God damn the Cheerio man

The Obama administration warns the American people of the danger posed to them all by the unsubstantiated claims of Cheerios. In fact, Cheerios could pose a threat akin to that of drugs to the American people. ( H/t The Corner ).

Dr Steven Sundloff, head of the FDA’s Center for Food Safety, said the action was “not to impugn Cheerios”, which he called “a product that can be part of a healthy diet”.
But he said: “The packaging clearly carries a drug claim.”

Remember the good old days, when it was just drugs like marijuana, lsd, and cocaine? That used to be enough. Now people are so jaded to the drugs pumping through their veins that they are forced to go to the strongest drug yet - Cheerios. Crack cocaine and meth productions have been stopped; put on hold for the production of that sweet, sweet bowl candy. It's legal, and it's being done right under the noses of the country's upright citizens. By our children no less. Cue the concerned news report. Read More......

Another pro-censorship fellow who just doesn't get it

Unfortunately, there are far too many of them among us. Sadly enough, these are often the same people going into the academic and newspaper businesses.

H/t to Blazing Cat Fur.

John Hayden, via J-Source: Readers' letters: where is the free-speech line?

A year ago this February, I picked up a copy of the Cobourg Daily Star [since consolidated with two other papers to form Northumberland Today] and found the editorial page dominated by a sprawling 950-word letter to the editor written by Gordon Gilchrist, a sitting public school board trustee from Baltimore, Ontario. The header read "Turn off the immigration tap before its too late" and it singled out particular groups (Jamaicans, Muslims, Indians, and others) as "enemies", creating a "Trojan Horse" situation undermining "Canada’s glorious history", causing "economic and environmental distress" and "reduc[ing] each Canadian’s share of this country’s wealth". Mr. Gilchrist stereotyped immigrants relentlessly as "aberrations" and "quasi-Canadians" living in "ghetto-like enclaves" and threatening his "unsullied... beautiful and blessed land."I couldn't help but think that Mr. Gilchrist had thrown us back into the exclusionist era of pre-WW2 Canadian immigration politics. But the letter clearly overstepped the bounds of rational debate and contained unnecessarily hurtful language directed against identifiable minority groups. In good conscience, I decided I would have to respond. First, I wrote to the Kawartha Pine Ridge District School Board’s Director of Education, Sylvia Terpstra, expressing my reservations about trustees publically propagating stereotypes and encouraging discrimination.

That's an interesting response. Instead of answering Mr. Gilchrist in a public forum - for instance, by writing a letter to the editor himself, blogging about the whole experience, and badmouthing Gilchrist whenever he got a chance - his first response; the the first thing that crossed his mind as the next course of action, was to write a letter to see if he could get Mr. Gilchrist removed from his position as a trustee.

Is it just me, or does that seem like a somewhat pretentious, patronising way of going about things? As if Gilchrist wasn't worth debating, or being convinced of the error of his ways. As if the best thing to do with people whom you violently disagree with is to see how you can make sure that you remove that person from whichever positions of authority - or perhaps happy security - that you can.

Anyway:

By then, other local and provincial media outlets began covering the controversy, including The Globe and Mail [sub required] and CBC Radio 1 regional news bulletins.The School Board officially censured Gilchrist and he was removed from committee work.I also wrote a letter to the Ontario Human Rights Council (OHRC) who quickly advised me to submit my complaint to the Ontario Press Council (OPC). Perhaps given last year's Mark Steyn debacle, the HRCs had learned that until there is constitutional clarity on the notion of regulating journalism, they would avoid entangling themselves in more charter-related controversies involving offensive language and freedom of the press. So, after bringing myself up to speed as best I could on journalistic ethics, I built a case against the Cobourg Daily Star’s publication of the Gilchrist letter, constructing arguments based on precedent established in Hajara Kutty and Mohamed Elmasry vs Toronto Star and The Manitoba Press Council Complaint #06-02.

Ok, wait. So his second response - again, instead of actually answering Gilchrist's words with arguments of his own - was to write to the Ontario Human Rights Commission to see if they couldn't make Mr. Gilchrist miserable. And since the OHRC had been burned before with a similar case that blew up in their face, he decided to put together a case built partly upon previous cases brought about my Mohamed freakin' Elmasry? The same Elmasry who brought the Macleans complaints before the OHRC, Canadian Human Rights Commission, and British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal? It would be hard to find a more censurious and bigoted asshole in Canada than Mohamed Elmasry, and that's one of the people whose arguments Johnny felt would be sufficient to build up his own case?

Don't make me laugh.

The story goes on:

To my mind, the Gilchrist letter brought into sharp relief a series of important questions in journalistic ethics which I respectfully submitted to the OPC for clarification through adjudication:
Are negative stereotypes of identifiable minority groups de facto beyond the bounds of rational debate and unnecessarily hurtful?
Does a vigorous public debate mitigate the initial harm of publishing an unnecessarily hurtful letter to the editor?
Are editors ethically responsible for everything they print? (i.e. can they evade responsibility for printing letters to the editor which contain harmful content?)By the time the OPC Executive Committee had scheduled a hearing (a brisk thirteen months after publication of the letter) I had left Northumberland to pursue graduate studies overseas. I offered to fly back for verbal arguments but it was eventually decided that the case would be adjudicated based on written submissions alone—which now totalled close to fifteen pages plus appendices.

What a tremendous amount of effort Johnny is putting into punishing some school board trustee
for a letter to the editor. Seriously - doesn't he have anything better to do with his time?

And for the record, editors can be held accountable for the content they print - that is, by the readers of their publication. If I run a newspaper, and I print a bigoted article or letter, then I will recieve the appropriate amount of ridicule for it ( trust me, I write a column for a paper - people can pick up on the slightest little thing that they don't like and get back to you well in time ). There is no need for some regulatory body to do the job of the public. And if the time ever comes for such a regulatory body to be needed, then I think the problem will be much larger than that of mere bigotry.

The editor's decisions are the editor's decisions. The public's reaction is the public's reaction. It's not up to some guy with a lot of time on his hands and the know-how to launch complaints with the Ontario Human Rights Commission and the Ontario Press Council to handle that task. What sort of a patronising person would think that it is his, and his task alone, of protecting the public from letter-writing bigots?

But wait, there's more:

Although my complaint was ultimately dismissed, the Cobourg Daily Star printed only half of the text of the OPC decision. I had to request through the OPC’s Executive Secretary, Mel Sufrin, that the Cobourg Daily Star follow guidelines and print the full text of the decision, which they finally posted on their website on 16 March 2009. In the previous version they had omitted the OPC’s reservation about the offensive tone of the Gilchrist letter. In the end, the sad outcome of all of this is that my complaint seems to have overturned the precedent set in Hajara Kutty and Mohamed Elmasry vs Toronto Star. It is now ostensibly permissible for newspapers to print material that ascribes negative intrinsic qualities to identifiable minority groups. The OPC has accepted the Cobourg Daily Star's assertion that these "facts are not in dispute", which I find to be nonsensical. It supports the notion that ascribing intrinsic negative qualities to identifiable groups is fine so long as this promotes a lively debate. It allows irrational and potentially harmful views of politicians to be printed in the first person as letters to the editor instead of through the process of normal reporting, assuming no responsibility for their content. While the OPC apparently seeks to "encourage thoughtful criticism of the press," I am not particularly impressed with the process, the outcome, or the conduct of the Cobourg Daily Star in response to my criticisms. I can only hope that this isn’t the last word on the subject, and that other armchair ethicists will come forward and continue this important public discussion on journalistic ethics in Ontario.

Three things.

One: it's interesting that he wants a public discussion on journalistic ethics, considering that he was earlier willing to punish and censor someone for their words rather than debate them publicly himself.

Two: his 'criticisms' seemed mainly to consist of running to nanny bureaucrat agencies and organizations to complain about the newspaper and its editor and get both into trouble. I'd be a bit unwilling to accept 'criticism' if someone was trying to make my life more difficult and threaten my livelihood.

Three: he was 'not particularly impressed'? Well, considering that his efforts at censorship and making someone's life miserable for their words didn't quite pan out like he'd hoped, I imagine that he was. Boo-hoo for him.

Finally, a brief bio:

John Hayden is a graduate of History at the University of Toronto and a MA candidate in Political Studies at the American University of Beirut. He can be contacted via email at john.hayden@utoronto.ca.

You would think that an ambitious student like John Hayden would have better things to do with his time than to waste it on punishing people for letters to the editor. Hell - he could have written dozens of his own letters in the time that it took for him to go to the OHRC and OPC.

I think there's a term for this fine fellow, and that term is dilweed. Read More......

Scientology v. Anonymous

I must say, I rather like these Anonymous people. Perhaps I shall join them someday - as a non-anonymous member of Anonymous, of course. I'll have a t-shirt and everything: 'I went to 4-Chan and all I got was this lousy t-shirt'.

Anyway, a member of Anonymous has pled guilty for web attacks against the 'religion' of Scientology:

A New Jersey teen pleaded guilty in federal court Monday to a computer hacking charge for his role in distributed denial-of-service attack that last year shuttered Church of Scientology websites.
Dmitriy Guzner, part of the online troublemaking group “Anonymous,” was charged with a felony count of unauthorized impairment of a protected computer for the January, 2008 distributed denial-of-service attack. The 19-year-old New Jersey teen faces 12 to 18 months under sentencing guidelines for what is the first prosecution of an Anonymous member.

What can I say? I have a soft spot for anybody who dislikes Scientology/Tom Cruise so much. That Anonymous engages in other, less get-behindable behavior is, of course, up for discussion, and I don't wish to condone this sort of behavior, but the fact remains that, well, if you're going be charged as a criminal, it might as well be for something like striking a blow against a faux religion. Read More......

Rampant Geekery Alert: Debate rages over whether the Federation is Socialist

Over at the Volokh Conspiracy, a debate has begun over whether the fictional Federation of Star Trek fame is a socialist government. So is it?

I would say no. Socialism or communism is the state control of the means of production. In the Star Trek universe, there is no evidence that the means of production are controlled exclusively by the state. Rather, because technology has eliminated scarcity, they have moved beyond a market economy. People still own restaurants and coffee shops and clean the streets, but they do not do these things for money. Which makes sense -- because money exists as a way to avoid the spoilage problems of barter. If the spoilage problem doesn't exist because there is no scarcity, then what's the point of having money? Further, if individual citizens can replicate life's necessities, then why would for-profit firms continue to exist?

Star Trek does not depict a future where there is some sort of market economy, rather it depicts a post-market economy where scarcity has been eliminated. Socialism and communism never suggested that we could eliminate all scarcity. They just foresaw a different way of organizing a market. Read More......

The 2009 White House Correspondents' Dinner

Oh man, I want to meet the writer(s) of this speech, because this is some fantastic stuff.

Part I:

Part II:

["Wayback Machine"-like Bonus] Stephen Colbert delivered the keynote address at the White House Correspondents' Dinner in 2006. It was similarly brilliant.


Read More......

The Embattled Michael Steele

In honor of Michael Steele's 100th Day in Office the DNC released this gem:

An interesting tidbit is that Michael Steele grew up in a family of Democrats. Looks like he didn't fall far from the tree (when running for Lt. Gov. of Maryland):

Of course Steele's mishaps have been more numerous and certainly more insulting than Obama's perceived 'inability' to speak without a teleprompter. Some of them have, notably, been contradictory to earlier statements. Think Progress reports on one, occurring on Bill Bennett's radio show May 1, 2009:

CALLER: It's just like the LA Time said last year or two years ago: He is the magic Negro.

STEELE: Yeah he -- [laughing]. You read that too, huh? [still laughing]

CALLER: Oh yeah. I read that too. Even when things go wrong, he still manages to come out smelling like a rose.

STEELE: Well, yeah.

This, besides inciting racism, stands in contrast to Steele's earlier stance that he took when running for the GOP Chairmanship when his opponent Chip Saltsman distributed a CD with a song called "Barack the Magic Negro" on it. At that time Steele said "it doesn’t help at all. Absolutely, it reinforces a negative stereotype of the party...look, this is not representative of the party as a whole, this is not a direction that we want to go in or a system that we believe." Obviously, it is a direction Steele wants the GOP to go in...

Steele's antics have caused an increasingly public battle to erupt over the control of the Republican National Committee's purse. Chairman Steele's supporters are "accusing dissident RNC members of trying to "embarrass and neuter" the party's new leader." Right, because he needs help doing that himself.

The RNC is in chaos. Something that is, quite frankly, not surprising. The Republican Party is already beginning to fight a civil war and it'll probably continue to fracture as 2012 approaches unless the economy is still terrible and the Republicans can pull off a big win in the midterms.

It surprising with Scott Murphy winning NY-20, Senator Arlen Specter defecting to the Democratic Party and the Republicans losing on just about every issue that Michael Steele still has a job. Maybe he'll get cut in the next round of layoffs.

But, if Steele does get laid off, the GOP will still have a lot of work to do and they'll be hard pressed to find a Chairman who can make the Republican brand competitive again. Not only do many in the media think the Republicans are a regional party, some of their own members (Senator Cornyn) think so as well:

Natch Greyes is a Democrat running for Senate in 2020. His campaign platform may be found at natchgreyes.com Read More......

Re: Glenn Greenwald

In response to Byron's post below, I would first like to say thanks to him for posting on this - I should have known he would be all over it.

I think Glenn's argument is much along the same lines as the arguments of the occasional commenter on a 'Free-speecher' blog: namely "Oh, hey, you deleted a comment/moderate comments, so you're not for free speech after all".

Only in this case, it's a sovereign country deleting or moderating the comments of outside individuals seeking to use the nation as a billboard for their rants and opinions.

The fault in this argument, of course, is that it completely ignores the idea of private property. I have no right to restrict the freedom of speech of my neighbor on his property - but if he's on my own, private property, then I am completely within my rights to tell him to sod off if I don't like what he's saying.

Writ large, the government's responsibility is really to act as a proxy for the will of the citizenry. So in effect, to deny somebody entry into a country is just a private property issue writ larger than my back-yard. Philosophically they're so similar as to be almost the same.

So the long and the short of it is this: Glen Greenwald doesn't know what he's talking about.

That being said, I'm with you. I don't really care what people are saying, I'll allow them to say it. Just as when I'm blogging; I moderate comments, but I allow people to insult me on my own blogs - and it would probably bother me if I were to just delete their comments, even though I would be well within my rights to do so.

And furthermore, I think the fellow over at Hit and Run had it right: just because the free speechers don't go up in arms over every freakin' issue doesn't mean that they think such-and-such should be censored. Unless someone, such as myself, says otherwise, then it's implied that we support people like Michael Savage, or Ezra Levant, or Geert Wilders, or Fred Phelps. I don't care who it is - I support their right to freedom of speech. But that doesn't mean that I'm always going to be going on and on and on about every case that pops up - quite frankly, I just don't have the time ( probably ). Read More......

Greenwald conflating state sovereignty with free speech

There's not much that I can add to the criticism of Glenn Greenwald's unquestionably dumb hit piece on conservatives and free speech that Reason writer Michael C. Moynihan hasn't already said.

But I'm surprised that a thorough, methodical and interesting writer like Greenwald would fail to make such a basic distinction between the right to freedom of expression and the right of states to exclude non-citizens with questionable political viewpoints from their borders. Now, as a caveat, if I were in charge of immigration or tourism policy, I'd grant Satan himself a visa to spread his doctrine. But fundamentally, freedom of expression does not involve the right to spread your gospel across international borders.

Greenwald:

Both the Haaretz editorial page and Alan Dershowitz (in an interview with me) denounced Finklestein's exclusion as obviously viewpoint-based -- but the ostensibly pro-free-expression Right was silent. Why wasn't Mark Steyn crying out then that "the idea of ideological enforcement at the border is repugnant to a free society"?
Indeed, exactly this sort of free speech abridgment is routinely exercised by allies of the Right and against its enemies, and they either remain silent or actively supportive. Just two months ago, Canada's right-wing government barred British MP George Galloway from entering that country because of his views on the war in Afghanistan and claimed support for Hamas. Along with Savage, British officials also banned several Muslim preachers who are accused -- just like Savage -- of nothing more than expressing ideas incompatible with Britain's "values and standards."

There are two issues here -- and Greenwald is conflating them into just one. First, stopping the free exchange of ideas is damn near impossible in the Internet-age. Authoritarian governments struggle mightily, Twitter keeps Egyptian dissidents alive, and a relatively inexpensive VPN will get you around the Great Firewall prohibitions. Controversial figures will attract an audience and attention, regardless of state action to try to ban them.

Second, since the Peace of Westphalia, we've organized our International system by the principle of sovereignty. Part of that sovereignty involves the right of nations to control their borders, including the movement of foreign nationals across those borders. Ezra Levant rightly pointed out,

Galloway is not a Canadian citizen; he does not have a right to come to Canada (nor any other rights guaranteed to our citizens). He would be a guest, and he is being turned away for security reasons.

Again, this is not to defend the actions of the Canadian government. If I were the Minister with that portfolio, Galloway would enter. But I'm not. Who to include and exclude within Canada's borders is an internal debate that Canadian society must have. To allow bigots? To allow supporters of terrorism? To allow fear-mongers? To allow the Jonas Brothers? Banning any of those aforementioned groups is not censorship per se. It's controlling the movement of non-citizens across an International border.

Galloway might be constrained in his physical movement, just as Geert Wilders might be. Again, to reiterate, I think Britain's decision to ban Geert Wilders was foolish. I think Canada's decision to ban George Galloway was stupid. But I fundamentally believe that "censorship" is the wrong cry to raise. Just as it's not legal censorship when the New York Times refuses to publish a letter to the editor, it's not censorship when a state refuses entry to a non-citizen regardless of the motivation behind the ban. Rather, the "anti-Muslim right" that Greenwald identifies has always been pretty consistent in their opposition to state action taken against citizens who publish or utter unpopular or "hateful" views. Read More......

Obama DOJ argues against crack/powder cocaine disparity

I don't like to chalk things up to institutional or systemic racism very often but there is one thing that I will conceded is clearly a racist public policy -- the completely illogical sentencing disparity between powder cocaine and crack cocaine.

Which is why it's great news that the Obama DOJ is looking to rectify the situation by shortening sentences for possession of crack cocaine. As the Wall Street Journal notes,

Under current law, a person caught with 500 grams of powder cocaine gets the mandatory minimum sentence of five years, while it takes only five grams of crack cocaine to trigger the same sentence. Critics of the law have long maintained that it unfairly targets African-American communities, where crack is more prevalent.

The Obama DOJ seems to be moving towards a more sensible drug policy. Obama has never come out in favor of legalizing harmless substances like marijuana, but at least there has been some progress. Now his Justice Department has come out against one of the worst injustices in our nation's drug policy. Read More......

Today's Round-up

*Crossposted to The Blog of Walker

First of all, American political figure Jack Kemp died, last night. My compatriot Natch Greyes offers his condolences. The folks over at The Corner are reminiscing, and sharing their Jack Kemp stories.

Meanwhile, in Canadian federal politics, the Liberals are coming out of their convention rejuvenated and energised. Kelly McParland, over at the Post, isn't impressed. Vancouver was also host to a pro-marijuana rally this weekend, which converged on the Liberal convention. This is a rather ironic juxtaposition to the Harper government's proposal of new mandatory minimum sentencing for certain marijuana 'crimes'. Meanwhile, Blazing Cat Fur expounds on the Liberals' decision to support the expansion of the CHRC's mandate.

In provincial politics, small business owners get a chance to ask BC's party leaders a few questions, the NDP's 'tax holiday' might not be all it's cracked up to be, and tonight is going to see a debate between BC's party leaders - or at least the leaders of the Liberals, NDP, and Greens ( live-blogged here, by the Vancouver Sun's Darrah Hansen ). Meanwhile, the Single Transferable Vote isn't getting the support in the polls that it's going to need from voters come May 12th, and Carole James insists that the investigation of NDP candidate Doug Routley by police was a private matter, which is why she was absolutely silent wasn't as vocal about it as she could have been about the matter.

Plus: A scandal is opening up in Saskatchewan, as a considerable amount of NDP memberships seem to have been bought and paid for. Uh-oh.

Also, and not-unsurprisingly, some rather frivolous expenses have been revealed as a part of the CBC's bankroll:

Senior managers at Radio-Canada expensed more than $1,400 in booze during two-day retreat in 2006, Sun Media has learned.
Documents obtained through an access to information request show the August retreat for 14 managers at Les Trois Tilleuls et Spa Givenchy cost $8,958.01.
Sylvain Lafrance, head of CBC's French-language service, was among the participants at the overnight getaway held just 35 minutes from their Montreal office.
The bulk of the money -- more than $6,800 -- was spent on 12 hotel rooms. Dining room costs at the four-star inn totalled $2,056, of which $1,400 was for wine, scotch, cocktails and beer.

[...]

CBC spokesman Marco Dube said while the public broadcaster does not have a policy towards expensing liquor, all expenses incurred for meetings are subject to approval by the employee's superior.
"All expenses need to be reasonable to be approved," he noted, adding that since last fall all non-essential and discretionary expenses have been kept to a minimum.

Meanwhile, George Jonas says that even expensive expenses are no match for a civil servant who is truly dedicated to their job.

And speaking of bureaucracy, would it surprise you to learn that Canada's government is less-than-forthcoming about its access to information? Well, if it does, then read what Kevin Libin has to say on the subject, and then read what Vaughn Palmer has to say about the difference between receiving information from Washington and the Campbell government.

Plus: a black day in Tehran, Obama's dropping approval ratings, what's with all the Buddhists, and have you ever considered the Reform Party of BC? Read More......

Former VP Candidate Jack Kemp Has Died

The 1996 Republican Vice Presidential Nominee, Jack Kemp, died of late last night. Mr. Kemp was the former Congressman from Buffalo, New York and his fiscal policies were adopted by every major Republican Candidate for Presidential Office since 1980.

Then Congressman Kemp was famous for his 1978 speech to the House in which he said: "tax code that rewards consumption, leisure, debt and borrowing, and punishes savings, investment, work and production." Because of this and other speeches Mr. Kemp profoundly influenced the way Republicans acted in terms of fiscal matters, favoring 'supply-side economics.'

I send my condolences to his family.

Natch Greyes is a Democrat running for Senate in 2020. His campaign platform may be found at natchgreyes.com and his blog, covering a wide range of issues, may be read here. Read More......

Republican Survey

The Republicans need our help. The RNC has thoughtfully put up the "2009 State of the Republican Party Survey" online. The first three questions are pictured below. (And yes, you did read that correctly, the first question is: "Why did Republicans lose the White House and Congressional seats in the 2008 elections? Check all that apply."

Good thing they had an 'other' with a blank so I could write in 'Sarah Palin.'

"What are the key strengths and beliefs of the Republican Party that we can build on? Check all that apply" - Umm...yeah...wait! Wasn't it President Obama talking about "Personal Responsibility?" Oh yeah, it was. In fact, Google returns some 15,000,000 results when searching "personal responsibility Obama". Good to see the Republicans are learning (and stealing Democratic ideas).

My favorite question, however, is "What can the Republican Party do to earn and maintain your trust?" Where do I begin? Stop ideologically 'purifying' the party, stop relying solely on white, middle class, religious voters, stop moving to the right, come up with some sort of solutions instead of complaining all the time, embrace moderates, reconnect with the American people's needs, wants and desires (like Reagan), join Democrats in promoting bipartisan initiatives (like lowering the abortion rate by focusing on educating teens rather than ignoring teens and letting them do whatever they will without knowledge of the consequences), focus more on the 1st Amendment and less on the 2nd, and, finally, be reasonable and laugh idiots like Sarah Palin off the stage while embracing more 'moderate' leaders like Governors Schwarzenegger and Crist.

Actually, this 'survey' is completely ridiculous in terms of phrasing questions. It asks things like 'do you support socialism' and then tries to tie socialism to Democrats.' The only answers they're going to get are the right-wing ones the writer was looking for (aside from whatever Democrats take the survey to even out the results).

(As a side note: I'm going to be cutting down on the number of articles I cross post here. You can read more articles, like today's follow-up on yesterday's potential Supreme Court Nominee article at my (personal) blog).

Natch Greyes is a Democrat running for Senate in 2020. His campaign platform may be found at natchgreyes.com and other articles may be read at his blog. Read More......

Hooray for France, I guess

Good on 'em - they voted down an illiberal copyright law. Maybe the Irish could learn a thing or two about freedom of speech from the Francs.

Read More......

Swine Flu Update #5 (Day 6)

I was emailed a link this morning regarding Swine Flu: "How to Prepare for a Pandemic: 100 Tips, Tools, and Resources." It's a very useful site, linking to nearly every national and international organization you could possible want to hear from regarding Swine Flu.

With that said, you should know what to do if you get sick (courtesy of the CDC).

Also, The L.A. Times has a great interactive map for confirmed Swine Flu cases in the United States and Mexico. I have a screen shot:

Currently, the CDC is reporting 141 confirmed cases with 1 death and the WHO is reporting 331 confirmed cases in 11 countries.

The New York Times reports that the death toll in Mexico is so high because "People wait too long to go to doctors...For many, only when all else fails do they go to a doctor, who may or may not be well prepared." It's what I've been saying all along, Mexico's heath system is terrible so they would have a higher death rate than in the United States.

Further, we've finally gotten some real numbers in the United States. I need not even mention that the death of one toddler isn't even a blip on the impact of Swine Flu in the United States. If the Swine Flu was truly deadly we'd expect many more deaths.

Major news networks, at least, are no longer providing numbers of 'suspected' cases only confirmed. That should help tamper down the panic. Wikipedia, however, was kind enough to provide both sets of numbers. There are 4,400+ suspected cases (2,498 being in Mexico) with 168 suspected deaths (and 180 total (suspected + confirmed in Mexico).

There are, on average about 101,074 total deaths in Mexico a week. Since it has been about a week since we started getting numbers of suspected deaths in Mexico I'll perform the standard 'total death rate due to Swine Flu' computation (deaths due to Swine Flu divided by total death rate). That number is 0.178%, i.e. 0.178% of total deaths are due to Swine Flu. This is lower than both the standard flu rate of 1% and the 'lowest possible pandemic threshold' of 0.4% (This is all reported on Day 2). I should mention that my calculation included both confirmed and suspected deaths so that is a maximum total death rate due to Swine Flu.

So, while the Swine Flu seems to be spreading rapidly it doesn't appear especially dangerous. Although, considering the drop off in media coverage (including my own) that's not altogether surprising. (I mean, you only get really high ratings when reporting on something that is a major concern).

Natch Greyes is a Democrat running for Senate in 2020. His campaign platform may be found at natchgreyes.com Read More......

Tipping Point On Same-Sex Marriage?

Above is a picture from Malcolm Gladwell's book The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference which shows the rate at which farmers adopted hybrid corn in the 1930s. In the 2000s the argument is being made for and against a tipping point being reaching for support of same-sex marriage. Nate Silver has maintained that "contrary to common perception, however, the public is not becoming markedly more favorable toward same-sex marriage," giving the following graph as evidence:

Silver has revisited this remark recently, as two new polls show "for the first time a plurality of Americans in support of gay marriage." These polls are: an ABC News and the Washington Post poll with 49 percent of adults supporting gay marriage and 46 percent opposed and a CBS and New York Times poll showing support for gay marriage at 42 percent, versus 25 percent for civil unions and 28 percent for no legal recognition. But I have to wonder where American opinion really stands. With 4 states recognizing same-sex marriage, the GOP divided on the issue, and serious attempts being made in New Hampshire and Maine to pass a same-sex marriage bill this year the polling all seems a bit confused.

Gallup's graphic detailing their polling, as of May 2009, is a bit deceptive. Their graphic is:

Yet, Gallup's graphic in 2006 seemed to have more data points and, noticeably a slightly different question was asked. That graphic is:

Even more troubling is Gallup's graphic from 2004, showing far more data points and a move upward. That graphic is:

And while these differences may not seem significant it is easy to point out that the representation of the data can, and is in this case, somewhat misleading. This is especially true when we consider that same-sex marriage is, for the large part, a local and state level issue. Polls at those levels seem to show, rather consistently, a rapid rise in acceptance of same-sex marriage. Admittedly, most polls commissioned at those levels are done because of legislative movement to recognize same-sex marriages and, generally, that movement happens because it appears support is building. Further, although acceptance of same-sex marriage may have stalled nationally acceptance of gays in general seems to have risen significantly since at least 1998 and it's not surprising, therefore, that economic arguments, such as those proposed by the Williams Institute at UCLA Law are gaining traction, especially in this economic climate.

If we look at all the various data I think we'll see that social conservatives tend to be on the losing side of issues and issues like gays serving openly in the military will, within the next few years, be accepted.

So, is there a tipping point for same-sex marriage? That depends on your perspective. In New England (and New York) the idea is gaining serious traction. And same-sex marriage will probably be recognized in every state there by 2012. Meanwhile, social conservatives will play a delaying game in California, claiming that 'as California goes so goes the rest of the nation' but, as Newsom continued, 'it's inevitable, this door's wide open now, it's going to happen, whether you like it or not, this is the future and it's now."

I think, though, that it will be a national tipping point once Pennsylvannia, New Jersey, Washington (state), and Oregon all legalize same-sex marriage. Most of the people in those states either support same-sex marriage or seem on the border of supporting it (state name = links to polls).

Even without California a sizable chuck of the population will support same-sex marriage. And, if some states not in New England or on the West Coast, such as New Mexico, were to legalize same-sex marriage then there would be fairly widespread support. But, if same-sex marriage does reach a 'tipping point' I'm not sure it has done so yet. This, however, is hard to tell without going through a series of polls (which may or may not exist) for individual states demonstrating the change in voter opinion.

Either way, we're certainly making progress.

Natch Greyes is a Democrat running for Senate in 2020. His campaign platform may be found at natchgreyes.com
Read More......

Evaluating Potential Supreme Court Nominees

I've aggregated many, many news sites and have a fairly complete list of Nominees. But, I also want to mention Jonathan Singer, who broke the Souter retirement news yesterday, linked to the SCOTUS Blog, a Blog dedicated to the Supreme Court, which has a follow-up to their democratic short list.

I'm going to list all the names I have and then give commentary on what seems to be good or bad about each one:

Sonia Sotomayor, - She appears the favorite in the mainstream media, especially in the eyes of Politico. She's a Hispanic woman who was originally appointed by Bush I. SCOTUS Blog also seems to think she's a top pick, especially as a first nominee choice. I think that she's definitely got 'women' and 'Hispanics' behind her (no word on if soon-to-retire Senator Martinez would vote yes).

Deval Patrick, - Although Patrick is on a lot of short lists I disagree that he's a viable choice. As I wrote two days ago Patrick is done, politically. He's not well liked in Massachusetts and that's going to provide plenty of conservative fodder. While that probably wouldn't stop his confirmation and elephant never forgets and, if the Republicans make gains in the Senate and another spot on the Court opens up, Obama's going to have to pick a sub par justice to get him/her through. It's too risky to pick Patrick for first draft, at least, and by the time second draft comes around he probably won't be Governor, having been defeated in the Democratic primary.

Elena Kagan, - While Kagan's confirmation to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit was stalled by Republicans she still seems to be a viable candidate. With that said it's entirely possible her confirmation will be blocked by Republican (+ Senator Specter) maneuvers. It's pretty clear that even with Franken seated the Democrats wouldn't have 60 votes as Specter surely would want a hearing (unless he no longer stands by this letter he sent).

Merrick Garland, - He's got an impressive resume both standing against Bush and in terms of experience. Garland's a solid choice but, alas, not a woman so if Obama pulls a Reagan and his first appointee is to be a woman Garland would have to stand as a second time choice.

Cass Sunstein, - If Obama does "turn to people he's familiar with" Sunstein has to be considered at or near the top of the list. He has been both a colleague of Obama's at the University of Chicago, advisor on the campaign trail and will head the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.

Diane P. Wood, - The favorite of SCOTUS Blog, Wood meets the requirement of being a woman and is considered 'somewhat liberal.'

Jennifer Granholm, - Constrained by term limits in 2010, Granholm is undoubtedly searching for a new job. But, like Patrick, she's got very poor poll numbers on the home front. That's going to be a major dent in the armor but, unlike Patrick, she isn't a 'mini-me' for Obama nor was she angling to get a job with Obama, like Patrick. That being said, Granholm is no Earl Warren, who ran with both the Democratic and Republican nominations for Governor of California in 1946 and won with 90% of the vote. Further, it's unlikely that she'll lead the Court in the way Earl Warren did. (Admittedly, she won't be Chief Justice but still, Granholm cannot hold a candle to Warren, who was the last Governor to be nominated to the Supreme Court).

Leah Ward Sears, - Sears is a popular choice, being the first woman to serve as Chief Justice of the Georgia Supreme Court and an African-American. She'd be in a similar mold to Sandra Day O'Connor, who was on the Arizona Court of Appeals.

Harold Hongju Koh, - Koh is probably not, realistically, a very viable choice. He's too liberal too be a serious choice, being "an expert on international law and human rights." Such a position will, undoubtedly, lead to serious conflicts with Congress and the President in the future and he will be a nominee who 'judicial restraint' activists will adamantly oppose. He'll probably have a harder fight than any of the previously mentioned candidates and, if he does appear on the President's shortlist it'll be so conservatives are more willing to back whoever the President does end up choosing.

Ruben Castillo, - The judicial version of fictional West Wing President Matt Santos, Castillo would be a strong choice for Souter's replacement. Yet, being the judicial version of Matt Santos is his problem. He, most likely, won't get on the President's shortlist, the first time around at least, because he'll be overlooked in favor of someone else.

Kim McLane Wardlaw, - She's a perfect choice to spend political capital on, if Obama wants to loose capital early. If Congress passes Health Care before Souter retires and Obama has to name a Justice, Wardlaw is definitely in the running. She's liberal, creating a fight with Republicans, and wrote the decision "that said Arizona school officials violated the constitutional rights of a 13-year-old middle school student who was strip-searched in an unsuccessful effort to find drugs." Yet, without major legislative accomplishments coming before the replacement of Souter Obama's unlikely to nominate her. But, the upside of her being on the Supreme Court would be that the Court became more diverse ideologically and we'd certainly get some interesting dissenting/consenting briefs.

Kathleen Sullivan, - Sullivan isn't likely to get past the Senate without a very, very heavy confirmation fight. She's a open advocate of "abortion rights and gay rights." Unfortunately, nearly half-a-century after the Supreme court ruling legalizing abortion, abortion rights are still a major wedge issue. Gay rights won't be as hard to pass by but she'd have a better chance after 2012.

Johnnie Rawlinson, - I agree with SCOTUS Blog that Rawlinson is too conservative to be taken as a serious choice.

Margaret McKeown. - McKoewn believes in the Separation of Church and State, i.e. the Constitution, making her a target for religious conservatives. While she'd be a good choice as a Justice she'd be a better choice if the Court was already solidly left of center.

Ann Williams, - Williams is an African-American woman, like Sears, but, unlike Sears, she was originally appointed by Reagan to the Federal District Court and elevated by Clinton. She's more of a risk, as she's considered a moderate, and might swing to the right on some issues. Williams is not a strong candidate for Obama to propose and, if he wants a more left-of-center Justice, he'll probably keep her off his shortlist.

If anyone has any other names I'd like to hear them. I'd also like to hear your commentary on these potential Justices as well.

Natch Greyes is a Democrat running for Senate in 2020. His campaign platform may be found at natchgreyes.com Read More......

Souter's Retirement Updates

Last night I reported on Justice Souter's plan to retire and possible replacements for him. Today, I can update that with more information.

Last night I came up with 10 names, most courtesy of Salon. Those names were:

Sonia Sotomayor,
Deval Patrick,
Elena Kagan,
Merrick Garland,
Cass Sunstein,
Diane P. Wood,
Jennifer Granholm,
Leah Ward Sears,
Harold Hongju Koh,
Ruben Castillo

Today, the New York Times reports:

"“The President has not received a formal communication from Justice Souter,” Bill Burton, a White House spokesman, said Friday morning, “and he deserves the right to make his own announcement.”" Meaning that I may very well have been right in reporting that Justice Souter might plan to formally announce his retirement next Tuesday in Philadelphia.

Further the Times confirms that "Mr. Obama and his team have been thinking for a long time about whom he might put on the court." And, more importantly some of the names which have been floated recently are reported by the Times. (The Times did not report who floated the names). These potential nominees "are Elena Kagan, whom Mr. Obama named as his solicitor general, and two federal appeals court judges, Sonia Sotomayor and Diane Pamela Wood...other names who might be considered by President Obama include Kathleen M. Sullivan of the Stanford Law School, a former dean there, and Judge Kim M. Wardlaw of the federal appeals court based in California."

Further, "during the campaign, Mr. Obama spoke of his admiration of former Chief Justice Earl M. Warren, citing as a special virtue his practical political experience as a former governor of California. If Mr. Obama were to look to a political figure with a strong legal background, he could turn to an old friend, Deval Patrick, now the Massachusetts governor, Christine Gregoire, governor of Washington, or Jennifer M. Granholm, governor of Michigan."

The Wall Street Journal reports a shortlist of nine names: Jennifer Granholm, Elena Kagan, Harold Hongju Koh, Kim McLane Wardlaw, Deval Patrick, Johnnie Rawlinson, Sonia Sotomayor, Kathleen M. Sullivan, Leah Ward Sears. The Journal seems to be pushing three names the hardest: Sotomayor, Sears and Sullivan. But they do take time to mention Kagan extensively.

The Washington Post gives a couple profiles for those names I missed:

Kim McLane Wardlaw (born 1954), U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. Warlaw worked for the Clinton Justice Department transition team and was nominated by Clinton as a federal judge in 1995, then elevated to the appeals court in 1998. She is a liberal judge on the nation's most liberal appeals court, and she also had a role in a case now before the Supreme Court. She wrote the appeals court decision that said Arizona school officials violated the constitutional rights of a 13-year-old middle school student who was strip-searched in an unsuccessful effort to find drugs.

Kathleen Sullivan (born 1955) Sullivan is a constitutional scholar and former dean of Stanford Law School who has been an active advocate for abortion rights and gay rights. She more recently has represented business interests before the court, and remains director of Stanford's Constitutional Law Center.

The other names the Washington Post mentions I already listed: Sotomayor, Wood, Kagan, Sears, Granholm, Patrick, Castillo, Koh.

The San Francisco Chronicle says that "two friends of Souter said Thursday night that he had often spoken privately of his intention to be the court's first retirement if Obama won the election last fall. They also name a few possibilities:

-- Judge Margaret McKeown of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco.
-- Judge Johnnie Rawlinson of the Ninth U.S. Circuit.
-- Judge Kim McLane Wardlaw of the Ninth U.S. Circuit.
-- Kathleen Sullivan, former dean of Stanford Law School.
-- Pam Karlan, Stanford law professor.
-- Judge Ruben Castillo of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
-- Judge Merrick Garland of the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
-- Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick

Politico reports that "the top candidate, on paper, is Sotomayor, 54, a Clinton appointee to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals." They also throw in a new name:

-- Ann Williams, 59, sits on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. An African-American woman, she could be tough for Republicans to oppose because she was first appointed as a federal district court judge in 1985 by Reagan. Clinton elevated her to the appeals court. Considered a moderate.

More as I get it...

Natch Greyes is a Democrat running for Senate in 2020. His campaign platform may be found at natchgreyes.com Read More......

Obama's Supreme Court Choices

It's on everyone's mind, who will Obama pick to fill Justice Souter's shoes. Unfortunately, we were all beat in making a list. On November 19, 2008 Justin Jouvenal of Salon wrote up a list of 10 potential Obama Supreme Court Nominees. His list:

Sonia Sotomayor, 54 -- After growing up in a Bronx housing project, Sotomayor has risen to become a judge on one of the most powerful courts in the land: the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit. As a Hispanic woman, Sotomayor would make an attractive candidate if Obama is looking to diversify the court. There has never been a Hispanic on the Supreme Court, and there is only one woman currently on the bench, Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Sotomayor might also have bipartisan appeal. She is politically moderate, and President George H.W. Bush appointed her to her first judgeship.

Deval Patrick, 52 -- As the first African-American governor of Massachusetts and a friend of Barack Obama's, Patrick is often mentioned as a potential Supreme Court nominee. Patrick would bring something that is in short supply on the court: executive experience. But he would also bring a major risk: He has never served in the judiciary. Despite that gap in his résumé, he has some background in the law. Before he was governor, Patrick was a lawyer and President Clinton appointed him the assistant attorney general for civil rights in 1994 -- the nation's highest civil rights position. Patrick is solidly liberal and supports a number of positions, such as same-sex marriage, that could make him a target for Republicans during the confirmation process.

Elena Kagan, 48 -- Few names have been floated as often as a potential Obama nominee as Kagan, the dean of the Harvard Law School -- Obama's alma mater. Like Obama, she also taught at the University of Chicago. Kagan served in Clinton's White House as an associate counsel and domestic policy advisor. Clinton nominated her for a position on the prestigious U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, but Republicans stalled her approval. Kagan clerked for Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall.

Merrick Garland, 56 -- President Clinton appointed Garland to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in 1997. Garland also served in the Department of Justice during the Clinton administration; as an associate deputy attorney general he oversaw the Oklahoma City bombing and Unabomber cases. Garland was a clerk for Supreme Court Justice William J. Brennan Jr. This impressive résumé makes him one of the most experienced of Obama's potential nominees. Recently, Garland joined two other judges in throwing out the Bush administration's "enemy combatant" designation for a Chinese Muslim held at Guantánamo Bay. He is considered politically moderate.

Cass Sunstein, 54 -- A preeminent and prolific law scholar and an advisor to Obama's presidential campaign, Sunstein was a colleague of Obama's at the University of Chicago and now teaches at Harvard Law School. Sunstein has decried the Supreme Court's more conservative justices, including Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. He calls them judicial fundamentalists who have advocated "earthquake-like" changes in the law. Sunstein argues for a minimalist approach to jurisprudence. He believes justices' decisions should be narrowly tailored to the case at hand and should lean heavily on precedent. Sunstein has said minimalists believe "the Supreme Court is not our national policy maker."

Diane P. Wood, 58 -- Like Sunstein, Wood is a distinguished law academic. President Clinton nominated Wood to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit in 1995 after she worked in his Department of Justice. She is also a senior lecturer at the University of Chicago Law School and was also a lawyer in private practice. She started her law career as a clerk for Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun. She is considered somewhat liberal.

Jennifer Granholm, 49 -- The governor of Michigan and that state's former attorney general, Granholm has many of the strengths and weaknesses that Deval Patrick has. She would bring executive experience, but she has also never served in the judiciary. Granholm backed Hillary Clinton during the Democratic presidential primary, but she stumped for Obama during the general election and is serving on his economic transition team. She also stood in for Sarah Palin during Joe Biden's preparation for the vice-presidential debate.

Leah Ward Sears, 53 -- She is the first woman to serve as chief justice of the Georgia Supreme Court, but that is hardly Sears' only trailblazing achievement. She was the first woman and the youngest person ever to serve on the court when Gov. Zell Miller appointed her in 1992. She was also the first African-American to serve on a Georgia superior court. Sears, like Sotomayor, will present an attractive pick for Obama if he looks to increase the diversity of the U.S. Supreme Court. Sears plans to step down from the Georgia Supreme Court in June 2009. She describes herself as a moderate, but she has often been targeted by Georgia's conservatives.

Harold Hongju Koh, 53 -- The dean of Yale Law School is a Korean-American and an expert on international law and human rights. From 1998 to 2001, he served as assistant secretary of state for democracy, human rights and labor under President Clinton. He also worked in the Department of Justice. Koh is considered a staunch liberal. He has been an outspoken critic of the Bush administration and former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. He said in an interview with the Yale newspaper that gay rights are especially important to him. Koh also served as a law clerk for Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun.

Ruben Castillo, 54 -- A United States District Court judge in Chicago, Castillo was appointed by President Clinton in 1994. The judge is the son of a Mexican immigrant father and a Puerto Rican mother, and he was the first member of his family to graduate from college. After starting his career in private practice, Castillo became an assistant U.S. attorney in Chicago. During one of Castillo's prosecutions, a drug kingpin took out a contract on his life, and Castillo and his family had to be placed in police protective custody. Castillo also served as the director of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund.

After Justice Ginsburg had surgery for Pancreatic Cancer it would be surprising if Obama didn't have a short list. Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to have leaked yet but "several constitutional scholars who follow judicial appointments said they would be shocked if Obama did not fill the next high court vacancy from the ranks of female judges."

We know Obama "will look to appoint Supreme Court justices in the mold of Justices Stephen Breyer and David Souter." He "will likely turn to people he’s familiar with which seems to put Cass Sunstein on the top of the list. Yet, Sunstein is, obviously, not a woman.

Obama has already named U.S. District Judge David F. Hamilton to the federal appeals court as well as U.S. District Judge Andre Davis to the federal appeals court. This has, according to a legal scholar (whose article I cannot find online), shown Obama is putting pragmatism ahead of stark ideology. This would appear to indicate that Obama is like Bill Clinton in charting a middle course in filling court vacancies, selecting jurists with a prior record and a moderate approach, avoiding messy nomination fights in the Senate.

I'm sure we'll find out more in the next few days but it appears that Obama won't necessarily elevate a jurist, going back to an earlier time when justices were often governors, senators or other political actors.

[Update 1: If Obama's committed to putting a woman on the Court and this really is his short list I think he'd pick Diane Wood.]

[Update 2: Reuters confirms "Candidates include appeals-court judges Diane Wood and Sonia Sotomayor and Harvard Law School Dean Elena Kagan, court watchers say."

Obama's answers on Supreme Court Justices as of 2007 was reported by MSNBC: Obama "offered his own intention to appoint justices with "empathy." Obama hinted that the court's recent decision in Gonzales v. Carhart -- which upheld a ban on partial-birth abortion -- was part of "a concerted effort to steadily roll back" access to abortions. And he ridiculed Justice Anthony Kennedy, who wrote that case's majority opinion. "Justice Kennedy knows many things," he declared, "but my understanding is that he does not know how to be a doctor.""

Further Obama statements on the issue (in February 2008) were reported by The Volokh Conspiracy:

"I taught constitutional law for 10 years, and . . . when you look at what makes a great Supreme Court justice, it's not just the particular issue and how they rule, but it's their conception of the Court. And part of the role of the Court is that it is going to protect people who may be vulnerable in the political process, the outsider, the minority, those who are vulnerable, those who don't have a lot of clout...[S]ometimes we're only looking at academics or people who've been in the [lower] court. If we can find people who have life experience and they understand what it means to be on the outside, what it means to have the system not work for them, that's the kind of person I want on the Supreme Court."

Natch Greyes is a Democrat running for Senate in 2020. His campaign platform may be found at natchgreyes.com Read More......

Souter to Retire

{To think I was in the middle of writing this article when the news broke}

Supreme Court Justice David Souter is finally getting to go back to his house in New Hampshire. Jonathan Singer broke the story earlier today, after AP wondered why he hadn't hired a new law clerk.

AP said: "The case of the missing law clerks is this spring's most-watched mystery at the Supreme Court...eight justices are known to have hired the four law clerks who will work with them in the Supreme Court term that begins in October. Souter appears to be the lone holdout.

Officials at the highest levels of government have taken notice, while the court's press corps is consumed with anxiety.

Why does this matter? Under the scenario that counts, Souter, 69, would not be hiring clerks because he isn't planning to be in Washington in the fall. A retirement would give President Barack Obama his first chance to nominate a justice and the next few months would bring Senate confirmation hearings."

This 'secret' was not too well kept as Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA) has been publicly considering whether to leave his powerful post as senior Republican on the Finance Committee so that he can become the highest-ranking Republican on the Judiciary panel since Senator Arlen Specter is now a Democrat. This, obviously, will will probably affect Grassley's choice but, I wouldn't be surprised, if we heard that Grassley had already heard about the retirement and that's why he was debating the move.

While NPR officially broke the Souter retirement story, it's something that was fairly well known over five hours ago. NPR reports "most observers expect that [President Obama] will appoint a woman."

Souter's speech next Tuesday in Philadelphia, reported by USA Today, is where, I'm betting, he officially announces his retirement.

More as we get it...

[Update 1: I beat CNN, Politico & the LA Times on this story. Nice...And, I've just posted a (partial?) shortlist for Obama.]

Natch Greyes is a Democrat running for Senate in 2020. His campaign platform may be found at natchgreyes.com Read More......

And Check...The Florida Senate Makes A Move

I'm continuing my coverage of the Florida Legislature today, with updates and inside information about the ongoings.

Speaking about the budget, one Lawmaker said, on the condition of anonymity, "I think the bubble of Tallahassee is really seeing it, not realizing that people are going to ask if you're crazy [when you go back home]." So, as you can see, there's still some real chaos going on in Florida, fortunately the State Senate seems to have called 'check' on some of the more insane items. Too bad it's not 'check mate.'

Florida's still debating whether to separate church and state but it's moving closer to that inevitable divorce. Today, the famed 'Jesus' License Plate was all but killed. Yet, the 'Cross' License Plate still lives.

Who, you ask, is responsible for this blasphemy? State Senator Ronda Storms of District 10, pictured below:

I'll reiterate what Amy Hollyfield wrote "Storms' amendment was to create an "I Believe" license plate to benefit Faith in Teaching, an Orlando company that funds faith-based programs at schools." And that 'Faith in Teaching' company, it's website no longer exists and, as far as anyone can tell, the "company" existed only to promote the License Plate. It's time to ramp up the public pressure to kill this nonsense.

In other news, it doesn't look likely that there will be a (Florida) Constitutional Amendment on the 2010 ballot to attempt to subvert the (Federal) Employee Free Choice Act which is expected to pass this year.

Also, it's not likely that another attempt to redress the 'Class Size (Reduction) Amendment' will make it on the ballot in 2010. Currently, the Class Size in Florida Schools is limited by Constitutional Amendment with the specifications: (1) Prekindergarten through grade 3, 18 students; (2) grades 4 through 8, 22 students; and (3) grades 9 through 12, 25 students. This has a been a contentious debate with much ink being spilled over it.

But, in bad news, Bright Futures funding is in serious trouble. "This Florida Lottery-funded scholarship rewards students for their academic achievements during high school by providing funding for them to pursue postsecondary educational and career goals in Florida." Unfortunately, its funding does not currently account for tuition increases so next year, when tuition goes up at State Universities, funding will only cover part of tuition instead of all of tuition. This will be an unpleasant surprise for students and their families next year.

Also, the Energy Bill was passed by the State Senate with a slight change. Instead of 'renewable energy' standards, 'clean energy' standards will be implemented. The only difference? 'Clean energy' includes nuclear energy while 'renewable' does not. By 2020 20% of Florida's energy will, in theory, be 'clean' with 15% of that be 'renewable' while 5% can be nuclear. Of course, all 20% may be 'renewable' but up to 5% can be nuclear.

Natch Greyes is a Democrat running for Senate in 2020. His campaign platform may be found at natchgreyes.com Read More......

Congresswoman Bachmann Proves Her Knowledge of History

Thanks to Talking Points Memo who rewatched C-Span coverage and provided this new (previously unknown) gem about history:

Of course, had Congresswoman Bachmann actually attended history class she would know that it's the the Smoot-Hawley Act, not the fictitious "Hoot-Smalley" Act. This, I might note, was introduced to the Senate by Republican Reed Smoot of Utah and the House by Willis Hawley of Oregon. It was signed into law by President Herbert Hoover, also a Republican.

Minnesota, with the longest contested Senate race in history, is further blighted by Congresswoman Bachmann. I refer to, of course, her other 'historical reference' on Monday, about Swine Flu, where she thought President Carter served during President Ford's term.

Bachmann has become such an embarrassment to some voters that they've spawned the blog "Dump Bachmann," chronicling her missteps in the House.

Natch Greyes is a Democrat running for Senate in 2020. His campaign platform may be found at natchgreyes.com Read More......

Well, that doesn't look good

Aw man...not another scandal for the BC Liberals.

Sean Holman, via The Hook:

As is the case in other jurisdictions, British Columbia’s public sector uses the Big Four international accounting firms to provide auditing and advisory services. But, according to a review of Election British Columbia filings, those same firms donated $136,199 to the governing Liberals between 2005 and 2008 – with $96,794 being contributed by KPMG LLP.
So couldn't those donations put those firms in a perceived conflict?
"We don't believe so," said KPMG national communications director Gordon Braun-Woodbury, whose company has made donations as part of its ongoing sponsorship of the Liberals' resource dinner, the premier's dinner and the leader's open golf tournament.
In fact, according to Braun-Woodbury, KPMG doesn't "look at those (contributions) as political contributions." Instead, "our sponsorship of these events are related to the opportunities they allow us to build business relationships with our clients in both the public and private sectors. So the government holds these events, our clients go and we have a presence there as well. And it's valuable as a business opportunity to us."
That being said, he stressed KPMG is "very, very committed to transparency in all our dealings with government. And that is the reason those amounts are on public record with Elections BC. So we are completely transparent."
KPMG isn't the only accounting firm that's made substantive political contributions to the Liberals – which, by law, are disclosed by the party to Elections British Columbia.
Ernst & Young LLP also donated $23,405.00 to the Liberals during that same period.
But the company's Western Canada managing partner Fred Withers said Ernst & Young LLP "would typically – in fact probably not ever – write a direct donation or cheque to a party, whether it's federal or provincial. So it wouldn't be an Ernst & Young donation. What we have done is we have attended the leadership dinners" hosted by the Liberals, such as last week's Dinner Under The Sails.
"And that would have entailed writing a cheque for $3,500, which is treated as a donation," he said, describing the dinner as a "business network opportunity" that provides the company with a chance to engage "in a dialogue in the community" and "support the political process."

You know, when you're hiring firms which are also donating to your party, it just doesn't look good. I think the Federal Liberals learned that lesson sometime around the Gomery Commission, didn't they? Yeah, ok, sure - this isn't quite the depth of back-and-forthery as the AdScam affair, but it sure brings it to mind.

Of course, the same thing is happening to the Quebec Liberal Party:

QUEBEC CITY — Jean Charest's government was groping to explain a potential conflict of interest scandal Wednesday in which public funds were allegedly steered to companies owned by provincial Liberals.
Documents released by the official opposition showed that a regional economic development fund set up to boost the economy of the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean region was being used to finance companies owned by Liberals located mainly in the Montreal region.
Those who administered the fund, according to the documents, also owned or held shares in the companies receiving money from the same fund.
The fund known as Fier-Boréal 02 Inc. was administered by Pietro Perrino, Valier Boivin and Gilbert Grimaud, all closely linked to the Quebec Liberal party. Mr. Perrino and Mr. Boivin had shares in most of the eight companies that received over $6-million in funds last year from the Fier-Boréal fund, according to Investment Quebec documents.
The regional funds included two-thirds public money and one-third private investments.

Which begs the question: what is it about the name 'Liberal' which seems to attract mysterious movements of public and private dollars?

*Crossposted to The Blog of Walker Read More......

On The Next Season of 24...Oh, Wait....

No, it's not the advertisement for 24's Day 8. It's the GOP's effort to discredit Obama. I liked their choice of theme music and the (random) things blowing up at the end. Too bad some of us actually read/listen/watch the news and realize that the (implied) terrorist attacks haven't happened.

I mean, if we go with the smear strategy of a couple months ago, why would Islamic terrorists risk attacking the US when clearly their leader is now in charge? Wouldn't that risk exposure?

Seriously, someone needs to come up with a coherent message for the GOP.

Natch Greyes is a Democrat running for Senate in 2020. His campaign platform may be found at natchgreyes.com Read More......

Florida's Inability to Seperate Church & State

Yesterday, I reported that the License Plate Wars had all but died today, I'm not so sure. Governor Crist gave this interview, which just surfaced online:

Earlier in the day, Weston Democratic Sen. Nan Rich said she would urge Gov. Charlie Crist to veto proposed license plates that depicted Jesus and that depicted a cross in front of a stained-glass window.

Asked about whether he'd veto the legislation, Crist said no way.

"I would not veto those .... No, I would not," Crist said.

So you don't have a problem with Jesus on a license plate?

Crist: "I don’t. No."

What about separation of church and state?

Crist: “If they don’t want one they don’t have to buy one.”

Is that state endorsement of religion?

"I think it ... What's it say? 'In God We Trust' on every single piece of monetary, coins and paper we have? I think it’s fine."

While this interview occurred on April 27th it's recent emergence online might incite some, religious, elements to continue to push this blatantly illegal legislation. Yeah, the Budget Debate is certainly dragging up some of the worst bits of legislation. Bits that should never have been introduced.

Natch Greyes is a Democrat running for Senate in 2020. His campaign platform may be found at natchgreyes.com Read More......