Gore Blasts Bush for Wiretapping

Today Al Gore came out swinging at King George 43. Oh, to be a fly in the wall wherever Dubyah's hiding on Dr. King's birthday! Here's Al's speech:

Congressman Barr and I have disagreed many times over the years, but we have joined together today with thousands of our fellow citizens-Democrats and Republicans alike-to express our shared concern that America's Constitution is in grave danger.
In spite of our differences over ideology and politics, we are in strong agreement that the American values we hold most dear have been placed at serious risk by the unprecedented claims of the Administration to a truly breathtaking expansion of executive power.
As we begin this new year, the Executive Branch of our government has been caught eavesdropping on huge numbers of American citizens and has brazenly declared that it has the unilateral right to continue without regard to the established law enacted by Congress to prevent such abuses.
It is imperative that respect for the rule of law be restored.
So, many of us have come here to Constitution Hall to sound an alarm and call upon our fellow citizens to put aside partisan differences and join with us in demanding that our Constitution be defended and preserved.
It is appropriate that we make this appeal on the day our nation has set aside to honor the life and legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., who challenged America to breathe new life into our oldest values by extending its promise to all our people.
On this particular Martin Luther King Day, it is especially important to recall that for the last several years of his life, Dr. King was illegally wiretapped-one of hundreds of thousands of Americans whose private communications were intercepted by the U.S. government during this period.
The FBI privately called King the "most dangerous and effective negro leader in the country" and vowed to "take him off his pedestal." The government even attempted to destroy his marriage and blackmail him into committing suicide.
This campaign continued until Dr. King's murder. The discovery that the FBI conducted a long-running and extensive campaign of secret electronic surveillance designed to infiltrate the inner workings of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, and to learn the most intimate details of Dr. King's life, helped to convince Congress to enact restrictions on wiretapping.
The result was the Foreign Intelligence and Surveillance Act (FISA), which was enacted expressly to ensure that foreign intelligence surveillance would be presented to an impartial judge to verify that there is a sufficient cause for the surveillance. I voted for that law during my first term in Congress and for almost thirty years the system has proven a workable and valued means of according a level of protection for private citizens, while permitting foreign surveillance to continue.
Yet, just one month ago, Americans awoke to the shocking news that in spite of this long settled law, the Executive Branch has been secretly spying on large numbers of Americans for the last four years and eavesdropping on "large volumes of telephone calls, e-mail messages, and other Internet traffic inside the United States." The New York Times reported that the President decided to launch this massive eavesdropping program "without search warrants or any new laws that would permit such domestic intelligence collection."
During the period when this eavesdropping was still secret, the President went out of his way to reassure the American people on more than one occasion that, of course, judicial permission is required for any government spying on American citizens and that, of course, these constitutional safeguards were still in place.
But surprisingly, the President's soothing statements turned out to be false. Moreover, as soon as this massive domestic spying program was uncovered by the press, the President not only confirmed that the story was true, but also declared that he has no intention of bringing these wholesale invasions of privacy to an end.
At present, we still have much to learn about the NSA's domestic surveillance. What we do know about this pervasive wiretapping virtually compels the conclusion that the President of the United States has been breaking the law repeatedly and persistently.
A president who breaks the law is a threat to the very structure of our government. Our Founding Fathers were adamant that they had established a government of laws and not men. Indeed, they recognized that the structure of government they had enshrined in our Constitution - our system of checks and balances - was designed with a central purpose of ensuring that it would govern through the rule of law. As John Adams said: "The executive shall never exercise the legislative and judicial powers, or either of them, to the end that it may be a government of laws and not of men."
An executive who arrogates to himself the power to ignore the legitimate legislative directives of the Congress or to act free of the check of the judiciary becomes the central threat that the Founders sought to nullify in the Constitution - an all-powerful executive too reminiscent of the King from whom they had broken free. In the words of James Madison, "the accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny."
Thomas Paine, whose pamphlet, "On Common Sense" ignited the American Revolution, succinctly described America's alternative. Here, he said, we intended to make certain that "the law is king."
Vigilant adherence to the rule of law strengthens our democracy and strengthens America. It ensures that those who govern us operate within our constitutional structure, which means that our democratic institutions play their indispensable role in shaping policy and determining the direction of our nation. It means that the people of this nation ultimately determine its course and not executive officials operating in secret without constraint.
The rule of law makes us stronger by ensuring that decisions will be tested, studied, reviewed and examined through the processes of government that are designed to improve policy. And the knowledge that they will be reviewed prevents over-reaching and checks the accretion of power.
A commitment to openness, truthfulness and accountability also helps our country avoid many serious mistakes. Recently, for example, we learned from recently classified declassified documents that the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, which authorized the tragic Vietnam war, was actually based on false information. We now know that the decision by Congress to authorize the Iraq War, 38 years later, was also based on false information. America would have been better off knowing the truth and avoiding both of these colossal mistakes in our history. Following the rule of law makes us safer, not more vulnerable.
The President and I agree on one thing. The threat from terrorism is all too real. There is simply no question that we continue to face new challenges in the wake of the attack on September 11th and that we must be ever-vigilant in protecting our citizens from harm.
Where we disagree is that we have to break the law or sacrifice our system of government to protect Americans from terrorism. In fact, doing so makes us weaker and more vulnerable.
Once violated, the rule of law is in danger. Unless stopped, lawlessness grows. The greater the power of the executive grows, the more difficult it becomes for the other branches to perform their constitutional roles. As the executive acts outside its constitutionally prescribed role and is able to control access to information that would expose its actions, it becomes increasingly difficult for the other branches to police it. Once that ability is lost, democracy itself is threatened and we become a government of men and not laws.
The President's men have minced words about America's laws. The Attorney General openly conceded that the "kind of surveillance" we now know they have been conducting requires a court order unless authorized by statute. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act self-evidently does not authorize what the NSA has been doing, and no one inside or outside the Administration claims that it does. Incredibly, the Administration claims instead that the surveillance was implicitly authorized when Congress voted to use force against those who attacked us on September 11th.
This argument just does not hold any water. Without getting into the legal intricacies, it faces a number of embarrassing facts. First, another admission by the Attorney General: he concedes that the Administration knew that the NSA project was prohibited by existing law and that they consulted with some members of Congress about changing the statute. Gonzalez says that they were told this probably would not be possible. So how can they now argue that the Authorization for the Use of Military Force somehow implicitly authorized it all along? Second, when the Authorization was being debated, the Administration did in fact seek to have language inserted in it that would have authorized them to use military force domestically - and the Congress did not agree. Senator Ted Stevens and Representative Jim McGovern, among others, made statements during the Authorization debate clearly restating that that Authorization did not operate domestically.
When President Bush failed to convince Congress to give him all the power he wanted when they passed the AUMF, he secretly assumed that power anyway, as if congressional authorization was a useless bother. But as Justice Frankfurter once wrote: "To find authority so explicitly withheld is not merely to disregard in a particular instance the clear will of Congress. It is to disrespect the whole legislative process and the constitutional division of authority between President and Congress."
This is precisely the "disrespect" for the law that the Supreme Court struck down in the steel seizure case.
It is this same disrespect for America's Constitution which has now brought our republic to the brink of a dangerous breach in the fabric of the Constitution. And the disrespect embodied in these apparent mass violations of the law is part of a larger pattern of seeming indifference to the Constitution that is deeply troubling to millions of Americans in both political parties.
For example, the President has also declared that he has a heretofore unrecognized inherent power to seize and imprison any American citizen that he alone determines to be a threat to our nation, and that, notwithstanding his American citizenship, the person imprisoned has no right to talk with a lawyer-even to argue that the President or his appointees have made a mistake and imprisoned the wrong person.
The President claims that he can imprison American citizens indefinitely for the rest of their lives without an arrest warrant, without notifying them about what charges have been filed against them, and without informing their families that they have been imprisoned.
At the same time, the Executive Branch has claimed a previously unrecognized authority to mistreat prisoners in its custody in ways that plainly constitute torture in a pattern that has now been documented in U.S. facilities located in several countries around the world.
Over 100 of these captives have reportedly died while being tortured by Executive Branch interrogators and many more have been broken and humiliated. In the notorious Abu Ghraib prison, investigators who documented the pattern of torture estimated that more than 90 percent of the victims were innocent of any charges.
This shameful exercise of power overturns a set of principles that our nation has observed since General Washington first enunciated them during our Revolutionary War and has been observed by every president since then - until now. These practices violate the Geneva Conventions and the International Convention Against Torture, not to mention our own laws against torture.
The President has also claimed that he has the authority to kidnap individuals in foreign countries and deliver them for imprisonment and interrogation on our behalf by autocratic regimes in nations that are infamous for the cruelty of their techniques for torture.
Some of our traditional allies have been shocked by these new practices on the part of our nation. The British Ambassador to Uzbekistan - one of those nations with the worst reputations for torture in its prisons - registered a complaint to his home office about the senselessness and cruelty of the new U.S. practice: "This material is useless - we are selling our souls for dross. It is in fact positively harmful."
Can it be true that any president really has such powers under our Constitution? If the answer is "yes" then under the theory by which these acts are committed, are there any acts that can on their face be prohibited? If the President has the inherent authority to eavesdrop, imprison citizens on his own declaration, kidnap and torture, then what can't he do?
The Dean of Yale Law School, Harold Koh, said after analyzing the Executive Branch's claims of these previously unrecognized powers: "If the President has commander-in-chief power to commit torture, he has the power to commit genocide, to sanction slavery, to promote apartheid, to license summary execution."
The fact that our normal safeguards have thus far failed to contain this unprecedented expansion of executive power is deeply troubling. This failure is due in part to the fact that the Executive Branch has followed a determined strategy of obfuscating, delaying, withholding information, appearing to yield but then refusing to do so and dissembling in order to frustrate the efforts of the legislative and judicial branches to restore our constitutional balance.
For example, after appearing to support legislation sponsored by John McCain to stop the continuation of torture, the President declared in the act of signing the bill that he reserved the right not to comply with it.
Similarly, the Executive Branch claimed that it could unilaterally imprison American citizens without giving them access to review by any tribunal. The Supreme Court disagreed, but the President engaged in legal maneuvers designed to prevent the Court from providing meaningful content to the rights of its citizens.
A conservative jurist on the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals wrote that the Executive Branch's handling of one such case seemed to involve the sudden abandonment of principle "at substantial cost to the government's credibility before the courts."
As a result of its unprecedented claim of new unilateral power, the Executive Branch has now put our constitutional design at grave risk. The stakes for America's representative democracy are far higher than has been generally recognized.
These claims must be rejected and a healthy balance of power restored to our Republic. Otherwise, the fundamental nature of our democracy may well undergo a radical transformation.
For more than two centuries, America's freedoms have been preserved in part by our founders' wise decision to separate the aggregate power of our government into three co-equal branches, each of which serves to check and balance the power of the other two.
On more than a few occasions, the dynamic interaction among all three branches has resulted in collisions and temporary impasses that create what are invariably labeled "constitutional crises." These crises have often been dangerous and uncertain times for our Republic. But in each such case so far, we have found a resolution of the crisis by renewing our common agreement to live under the rule of law.
The principle alternative to democracy throughout history has been the consolidation of virtually all state power in the hands of a single strongman or small group who together exercise that power without the informed consent of the governed.
It was in revolt against just such a regime, after all, that America was founded. When Lincoln declared at the time of our greatest crisis that the ultimate question being decided in the Civil War was "whether that nation, or any nation so conceived, and so dedicated, can long endure," he was not only saving our union but also was recognizing the fact that democracies are rare in history. And when they fail, as did Athens and the Roman Republic upon whose designs our founders drew heavily, what emerges in their place is another strongman regime.
There have of course been other periods of American history when the Executive Branch claimed new powers that were later seen as excessive and mistaken. Our second president, John Adams, passed the infamous Alien and Sedition Acts and sought to silence and imprison critics and political opponents.
When his successor, Thomas Jefferson, eliminated the abuses he said: "[The essential principles of our Government] form the bright constellation which has gone before us and guided our steps through an age of revolution and reformation... [S]hould we wander from them in moments of error or of alarm, let us hasten to retrace our steps and to regain the road which alone leads to peace, liberty and safety."
Our greatest President, Abraham Lincoln, suspended habeas corpus during the Civil War. Some of the worst abuses prior to those of the current administration were committed by President Wilson during and after WWI with the notorious Red Scare and Palmer Raids. The internment of Japanese Americans during WWII marked a low point for the respect of individual rights at the hands of the executive. And, during the Vietnam War, the notorious COINTELPRO program was part and parcel of the abuses experienced by Dr. King and thousands of others.
But in each of these cases, when the conflict and turmoil subsided, the country recovered its equilibrium and absorbed the lessons learned in a recurring cycle of excess and regret.
There are reasons for concern this time around that conditions may be changing and that the cycle may not repeat itself. For one thing, we have for decades been witnessing the slow and steady accumulation of presidential power. In a global environment of nuclear weapons and cold war tensions, Congress and the American people accepted ever enlarging spheres of presidential initiative to conduct intelligence and counter intelligence activities and to allocate our military forces on the global stage. When military force has been used as an instrument of foreign policy or in response to humanitarian demands, it has almost always been as the result of presidential initiative and leadership. As Justice Frankfurter wrote in the Steel Seizure Case, "The accretion of dangerous power does not come in a day. It does come, however slowly, from the generative force of unchecked disregard of the restrictions that fence in even the most disinterested assertion of authority."
A second reason to believe we may be experiencing something new is that we are told by the Administration that the war footing upon which he has tried to place the country is going to "last for the rest of our lives." So we are told that the conditions of national threat that have been used by other Presidents to justify arrogations of power will persist in near perpetuity.
Third, we need to be aware of the advances in eavesdropping and surveillance technologies with their capacity to sweep up and analyze enormous quantities of information and to mine it for intelligence. This adds significant vulnerability to the privacy and freedom of enormous numbers of innocent people at the same time as the potential power of those technologies. These techologies have the potential for shifting the balance of power between the apparatus of the state and the freedom of the individual in ways both subtle and profound.
Don't misunderstand me: the threat of additional terror strikes is all too real and their concerted efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction does create a real imperative to exercise the powers of the Executive Branch with swiftness and agility. Moreover, there is in fact an inherent power that is conferred by the Constitution to the President to take unilateral action to protect the nation from a sudden and immediate threat, but it is simply not possible to precisely define in legalistic terms exactly when that power is appropriate and when it is not.
But the existence of that inherent power cannot be used to justify a gross and excessive power grab lasting for years that produces a serious imbalance in the relationship between the executive and the other two branches of government.
There is a final reason to worry that we may be experiencing something more than just another cycle of overreach and regret. This Administration has come to power in the thrall of a legal theory that aims to convince us that this excessive concentration of presidential authority is exactly what our Constitution intended.
This legal theory, which its proponents call the theory of the unitary executive but which is more accurately described as the unilateral executive, threatens to expand the president's powers until the contours of the constitution that the Framers actually gave us become obliterated beyond all recognition. Under this theory, the President's authority when acting as Commander-in-Chief or when making foreign policy cannot be reviewed by the judiciary or checked by Congress. President Bush has pushed the implications of this idea to its maximum by continually stressing his role as Commander-in-Chief, invoking it has frequently as he can, conflating it with his other roles, domestic and foreign. When added to the idea that we have entered a perpetual state of war, the implications of this theory stretch quite literally as far into the future as we can imagine.
This effort to rework America's carefully balanced constitutional design into a lopsided structure dominated by an all powerful Executive Branch with a subservient Congress and judiciary is-ironically-accompanied by an effort by the same administration to rework America's foreign policy from one that is based primarily on U.S. moral authority into one that is based on a misguided and self-defeating effort to establish dominance in the world.
The common denominator seems to be based on an instinct to intimidate and control.
This same pattern has characterized the effort to silence dissenting views within the Executive Branch, to censor information that may be inconsistent with its stated ideological goals, and to demand conformity from all Executive Branch employees.
For example, CIA analysts who strongly disagreed with the White House assertion that Osama bin Laden was linked to Saddam Hussein found themselves under pressure at work and became fearful of losing promotions and salary increases.
Ironically, that is exactly what happened to FBI officials in the 1960s who disagreed with J. Edgar Hoover's view that Dr. King was closely connected to Communists. The head of the FBI's domestic intelligence division said that his effort to tell the truth about King's innocence of the charge resulted in he and his colleagues becoming isolated and pressured. "It was evident that we had to change our ways or we would all be out on the street.... The men and I discussed how to get out of trouble. To be in trouble with Mr. Hoover was a serious matter. These men were trying to buy homes, mortgages on homes, children in school. They lived in fear of getting transferred, losing money on their homes, as they usually did. ... so they wanted another memorandum written to get us out of the trouble that we were in."
The Constitution's framers understood this dilemma as well, as Alexander Hamilton put it, "a power over a man's support is a power over his will." (Federalist No. 73)
Soon, there was no more difference of opinion within the FBI. The false accusation became the unanimous view. In exactly the same way, George Tenet's CIA eventually joined in endorsing a manifestly false view that there was a linkage between al Qaeda and the government of Iraq.
In the words of George Orwell: "We are all capable of believing things which we know to be untrue, and then, when we are finally proved wrong, impudently twisting the facts so as to show that we were right. Intellectually, it is possible to carry on this process for an indefinite time: the only check on it is that sooner or later a false belief bumps up against solid reality, usually on a battlefield."
Whenever power is unchecked and unaccountable it almost inevitably leads to mistakes and abuses. In the absence of rigorous accountability, incompetence flourishes. Dishonesty is encouraged and rewarded.
Last week, for example, Vice President Cheney attempted to defend the Administration's eavesdropping on American citizens by saying that if it had conducted this program prior to 9/11, they would have found out the names of some of the hijackers.
Tragically, he apparently still doesn't know that the Administration did in fact have the names of at least 2 of the hijackers well before 9/11 and had available to them information that could have easily led to the identification of most of the other hijackers. And yet, because of incompetence in the handling of this information, it was never used to protect the American people.
It is often the case that an Executive Branch beguiled by the pursuit of unchecked power responds to its own mistakes by reflexively proposing that it be given still more power. Often, the request itself it used to mask accountability for mistakes in the use of power it already has.
Moreover, if the pattern of practice begun by this Administration is not challenged, it may well become a permanent part of the American system. Many conservatives have pointed out that granting unchecked power to this President means that the next President will have unchecked power as well. And the next President may be someone whose values and belief you do not trust. And this is why Republicans as well as Democrats should be concerned with what this President has done. If this President's attempt to dramatically expand executive power goes unquestioned, our constitutional design of checks and balances will be lost. And the next President or some future President will be able, in the name of national security, to restrict our liberties in a way the framers never would have thought possible.
The same instinct to expand its power and to establish dominance characterizes the relationship between this Administration and the courts and the Congress.
In a properly functioning system, the Judicial Branch would serve as the constitutional umpire to ensure that the branches of government observed their proper spheres of authority, observed civil liberties and adhered to the rule of law. Unfortunately, the unilateral executive has tried hard to thwart the ability of the judiciary to call balls and strikes by keeping controversies out of its hands - notably those challenging its ability to detain individuals without legal process -- by appointing judges who will be deferential to its exercise of power and by its support of assaults on the independence of the third branch.
The President's decision to ignore FISA was a direct assault on the power of the judges who sit on that court. Congress established the FISA court precisely to be a check on executive power to wiretap. Yet, to ensure that the court could not function as a check on executive power, the President simply did not take matters to it and did not let the court know that it was being bypassed.
The President's judicial appointments are clearly designed to ensure that the courts will not serve as an effective check on executive power. As we have all learned, Judge Alito is a longtime supporter of a powerful executive - a supporter of the so-called unitary executive, which is more properly called the unilateral executive. Whether you support his confirmation or not - and I do not - we must all agree that he will not vote as an effective check on the expansion of executive power. Likewise, Chief Justice Roberts has made plain his deference to the expansion of executive power through his support of judicial deference to executive agency rulemaking.
And the Administration has supported the assault on judicial independence that has been conducted largely in Congress. That assault includes a threat by the Republican majority in the Senate to permanently change the rules to eliminate the right of the minority to engage in extended debate of the President's judicial nominees. The assault has extended to legislative efforts to curtail the jurisdiction of courts in matters ranging from habeas corpus to the pledge of allegiance. In short, the Administration has demonstrated its contempt for the judicial role and sought to evade judicial review of its actions at every turn.
But the most serious damage has been done to the legislative branch. The sharp decline of congressional power and autonomy in recent years has been almost as shocking as the efforts by the Executive Branch to attain a massive expansion of its power.
I was elected to Congress in 1976 and served eight years in the house, 8 years in the Senate and presided over the Senate for 8 years as Vice President. As a young man, I saw the Congress first hand as the son of a Senator. My father was elected to Congress in 1938, 10 years before I was born, and left the Senate in 1971.
The Congress we have today is unrecognizable compared to the one in which my father served. There are many distinguished Senators and Congressmen serving today. I am honored that some of them are here in this hall. But the legislative branch of government under its current leadership now operates as if it is entirely subservient to the Executive Branch.
Moreover, too many Members of the House and Senate now feel compelled to spend a majority of their time not in thoughtful debate of the issues, but raising money to purchase 30 second TV commercials.
There have now been two or three generations of congressmen who don't really know what an oversight hearing is. In the 70's and 80's, the oversight hearings in which my colleagues and I participated held the feet of the Executive Branch to the fire - no matter which party was in power. Yet oversight is almost unknown in the Congress today.
The role of authorization committees has declined into insignificance. The 13 annual appropriation bills are hardly ever actually passed anymore. Everything is lumped into a single giant measure that is not even available for Members of Congress to read before they vote on it.
Members of the minority party are now routinely excluded from conference committees, and amendments are routinely not allowed during floor consideration of legislation.
In the United States Senate, which used to pride itself on being the "greatest deliberative body in the world," meaningful debate is now a rarity. Even on the eve of the fateful vote to authorize the invasion of Iraq, Senator Robert Byrd famously asked: "Why is this chamber empty?"
In the House of Representatives, the number who face a genuinely competitive election contest every two years is typically less than a dozen out of 435.
And too many incumbents have come to believe that the key to continued access to the money for re-election is to stay on the good side of those who have the money to give; and, in the case of the majority party, the whole process is largely controlled by the incumbent president and his political organization.
So the willingness of Congress to challenge the Administration is further limited when the same party controls both Congress and the Executive Branch.
The Executive Branch, time and again, has co-opted Congress' role, and often Congress has been a willing accomplice in the surrender of its own power.
Look for example at the Congressional role in "overseeing" this massive four year eavesdropping campaign that on its face seemed so clearly to violate the Bill of Rights. The President says he informed Congress, but what he really means is that he talked with the chairman and ranking member of the House and Senate intelligence committees and the top leaders of the House and Senate. This small group, in turn, claimed that they were not given the full facts, though at least one of the intelligence committee leaders handwrote a letter of concern to VP Cheney and placed a copy in his own safe.
Though I sympathize with the awkward position in which these men and women were placed, I cannot disagree with the Liberty Coalition when it says that Democrats as well as Republicans in the Congress must share the blame for not taking action to protest and seek to prevent what they consider a grossly unconstitutional program.
Moreover, in the Congress as a whole-both House and Senate-the enhanced role of money in the re-election process, coupled with the sharply diminished role for reasoned deliberation and debate, has produced an atmosphere conducive to pervasive institutionalized corruption.
The Abramoff scandal is but the tip of a giant iceberg that threatens the integrity of the entire legislative branch of government.
It is the pitiful state of our legislative branch which primarily explains the failure of our vaunted checks and balances to prevent the dangerous overreach by our Executive Branch which now threatens a radical transformation of the American system.
I call upon Democratic and Republican members of Congress today to uphold your oath of office and defend the Constitution. Stop going along to get along. Start acting like the independent and co-equal branch of government you're supposed to be.
But there is yet another Constitutional player whose pulse must be taken and whose role must be examined in order to understand the dangerous imbalance that has emerged with the efforts by the Executive Branch to dominate our constitutional system.
We the people are-collectively-still the key to the survival of America's democracy. We-as Lincoln put it, "[e]ven we here"-must examine our own role as citizens in allowing and not preventing the shocking decay and degradation of our democracy.
Thomas Jefferson said: "An informed citizenry is the only true repository of the public will."
The revolutionary departure on which the idea of America was based was the audacious belief that people can govern themselves and responsibly exercise the ultimate authority in self-government. This insight proceeded inevitably from the bedrock principle articulated by the Enlightenment philosopher John Locke: "All just power is derived from the consent of the governed."
The intricate and carefully balanced constitutional system that is now in such danger was created with the full and widespread participation of the population as a whole. The Federalist Papers were, back in the day, widely-read newspaper essays, and they represented only one of twenty-four series of essays that crowded the vibrant marketplace of ideas in which farmers and shopkeepers recapitulated the debates that played out so fruitfully in Philadelphia.
Indeed, when the Convention had done its best, it was the people - in their various States - that refused to confirm the result until, at their insistence, the Bill of Rights was made integral to the document sent forward for ratification.
And it is "We the people" who must now find once again the ability we once had to play an integral role in saving our Constitution.
And here there is cause for both concern and great hope. The age of printed pamphlets and political essays has long since been replaced by television - a distracting and absorbing medium which sees determined to entertain and sell more than it informs and educates.
Lincoln's memorable call during the Civil War is applicable in a new way to our dilemma today: "We must disenthrall ourselves, and then we shall save our country."
Forty years have passed since the majority of Americans adopted television as their principal source of information. Its dominance has become so extensive that virtually all significant political communication now takes place within the confines of flickering 30-second television advertisements.
And the political economy supported by these short but expensive television ads is as different from the vibrant politics of America's first century as those politics were different from the feudalism which thrived on the ignorance of the masses of people in the Dark Ages.
The constricted role of ideas in the American political system today has encouraged efforts by the Executive Branch to control the flow of information as a means of controlling the outcome of important decisions that still lie in the hands of the people.
The Administration vigorously asserts its power to maintain the secrecy of its operations. After all, the other branches can't check an abuse of power if they don't know it is happening.
For example, when the Administration was attempting to persuade Congress to enact the Medicare prescription drug benefit, many in the House and Senate raised concerns about the cost and design of the program. But, rather than engaging in open debate on the basis of factual data, the Administration withheld facts and prevented the Congress from hearing testimony that it sought from the principal administration expert who had compiled information showing in advance of the vote that indeed the true cost estimates were far higher than the numbers given to Congress by the President.
Deprived of that information, and believing the false numbers given to it instead, the Congress approved the program. Tragically, the entire initiative is now collapsing- all over the country- with the Administration making an appeal just this weekend to major insurance companies to volunteer to bail it out.
To take another example, scientific warnings about the catastrophic consequences of unchecked global warming were censored by a political appointee in the White House who had no scientific training. And today one of the leading scientific experts on global warming in NASA has been ordered not to talk to members of the press and to keep a careful log of everyone he meets with so that the Executive Branch can monitor and control his discussions of global warming.
One of the other ways the Administration has tried to control the flow of information is by consistently resorting to the language and politics of fear in order to short-circuit the debate and drive its agenda forward without regard to the evidence or the public interest. As President Eisenhower said, "Any who act as if freedom's defenses are to be found in suppression and suspicion and fear confess a doctrine that is alien to America."
Fear drives out reason. Fear suppresses the politics of discourse and opens the door to the politics of destruction. Justice Brandeis once wrote: "Men feared witches and burnt women."
The founders of our country faced dire threats. If they failed in their endeavors, they would have been hung as traitors. The very existence of our country was at risk.
Yet, in the teeth of those dangers, they insisted on establishing the Bill of Rights.
Is our Congress today in more danger than were their predecessors when the British army was marching on the Capitol? Is the world more dangerous than when we faced an ideological enemy with tens of thousands of missiles poised to be launched against us and annihilate our country at a moment's notice? Is America in more danger now than when we faced worldwide fascism on the march-when our fathers fought and won two World Wars simultaneously?
It is simply an insult to those who came before us and sacrificed so much on our behalf to imply that we have more to be fearful of than they. Yet they faithfully protected our freedoms and now it is up to us to do the same.
We have a duty as Americans to defend our citizens' right not only to life but also to liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It is therefore vital in our current circumstances that immediate steps be taken to safeguard our Constitution against the present danger posed by the intrusive overreaching on the part of the Executive Branch and the President's apparent belief that he need not live under the rule of law.
I endorse the words of Bob Barr, when he said, "The President has dared the American people to do something about it. For the sake of the Constitution, I hope they will."
A special counsel should immediately be appointed by the Attorney General to remedy the obvious conflict of interest that prevents him from investigating what many believe are serious violations of law by the President. We have had a fresh demonstration of how an independent investigation by a special counsel with integrity can rebuild confidence in our system of justice. Patrick Fitzgerald has, by all accounts, shown neither fear nor favor in pursuing allegations that the Executive Branch has violated other laws.
Republican as well as Democratic members of Congress should support the bipartisan call of the Liberty Coalition for the appointment of a special counsel to pursue the criminal issues raised by warrantless wiretapping of Americans by the President.
Second, new whistleblower protections should immediately be established for members of the Executive Branch who report evidence of wrongdoing -- especially where it involves the abuse of Executive Branch authority in the sensitive areas of national security.
Third, both Houses of Congress should hold comprehensive-and not just superficial-hearings into these serious allegations of criminal behavior on the part of the President. And, they should follow the evidence wherever it leads.
Fourth, the extensive new powers requested by the Executive Branch in its proposal to extend and enlarge the Patriot Act should, under no circumstances be granted, unless and until there are adequate and enforceable safeguards to protect the Constitution and the rights of the American people against the kinds of abuses that have so recently been revealed.
Fifth, any telecommunications company that has provided the government with access to private information concerning the communications of Americans without a proper warrant should immediately cease and desist their complicity in this apparently illegal invasion of the privacy of American citizens.
Freedom of communication is an essential prerequisite for the restoration of the health of our democracy.
It is particularly important that the freedom of the Internet be protected against either the encroachment of government or the efforts at control by large media conglomerates. The future of our democracy depends on it.
I mentioned that along with cause for concern, there is reason for hope. As I stand here today, I am filled with optimism that America is on the eve of a golden age in which the vitality of our democracy will be re-established and will flourish more vibrantly than ever. Indeed I can feel it in this hall.
As Dr. King once said, "Perhaps a new spirit is rising among us. If it is, let us trace its movements and pray that our own inner being may be sensitive to its guidance, for we are deeply in need of a new way beyond the darkness that seems so close around us."

I Surrender- Google Rules

Google to offer video download service - What now?! I give in - quite happily -- to these guys, who always seem to be one, two, no-- 10 steps ahaead of everybody else.

Their stock is predicted to grow to $600/share. Worth every penny -- maybe they could help out by setting up a download $20 bill program. That way, I could save up for a share.

After almost 3 years, a "plan" for Iraq

This just in from the White House PR department - People want to see "a plan." So in about 20 minutes, Bush will make a speech at the Naval Academy to announce the "National Strategy for Victory in Iraq" If Bush ever wanted to impress Americans, he's speak on a college campus ... one that doesn't have to salute him. Go back to Yale or Harvard, George. Get them to applaud. To save yourself some time, I recommend printing off Bush's stump speeches that he's delivered to crowds he can imprision for talking back (military), throw them into your blender, hit "liquify" and this stuff will spit out the other end.
The short version -- after next month's elections, Rumsfeld will declare that all of America's hard work and sacrifice have paid off and General Casey's plan for drawing down troops will begin in earnest in January. Half the troops will be home by the August congressional recess next summer -- fall election time.
Rummy is a flake, okay? He said yesterday that he "thought about it over the weekend" and decided that the term "insurgent" gave those who were blowing themselves up too much legitimacy, so he's going to stop using it. Have you noticed that Bush has already switched to calling them terrorists instead? He must have been sitting in Rummy's lap (where he's been for 5 years) when the revelation came to him.

We have met the enemy ... in the mirror

The evil do-ers who use chemical weapons in the Middle East are ... who? Take a look at Shake and Bake - New York Times and decide for yourself. How many ways does this administration plan to use to humiliate Americans by abusing others in our name?

"U.S. Officials say ..."

Which way it it? This morning CNN reports that U.S. Officials said they "just missed" al-Zarqawi, but on their web site they say that reports the bad, bad guy was killed last weekend are "highly unlikely according to U.S. Officials." Now CNN debunks itself simultaneously?

Elephant Droppings

OhmyGod, it's shocking -- shocking! The Bush Administration forced its Medicare actuary to keep his yap shut about the actual expected cost ($500-$600 Billion, not the $400 billion as advertised) of the new drug benefit. From the New York Times story today: "Perhaps the most striking example of the administration's bypassing the bureaucracy to accomplish a political goal occurred in late 2003 when the Medicare actuary, Richard S. Foster, was told by his politically appointed boss that he would be fired if he gave Congress his best estimate of the cost of the administration's prescription-drug plan. If he had told the truth - that his projections showed the bill would cost $500 billion to $600 billion over 10 years, not $400 billion, as the administration was saying publicly - the bill surely would not have passed in the House, Republicans and Democrats agree."

Too bad Foster did what he was told.

Show, tell and get fired

In the 10 commandments there's something about not bearing false witness. This is not just about not lying, it's about not falsely accusing someone. So check this out -- one kid (elementary age) accuses another of stealing $5.00. The principal takes the accused kid from room to room and holds her up to the classes as "a liar and a thief."

But then, oops, sorry, the accuser recants her story. After a three-day paid suspension (isn't that "vacation"?) the principal is forced to resign. I'm guessing she goes straight to Dick Cheney's office to apply for a job.

Go Chuck, Go

Senator Chuck Hagel, (R-Nebraska) has poked back at the Bush administration for its BS tactics of accusing any critic of giving comfort to the terrorists in Iraq and elsewhere. What a breath of fresh air this is from one of the last real moderate Republicans on the planet. Between this and the John McCain piece in this week's Newsweek, it's no wonder Bush left the continent. Does he have to come back?

Offensive Iraq

"I demand on behalf of the America people that we understand why these investigations aren't being conducted," Democratic leader Harry Reid said.

With this, Reid invoked Rule 21 and closed the Senate session to discuss this matter of national security (how the administration ginned up the intelligence to support the war). Crybaby (Majority Leader) Bill Frist ran out the door into the arms of CNN to complain. About the outrageous accusation? No. That democrats have lost their minds? No.

That he was insulted -that tradition and procedure were not followed in notifying him.

You know what? Tough shit. War is hell, Frist. Answer the f*cking question -- why isn't the Senate investigating the manipulation of intelligence that "justified" this war? Why aren't they investigating a breach of national security represented by the deliberate leak of a CIA officer's name?

The answer thus far appears to be that Republicans' loyalty, which is supposed to be to the Constitution and the greater good of the country, is instead to the person sitting in the Oval Office and behind the curtain at the Naval Observatory.

Oh, shocking -- another white male justice

It's no damn surprise to me ... just proof in the pudding. C'mon - George is a simple guy with a simple plan.

He doesn't give a sh*t about a Supreme Court that represents all Americans. He certainly doesn't think of the seat he's filling as belonging to a moderate justice, but that's his right. He wants a court that represents his America -- corporate, white and male. Unfortunately, these are the spoils of the election of 2004and the very thing that should have driven many more democrats to the polls.

So he nominates Miers and no one can dare to suggest that maybe he did so knowing that she'd never get to the hearings. Knowing that she'd be blasted for being unqualified and knowing that she would back out when she was hammered in the press. She was a lamb sent to slaughter.

No matter, he always intended to send up a reactionary conservative and a white male. By shoving Harriet in front of a train, he can say he tried. Baloney.

So all that crap he floated about the importance of diversity? Forget it. He sure will -- quicker than Scooter Libby will lose all recollection of when he first heard about ... what was her name?

Justice Poetic

There once was a bonehead named "Scooter"
Whose fortunes landed right in the pooter
He lied, cheated, stole
Then dug quite a hole
As his nose grew longer, dropping cooters

Then came the good guys, like Fitz
He asked all the questions, took no shits
He charged Scooter - bam
Five big counts, quite a jam

The defense we are told
Is planned to be bold
Because Libby was busy
He'll claim t'was a tizzy
He'd forgotten the facts - oh, that's old.

And it doesn't rhyme with anything, but crap like this you wouldn't accept from you 8-year-old.

Getting Mier'd Down

Pathetic. Read Harriet's why-I-can't-take-that-great-job-offer letter to Bush.
What a visionary. She's suddenly realized that she'd have to either hand over records or testify to her views on issues that have come up while she was White House Counsel? Oh, no ... she must preserve executive privilege? For the sake of "this great Nation" ... what, the magazine? Why is that capitalized? Why is " ... your Administration" capitalized?

You know, I think the English language can be difficult to navigate, but not as tough as the U.S. Constitution. If the woman doesn't know how to follow the rules of English grammar, I feel pretty sure that looking up all those big words would have been too much for her. Put simply, this job was waaaaay over her head and this withdrawl, for whatever reason, is simple, obvious proof that Bush made a brazenly incompetent choice.

More Savage Inequalities

Jonathan Kozol, author of "Savage Inequalities," has another book out, revealing the continuation of obscene inqualities in America's Schools. Read about it on Bloomberg.com or at the publisher's site.

If you still think it's not about race ... uh ... you're blind.

Sure, blame Maureen

Interesting to me is that this morning radio talk show host Don Imus asked NY Times Columnist Maureen Dowd about this column (see below) which he aptly described as "dropping a safe" on Judy Miller. Dowd's response: "If I'm going to hold accountable institutions I care about, then I have to be willing to do the same for an institution like The Times, which I love."

Imus (pig that he is) said that the "attack" on Miller "seems personal." Does this sound familiar? What's next? "You-should-have-called-me-before-you-ran-this" ?

Miller, according the Wall Street Journal, is on the way to the parking lot.

Anyway ... Dowd's column is now available on the Times' website only to readers who subscribe to their "Tmes Select" product, so I'm pasting it in here. They can sue me (and a hundred other bloggers). Dowd, for proving her integrity, has been moved to Saturday after 10 years on the Times' Sunday edit page. Lame. Cheap. Pathetic. Maybe we should throw our Sunday papers back at the newsstand or something.

If you EVER thought about writing to a newspaper to complain about the bad treatment of a columnist who was holding her management to an appropriate standard of professional conduct, now is the time. Send a letter to the editor by e-mailing letters@nytimes.com or faxing (212)556-3622.

But first, make sure you read this column, which ends with a helluva punch:

Woman of Mass Destruction
By Maureen Dowd
The New York Times
Saturday 22 October 2005

I've always liked Judy Miller. I have often wondered what Waugh or Thackeray would have made of the Fourth Estate's Becky Sharp.
The traits she has that drive many reporters at The Times crazy - her tropism toward powerful men, her frantic intensity and her peculiar mixture of hard work and hauteur - never bothered me. I enjoy operatic types.
Once when I was covering the first Bush White House, I was in The Times' seat in the crowded White House press room, listening to an administration official's background briefing. Judy had moved on from her tempestuous tenure as a Washington editor to be a reporter based in New York, but she showed up at this national security affairs briefing.
At first she leaned against the wall near where I was sitting, but I noticed that she seemed agitated about something. Midway through the briefing, she came over and whispered to me, "I think I should be sitting in the Times seat."
It was such an outrageous move, I could only laugh. I got up and stood in the back of the room, while Judy claimed what she felt was her rightful power perch.
She never knew when to quit. That was her talent and her flaw. Sorely in need of a tight editorial leash, she was kept on no leash at all, and that has hurt this paper and its trust with readers. She more than earned her sobriquet "Miss Run Amok."
Judy's stories about WMD fit too perfectly with the White House's case for war. She was close to Ahmad Chalabi, the con man who was conning the neocons to knock out Saddam so he could get his hands on Iraq, and I worried that she was playing a leading role in the dangerous echo chamber that former Senator Bob Graham dubbed "incestuous amplification." Using Iraqi defectors and exiles, Mr. Chalabi planted bogus stories with Judy and other credulous journalists.
Even last April, when I wrote a column critical of Mr. Chalabi, she fired off e-mail to me defending him.
When Bill Keller became executive editor in the summer of 2003, he barred Judy from covering Iraq and W.M.D issues. But he admitted in The Times' Sunday story about Judy's role in the Plame leak case that she had kept "drifting" back. Why did nobody stop this drift?
Judy admitted in the story that she "got it totally wrong" about WMD "If your sources are wrong," she said, "you are wrong." But investigative reporting is not stenography.
The Times' story and Judy's own first-person account had the unfortunate effect of raising more questions. As Bill said in an e-mail note to the staff on Friday, Judy seemed to have "misled" the Washington bureau chief, Phil Taubman, about the extent of her involvement in the Valerie Plame leak case.
She casually revealed that she had agreed to identify her source, Scooter Libby, Dick Cheney's chief of staff, as a "former Hill staffer" because he had once worked on Capitol Hill. The implication was that this bit of deception was a common practice for reporters. It isn't.
She said that she had wanted to write about the Wilson-Plame matter, but that her editor would not allow it. But Managing Editor Jill Abramson, then the Washington bureau chief, denied this, saying that Judy had never broached the subject with her.
It also doesn't seem credible that Judy wouldn't remember a Marvel comics name like "Valerie Flame." Nor does it seem credible that she doesn't know how the name got into her notebook and that, as she wrote, she "did not believe the name came from Mr. Libby."
An Associated Press story yesterday reported that Judy had coughed up the details of an earlier meeting with Mr. Libby only after prosecutors confronted her with a visitor log showing that she had met with him on June 23, 2003. This cagey confusion is what makes people wonder whether her stint in the Alexandria jail was in part a career rehabilitation project.
Judy is refusing to answer a lot of questions put to her by Times reporters, or show the notes that she shared with the grand jury. I admire Arthur Sulzberger Jr. and Bill Keller for aggressively backing reporters in the cross hairs of a prosecutor. But before turning Judy's case into a First Amendment battle, they should have nailed her to a chair and extracted the entire story of her escapade.
Judy told The Times that she plans to write a book and intends to return to the newsroom, hoping to cover "the same thing I've always covered - threats to our country." If that were to happen, the institution most in danger would be the newspaper in your hands.

When Faith Runs Policy - Wag The Dogma

If I hear one more time (and I will) that Harriet Miers' faith is the reason (wink, wink) that conservatives should "relax and support her," I believe I will throw up. (Get the bucket, here it comes)

Remember "relax and enjoy it" ... the good-ole-boys anti-rape strategy. Throwing up works better for that violation, too.

Being a good lawyer is not a qualification for serving on the high court. Neither is having ovaries. But in his most egregious effort to prove that he can do whatever he likes, George Bush has put his "work wife" up to replace a genuinely qualified and tempered voice on the court, Sandra Day O'Connor -- a judge with whom I have disagreed plenty (Bush v. Gore, 2000) but I respect her and consider her to be a fair judge who is devoted to only one thing professionally -- the Constitution.

But Miers is devoted to Bush - a man she considers to be brilliant. Exactly how much evidence of bad judgment do we need?!

I was always kind of fond of this idea of separating Church and State. Bush's galling "defense" of Miers (citing her faith as the key to his defense) is utterly repugnant. No one can attest to another faith -- that's not just ridiculous, it's completely insulting to Miers and to people of actual faith, which usually involves characteristics of humility and reverence for its deeply personal quality.

Herald-Sun's "More Local News" ="No News"

As is so often true, The Independent's Fiona Morgan has nailed it in this week's "Triangles" section. Don't miss her blast of the Herald-Sun's sorry excuse for coverage of the Durham's Most Wanted (city council/mayor) races. Reporter Ray Gronberg's eventual story was little more than a middle school book report on the News & Observer's right-on coverage of Vincent Brown, then-candidate for mayor and convicted felon.

I won't replay Fiona's story, except to comment that Herald-Sun Editor Bob Ashley makes some disturbing comments for the story (hey, glad he talked to her ... an improvement over the stonewall strategy). He says, for example that they didn't want to just reiterate the N&O's coverage and were looking for a new angle on the story. For five days?! Is he on FEMA time?

Second (and more alarming IF it's true) he said that they routinely do criminal background checks on candidates and that theirs turned up nothing on Brown. Multiple convictions and 100 charges, but they turned up nothing? Maybe the Ouija board isn't the best method, Bob.

Durham's distinguished candidates

Oh, Lord. It's not bad enough that half the candidates for city council in Durham have been convicted of one thing or another, then comes this factor ... holy crap, this one's a real head case.

To wit, Carolina James-Rivera, candidate for Ward #2 (wait, is that the psych ward)? Here are some snippets from her interview/questionairre with the Herald-$un. These are only highlights ... if you really want to enjoy yourself, make some popcorn and read the whole thing.

"To disrespect a USA Military Mans' wife, children and home in front of the world is the lowest of a war crime one can comment."

"It's been over two year since the release of my brain wash daughter that was hardored from home and school with and sexual, physical and mental abuser. My parent rights was stolen as her youth years."

"It took a flood to prove to me that African American are not equal to any human or animal. As well to be reinstated to vote in 2007 clearify the abuse my family experience in front of the whole city of Durham the past eight years."

Within her answer to the question What would be your top priorities in office?:
"to Qestion City Manager and City Mayor of Health Care provider drugging me to cover up scandal."

To the question Why are you qualified to hold this office?
"1) Durham North, Carolina Michael Peterson scandal rebellion, revange, hate crime, copy cat murder case scandal movie."

Follow the bread

We all remember that famous story about Willy Sutton, the 1930s bankrobber, who was asked why he robbed banks. "That's where the money is," he said.

So, if you're in it for the bread, you have to appreciate the giggle in this story of a Chapel Hill restaurant getting ripped off recently. I wonder if the robbers made out with any dough.

Never Trust a Grown Man Named "Scooter"

At last, the NY Times reporter-who-didn't, Judith Miller, is free. She was finally released from her confidentiality agreement with VP Cheney's Chief of Staff, Scooter Libby and testified today on the whys and wherefores of his and Carl Rove's leakage of Valerie Plame Wilson's identity.

Soon, we hope, the right guys will be off to prison or at least off the government's payroll. One of those two buggers should be indicted by Halloween. Trick or Treat.

As for Miller, God bless her, she didn't even write the damn story that outed Plame's CIA operative status. That was Bob Novak, a washed up hack of a columnist who is now suspended from CNN for cursing and walking off the set during a live broadcast. (Suddenly, James Carville was able to offen him -- amazing) Miller, in fact, wrote no story related to the matter. Eventually she will, I'm sure, and that should be a real page-turner.

Watching Those Lemmings in Texas

Last week I watched the long, long lines of SUVs sitting on the highways outside Houston, sitting ... waiting ... running out of gas. Looking at the helicopter shots of miles of stopped traffic, I had to laugh -- I mean, really, I just couldn't help it.

See, here were all these people trying to evacuate to avoid injury in a hurricane. They were doing the right thing. Unfortunately, they left some of their common sense back at home, locked up tight. Here you are on the interstate in the midst of many miles of stopped traffic. Coming the opposite direction are three lanes of open pavement with a car here and their occasionally.

And you sit there? In your kick-ass $50,000 this-thing-can-climb-Everest SUV? No, I don't think so.

I think you drive over (or IN) the grassy meridian and you carefully proceed up the breakdown lane in the opposite direction. In 30 seconds, 5,000 people are behind you. It's an emergency for crying out loud. Hey, if a cop stops you, take the ticket. Happily PAY the ticket. But sit there like a sack of dirt, run out of gas and tell reporters (as many did) that you'll now wait for the government to come and gas you up?

These are the self-reliant Texans we've heard so much about? The lone star state? Unimpressive.

More old taxes

Regretably, Catherine DeVine's denial of owing old taxes (2000 and 2001) to Orange County are false. She does owe them, according to Jo Roberson, Director or Orange County's Revenue Department. When I corresponded directly with Catherine, she said she was suprised that I "would rely on such an unreliable source" (the County's online records). "Those taxes are paid," she declared.

Well, they're not paid. According to Roberson, there is a payment plan now in place to resolve the debt (with interest) but the fact is that this alderman candidate owes the county money that was due five years ago.

So, there are two problems here. First is a candidate for public office with years-old unpaid taxes who hopes to be spending the people's money. That part is up the the people of Carrboro to resolve for themselves.

The second, however, is her response to the information itself ... declaring, falsely, that the taxes were paid and impugning the tax office's recordkeeping to boot. I have some experience with the Orange County tax office, both as a taxpayer and as a reporter. I have always found their staff to be helpful, knowledgeable completely professional. Our Revenue Department is rated as among the best in this state. I don't appreciate Catherine's describing the office or its online records as "such an unreliable source."

It seems to me that beyond the money, Catherine DeVine owes the people of Carrboro and the county taxpayers an explanation.

A Texas-sized blast from mutha nature

Just for the record, when Rita knocks the states of Texas AND Louisiana for a loop, certainly doubling the hurricane damages bill for the federal government, I'll betcha that our fearless leader, George II will stare straight into the camera and say (again) that we still don't need any form of taxpayer sacrifice to cover the cost. I'm not talking about jacking up tax rates for average folks, but criminy, we need to let those cuts for the very, very rich sunset as they were enacted to do.

But George II will want to "stay the course" and keep his rich white boy welfare program in place. Lord, how I wish our system would allow a recall election.

Taxing Questions

It must be too dry a topic, but when people run for office, someone should look up and see whether or not they've paid their taxes. After all, if elected they're going to be spending money that comes from those of us who do get the job done.

The first race I'm looking at this year is that of Carrboro's Board of Aldermen and, unfortunately, I've found one of the candidates, Catherine DeVine, in serious delinquency. She owes Orange County $239.31 for her 2000 taxes and interest on her 1994 Mazda and $216.29 in 2001 taxes and interest on the same vehicle, whose registration is now blocked. That means she can't sell the car without satisfying the tax bill.

I checked out the other candidates and found either no records (Haven-O'Donnell, Ryan) or bills paid in full (Herrera, Gist).

Pointing this out gives me no pleasure. I happen to like Catherine DeVine. We'll hope she clears this up in short order.

A word about "Naysaying"

It has already begun, of course. If you're criticizing the Bush Administration, then you're just throwing rocks and this "won't help the victims in New Orleans."

Bullshit. Scream, yell, curse and if at all possible, do it in front of a TV camera. That is probably the ONLY thing that has or will save the 25,000 at the New Orleans Convention Center. Speak out. Be loud.

Don't think that's necessary? Well, if you were too poor or too sick (or both) to evacuate New Orleans and now you're stuck there, it's pretty much your fault, according to FEMA head Michael Brown, who says that relief efforts are going very well.

Riiiight.

New Orleans meltdown

Homeland Secretary Michael Chertoff has a favorite talking point in his litany of excuses for the New Orleans disaster. "We've had two disasters," he says. He goes on to cite that advent of the hurricane, followed by the flooding.

That's what he has to excuse himself from leaving 25,000 people at the New Orleans convention center for five days without food & water - gee, how was he supposed to know that a hurricane striking a below sea level city would be followed by floods? What is he, a genius?

The relief effort is going just great, he goes on to say. Everyone is doing an outstanding job. He should list a third disaster - his hiring. This particular natural disaster - a Cat 4 or 5 hurricane striking New Orleans - is among the most planned-for in emergency preparedness. It is a classic scenario, easily anticipated. Chertoff says, however, that you can't fly helicopters and drive trucks in a hurricane. Wow, that's lame. The storm didn't hit the whole country. So ... they couldn't figure out an approach from the west? Is this a cartoon government or what?

Like that terrible September day four years ago, we are reminded now of the media's power. Were it not for cameras reaching the conventions center to show us bathroom sinks filled and overflowing with human waste, dead bodies in lawn chairs and lying on the ground and children too tired to cry anymore, we would not know this story first hand.We would be left with smartly dressed liars in comfortable Washington offices declaring that everything is going great.

The people actually doing the relief work are, obviously, working their tails off and performing heroically, but no one ever doubted that. On this Friday morning, there is no public official on the site of that convention center, where there is a desperate and dying population of a small town.

President Bush will "survey the damage" from his helicopter, setting foot only at the New Orleans airport to make a speech. Isn't that just what the suffering and dying need? Speeches about what a great job Chertoff is doing. He'll also be on the ground in Mississippi and Alabama where it's safer.

Before departing D.C. this morning, Bush said that relief efforts were not adequate. Do you suppose that he'd be doing that without the media's work here? And what does this tell us about how things really are going on his other little project in Iraq?

Vaca for George II

The White House today had the unmitigated gall to announce that the President was "cutting his vacation short" to return to Washington to spearhead the Hurricane relief effort.

Excuse me? Why the hell wasn't he flying back to D.C. on Sunday when it became obvious that the gulf coast was going to see devastating damage? Why did he wait until over 20,000 people were on day three in the Superdome to declare that the homeland security department (with its vast resources and authority) would be the lead agency in the aftermath? Did he have to see the bodies floating through the streets of the "big easy" to realize that an American city will soon be compared with Calcutta?

It has been made me puke all weekend prior to the arrival of the deadly Katrina to see that Bush would go out on his regular speaking engagements and take a minute or two from the podium to give advice on "taking cover" and "protecting your families." Evacuation instructions and preparedness advice ... that's work for Governors. Bush is so desperate the change the subject away from Iraq, he'll even ride in on the tide of a Category 4 hurricane to do it.

And what will the help be that comes from George II? I guess we won't be listening to all that wonderful conservative drivel about pulling yourself up by your bootstraps, will we? No testimonials rugged individualism, no siree ... this is going to be the time to pull out the big government big red pen and write some checks. These are the times when even Republicans are thrilled with the massive power and reach of the federal government. One hopes that the Dems can take some notes and try to remember these times when rhetoric of tax cutting turns up again and the question comes to "What has the federal government done for you lately?" I hope it will save my fellow citizens from starvation and dehydration and prevent the economy from crashing into an energy crisis-provoked recession.

It's a lot to hope for.

A friend in Kneed

Oy. The month of July, now mercifully over, did not treat me well.

A minor knee injury became a worse injury, then was revealed to be more a chronic problem (cartilage loss on the back of the patella ... all loose in the joint resulting in pain, locking, etc). Finally virtually unable to walk on it, I had a scope procedure last week whose results are yet unclear. And during my recovery (plenty of time to surf and learn) I'm finding that this is at best a short term solution.

So, oh crap, perhaps another re-alignment or other open joint surgery to fix the underlying problem. I went through all of this in '76 and '78 and thought that was the end of it ... endured in my youth. Next week, my son has the second of his two re-alignments this year. It's a LONG, painful recovery. I'm still astonished at how exhausting this minor procedure has been.

Well, I'll have to make more use of the old laptop and return to the blogosphere. And being stranded with daytime TV ... oy! So now that Bush is in Crawford we can all settle in for a midsummernight's dream, right?

Associate Justice Clinton?

So there I was wrapping up my time at the beach and the news of Sandra Day O'Connor's retirement comes along -- something to restore the blood bressure to normal working levels.

Anyone who was watching all the filibluster recently had to know it wasn't really about these two women who sat quietly beside their president as he complained about their nominations being held up in the Senate. No, this was about O'Connor. Yeah, yeah, all the blabber was about Rehnquist retiring, but he'd be replaced with a similar conservative ... no real movement.

It would be O'Connor's departure that Bush might need the so-called nuclear option for and indeed the time is here. Just one problem --- his approval ratings are in Nixon territory. If the Senate tips toward the left next year and Bush loses that control, wow ... watch out. There will be hearings on Gitmo, on Haliburton and on everything that's has simmered for the last 5 years.

And that's why, in my sun-soaked moment of screen writing I thought how can Bush save himself? There's only one answer: Nominate Hillary Rodham Clinton to replace O'Connor. When you're done laughing, think about the problems this would solve for Bush ...

1. NY Governor George Pataki would replace Senator Clinton with a Republican -- Rudy? Are you ready?
2. There could be no clearer "gesture" of reconciliation ... reaching across the aisle toward democrats.
3. As a member of the court, Clinton would obviously be out of the '08 presidential race.
4. More importantly, she would not be raising money for the democrats, which is why such a move would make the Democrats more weak in the knees than Republicans. She'd be out the radical right's hair (on the political side) virtually forever. Holding control on the Senate in '08 would be a lot more secure with Hillary out of the picture.

She might just say no, which would make the gesture argument even more perfect, but she'd have to be careful in doing it. When your president calls, you answer.

"Not Guilty"

So young Mr. Pan goes home to Neverland (I can call him young ... his birthday's about two weeks after mine) and can claim to be innocent. Fine. But the jury wept, asked for privacy and wouldn't look at Michael Jackson today. To me, that screams "not guilty" --- not "innocent."

Wouldn't it be nice to think that now he'll keep his hands of the young boys who seem to flow toward him somehow. Unlikely.

I'm glad the jury had the integrity to hold the prosecution to its burden, even though they apparently failed to meet it. Certainly the public is warned. He'd have died in prison within a year anyway.

:-(

Why isn't this woman under arrest?

Say what you want about Michael Jackson's perverse proclivities, the fact is he would have a much harder time if it weren't for the many people who have been so helpful to feeding his various diseases (drug/alcohol dependencies, too).

Case in point: this private flight attendent who explains that when MJ began to explain that he like his wine to be served in a Diet Coke can, she interrupted him ... "Say no more," she said. "I know all about it."

And I suppose that when he served some of that to a kid, which he could then do in plain view, she would claim to know nothing about it? Why in the world is she not under arrest for facilitating this delivery of alcohol to a minor?

Like Elvis, no one can cay no to Michael. All of these twisted parasites will stop at the prison gate in their service to their master, however. How dispicably pathetic.

Where's Michael?

Watching the "Verdict Watch" coverage of the California freak show (the Michael Jackson Trial) and now the twist comes. Michael's father, Joe Jackson, appears at the courthouse demanding, "Where is my son?"

While everyone on Court Tv is asking why they're so bizarre, I'm asking, why can't you see that he's skipped? Joe Jackson certainly knows damn well that Michael is supposed to be at Neverland awaiting the verdict, but I wonder why they're not asking ... when's the last time MJ was actually seen by anyone? Last Friday when it went to the jury?

There are reports (by Jackson's spokespersons) that he was seen at an ER for back pain, but no pictures of him going to a hospital. He could have left California on Friday.

Come on ... he's skipped the country, right?

San Francisco dispatch

Weather's perfect. Food's outrageously good. What all this I hear about fog? What fog?

Dinner last night at John's Grill with hubby's biz associates was unexpectedly way-gone fun. We met up with Mr. & Mrs. Actuary (We are Mr. & Mrs. Underwriter) and talked about cars, kids, movies, Internet and wine.

Bring more wine.

Waiter, we're out of wine.

Apparently our hitting it off was conspicuous to the rest of the dinner's group. I worry that we weren't engaged with everyone else (all really nice folks, too). But then again, the sound level in these situations is often so much that you'd only be looking at moving lips and smiling faces. You nod, you think you agree. You may have just laughed at an unfunny joke about your boss -- you don't really know.

When are there going to be restaurants that offer "quiet zones" for those of us with mild hearing loss?

Fun to go to a city far from home and meet people who feel so familiar. Do you have tales like that?

Too good -- bravo, N & O

Check out the interactive game on the News & Observer's site -- "Governor Easley's Wide Ride." It's the most fun when you crash the car. Make sure your speakers are on.

It's a twister (it's the news)

Thankfully, the news landscape has been free of the wild speculation about the release of the results of the Shiavo autopsy. The medical examiner handling the case says it will be a few more weeks before he releases his report -- sure to be a bestseller.

We have a runaway bride to obsess over, a runaway plane trickling into restricted Washington D.C. airspace and then there's Dave Chappelle, the comic whose standup success caused him to freak out, stand up and run away to South Africa. Time magazine was so skeptical of Chappelle's disappearing act, they sent a crew to take pictures of him on the continent. He had to get away (from his $50 million contract) because , he says, he was worried when he saw a white member of his crew laughing. Maybe his comedy was "making the wrong people laugh," he said.

Maybe it's making the wrong guy rich.

Meanwhile, in case it matters, there's Iraq. My son's girlfriend called this evening. She had a question -- how to do a search online to find our whether or not her high school friend Joel, now a 2nd Lt. in the 11th Infantry, has been injured or killed. He's not answering her emails, she said, and his unit has been his be a car bomb once already. They sent him back in for more.

We talked about that -- about where to look. We found an informative site, a disturbing one. The domain says it all -- icasualties.org. It compiles the data released daily by the government into a searchable database.

It's not a government site, it is a private site. A quiet patriotic act.

As for Joel, he's not listed.

The future of open source media

Take a look at this eight minute flash presentation - a fascinating "review" of future events in media consolidation via open source journalism. It gets beyond the view of blogging's new-gadget status and starts to get to the profit and global benefit vision. Some ideas (fully automated editing and gatekeeping) are pretty out there, but so was the notion of unlimited online storage and pushbutton free publishing tools just over a decade ago when I was graduating from the J-school at UNC-CH.

In '94, the debate was whether or not online newspapers might wipe out print and the prevailing thought (correct) was that they would not. That didn't (and doesn't) stop some papers from digging in and resisting (Herald-Sun). Even now, only a handful of papers like the News & Observer and the Greensboro News & Record have had the vision to embrace blogging as a means to connect better with readers -- a means to expand the paper's value, not cry about the potential "threat" that blogging might present.

When I see some of these traditionally syndicated editorialists waving their arms and whining that bloggers "aren't even trained as journalists!" I have to laugh at their fear of competition. If these pajama clad writers are such nitwits, why would you even acknowledge they're on the landscape?

Because they can see that lines are blurring and that it will be the marketplace of ideas and not the easy division of have and have-not that will drive who gets read and who gets ignored. That won't bode well for the lazy, the rich and those who have held power so long that they've forgotten they weren't born with it. I haven't yet seen a woman or a minority writer complaining about open source journalism. Coincidence? I think not.

Had your fill, buster? Birth control is next

This week shapes up to be quite a showdown on the Hill as Republicans make the grab for the juduciary. Make no mistake, this is all about laying the foundation for the next Supreme appointment, which will very likely be forthcoming before 2008. The neocons wants an anti-abortion zealot in that slot. The ultimate goal is not just to reverse Roe v. Wade, it is to reverse Griswold v. Connnecticut --- to eliminate women's right to birth control.

Don't believe it? Show me a single instance where a so-called "right-to-life" advocate has said that couples should avoid unwanted pregnancy through the practice of birth control. I'm leaving out unmarried people -- there's no way they'd advocate anything but the pure Christian life for them (no sex whatsoever). No, no ... let's be realistic -- I'm talking young married couple who waited until their honeymoon to consummate their relationship. Can she go on the pill? Can they use a condom to avoid an unwanted pregnancy?

Hell, no.

"I don't think Christians should use birth control. You consummate your marriage as often as you like -- and if you have babies, you have babies." Randall Terry, Operation Rescue

Think it's just the flakes?
From Catholic.com:
Contraception is wrong because it’s a deliberate violation of the design God built into the human race, often referred to as "natural law." The natural law purpose of sex is procreation. The pleasure that sexual intercourse provides is an additional blessing from God, intended to offer the possibility of new life while strengthening the bond of intimacy, respect, and love between husband and wife. The loving environment this bond creates is the perfect setting for nurturing children. But sexual pleasure within marriage becomes unnatural, and even harmful to the spouses, when it is used in a way that deliberately excludes the basic purpose of sex, which is procreation. God’s gift of the sex act, along with its pleasure and intimacy, must not be abused by deliberately frustrating its natural end—procreation.

Funny, I always thought of orgasm as the "natural end" of marriage's most intimate act and it certainly is bad to frustrate that. Maybe it's all a big misunderstanding.

The N&O blogs on

The News & Observer has joined the blogosphere, launching its own blogs earlier this week. Way Cool, Most Excellent. More proof yet that the Paxton-$un is marching into the future while looking backward (they're in the newspaper business and cannot compete with a 24/7 TV-world news cycle according to to Editor Bob Ashley).

Yah, whatever.

The N&O seems to "get" that future of opinion leadership (look it up, Bob ... that's part of the newspaper business) is developing in blogging. Becoming more interactive with readers and moving away from talking down to them is where the future lies.

And boy, oh boy, Durham could really use some interactive opinion leadership right now. The freakin' school district is in a near-nuclear state of meltdown. Meetings that devolve into shouting matches and arrests because the school board has totally lost control of itself. We're left to imagine what a good forum for discussion of issues might provide --- the Herald-Sun is asleep at the switch. No money in sticking their necks out, so they'll hang on the sidelines, watch and cover the train wreck and sell as much popcorn as they can.

Wouldn't it be awesome if they'd do some in-depth coverage of the issues these school critics are bringing about? Wouldn't it be amazing if they, along with Channel 11, sponsored a town hall meeting with ground rules so that the community had outlets for discussion other than blwoing up school board meetings?

*sigh*

And thanks for all the fish

Oh, how we've missed Arthur Dent at my house. Run, don't walk, to go see The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. It's a large popcorn-and-Rainettes worthy romp with great special effects that are fun but don't overwhelm the story. (Rare find)

We were surprised to see a thin crowd on Saturday night (@ Timberlyne) but the movie is playing on so many screens, maybe they've managed to saturate the market. More space for us to go back and ride through once more.

Runaway Story

Jennifer Wilbanks, the story goes, needed some time to herself. What she got was, well, the opposite.

Rather than confront her issues with a wedding larger than Charles & Camilla's, rather than embarass herslef and or Mommy & Daddy, she instead took what she thought was an easy way out and hopped a Greyhound for Vegas (of all places). Okay, the woman has issues.

But what gets lost, it seems to me, is this: what excuse do the Deluth cops have? They come out on Wednesday or Thursday with this big pronoucement -- this is now a criminal investigation. Why? What evidence could they possibly have had? With all the focus on this distraught young woman's perpetrating a hoax, how much attention is paid to the cops not holding the line on this simple, apparently self-evident fact -- there was no crime. This wasn't a child who disappeared, it was a woman who went jogging -- an experienced runner. No amber alert, no faked ransom note, no apparent attempt to totally disappear, just an ordinary person who freaked.

Theory on dumb assumption: Rich white people don't run away, so something must have happened. Had Wilbanks been black and lower middle class, there would be no dragnet, her family would have been told that this was a missing person and nothing more.

Wilbanks bought her bus ticket in advance -- she must have. To create the illusion, she left her wallet and credit cards at home ... along with her photo ID, so no flying. The cops can say that's evidence of a crime, I say it's evidence of stupidity. Further proof -- she ended her silence ona Friday night/Saturday morning, leading to wall-to-wall CNN coverage all day Saturday -- an utterly inexcusable treatment of a case of this nature.

White House reporters asking tough questions?!?!

I was thrilled to see a couple of reporters actually do their freakin' jobs and push back a little when their questions weren't answered. "But Mr. President, I was asking about religion in our political debate, not in society in general."

For those who watch these things closely, Bush's accepting and answering the handful of followups represents a serious change. Right after the election, he playfully but firmly gave the back of his hand to reporters trying to follow up on blustery answers. "I told you ... no followups" he'd say, shaking his finger, looking like Clinton denying relations with "that woman."

Thanks to bloggers, WH reporters (including the gay hooker) have been taking it in the shorts (ohhh, sorry) over their impotence in pressing this president. Lap dogs they're called -- deservedly so. They should be junkyard dogs -- hungry and ankle-biting. Can it be that some of the attributes of actual jounalism may see a revival? The answer is -- sure, if viewers want it.

Smoking out DeLay

In the hypocrite-of-the-week report, check out this one on Tom DeLay ... sucking on a Cuban double corona for the cameras. The photo appears in this weeks' Time Magazine.

Uh, yah, that would be DeLay ... an outspoken advocate for keeping those sanctions in place and preventing trade with Cuba ... wanting, he said, to keep money out of the bloodthirsty hands of Fidel Castro.

Those who kneel also serve

The White House male hooker saga continues as it is revealed that gay prostitute "Jeff Gannon" was frequently signed into the White House on a day pass, but never signed out. Where are these sanctimonious Republicans on the issue of this guy getting into and moving around the West Wing without supervision or tracking?

On a Day Pass? (Maybe this is the real security application.)

That's the lowest (oohhh) form of security clearance for the White House press operation. Of course, it's more security clearance than New York Times Columnist (and Bush critic) Maureen Dowd can get. Bushie won't let her in, the scaredy cat that he is. She can wave her Pulizter all she wants, she has to watch briefings on TV ... as Scott McClellan throws the floor to the hooker. Go a-head, Jeff.

The price of nice

A new study shows that the ability to manipulate others to benefit yourself is your ticket to financial and professional success. So, nice guys really do finish last. This, the study says, explains women's poorer wages and slimmer chances at tops jobs. They tolerate being told "no" more easily than men (that's a whole different conversation).

This would explain the success of tender souls like Donald Trump and John Bolton, the Bush administration's nominee for U.N. Ambassador. Apparently Mr. "T" wasn't available, so Bush chose someone a little tougher.

And needless to say, the rise of Martha Stuart could be described as a mystery solved, but Martha -- to her credit -- always said that a man with the same personality attributes would simply be considered ambitious. Absolutely true.

And I still don't like Stuart, but that's a personal thing. I buy her products because they tend to be well-made. That's why her company survived her felony conviction -- not the quality of her personality -- the quality of her products.

Congrats Tar Heels

Oy. Someday when I have way too much time on my hands, I'll explain it all, but a trip to the ER on Championship night meant that hubby, teenage son and I missed the whole freakin' game.

Well, ALMOST all of it. We heard much of the second half on the radio on the way home (medical issue all okay) and the last 15 seconds on TV. Better to get the last 15 than only the first. I must say I was thinking while listening in the car that I wonder how many national title games Woody Durham has left in him. He's so great at his job of play-by-play ... a dying art in broadcasting. Hearing the game through his voice made missing the live TV event bearable.

Great job, Heels!

Finally back to the Final Four

Put simply, wahoo ... Go Heels! The drought is over, the Heels are back.

Last week, I was at the NC Specialty Hospital as my son had knee surgery. Within spitting distance of Duke's East Campus, I wore my Carolina longsleeve T-Shirt ... it says simply "Carolina." I took some flack from the many Dookies on staff there, but now that we're playing and they're home, success is the best revenge.

So go get 'em Roy and no matter the outcome, it's been a great ride all year long.

The Right to Die Without CNN

Maybe the right wing has finally sailed off the edge.

You hear all the time that you really can't understand this or that until you've been through it, yet a stunning number of right wing self-proclamed "Christians" have declared that they know better than Michael Schiavo what should happen to his wife, Terri.

Remember ... these are the same people who want to protect the sanctity of marriage from gay people.

First, the case is driven heavily by (big shock) money. Read more here.

If you've never had the experience of having to execute the wishes of a loved one and withdraw treatment, food and water, then I envy you. It is an agonizing task even when the path is absolutely clear.

In our case, it was my father-in-law, who had made his views very, very clear. As with most of us, he said (and conveyed to us in legal documents) that if he were stricken with, for example, a massive stroke or strokes and had no hope of recovery or regaining awareness that he was alive, that we should discontinue treatment (he was diabetic) and all life-sustaining support. That means giving the order for no more food or water.

That's what happened (two strokes, one on each side of his brain) and that's what we did -- executed his wishes. What we might have wanted was irrelevant. My husband made a solemn oath to his father. He kept his word. It took a week for him to die. It felt like a month.

But we did all this as ordinary people do -- without CNN and FOX news running his deformed image as art for B-roll video. We did it with some discussion and discomfort among family members, but we explained how the process works, we explained that these were his wishes and not open for negotiation. Above all else, we explained that he was not only not suffering, he was not aware that he was alive. We had no right to hold his body, if not to say his very soul, hostage for our own comfort.

So, to the freaks who claim to be attempting to "save" Terri Schiavo ... shame on you. If you do this on a religious basis, you should account for yourselves to a God whom you claim to trust, but whose will you would stubbornly thwart through machines and artificial existance.

This case is one of flexing political might and everyone knows it. for a matinee, Bush flies back to Washington to sign emergency legislation. Don't they have a fax machine in Crawford? Is it not a law if it's signed out of the district?

This follows the main event -- Congress passing a piece of legislation under orders from Randall Terry (head of "Operation Rescue") that those who did not vote for the bill would pay dearly at election time. He and his supporters didn't work so hard for the last 15 years to control both houses to watch it all go down the drain now, he said.

That's pretty overt.

Thankfully, the courts have been remarkably swift, responsive and consistent. They have backed this man whose commitment is remarkable. Let's hope a peaceful end is not far away for this poor woman and that her blood relatives can figure out how to let this go.

Embracing gay marriage

My dearest and I took our vows in the living room of a Justice of the Peace at 8:00 p.m. on a rainy Wednesday night, after working all that day. Our only witnesses were the JP's two dogs. His wife respectfully excused herself to the next room.

Our marriage, licensed by the state of Connecticut, has never been validated by either of our churches.

We have, however, a remarkably rich spiritual life. We take good care of each other and our children. We cared for his parents until each of them died. After 27 years of marriage and 28 years together, we still stay up late talking to each other, whispering our hopes and fears across our pillows.

It is too much to hope for that every couple could enjoy such comfort and happiness. It is too little to demand that every human being have the chance to pursue it. Perhaps this is why our country's founders put that "pursuit of happiness" clause in the earliest documents of our creation. It is not the espoused "values" of any church that matter here, it is the public policy of a civilized society.

After all, churches don't license and regulate marriage -- the state does that ... and that's all the state should do. My marriage doesn't need "protection" from gay couples any more than I need "protection" from people with blue eyes or red hair.

Why I do need protection from is the intrusion of the state and corporations, whether under the disguise of the Patiot Act or the everyday indignity of the store clerk asking my zip code before selling me a pack of gum for 50 cents.

Of course, that's a whole different rant ...

Chris Paul's cheap shot

Ho hum ... wallop in the jewels -- that's how Chris Paul dropped Julius Hodge to the floor of the RBC Center in the NC State Wake Forest game that ended the regular season. Regretably, Paul was not yanked out of the game immediately, as apparently none of the zebras spotted the offense. Instead, he continued to play (not even getting a technical foul) and was on hand to inbound the ball with 4.2 seconds left, have the ball passed right back to him, raced up the floor and tossed in the game-winning swish at the buzzer.

But he should have been in the locker room, waiting for his teammates. A day late and a dollar short, his coach suspended him for this "inapproriate behavior" and Paul has apologized.

"I would like to apologize to Julius Hodge, the NC State team, Wake Forest fans and my teammates for an incident that I truly regret. Sunday night was emotional for me for many reasons and I let my emotions get the best of me. However, that is no excuse for my actions and I fully accept and agree with my suspension."

Oh, right ... emotions. The driving force for all bad male behavior. I hope they get bounced in the first round of the ACC tournament. Go Heels.

Desperate Times

Oh, my goodness.

In today's Chapel Hill Herald is among the most bizarre house ads I've ever seen. It features the submission deadlines for display advertising. Oh, the stink of having nothing to say.

It's not like they ever ran ANY house ads to support columnists ... oh, no. Not since Mike Peterson and his successor, Gaspo. They've run some stuff for John McCann, but lately, you wouldn't even know that there was any local voice in the paper at all. Local-shmokal. We should have noticed that Paxton Media has AX right there in plain sight.

C'mon ... the writing's on the wall. They're going to dump the Chapel Hill edition and focus on making the Durham paper profitable as some kind of a niche publication. Even the Independent thinks that recent layoffs of pressmen means they may kill the CHH. Meanwhile, the N&O will open its new Orange County bureau headed up by Mark Schultz, formerly the Editor of the CHH. It's back to the future. Hope this one has a happy ending ... somehow.

What is it with Republicans and secret tapes?

There's always a tape, isn't there?

Here's a tip for our red state friends ... stay off the phone with your pals. Doug Wead, a former aide to George I, has about 9 hours of recordings of him shooting the bull with George II while he was running for president, some of it embarassing, most not.

Now he says he should give the tapes to Bush. What a pal. I don't think he'll be giving the proceeds of his book to him though.

Bush apparently admits to past drug use (yawn). Sometimes I really miss Clinton.

The Social Security Scam

Dubyah has his (our) American Express card out again. This time he wants to "fix" the Social Security System.

Digging an even deeper hole of debt so as to create personal investment accounts for younger workers, Bush is claiming to stablize a system that is "going bankrupt." It's not so much what he says about it, but rather what he doesn't say that I find most persuasive. Things like "Standing to my left is the Executive Director of the Society of Actuaries and to my right is the President of the American Academy of Actuaries and they both stand behind this proposal."

Or ... "Here is a letter from ..."
or "According to ..."

Nope ... nothing. Why? Because despite the Texas two-step that allows Bush to stand at his podium, banging his fist and taunting "Just look at the math!" the simple and elegant truth is, the actuaries who advise the administration have told him that they system needs only minor adjustment to remain solvent. The "problem" that Bush is so anxious to fix threatens only to reduce benefits -- bankruptcy is simply not in the picture.

It's so simple, YOU can do it. Just go the American Academy of Actuaries' web site and play "The Social Security Game." I don't want to ruin the game for you, but if you raise the retirement age to 70 (more than reasonable from someone who can expect to live to 80) and introduce means testing so that those whose retirement income is over $50,000 will receive a reduced benefit, you'll have fixed it. Period.

The argument against later retirement almost always falls completely onto the issue of fairness for workers whose jobs are physically demanding. Somehow having a 64 and a half year-old woman stocking shelves is okay, but if she's 69, we're horrified. Jack Nicholson and Jane Fonda will be 68 this year. Should we pull out the wheelchair now? How about Goldie Hawn? She'll be 60. Not only should they keep working, they should not receive the same social security benefit as someone who made $20,000 in the most prosperous year of his or her life.

For those retiring in in 2042, my response is two-fold. First, when you're that age and have been doing physical work (including waiting tables) your body is probably in better shape than that of your counterpart who's sitting at a computer. He's the one more likely to get sicker and die sooner.

If I had known I was going to live this long, I'd have taken better care of myself.
Lesson for young workers: You will and you should.

If the federal government really wants to to those young workers and their young kids a living-longer-living-better favor that will pay off in 2042, they should put the freakin' money back into physical education and nutritious school lunches.

In 40 years, the trends in our economy toward service over physically produced products will have advanced even further. We not only don't know anything about what we will look like in terms of our health, we have NO idea what our grandchildren will be doing for a living or what we will be retiring FROM. When I left high school (less than 30 years ago) there was no teacher or guidance counselor who could have told me that my livelihood would come from providing communications consulting and services via the Internet, that my largest clients would be thousands of miles away and that this would be practical because I could talk to them every day on the phone for an unlimited time without spending any more on my phone bill.

If the president were a little more on the ball about America's working and online life, he would have a healthier respect for how unknowable these questions are. Heck, when he first ran for president in 2000, nobody knew what the heck a BLOG was ... yet in 2004 blogs played a significant role in the election.

Finally, we should realize that our view of work and its meaning is changing. For many, the continuation of meaningful work means the continuation of a high quality of life. What's the hurry to end that?

You're blogged

The Sarcastic Journalist was indeed fired a year ago, so it's the old guard at the Herald-Spun with whom I agreed.

It is a curiosity that some seem to think that the lines of code that produced the blogging product have somehow staked out new first amendment ground or are the basis for declaring some form of special worker's rights. That's silly. It's publishing, that's all. The "great unwashed" have always been able to publish and experience immediate regret. Remember Jerry Maguire's "Mission Statement"?

What's different now is the cost (none) and the push-the-button-and-the-whole-world-can-see-it aspect --- literally. It's the distribution. That's what makes it so powerful and will quickly re-establish the role of journalism as well. Without some form of filtering, gatekeeping or sorting, all the blogs will quickly become of fog of chatter. Raw data only becomes information in the hands of a capable programmer. At least all those photocopies cost Jerry some money, plus all the effort to hand them all out. For many, that would mean that they'd have to really believe in something to part with the cash, time and effort. What would Jerry have done with a blog?!

So perhaps the question on the minds of publishers is whether or not blogging can "show them the money?"

Blocking bloggers

Herald-Sun staff is canned for bashing management on her blog. No news there. No employer should be expected to tolerate their own staff disparaging them publicly. That's right ... on this one, I agree with the Kentucky greedmongers.

I read that at the recent Triangle Blogging Conference one attendee advised bloggers to "write as though no one was looking." I don't get it ... does he want someone to get sued?

As much as we hate the struggle with editors in the conventional writing environment, they protect the writer and the publication from libelous actions and repercussions.

Do bloggers think they cannot get sued for libel because they omit their true identity from the blog?

Fake News

No, I don't mean The Daily Show, Comedy Central's excellent spoof that unsparingly bashes the media as much or more than it does politicians. The fake news I'm talking about is brought to you by the Bush Administration, now caught in FIVE episodes of egregious propaganda dissemination. This case in point is the departure of phony journalist "Jeff Gannon" (not his real name - clue #1) who was tossing softballs to the president recently and to Press Secretary Scott McClellan routinely.

Previous cases include release fake B-roll video of fictional "news" segments (that made air in several particularly lazy markets) and the purchase, lock, stock & barrel of three columnists. Bush was "shocked" to learn about the purchase of Armstrong Williams, but that dismay rings more and more hollow as the additional incidents are tallied.

"Jeff Gannon" says that he's resigned his position as White House reporter for "Talon News" because of his concern for his family. Yah. Okay.

SROs should be county/state budget item

This morning's Chapel Hill (Paxton-$un) Herald editorial position is that School Resource Officers should be paid for by the schools (as opposed to the county or the state) because "the work they do is determined by the schools and is for the schools."

Bullshit.

They work within the chain of command in their respective law enforcement units. The fact that they coordinate their protective services with the population they are working with is no different than a beat cop working with the Chapel Hill Herald on Mallette Street. If the staff has heard about possible vandalism directed at the Herald, they work with the police to drive by a little more often, they tell them about special activities on the weekends -- they work together to prevent crime.

These cops aren't security guards. They're cops. They protect a specialized population, so they have special training, but they are cops, period. Funding the police is the entire community's responsibility and the Town of Chapel Hill in particular should hang its head in shame for running away from this important need for the safety of students AND STAFF in the Chapel Hill-Carrboro School district.