have been travelling for some time now.

It seems whining is about all Democrats are good for these days.

Full Story: Canadian Coup

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Katrina Warning: Too Late to Act

White House Got Early Warning on Katrina

By Joby Warrick
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, January 24, 2006; Page A02

In the 48 hours before Hurricane Katrina hit, the White House received detailed warnings about the storm's likely impact, including eerily prescient predictions of breached levees, massive flooding, and major losses of life and property, documents show.

A 41-page assessment by the Department of Homeland Security's National Infrastructure Simulation and Analysis Center (NISAC), was delivered by e-mail to the White House's "situation room," the nerve center where crises are handled, at 1:47 a.m. on Aug. 29, the day the storm hit, according to an e-mail cover sheet accompanying the document.

The NISAC paper warned that a storm of Katrina's size would "likely lead to severe flooding and/or levee breaching" and specifically noted the potential for levee failures along Lake Pontchartrain. It predicted economic losses in the tens of billions of dollars, including damage to public utilities and industry that would take years to fully repair. Initial response and rescue operations would be hampered by disruption of telecommunications networks and the loss of power to fire, police and emergency workers, it said.

In a second document, also obtained by The Washington Post, a computer slide presentation by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, prepared for a 9 a.m. meeting on Aug. 27, two days before Katrina made landfall, compared Katrina's likely impact to that of "Hurricane Pam," a fictional Category 3 storm used in a series of FEMA disaster-preparedness exercises simulating the effects of a major hurricane striking New Orleans. But Katrina, the report warned, could be worse.

The hurricane's Category 4 storm surge "could greatly overtop levees and protective systems" and destroy nearly 90 percent of city structures, the FEMA report said. It further predicted "incredible search and rescue needs (60,000-plus)" and the displacement of more than a million residents.

The NISAC analysis accurately predicted the collapse of floodwalls along New Orleans's Lake Pontchartrain shoreline, an event that the report described as "the greatest concern." The breach of two canal floodwalls near the lake was the key failure that left much of central New Orleans underwater and accounted for the bulk of Louisiana's 1,100 Katrina-related deaths.

The documents shed new light on the extent on the administration's foreknowledge about Katrina's potential for unleashing epic destruction on New Orleans and other Gulf Coast cities and towns. President Bush, in a televised interview three days after Katrina hit, suggested that the scale of the flooding in New Orleans was unexpected. "I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees. They did anticipate a serious storm," Bush said in a Sept. 1 interview on ABC's "Good Morning America."

President Bush was telling the truth. No one truly expected what happened during Katrina.

It is easy for a model to predict any number of scenarios, but seeing it occur is entirely different. Perhaps the White House should have taken the storm more seriously, but then what article reports is nothing new.

Engineers have been predicting the collapse of the levees under those same conditions for decades, but there is a difference between certainty, and the words in the report, "likely lead to severe flooding and/or levee breaching".

What the report does tell us is why President Bush requested Governor Blanco declare a state of emergency as early as he did.

Everyone who was paying attention knew that Max Mayfield issued his dire warnings early on. If the NISAC report was delivered by e-mail at "1:47 a.m. on Aug. 29, the day the storm hit," then it was already too late for the White House to respond.

Certainly the post Katrina reponse by all government officials concerned is up for due criticism, but to attempt, once more, to lay the fiasco entirely at the feet of the President, as this reporter is doing, is a bit beyond the belief.

Full Story: Still Trying to "Blame Bush"

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

E.J. Dionne, Wrong and Loving It.

Rove's Early Warning

By E. J. Dionne Jr.
Washington Post
Tuesday, January 24, 2006; Page A17

Perhaps it's an aspect of compassionate conservatism. Or maybe it's just a taunt and a dare. Well in advance of Election Day, Karl Rove, President Bush's top political adviser, has a habit of laying out his party's main themes, talking points and strategies.

True Rove junkies (admirers and adversaries alike) always figure he's holding back on something and wonder what formula the mad scientist is cooking up in his political lab. But there is a beguiling openness about Rove's divisive and ideological approach to elections. You wonder why Democrats have never been able to take full advantage of their early look at the Rove game plan.

That's especially puzzling because, since Sept. 11, 2001, the plan has focused on one variation or another of the same theme: Republicans are tough on our enemies, Democrats are not. If you don't want to get blown up, vote Republican.

Thus Rove's speech to the Republican National Committee last Friday, which conveniently said nothing about that pesky leak investigation. Rove noted that we face "a ruthless enemy" and "need a commander in chief and a Congress who understand the nature of the threat and the gravity of the moment America finds itself in."

"President Bush and the Republican Party do," Rove informed us. "Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for many Democrats."

Rove went on: "Republicans have a post-9/11 worldview, and many Democrats have a pre-9/11 worldview. That doesn't make them unpatriotic -- not at all. But it does make them wrong -- deeply and profoundly and consistently wrong."

Oh, no, those Dems aren't unpatriotic, just security idiots.

Here's why the same approach keeps working.

First, note that phrase, "the same cannot be said for many Democrats." This is Rove's wedge through the Democratic Party. Rove has always counted on Bush's capacity to intimidate some Democrats into breaking with their party and saying something like: "Oh, no, I'm not like those weak Democrats over there. I'm a tough Democrat." The Republicans use such Democrats to bash the rest of the party.

Moreover, these early Rove speeches turn Democratic strategists into defeatists. The typical Democratic consultant says: "Hey, national security is a Republican issue. We shouldn't engage on that. We should change the subject." In the 2002 elections, the surefire Democratic winners were a prescription drug benefit under Medicare (an issue Bush tried to steal), a patients' bill of rights, the economy and education. Those issues sure worked wonders, didn't they?

E.J., you still don't get it. The strategy works because it is the truth.

All you have to do is listen to the Democrat rhetoric of...oh, say the last five years to know it.

Compare what Bin Laden said in his most recent tape with the Democrat talking points. The two are virtually identical. The Democrats have been on the enemy's side virtually from the beginning of hostilities.

The "America is always wrong" message that Kerry, Murtha, Durbin, Kennedy, Pelosi, you and the rest have been putting out for years does not work.

Karl Rove doesn't fear letting you know the Republican strategy because you folks, in your arrogance and ignorance don't pay attention to what we say.

You Liberals are like the target of Carly Simon's song: You're So Vain, You probably think this election is about you.

Full Editorial: Dionne's Dementia

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Narcissistic Paranoia at the Post

I'm Feeling . . . Surveilled

By Eugene Robinson
Washington Post
Tuesday, January 24, 2006; Page A17

It's so easy, so seductive, such a reliable source of instant gratification. Just put your cursor inside that familiar unadorned rectangle, type a name or a few artfully considered words, click the search button -- I never click on "I'm Feeling Lucky" because luck has nothing to do with it; this is all about having mad skills, about Google mastery -- and within mere fractions of a second you can luxuriate in the illusion of perfect omniscience.

We Google because we think we must, but sometimes we Google simply because we can. When we're feeling especially cocky or especially insecure, we Google ourselves. When I do that, I get links to columns I've written, along with links to screeds that others have written about those columns. But I also get links to material about the pro football player who shares my name, and who once had the misfortune of being arrested for soliciting a prostitute, actually an undercover cop, the night before he was to play in the Super Bowl.

As if that weren't enough, now there's another intruder -- another writer, of all things, who has my name and is also African American. He seems to have worked mainly in magazines, not newspapers, and one link speaks of his "love of crime and mayhem" (only on the printed page, I presume) and his "belief in the transformative power of violence." Both these guys are younger than I am, and since I was here first, they really should be required to use a middle initial or something.

But I digress.

The point was omniscience, or apparent omniscience. All you need is a computer and an Internet connection. Google then uses its tens of thousands of servers to let you believe you know all there is to know about everything and everybody. In truth, of course, what you get from a Google search is an overload of information and pseudo-information. If you come across two versions of a fact -- the birth date of an aging world leader, say -- you can go with the one that gets the most hits, but you do so at your own peril. The mob can be dead wrong.

But if Google's search results aren't truly omniscient, it turns out that the company itself is potentially so. Google has the ability to track an individual's searches -- to record where your mind wanders when the boss isn't looking, what political commentators you read, what you're thinking about buying and what price you're willing to pay, even what kinds of fantasies you entertain late at night.

Google is able to know too much, and I guess it's no surprise that the Bush administration wants in on the action. The Justice Department's demand to see an entire week's worth of Google searches looks to me like an attempt by the administration to get its foot in the door, and if I'm right, it's even more of an Orwellian threat than the National Security Agency's snooping on phone calls and e-mails. The NSA snooping is illegal and unforgivable, to be sure, but the spooks want access to communications, and when we communicate with another human being we always censor ourselves to some degree. When we ask a question of Google, it's akin to being in the privacy of the confessional. We lay ourselves bare.

I am reminded of the old Buffalo Springfield song, For What It's Worth.

"Paranoia strikes deep,
Into your mind it will creep,
It starts when you're always afraid,
Step outta line, the man comes and takes you away..."

Man you Democrats are a pitiful lot. You have to lie and distort what's happening in order to score any points.

You live in fear and your purvey it to anyone unfortunate enough to listen to and believe your lies. Eugene, you're not right (you almost never are, but that's another editorial in itself).

First, the National Security Agency is not "snooping on phone calls and e-mails," as you would imply and have us believe they are, theat is unless you are in overseas contact with members of Al Qaeda.

Second, what the NSA is doing is neither illegal nor unforgivable, "to be sure."

No one, except for a few really naive reporters apparently, has any real expectation of privacy on the internet, never have and never will. That was settled sometime ago when it was determined that our employees did have the right to access what we are e-mailing and what we are "Googling" on their computers. It has been clear from the outset that all activities on the internet leave a trail that, with due diligence by police, or anyone else with the skill, can follow.

Time to beat a new drum Eugene, the Orwellian threat-which is actually a Leftist threat, not a conservative threat-has worn thin.

Full Editorial: Post-Lies from Eugene

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

An Interesting Response Form Former Enron Employees

THE ENRON TRIAL
Former employees render a less-than-unanimous verdict
As trial nears, conflicted, varied views of Skilling and Lay emerge

By LYNN J. COOK and PURVA PATEL
Copyright 2006 Houston Chronicle

Long before Garrett Ashmore ever went to work for Enron, he knew Ken Lay as the kindhearted CEO who gave a scholarship check for several thousand dollars to him as a teenager, changing his young life and setting in motion a career course that would bring him into the fold of the once high-flying company.

That's why Ashmore, who glorified and glamorized Enron and its head honchos for so long, is so torn as the trial of former Chairman Lay and former CEO Jeff Skilling on fraud, conspiracy and other charges draws near.

Four years after the corporate implosion that wiped out the 401(k)s of Ashmore and thousands of other former Enron employees, the government takes its case to a jury starting Jan. 30.

Ashmore embodies the colliding and conflicting feelings about the company's downfall that some former Enron workers still grapple with. His emotions swing from vitriol and outrage to a latent hope that Lay may be able to prove his innocence.

"Disappointing does not do justice to how I feel," he said. "It's like your rich hero you've looked up to all these years ... the guy who changed your life and probably didn't even realize it ... could be responsible for taking away everything you ever had, too. It's been tough."

Some former employees harbor more sympathy for Lay, who was widely regarded as a fatherly figure in Enron's halcyon days, than for Skilling, the whip-smart and hard-charging Harvard MBA.

Tracey Michel spent six years in Enron's information-technology department and has always seen Lay as undeserving of the charges the federal government brought against him, though she adds that "might be naive."

"But if they do find them guilty, I hope they serve time," she said of both men.

One would think that these people would be much less charitable toward their former employers. Perhaps Ken Lay was just a dupe, but as it says in the full article, they don't make morons CEO's of Corporations, it just doesn't happen. These guys allowed themselves to stray way outside the bounds of acceptable conduct, and thousands of people suffered because of it. Members of my own family lost a limited but not insubstantial sum of money in their investment in Enron, though nothing like some of their former employees lost. It is surprising that some of those who lost their entire 401k by the mismanagement and deception by these characters are sympathetic to Lay and Skilling, or maybe not. We Americans have a hard time believing the worst about those we have come to have high regard for. Anyway, I am rooting for real justice to be done. I believe that if they're convicted, all of their assets should be seized, sold, and the receipt placed in a fund for the former employees or for all of those who lost money by investing in the corporation. It would be a small measure of justice.

Full Story: Judging Lay and Skilling

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Creating Doubt Where There Should Be None

As Elections Near, Officials Challenge Balloting Security
In Controlled Test, Results Are Manipulated in Florida System

By Zachary Goldfarb
Special to The Washington Post
Sunday, January 22, 2006; Page A06

As the Leon County supervisor of elections, Ion Sancho's job is to make sure voting is free of fraud. But the most brazen effort lately to manipulate election results in this Florida locality was carried out by Sancho himself.

Four times over the past year Sancho told computer specialists to break in to his voting system. And on all four occasions they did, changing results with what the specialists described as relatively unsophisticated hacking techniques. To Sancho, the results showed the vulnerability of voting equipment manufactured by Ohio-based Diebold Election Systems, which is used by Leon County and many other jurisdictions around the country.

Sancho's most recent demonstration was last month. Harri Hursti, a computer security expert from Finland, manipulated the "memory card" that records the votes of ballots run through an optical scanning machine.

Then, in a warehouse a few blocks from his office in downtown Tallahassee, Sancho and seven other people held a referendum. The question on the ballot:

"Can the votes of this Diebold system be hacked using the memory card?"

Two people marked yes on their ballots, and six no. The optical scan machine read the ballots, and the data were transmitted to a final tabulator. The result? Seven yes, one no.

"Was it possible for a disgruntled employee to do this and not have the elections administrator find out?" Sancho asked. "The answer was yes."

Diebold and some officials have criticized Sancho's experiments and said his conclusions about the vulnerability of electronic voting systems are unfounded.

What Sancho did "is analogous to if I gave you the keys to my house and told you when I was gone," said David Bear, a Diebold spokesman. As Bear sees it, Sancho's experiment involved giving hackers "complete unfettered access" to the equipment, something a responsible elections administrator would never allow.

I agree with David Bear's assessment, about Sancho's tests, but with a paper trail there would be no doubt. I am not so paranoid as to believe the Democrat paranoiacs regarding the last election, but I do agree that if it can be easily accomplished, we need to retrofit the new machines to leave a "paper trail" so that votes could be confirmed by the voter. Even paranoid Liberals should feel comfortable about their votes being counted.


Full Story: Some Voter Concerns are Legitimate

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Another American Icon Falls to Poor Management

A Hard Kick From John Wayne's Gun

By STACEY STOWE
Published: January 21, 2006
Come spring, the Winchester rifle, immortalized as the gun that won the West and rode into the sunset with John Wayne, will be made in Portugal and Japan.

Workers were told of the decision to close the plant this month after executives learned in December that projected sales for 2006 were expected to decline by one-third.

Paul DeMennato, a company spokesman, did not provide production and sales numbers, but the New Haven mayor's office released a statement saying that only 80,000 guns had been produced at the plant last year. The factory is capable of producing 300,000 a year.

"It's just not profitable to continue to manufacture that small quantity of firearms," said Mr. DeMennato, whose father assembled Winchester guns in the 1940's, when the plant had 19,000 employees and maintained its own hospital and police department. "I still have my dad's guns. These products don't have a built-in obsolescence."

The Winchester repeating rifle became the gun of choice for Western settlers after it was introduced in 1866, Mr. DeMennato said. The lever-action breech mechanism allowed the user to fire a number of shots before having to reload. It became so ubiquitous, the gun assumed a stock role in Hollywood westerns and became a kind of sidekick for the actor John Wayne.

"Instead of saying, 'Get me my gun,' he'd say, 'Get me my Winchester,' " Mr. DeMennato said.

A 10-foot-high bronze statute of Wayne, eyes narrowed in concentration and left hand clutching a Winchester, stands in the lobby of the New Haven plant. On the wall behind it are the mounted heads of a stag and wild boar and a turkey in its entirety.

"I used to come down and polish John Wayne because I was proud he was here and proud to be here," said Dave Roy, 48, an electrician at the plant for 22 years. "Not anymore."

The Belgian-based Herstal Group owns the company, but the Winchester name is owned by the Olin Corporation, which makes Winchester ammunition. Certain models made in New Haven will be discontinued when the plant closes, but other Winchester guns will continue to be made in Japan and Portugal, Mr. DeMennato said.

Echoing several other employees who streamed out the doors after 3 p.m. on Wednesday, at the end of their shifts, Mr. Roy tied declining sales to a diminished product. He said in recent years, company executives worried more about saving money than making a good product, and the guns suffered for it.

But Scott Hoffman, who owns Hoffman's Gun Center in Newington, Conn., said that sales of the guns were lackluster because of the Winchester company's poor marketing strategy.

It's a real sad time when American Companies fall victim to bad European management. As a former employee of Shell Chemical Company, I have witnessed the incompetency of European management first hand. Now don't get me wrong, in many cases, that management steps in because of incompetence in the American led management. Such was the case with Shell. The Dutch moved in because the American management was performing so poorly, but the corporation deteriorated even more after they stepped in. To see the demise of Winchester saddens me greatly. There is one thing to remember, when American companies like Winchester are bought by foreign companies like Herstal, owners of Fabrique National of France, there is no allegiance to the iconic status of the company's name or traditions. Winchester may be inextricably linked to our West and our period of "Westward Expansion," but to a European company like Herstal, it is only a source of income. Were I a Liberal, I would be protesting the sale of an American iconic company to a foreign nation, but of course as it is an arms manufacturer, Liberals would never rally to their defense. As a conservative, who believes in a free market, I can only shake my head in sorrow at the loss. It is not the first, and it will not be the last. Such is the march of technology and progress. Perhaps this would not be occurring if Liberals weren't so violently afraid of guns that they wanted them eliminated.

Full Story: John Wayne Must Be Spinning in His Grave

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Wa-Post Ombudsman Discovers Truth About Liberals

Paper Shutters Blog After Ombudsman Post

Jan 19 7:28 PM US/Eastern
WASHINGTON

The Washington Post shut down one of its blogs Thursday after the newspaper's ombudsman raised the ire of readers by writing that lobbyist Jack Abramoff gave money to the Democrats as well as to Republicans.

At the center of a congressional bribery investigation, Abramoff gave money to Republicans while he had his clients donate to both parties, though mostly to Republicans.

In her Sunday column, ombudsman Deborah Howell wrote that Abramoff "had made substantial campaign contributions to both major parties," prompting a wave of nasty reader postings on post.blog.

There were so many personal attacks that the newspaper's staff could not "keep the board clean, there was some pretty filthy stuff," and so the Post shut down comments on the blog, or Web log, said Jim Brady, executive editor of washingtonpost.com.

"We're not giving up on the concept of having a healthy public dialogue with our readers, but this experience shows that we need to think more carefully about how we do it," Brady wrote on the newspaper's Web site. "There are things that we said we would not allow, including personal attacks, the use of profanity and hate speech.

This is too funny. If this is the first time the Washington Post's ombudsman has been exposed to this kind of hate attack, then she is seriously naive about her newspaper's primary targeted audience. Liberals Hate. A brief visit to dailyKos.com or DemocraticUnderground.com will reveal this simple fact. The vitriole and obscene language that so offended MS. Howell is routinely used by the denizens of those pages and directed at those who disagree with them. A visit to similar conservative pages would reveal no parallel behavior. Conservatives may lash out on occasion, but the language used is usually tempered by our religious beliefs. Michelle Malkin has experienced this kind of hate and had Ms. Howell bothered to even read the jacket of Michelle's book, she would have expected this behavior. You will find the same lack of ethics if you spend anytime watching C-Span's callin programs. It is quite common to hear a Liberal Democrat call in posing as a Republican or Bush supporter, only to launch into an attack on the Republicans and President Bush. The converse very rarely happens. Liberals just can't control themselves, their hatred is just too great.

For the Post's ombudsman not to know this speaks volumes.

Original Post: Post Surprised by Liberal's Language

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Reid Forced to Apologize for Ethical Violation in Making Ethics Charges

Reid Apologizes for News Release on GOP
Document 'Went Too Far,' Democrat Says

By Charles Babington
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, January 20, 2006; Page A04

Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) apologized to 33 Republican senators yesterday for a hard-hitting news release that accused them of ethical and legislative lapses, in an awkward about-face that tripped up Democrats' effort to keep the GOP majority on the defensive over alleged corruption.

"I am writing to apologize for the tone of this document and the decision to single out individual senators for criticism in it," Reid said of the 27-page statement sent by his communications office Tuesday. The release, titled, "Republicans cannot be trusted to end the culture of corruption," triggered sharp complaints from GOP officials, who said it violated Senate decorum and brought campaign-style mudslinging into the Capitol.

Reid, who headed a Democratic Party event Wednesday at the Library of Congress calling for clean government, basically agreed. The document, he wrote, "went too far, and I want to convey to you my personal regrets. . . . No one cares mo