They are also uneducated, out of step with the rest of the country, to be pitied, isolated, suffering in the area of "jobs, education and development", ideologically aligned with the old Confederacy, at odds with the values of the rest of the country, and are getting what they deserve because they won't "... get with the right program." Hat tip to Dan Cleary for making sure I was aware of this.

Or you could ask Dwight Lewis at The Tennessean. Lewis learned all this in a phone interview with "... David A. Bositis, senior political analyst for the Washington-based Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies ..." He felt it true and significant enough to share it with all of us. The Tennessean evidently agreed with him. Why publish his lunacy otherwise?

The Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies is a misleading name for the group. Per Lewis, the politics and economy the JCPES finds worthy of studying are those "... of concern to African-Americans and other people of color ..." The picture at their site includes pictures of Asians and Hispanics. However, reading through the headlines on their site, the only people of color mentioned are either Blacks or African Americans. There is one vague reference to "America's minorities."

This is the environment in which Bositis' claims must be evaluated. And what is Bositis' basis for making such outrageous claims? It's his analysis of who voted for John McCain and who voted for Barack Obama. He has lots of high sounding analysis. I'll save you some time. Anyone who voted for John McCain is all of those things in the opening paragraph. Anyone who voted for Barack Obama is not.

No word on the character of Barr, Baldwin and Nader voters. Words fail to describe how offensive Bositis' words are, or should be, to every man or woman who supported a candidate OBO, "Other than Barack Obama." Obviously, however, Lewis, Bositis and presumably some of their readers and supporters believe this tripe. I would point out the position of Lewis and Bositis are, on their face, far more racist and divisive than that of any of John McCain's supporters of any color. Except, I must be wrong. It's not possible for Blacks to be racist. Jesse Jackson himself told us so.

When people criticize me for declaring Barack Obama is not my President, I'll take comfort in knowing that he is not mine, although he is Mr. Lewis' President and he is Mr. Bositis' President. To all you who want to claim Barack as your own, enjoy their company. Barack forged a coalition he greatly desired to get him elected. It contains a great many fine people who mistakenly believe in the untested, unproven promise of Barack. It also contains a great many craven, twisted racists such as Mr. Lewis and Mr. Bositis. Their bile and ignorance, passed off as lofty and intellectual analysis, is rubbish if for no other reason than it fails to address the rationale for McCain voters elsewhere. That such thinking might be indicative of the actual change and hope we'll see as opposed the empty rhetoric Obama offered ought to terrify Americans.

Men like Lewis and Bositis are destroying Dr. Martin Luther King's dream of integration. They are callously dividing our nation along racial lines for purposes I cannot fathom. How any sane and educated individual in 2008 can believe, let alone put into print in what should be respectable publications, the notion that millions of Americans may legitimately be labled racist and backward based solely on the vote they cast is beyond outrageous.

I've read it in a score of places in the last 48 hours. I cannot help but repeat it here. It's going to be a long 4 years ...

Blue Collar Muse

New technology overcomes old challenges. It also raises new ones. Nuclear plants generate the most electricity but have cleanup questions. The Internet has overcome and created challenges, too. Howard Dean used the internet to raise money at unheard of levels. Ken Timmerman reports Barack Obama's campaign raised $427 million dollars, much of it coming via the internet.

Almost half of the $427 million came from donations of less than $200. Campaigns don't have to identify donors until their aggregate giving exceeds $200. When giving was by check or cash, it was harder to cheat; cash deposits had to be accounted for and checks left paper trails. Credit card internet giving is the new way around the law.

Timmerman writes about an Obama donor, "Good Will", who gave $17,375 in over 1,000 donations under $200, far exceeding the limit for individuals. The FEC has ordered the campaign to return the excess money, and they've started to. They've got thousands to go! Warner Todd Huston writes of testing the foreign donation firewalls of both Obama and McCain. Only one campaign had any checks on the process in place.

Complicating matters, current monitoring and regulating mechanisms are outpaced by technology. The FEC didn't find "Good Will". Activists did. Giving is at T1 speeds. Enforcement is stuck on dialup.

"While FEC practice is to do a post-election review of all presidential campaigns, given their sluggish metabolism, results can take three or four years," said Ken Boehm, the chairman of the conservative National Legal and Policy Center.

If Presidential campaigns have these issues, what of lesser publicized and scrutinized down-ticket races?

Tennessee has a potential problem. According to the Democrats themselves, Jim Hawkins, a state Senate challenger raised $87,000 in the second quarter of 2008. , $22,725 of it came from ActBlue, a PAC exclusively supporting Democrats.

While a great example of new tech making new opportunities, it raises new problems, too. Per Drew Rawlins, Executive Director of the Tennessee Registry of Election Finance, in Tennessee a PAC cannot give a Senate candidate over $15,000; half in the primary and half in the general. ActBlue is clearly over that limit.

But are they violating a law? The answer may come down to applying offline laws to online issues. As with applying 1st Amendment's rights to traditional media and New Media, how do we apply campaign Finance law crafted for yesterday's offline campaigns to today's online efforts?

While agreeing ActBlue was a PAC, Rawlins said ActBlue wasn't Hawkins' donor; the 74 people giving to ActBlue to give to Hawkins were. ActBlue served as an "intermediary" under Tennessee law. Rawlins compared them to other "intermediaries" like PayPal or traditional bundlers and doesn't believe ActBlue violated the law. Had ActBlue given Hawkins that much in undesignated funds, they'd have broken the law. Contributions designated to Hawkins are OK.

I'm not sure. I don't suggest ActBlue willfully broke a law. I'm suggesting old laws may be insufficient to address ActBlue's actions. I'm suggesting we address this now and suspend this sort of campaign donation until we decide.

I'm unsure about classifying ActBlue as an intermediary. Drew Rawlins observed anyone could be an intermediary because the money didn't come from them, but the individual donors. Given that, I asked if churches and corporations could be intermediaries. Rawlins said "No;" churches and corporations were legally forbidden to make campaign donations. But PACs have legal restrictions, too. If churches or corporations can't go beyond their legal restrictions, why can PACs?

I'm uncomfortable with ActBlue's processes. Bundlers don't hold donations, they pass them on right away. Checks are payable to specific entities. Cash isn't deposited by a bundler who then cuts a check to the campaign. Even online money transfers via PayPal are immediate. The money goes from my account to the recipient's. But donations made via ActBlue are often held by ActBlue before being disbursed. Where is that money in the meantime? If it stops in an ActBlue account, how is the final payment not from ActBlue? What would happen if an offline bundler were to operate like this?

It comes down to murky law. Campaigns are operating under the premise "It's easier to get forgiveness than permission!" While perhaps valid for dealing with a child's mistakes, it makes for dangerous election finance law. With what's at stake, it seems just a matter of time before someone sues to resolve this. So why not look at it now and speak to it definitively and without the pressure of lawsuits?

I'm going to keep looking into this. I want to speak to Drew Rawlins again and a few more folks as well. In the meantime, what do you think? Is this real or no big deal? What arguments, for or against, am I missing? To help keep the election process clean, let's deal with this now. It'll bring us into the 21st century and keep us up to date, at least until the next idea comes along ...

Blue Collar Muse

I missed the email notifying me of this gem. And I'm kicking myself. But it's never too late!

Some friends of mine, bloggers from Denver on the Right side of the spectrum, are covering the DNC. So far their site promises to be the best blogger coverage of the event and perhaps among the best coverage period. Bloggers Ross Kaminsky, Ben DeGrow, Mike "El Presidente" Sandoval, The Drunkablog, Jon Caldara and others are on the street and on the various stories going on around Denver. Their pictures and live blogging of the event are on the web for your enjoyment at The People's Press Collective.

Stop by and see pictures of The Anarchist's Wal-Mart, the Attempt to Levitate the Denver Mint, The Assault on Michelle Malkin and more. Bookmark the site and check in frequently. It promises to be a rip-roaring good time. With all the insanity going on inside and out, how could it be otherwise?

Blue Collar Muse

Politics is supposed to be about the will of the people expressed by their vote and their activism which then shapes both the political parties and the ranks of elected officials. Would that it were that simple. Reality deals with the fact that there will always be those who are more influential than others in that process. Whether via connections or cash, some folks are better positioned to push a Party or a candidate one way or the other. The question is, of course, what to do when one person carries so much weight and influence that he can, by himself, influence or actually alter the course of politics in a state or a region.

This is not a philosophical or rhetorical question. It is happening across the country. People like George Soros spend billions to influence political discussions and the political process to effectively disenfranchise "regular" voters by manipulating what is seen and heard to the point where "reality" becomes what he wants it to be. People like Tim Gill and other wealthy individuals in Colorado have poured personal millions into state and local races, fundamentally altering the makeup of the state's political delegations in ways that don't necessarily fit with the makeup of the electorate there. It seems to be happening again. This time in Texas and the man behind the money is Fred Baron.

Baron is the man with the money behind the relocation and support of Rielle Hunter, John Edwards' mistress, and her child. Texas Watchdog reports Baron says he moved both Rielle Hunter and Andrew Young, the man who says he is the father of Hunter's child, on his own dime and for his own reasons without input or contact with Edwards or the campaign.

The reason for Baron shelling out money for the relocation? Young and Hunter were being dogged by tabloid reporters chasing rumors of the affair and pregnancy, according to the initial interview. "I made a decision on my own, without talking to Edwards or anybody, to try to help them move to a community to try to get away from those folks," Baron told the [Dallas Morning News]. He said he used his own money -not campaign funds - but did not disclose how much he provided. Both Hunter, who now lives in Santa Barbara, Calif., and Young worked under Baron for the campaign. Critics say this raises all kinds of questions. "John Edwards' affair on his cancer-stricken wife and Fred Baron's apparent attempt to silence Edwards' mistress by spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on her reeks of the arrogance of two multimillionaire plaintiffs attorneys trying to buy the White House," said Anthony Holm, an Austin-based GOP political consultant and creator of GivetheMoneyBack.com. Indeed, Baron initially described the help as a payout from his own pocket. That turned into a "loan" in a later New York Times interview. Some news reports put Hunter's monthly maintenance fees at $15,000 per month. Baron denied the amount is that much but has not disclosed how much it is.

Interesting that such a connected and savvy political operator would choose relocation as the solution to being dogged by reporters as opposed to "Let's hold a press conference and clear this thing up once and for all!" But, hey, it's his money. Still one has to wonder why he chose this particular avenue.

Shelling out hundreds of thousands of dollars to move "people of interest" around the world isn't Baron's first move in the politcal game of "Show me the money!" Texas Watchdog also reports Baron, his wife and his law firm are behind almost $7 million dollars in donations over the last few years to candidates and causes that are decidedly on the Left side of the political spectrum. So much so, Texas Watchdog can also report

It's difficult to overstate Baron's importance to Democrats in Texas and to those in Washington. In addition to serving as John Edwards' 2004 and 2008 presidential campaign finance chairman, he's thrown jaw-dropping sums of money into other political races. He's credited with helping the Democrats take over the U.S. Senate two years ago, as well as transforming Dallas County government to a Democratic-controlled body, wresting it away from the GOP. "I credit Fred and Fred's energy with helping get the state Democratic Party back on the road to revival," said Ken Molberg, a senior member of the state Democratic executive committee and a former Dallas County party chairman. "It's something he did not have to do and, most certainly in my view, he did it based on his own belief system that they needed to be a viable state party."

Texas Watchdog has even compiled a helpful listing of Baron's contributions which is posted online so you can see for yourself how much of Baron's money and other funds he controls were used to influence the political process and when it happened.

I'm all for a person being able to use what is his to influence the poltical debate. I have no problems with the reality that since some folks have more than others, they'll also have more influence. But, as has been noted in a recent blockbuster movie, with great power comes great responsibility. If Fred Baron wants to play in the deep end of the pool, then he should expect some scrutiny of both his actions and the results of those actions.

Just here is where the process breaks down. It is one thing for Baron and men like him to rebuild or to carry a political party on their shoulders in a state or nationally. It is another thing entirely for that man to use his funds to so manipulate politics that it changes the fortunes and outcomes of the electorate and the state or country. As Nashville radio talk show host Michael DelGiorno has noted, had the Edwards affair and the predictable fallout from it been a public matter earlier in the election cycle, Hillary Clinton would probably have been the Democratic nominee for President. Fred Baron, also "... based on his own belief system ...", played a key role in preventing that from happening.

In so doing, one man not only disenfranchised the work and votes of millions of his fellow Democrats who supported Clinton, he altered the landscape of the entire Presidential race for the rest of the country as well. That sort of power should only rest in the hands of a candidate since the candidate himself must live or die with the results of what he does. Baron's efforts meant John Edwards didn't have to answer to the electorate for what he did. It also meant Democratic voters didn't get a fair choice at the ballot box this year. That Baron, or anyone else, would choose to personally corrupt political events is a blight on what should be a process all voters can later say was untainted, especially when their candidate loses.

Republicans, too, must learn from this trampling of the everyday man by those who through personal hubris would be kingmakers. They must purpose now to resist the temptation. And temptation it is. The stakes are high and the issues are important. No one questions that. But what does it say about the solutions a person or a party brings to the discussion if the only way those solutions can make it into the debate is improper. The Democrats have no monopoly on the tactic of the end justifying the means. Should the Right adopt those tactics because they've shown themselves to be effective at times, they also willingly adopt the moral bankruptcy of which it is evidence.

May we be delivered and kept from the Fred Barons of the world, regardless of their affiliations.

Blue Collar Muse

The invaluable Michael Silence gets the hat tip this morning! He links to a Knoxville News Sentinel story reporting that, effective October 1st, TVA is increasing rates. Remember this post when you vote this November!

'20%: TVA Board Approves Largest Rate Hike in Decades' not only tells us the hike is coming, it tells us what rising TVA expense is behind it.

Customers can expect a 20 percent rate increase on their October electric bills -- the largest jump in more than 30 years. TVA President and CEO Tom Kilgore announced a fuel adjustment rate increase of 17 percent at the agency's board of director's meeting this morning at its Knoxville headquarters. The increase will go into effect Oct. 1. The board also approved an additional 3 percent base rate increase, also to take take effect Oct. 1. TVA's quarterly fuel adjustment, a provision approved by the board of directors in 2003, passes along fluctuations in the price of coal, natural gas and other fuels to its customers.

When fuels cost more, it costs more to produce electricity with them. Which political party and its allies have consistently, over decades, refused to implement Energy policies that work to keep energy prices low? Which political party and its allies have abandoned Washington, DC for a 5 week vacation instead of working to reduce the price of Energy? Which political party and its allies are on record as desiring high Energy prices? If you answered Democrats, you get the prize!

As they say on late-night commercials, "But wait, there's more!" I'd say this fell into the arena of "unintended consequences" for the Democrats and their Energy policy. However, if they are not sharp enough to have seen this sort of thing coming, then they aren't smart enough to trust with taking out the trash. Anyone opposing their strategies has been warning about exactly this sort of thing for years. What thing?

KNS reports there were people at the TVA hearing that spoke in opposition to the increase. Among them was

Bobby Glenn, general manager of a Panasonic electronics facility at Forks of the River Industrial Park in East Knox County, said a recent pattern of increases in electric rates threaten the company's continued local presence. Three Panasonic facilities employ 300 people. Glenn manages an aluminum foil division that operates a high voltage electroplating operation that supplies process foil for use in capacitors produced in Knoxville and at other plants worldwide. Previous base rate and fuel-related increases this year have already added $3 million per year to the company's electricity costs, Glenn said, making the plant less competitive among the Japanese company's international operations. "We, as an internationally headquartered company, have to give our top management some view of the future operational costs and profitability at this location, but TVA has not put forth a plan that gives a road map for the future or that gives us any hope that the situation will ever change," Glen said at the hearing.

The Democrats badly flawed Energy policy now threatens industry and employment in addition to hammering consumer's pocketbooks. A company acknowledges that higher energy costs may force relocation. That means lost jobs, wages, taxes and a host of other consequences that impact "the little guy"; the very people Democrats claim to be defending.

What is it that Democrats expect of the real world? Is TVA supposed to run in the red and lose money when their costs for producing energy skyrocket? They cannot continue to produce power indefinitely if they lose money. Is Business supposed to run in the red and lose money when their costs for consuming energy skyrocket? They cannot continue to produce goods and services indefinitely if they lose money. Are consumers supposed to simply smile and live with choosing between heating their homes and feeding their families as their costs for consuming energy skyrocket?

The media is filled with stories about Consumers, at every level and in every sector, dealing with the problems high energy prices produce. It's time for that same media to add the 'Why' and the "Who' of that debate to the other 3'Ws'. Why does Energy cost so much? Who is preventing common sense, sound Economic principles from being applied to the matter? It's not an effect without an easily identifiable cause. Democrats won't drill. Democrats won't debate. Democrats just shill. They won't even legislate. And you and I are left to pick up the pieces.

Lost in all of this is another question that also needs asking. When some common sense and practical Economics are finally brought to bear on the discussion and Energy prices come back down, will the TVA immediately lower their prices or will they operate under governmental practices which resemble nothing so much as the Ferengi 1st Law of Acquisition, "Once you have their money, you never give it back!"?

Blue Collar Muse

A friend emailed me about Bob Corker's involvement in the Gang of 10. He asked, "What is Corker doing?" To quote Bob Corker himself, he is doing "...exactly what I came to the Senate to do." To the host of Tennesseans who bemoaned the choice of Corker over Ed Bryant as our Senate choice in 2006, he's doing exactly what we feared. In fairness, for two years Corker has been a pleasant surprise. However, he couldn't have picked a worse time to begin living down to our expectations.

Just like GOP Senators in the Gang of 14 and judicial nominees, Republicans in Energy's Gang of 10 are undermining GOP leadership and strategy. Mitch McConnell and GOP leaders have worked this issue for months with the backing of Republicans and Democrats; legislators and voters. Pressure was mounting on Democrats to surrender their sellout of Americans. Gas and oil prices were falling. Support for Energy Independence via drilling and R&D for alternative and renewable energy sources was growing. It seemed inevitable the GOP would get their vote and sooner rather than later. Now, thanks to meddling by Corker, instead of continuing to exploit flaws in Democratic policies, Senate GOP leaders might be forced to regroup and decide if they can even continue in the face of the Gang's treachery.

Worse is Corker's betrayal of Tennesseans and Americans in general. The Gang's proposals ask for less concessions than GOP leadership would likely have been able to get from the Senate. The Gang does call for drilling. But they accept serious restrictions on drilling the GOP would likely not have needed to give up; restrictions which make the oil produced more expensive. Drilling 50 miles offshore is more expensive than drilling 15 miles offshore. Unmentioned is most oil we already know about is inside the Gang's 50 mile ban meaning more time and expense for exploration.

Then there are the taxes. $84 billion worth. That's what Corker proposes taking from oil companies who successfully find oil outside of 50 miles. It doesn't sound too bad to Americans at their kitchen tables figuring how to pay for fuel. They don't call it a tax and so taxpayers are off the hook, right? In fact it even sounds helpful.

The proposal also seeks to provide tax incentives for converting cars to non-oil fuel sources, including $20 billion for research and development, grants to help U.S. automakers develop alternative fuel vehicles and consumer tax credits for purchase of highly efficient cars.

5 Republicans signed on to this? How exactly will this help Americans pay for fuel anytime soon? What widely available, inexpensive, "non-oil fuel source" currently exists for Americans to convert to? Propane? Driven past a commercial propane station lately?

R&D grants to automakers clearly indicate any benefits are expected to be future ones. Even the current existence of increasingly fuel efficient cars to which proposed tax credits might be applied is misleading. They are brand new cars, not used ones; many sporting new technology making them even more expensive. Corker's plan is to give Americans a $2,500 tax credit, for example, to buy a $25,000 car? This is making things more affordable?

Add to this the plan's call for 85% of cars on the road by 2028 to run on non-petroleum fuel and you see how much this will cost American families already unable to afford $4 gas. Considering there are at least 100 million vehicles now on the road, Americans and American business will have to replace or modify 85 million vehicles in the next 20 years. At $2,500 to $25,000 per vehicle that's a $212.5 billion to $2.125 trillion high drag, low speed burden the Gang imposes on Americans and the American economy in the name of saving us from high prices. It sounds like the joke about buying things one doesn't need because they are on sale and justifying the purchases based on "savings"!

Worse, there won't be any real savings. Adding $84 billion to oil companies' cost of production only means the product produced will cost $84 billion more at the pump. Americans are going to pay more thanks to Corker and the Gang. R&D is fantastic. Even if it takes years to bring something to market, the wait is generally worth it. But at issue is what do Americans do in the meantime? Cheap oil now while we transition is better than expensive oil now until we transition.

The final insult is that oil produced under the Gang's plan cannot be sold outside the US. Democrats have whined for years about losing good jobs and weakening the Economy. Here is an opportunity to create jobs and fuel the Economy and Corker and the Gang won't allow it. Brazil has enjoyed record economic growth and job creation as it has changed from a net oil importer to a net exporter over the last 5 years or so. But for Corker and the Gang, oil production beyond that necessary to eliminate US oil imports cannot be sold on world markets. The jobs, economic growth and general prosperity oil exporting nations enjoy is denied to America and her citizens, corporate and individual.

Thus the next command from government beyond where we drill and where we sell will be how much we produce. Only produce here; only sell there - as if government owned the oil. Couple these restrictions with government requirements that Big Oil finance R&D which makes their product less marketable and you complete the picture of the ignorance the Gang wants foisted on the American public as beneficial. And Bob Corker says this is exactly what he wanted to accomplish in DC. Corker and the Gang would be better advised to join up with their GOP House colleagues' #Don't Go Movement. It provides all the benefits they say they want with none of the drawbacks.

To recap, the R&D the Gang proposes won't be helpful for years. They tease you with tax credits for far off R&D results you'll end up paying for later anyway via the same high prices they claim to be fighting. As beneficial as R&D is for tomorrow, today's prosperity requires inexpensive, readily available oil. The immediate burden of surviving lean R&D years falls on Big Oil. But they must work while prevented from drilling in the best places, selling for the best prices or providing the best wages and profits for Americans; all the while dealing with government imposed reductions on the value of their market and product.

Thanks, Bob! Do us a favor and don't Gang up on us anymore. We can't afford it!

Blue Collar Muse

What does it take for random people associating with like minded others around an idea they jointly support to coalesce into a group that moves beyond approving of the idea to actively promoting the idea? In short, how does one go from harmless to honed? How does one progress from a mob to a movement? Right of Center activists are getting a crash course in answering that question via the object lesson of a new website, #Don't Go Movement. The brainchild of Eric Odom at Fresh Vision Media, #Don't Go Movement has traveled really far, really fast!

Just 5 days ago, House Democrats, led by Nancy Pelosi, left Washington, DC for a 5 week break. They left mountains of unfinished, important and urgent People's business behind. High on the list was a failure to address, in any way, the energy crisis gripping our nation from decades of flawed Democratic policy. Despite poll numbers showing 74% of Americans favor expanding supply via drilling, Democrats went home after doing nothing. Despite increasing numbers of House Democrats supporting expanded drilling, Pelosi didn't even bother to go home. She left on a book tour promoting herself and her pocketbook; content to support only drilling in the People's pocketbooks.

Democrats voted to adjourn and left. The GOP did not. They stayed in the People's House and began to call for Pelosi and Democrats to return to complete important business before leaving. The Left is branding this as mere political posturing but a look at the adjournment vote says otherwise. It was 213-212 in favor of leaving.

House GOP members who stayed behind began giving impromptu speeches, spectators in the gallery were invited down onto the floor and the few MSM reporters on hand interviewed members. Pelosi responded by having the C-Span cameras turned off, the lights turned off and the microphones turned off leaving the GOP in the dark. The GOP finally left the House chambers late Friday night but promised to return this week to renew their call to the Democrats to come back to DC and do what the People expect of them.

So what does this have to do with a movement? It's just a bunch of middle aged Republicans speechifying in the dark! It only started that way. Less than an hour after the Dems departed and the GOP got going, Eric Odom and Allen Fuller from Flat Creek put up a Twitter site, 'Don't Go!', so GOP members could get their message out along with any citizen or Social Media savvy activist. That site hit the blogs and it was off to the races. They had multiple Tweets per minute beginning mid session Friday evening and it has continued unabated to this very moment!

Some feared the issue would die across the weekend. After all, the news broke late on Friday, the worst possible time for a story to break. Further, there was practically zero MSM coverage of the story. It tends to be difficult to report when there's no lights and no sound available. But Odom and Fuller kept doing what they knew was working, keeping the issue alive in the blogosphere and via online Social Media such as Facebook as they added to their Twitter efforts. They were joined by other well known Right of Center online activists like Patrick Ruffini.

When Monday rolled around, the GOP was true to their word and returned to a darkened House chamber to continue to ask Democrats "Don't Go!". The Twitter tweets continued unabated. But by now the concept was picking up steam. There were a LOT more people involved and a way had been found to conduct interviews with participants so video and audio clips were emerging. The Twitter site alone was not enough to keep up with the information flow. So Odom added a full website that went live Tuesday afternoon. Named '#Don't Go Movement', the site features videos, blog posts from around the country, links to the original Twitter and Facebook sites and more. There's even a petition to sign where you can add your voice to those of the House members to ask the Dems, please, Don't Go!

Why a movement? The Right has not been as excited or mobilized about an issue since Harriet Meiers and the Amnesty Bill. The arrogance and hubris of Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and the rest of the Democratic leadership has chafed the GOP for months. The Energy debate was the place where GOP chafing, activist chafing and the People's chafing came together. How dare they simply go off on a tax payer funded vacation without representing the tax payers? What started as a relative handful of Congressmen on Friday night turned into thousands of online activists by Monday morning. By this afternoon, Wednesday, just 5 days after it began, it had crossed over to the MSM with Radio, Print and TV reporters and personalities clamoring for time with Odom and his colleagues. The next up is an interview with Hugh Hewitt this afternoon at 4PST, 6CST and 7EST. Eric is a friend and so I was able to reach him at his office in Chicago and he confirmed the growth. "#Don't Go Movement had 62,000 hits at the site in the very first 24 hours!", he said. I checked the running total for signatures at the petition site. It was over 22,500 for the first 24 hours and climbing several signatures per minute!

That's why a movenent. The question is, can it continue? Pelosi foolishly shows no sign of returning. It may be too late for her. Her best chance to derail the GOP's efforts was Friday night. She hoped it would die, instead. That miscalculation means she can't come back now without being seen to be bowing to GOP pressure and she can't stay away without being seen as unconcerned with the People's plight. It's a lose-lose. In chess, it's called getting "forked" when you are maneuvered into a position where your only option is to lose one of two pieces after you complete your move and your only choice is which loss is the least severe. Pelosi has done this to herself. She's going to pay the price. The GOP and the Right are not going to stop pounding the drum of "Don't Go!" until the Dems come back on Sept. 8 or until Pelosi calls them back early. Even still, they will be plagued with the question, "What took you so long to do the right thing?"

For the GOP to turn this event into a movement that outlives its original purpose will take some doing. With sharp operators like Odom, Fuller and Ruffini at the helm they have an excellent chance to turn the "Don't Go Home for Vacation Without Doing Your Job!" of August into the "Don't Go Back to the Democrat's Failed Leadership of the Last 2 Years!" of November. From there, there'd be no stopping the call to "Don't Go!"

Blue Collar Muse

Jim Cooper, Democrat from Tennessee's 5th District, recently got his ears pinned back in a formal committee hearing. Cooper held up a sheaf of papers and went for the kill while questioning Glenn English, CEO of the NRECA, a national coalition of electricity providing cooperatives. Cooper stated the material he was talking about came from the NRECA's private, password protected site which he had accessed. At that point, English said he regretted Cooper's introduction of the topic and noted that NRECA counsel had advised him Cooper was under investigation for criminal violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.

As expected, Cooper denies any wrongdoing. He first asked the NRECA for the information and was refused. He later obtained the username and password from an NRECA employee which he used to access the site and get the information he was previously denied access to. In a Clintonesque distortion of language, Cooper now equates using the login information of another with being personally authorized to view the site. Would Jim object if someone with a key to his office, say the cleaning woman, gave her key to someone who used it to enter his office and rifle his files? Exactly! But one man's authorized entry is another man's breaking and entering. Cooper further justified his actions by saying NRECA's customers had the right to know what was going on.

While opinions vary as to the law in these cases, the statute mentioned seems pretty straightforward. It appears there are a couple of places which may provide Cooper some legal problems. The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act states in part,

a) Whoever-- ... (2) intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access, and thereby obtains-- ... (A) information contained in a financial record of a financial institution, ... C) information from any protected computer if the conduct involved an interstate or foreign communication;

and,

a) Whoever-- ... (6) knowingly and with intent to defraud traffics (as defined in section 1029) in any password or similar information through which a computer may be accessed without authorization, if-- (A) such trafficking affects interstate or foreign commerce;

have broken the law. The definitions of the terms "exceeds authorized access", "financial record" and more are provided later in the document. They don't help the Congressman's cause.

Whether Jim Cooper's actions were criminal would seem to boil down to: 1) Did Congressman Jim Cooper access the site in question? 2) Was he authorized to do so?; 3) Does the site contain any financial records?; 4) Do any site records pertain to either interstate communication, commerce or both?; 5) Did Cooper obtain the password via any means definable as "trafficking"?

1 -The video records Cooper's admission he was on the site. Check! #2 - Having been denied access to the information previously, Cooper knew he was not authorized. That he bypassed that denial in the way he did further demonstrates he knew he was not authorized. Check! #3 - Also per the video, Mr. English testified the site contained both 401K and retirement records for NRECA associates. It is not unreasonable to assume those records related to financial institutions as the NRECA is not itself a financial institution. Check! #4 - The NRECA is a national coop with 900 members in 47 states. That settles the question of do the affairs of the NRECA include interstate commerce and might their site contain interstate communication. Check! #5 - This would depend on the definition of the term "Traffic". What did Cooper do to get the login information? Must money change hands? Could providing something non-monetary, but valuable, such as promising to take care of the leaker if discovered and find him work elsewhere be considered trafficking? If so, perhaps a final - Check! - is in order.

As mentioned, Cooper denies knowledge of any FBI investigation. Of course he does. The situation definitely could produce one. Is it happening? We'll have to wait and see. Cooper gets cover from the FBI itself as they don't comment on ongoing investigations. Cooper could be lying through his teeth and we wouldn't know until the FBI goes on the record. Of course, the Congressman could always "authorize" the FBI to "release information we've been denied access to previously" on the premise that, especially in an election year "the citizens of Tennessee's 5th District have the right to know if their Congressman engaged in illegal activities" punishable by either 5 or 10 years in the slammer for a first offense and possible fines on top of that. Those of you with some time on your hands, stop by and enjoy the shades of blue I can turn while holding my breath waiting.

Cooper, by any estimation, is not a powerful or influential member of Congress. He merely fills a seat and the "D" after his name provides power for those who are. Just another career politician who knows nothing of life outside the Beltway. Despite being a Rhodes Scholar, he isn't even bright enough not to confess to a crime on video. Is this the sort of politician we want in Washington? Do we really want someone making laws for the rest of us who cannot be bothered to obey them himself? There's an election coming where we can decide exactly that. See you at the polls.

Blue Collar Muse

I read Narvel Blackstock's recent letter to the editor with disappointment. Titled 'Support the Music Industry's Efforts to Replace Blight Near Music Row', it defended MDHA's decision to force Joy Ford off of her property to make room for $100 million worth of development. I'm sure Mr. Blackstock is a nice man. I have an enormous amount of respect for his wife, Reba McEntire. They have done much for Nashville and Country Music. Unfortunately for Mr. Blackstock, past good deeds don't justify current dastardly ones.

Anyone sitting through High School Civics remembers the Constitution was written to limit the power of government and permit the greatest possible liberty to the people. The 5th Amendment's Eminent Domain clause specifically prevented government from forcing people off their land because it had a different plan for it. An exception was made for "Public Use". This did permit government, for narrowly defined purposes, to seize the private property of an unwilling seller. These purposes must have, oddly enough, a public use. Interstates and government buildings, for example, purposes with clearly understood "public use" parameters, were thereby exempted from the Constitutional restraints on government.

Blackstock has confused "public use" with "public benefit". I won't argue the proposed development will produce more revenue for the city. It likely will and that is a benefit. I won't argue the proposed development will look nicer than the property looks now. It likely will and that is a benefit. I won't argue the proposed development will employ more people than the property currently does. It likely will and that is a benefit. Unfortunately, none of those public benefits even begin to rise to the level of a "public use" of the property by the city and its citizens. The development Narvel supports is plainly a private matter and will benefit only a small part of the "public". The vast majority of the "public" will never have cause to enter the proposed building or even set foot on the property.

With "public use" out of the way, only the desire of government to do as it pleases remains. MDHA and Nashville may well have compelling reasons to want the property developed. Unfortunately, our Constitution prohibits them from doing so by recognizing the rights of property owners as higher than the reasonings of government. It forbids Nashville from doing exactly what Narvel Blackstock wants done to Joy Ford. The men drafting the Bill of Rights understood government, if allowed to, would eventually grind up the citizens it was to represent in the name of representing them. It would seize their lands, confiscate their property, tax their prosperity and worse, deny them their God given Rights unless forbidden from doing so. They witnessed the Crown do exactly that and wanted no part of it for their fledgling nation.

Nashville, MDHA and Narvel Blackstock, despite reasonable sounding arguments, are on the wrong side of this issue. Due to ignorance on a stupendous scale, the Supreme Court ruled 3 years ago such takings as Blackstock proposes may be legal. However, legal does not equate to moral. Joy Ford's Right to her property comes from God. MDHA's power to force her off of it comes from men like Narvel Blackstock who believe their ideas of what is right for Nashville are more important than the Right of Joy Ford to her property.

The issue is not whether Narvel Blackstock's belief in the value of the development is true (it may be). It is not whether Blackstock's statements concerning Joy Ford and the history and use of the property are correct (they aren't). It's about Right and Wrong at foundational levels. What an incredible country we live in where a little, widow woman can stand up to the "King", wag her finger in his face and tell him and his lackeys, "Get off my land!" and be in the right.

I understand that's hard for Mr. Blackstock to accept. After all, the rest of the property Lionstone bought to develop, it bought from him. What happens to his vision, his legacy and his money if the development doesn't happen. I understand he's defending his dream! But Joy Ford is fighting for her dream, too. No one kept Blackstock from disposing of his property as he saw fit when he sold it to Lionstone. He should go back to managing his family's affairs and quit denying rights he exercised for himself to another family because he thinks his is a better dream. He did what he wanted with his property and Joy Ford can do the same. With all respect due the man and his accomplishments, he does not speak for me or my family. He does not speak for many of us here in Nashville. And he sure doesn't speak for the only person who has a say in this matter, Joy Ford.

It is in decisions made on issues exactly like this that a man's, or a city's, direction and destiny hinge. Narvel Blackstock believes the future of Music City depends on erecting a building rising into the Music Row sky. I believe our city's future depends on building on a strong Foundation rooted deep in the character of a nation. There are a lot of choices to be made over the next few weeks. But there's only one right one. I hope Narvel Blackstock can see his way clear to make it.

Blue Collar Muse

SEE ALSO:

Starstruck I'm Not! by Kay Brooks at Kay Brooks

Condemning Country in Nashville by Chris Grodecki at Castle Watch

Will the Circle be Unbroken, Part I at Blue Collar Muse

Will the Circle be Unbroken, Part II at Blue Collar Muse

I was thinking earlier today about the huge numbers of Democratic distortions and outright deceptions swirling around in the news. Nancy Pelosi calling drilling a GOP hoax and continuing to blame Republicans for gas prices; Dennis Kucinich and other Democrats deflecting attention from their historic 91% DISapproval rating by renewing calls for W to be impeached; their deafening silence on how badly the war in Iraq is going and their insistence on sticking the many with the tab for the greed and ignorance of a few in housing speculation. All of these things and so much more await the nation foolish enough to grant these people additional power in November in the name of 'Change'. What we need a change from is Democratic policy!

Just exactly how bad would it be for Democrats to be in charge of both the White House and Congress? While there is no way to tell for sure beyond the incontestable "Very, very bad!", we have a fly-on-the-wall view of the destruction awaiting America's millions. It was provided by none other than Democratic icon and NY Senator Charles "Chuck" Schumer.

Most of you are by now aware of the failure of either the second or third largest bank in US History on Friday, July 12th, 2008. Depositors staged a run on California based IndyMac to the tune of $100 million! The bank collapsed and was taken over by the federal government who opened up again this morning for business as usual. Well, except for the depositors with balances over the FDIC guaranteed $100,000 limit. As of this writing, there's no word on what happened to balances over that amount although the first $100,000 is safe.

What you may not be aware of, as I was not, is WHY there was a run on IndyMac. I assumed, incorrectly, it was related to the subprime mortgage bailout and poor loan management and performance by IndyMac. Subprime mortgages are involved. They provided the weakness IndyMac was dealing with. However, that's not why depositors broke the bank and headed for the hills with their cash.

Erick Erickson at RedState has the scoop. It seems Senator Schumer was not content to notify the Office of Thrift Supervision, IndyMac's regulator, of his concerns about IndyMac's condition and stability. Beyond that responsible notification, Senator Schumer made his concerns very public via a series of strategic leaks via letters to . When the public got wind of his concerns, they panicked and destroyed a financial institution.

This is not simply my highlighting a Democrat's bad behavior. The Office of Thrift Supervision's Director, John Reich, issued a written statement laying IndyMac's collapse at Charles Schumer's feet.

"As a regulator of insured depository institutions, we do not publicly comment on the financial condition or supervisory activities related to open and operating institutions," Reich wrote. "We believe it is critically important to maintain the confidentiality of examination and supervision information." He went on: "Dissemination of incomplete or erroneous information can erode public confidence, mislead depositors and investors, and cause unintended consequences, including depositor runs and panic stock trades. Rumors and innuendo cause damage to financial institutions that might not occur otherwise and these concerns drive our strict policy of privacy."

Senator Schumer evidently felt such a responsible handling of matters such as these was, itself, irresponsible and needed a little nudge in the right direction from his office. He did not deny or even apologize for his actions. Instead he justified them in a statement issued through his office in which he said,

The home loan bank system has an obligation to lend responsibly and police its members. But it has not been doing its job. We have found the only way to get the home loan bank system to act appropriately and positively is to make public the concerns we've already expressed privately.

Schumer's hubris and arrogance as evidenced by his actions were summed up in a statement by former US Comptroller of the Currency John D. Hawke.

"If Schumer continues to go public with letters raising questions about the condition of individual institutions, he will cause havoc in the banking system," Hawke said. "Leaking his IndyMac letter to the press was reckless and grossly irresponsible. I don't see how he can be trusted with confidential information in the future. What this incredibly stupid conduct does is put at risk the willingness of regulators to share any information with the [congressional] oversight committees. After this, you'd be crazy to share information with Schumer."

I opened with noting this post would give you a glimpse into government with Democrats in control. Hawke's comments are all the description one needs when contemplating such a horror. Havoc causing; reckless; grossly irresponsible; untrustworthy; incredibly stupid; putting [America] at risk; not to be privy to confidential or delicate information. One Senator, acting as he saw fit with no thought or concern for the people affected, decided to impose his will on a segment of the American people. That they weren't people who could hold him accountable for his actions at the ballot box is even more disgusting. His actions have done incalculable harm to the economies, jobs, futures and dreams of thousands of people associated with IndyMac; the very little people Schumer and company ceaselessly tell us they look out for.

There's some looking out to be done here, all right. America had better look out for itself and vote, not just "No!", but "Heck, NO!" to any Democrat seeking office in November. If we don't, we can all sit back and look out for more destruction born of arrogance headed down from the heights of Capitol Hill courtesy of Democrats.

Discuss this personally with Blue Collar Muse

The powers permitted to Government ought to be few and well defined. So believed James Madison. Nowhere is this more true than in the area of "police power". It should be noted the Constitution only extends police powers to the federal government in case of "counterfeiting, treason, piracy and offenses against the laws of nations." Which makes for disturbing news from Homeland Security. Seems citizens need to be aware of yet more when flying.

Walter Williams illuminates. There is a new federal offense for air passengers. Called "nonphysical interference", it carries up to $1,500 in fines for distracting a Transportation Safety Administration (TSA) screener's attention from what he is doing. Williams writes the definition of

... nonphysical interference is solely up to the discretion of a TSA screener since it isn't defined in the regulations. TSA agents can levy fines for a passenger disagreeing with the behavior or arrogance of a screener.

Williams reports hundreds of accounts of rudeness by TSA employees. In March, 2004 alone there were almost 3,000 formal complaints about TSA behavior, none of which resulted in disciplinary action. This from folks who now have authority to fine and arrest you for "interfering" with their duties! This doesn't inspire confidence in the proper exercise of power.

Even worse, Williams also reports TSA has an entirely new position. Behavior Detection Officers (BDO) are now examining body language, facial expressions and other behavior to determine which passengers exhibit behavior warranting a more detailed screening. Bob, a trained BDO blogging at TSA's 'Evolutions in Security' blog, defends the practice. He notes,

The program was designed by Paul Ekman (PhD), ... He's been studying behavioral analysis for the past 40 years and has taught the TSA, Customs and Border Protection, CIA, FBI and other federal agencies to watch for suspicious facial expressions of tension, fear or deception. ... After passing along his skills to US Customs, their "hit rate" for finding drugs during passenger searches rose to 22.5 percent from 4.2 percent in 1998.

and further relates

Between July 1, 2007 and February 7, 2008, 514 people were arrested after being referred for additional screening or directly to law enforcement officers by behavior detection officers. The arrests include unlawfully carrying concealed firearms or other weapons, possession of fraudulent documents, transporting undeclared currency, possessing illegal drugs, immigration law violations, and outstanding warrants.

I'll admit the technique increased US Customs' hit rates over 500%. I'll also note it still failed over 75% of the time. That hardly seems a scientific result to brag about.

Bob says BDOs might have flagged some of the 9/11 terrorists and "subjected them to secondary screening and questioning." That might have saved lives. And it sounds low key. Citizens are singled out for searching and a few questions and bad guys get busted. However, the WSJ reports BDOs are "agents ... trained to watch what [citizens] ... do and ask pointed questions to raise their stress levels ... to conduct rapid-fire questioning to find inconsistent stories." That's a different scenario and the potential for abuse is obvious.

If we apply Customs' 75% failure rate to Bob's 514 arrests, over 2,000 innocent passengers were intentionally upset, provoked and abused in producing that result. Of the list Bob touts, only "firearms and other weapons" impact air travel safety, the real job of TSA. How many of the 514 busts were weapon related? 5? 25? 100? Allowing 25 undetected weapons through would be a 1% failure rate. Doing nothing would have vastly improved TSA performance.

This is an apples-to-apples comparison. Because a 75% failure rate detecting bad guys by behavior equals TSA's rate for detecting bombs at the airport! Publishing figures USA Today says "stunned security experts", the TSA itself admitted failing to detect 75% of bomb components it tried to sneak past screeners at Los Angeles International Airport. At Chicago's O'Hare, the failure rate was 60%. These figures are from 2007. But the paper also reports "Tests earlier in 2002 showed screeners missing 60% of fake bombs. In the late 1990s, tests showed that screeners missed about 40% of fake bombs ..."

In what should have been a highly touted result, the best screening results came from private screening companies. In 2007, "San Francisco International Airport screeners, who work for a private company instead of the TSA, missed about 20% of the bombs, the report shows." In 2002, "... screeners failed to find fake bombs, dynamite and guns 24% of the time. The TSA ran those tests shortly after it took over checkpoint screening from security companies." TSA could immediately improve results by over 200% if they simply privatize the process!

Something needs to change. The figures paint a dangerous and unflattering portrait. TSA has had a 150% turnover in personnel in just over 6 years. This means inexperienced employees, often with only basic training, are on the job. There is little in the way of technology to make up for the inexperience. This produces pressure on frontline TSA personnel. Top that off by allowing an agency without police powers to increasingly look like police and act like police and we create what 'Consumer Reports' calls "A 'facade of security'". We also have the real threat of creating the very environment terrorists desire; innocents victimized by authority in response to terrorism.

I wish I had solutions. I don't. But it seems our current solution is becoming worse than what it seeks to prevent. Increasing TSA authority is the wrong response. We need less confrontational, more successful and, dare I say, non-governmental options. The goal is not safety at any price or even merely safety. It is safety within the constitutional bounds of smaller government and undiminished personal liberty. We're at another one of those crossroads. Choose wisely.

Blue Collar Muse

Last week I wrote about the plight of Nashville's Joy Ford, the country's latest victim of Eminent Domain abuse by government. Nashville's Metropolitan Development and Housing Agency (MDHA) has begun legal proceedings under Eminent Domain to condemn and seize Joy's business. It has prospered at the head of Music Row for almost 30 years. Now it is "blighted" and must be bulldozed to make room for $100 million dollars worth of development by a private firm in Houston, TX. I said last week, this case is every bit as bad as Kelo vs New London in 2005.

Possibly anticipating the nation's outrage over Kelo, Justice John Paul Stevens, writing in his Kelo opinon, said, "... nothing in our opinion precludes any state from placing further restrictions on its exercise of the takings power." In the aftermath of Kelo, according to Property Fairness, 27 states, including Tennessee, took Justice Stevens' encouragement and attempted to do exactly that in 2006.

The problem, of course, is not in the attempt but in the accomplishment. The Tennessee Bar Association published an excellent analysis of Tennessee's new law. The short version is that, in Tennessee, little was accomplished beyond political posturing. It is Tennessee's 2006 failure to further restrict its takings power which leads directly to MDHA's 2008 actions against Joy Ford. Speaking of the effectiveness of Tennessee's legislation, Drew Johnson, President of The Tennessee Center for Policy Research noted,

"Tennessee's new eminent domain law is a joke--and the joke is on property owners across the state," ... Tennesseans aren't any more secure from having their property taken than before the law was passed." In particular, Johnson says that the law's failure to more clearly define blight and its outright encouragement of eminent domain use to acquire land for industrial parks makes it particularly threatening to property owners.

Three months earlier, State Rep. Susan Lynn (TN-57), offered this evaluation of the law,

... after being worked through committee, this bill essentially guarantees very little protection for Tennesseans when it comes to eminent domain. To quote Sandra Day O'Connor in her dissent of the Kelo decision, the "specter of condemnation hangs over all property. Nothing is to prevent the State from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory." The bill states that 'public use' shall not include either private use or direct public benefits deriving from private economic development or private commercial enterprise, including the benefit of increased tax revenue and increased employment opportunities - except in the case where eminent domain is used for; roads, public utilities, private utilities, housing authorities, community development agencies for urban renewal or redevelopment plans; or for industrial parks. Looking at that list, I really can't think of any exception for private economic development by eminent domain that the bill leaves out.

These 2006 comments by Lynn and Johnson are prescient. Joy Ford's property is being seized because it is deemed "blighted". Drew Johnson noted the law's poor definition of blight. According to Ms. Ford, her property is ruled "blighted" because, among other things, it is surrounded by a chain link, barbed-wire topped security fence and is the only building left on the development property. Yet someone, perhaps the developer, has erected a shabbier looking fence around the development site. It goes unreported that both a hotel and Ford's building abut the same parking lot. I assume the hotel property is not part of the development and so escapes urban "blight" despite also standing alone. Either that or Ford's building is not the only one left on the property. Further, the reason Ford's building is the only one left is the Shoney's and other buildings standing on the site were demolished in anticipation of the development.

I'm trying to determine if these truly are factors in the classification of the Ford's property as "blighted". If so, how unfair. MDHA and LionStone Group want to buy her property but Ford won't sell. They move ahead with development plans and clear the land. This has, for them, the pleasant side effect of creating the situation needed to force Ford from her property. Had LionStone and MDHA been required to wait until the property was free and clear before proceeding, a major element of the case against Ms. Ford, that of her "blighted" property, would not exist. How does creating "blight" for personal gain become working for the good of the public?

However, it is Rep. Lynn's comments which make me wonder if government has not stacked the deck against the citizens they are to represent. A quick read of the bill would lead one to believe Tennessee was seeking to protect Tennesseans from the exact abuse Connecticut forced on her citizens. As Rep. Lynn observes, the bill starts well, noting "'public use' shall not include either private use or direct public benefits deriving from private economic development or private commercial enterprise, including the benefit of increased tax revenue and increased employment opportunities ..." Unfortunately, the Tennessee Legislature left a loophole in the law. While making an acceptable exemption for traditional uses of Eminent Domain such as "... roads, public utilities, private utilities ..." the bill then opens the door to all manner of Eminent Domain abuse by also exempting cases "... where eminent domain is used for; ... housing authorities, community development agencies for urban renewal or redevelopment plans; or for industrial parks."

The very issue which enraged the public in the Kelo decision, taking private property for private economic development to increase the city's tax revenue, is not forbidden to government. In fact, the mechanism for government to do precisely that is written into the law. Government is forbidden from directly taking your property to develop to improve tax revenues. But agencies created by government whose purpose is development can do so. How did such disregard for citizen's rights become law and an example of preserving the rights of citizens?

I'd like an answer to that from the Legislature. I'm sure Ms. Ford would, too. But for her, time is running out. The Legislature ran out of town at the end of the session. Too bad MDHA is still here and they've given Ford until just the middle of September to vacate the premises. After that, the wrecking balls start swinging. That's long before the politicians responsible for this mess swing back through town. Stay tuned for more on this here ...

Blue Collar Muse

Near the beginning of The Declaration of Independence, these words appear.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

It is here, a 30 second read into the birth of our nation, we find the most important right which government is to secure, the Pursuit of Happiness.

The Declaration establishes three foundational rights. The Constitution generally amplifies them, outlining ways government may not prevent us from exercising them. Our Right to Life is partially expressed in our Right to Keep and Bear Arms to defend that Life if threatened. Our Right to Liberty is partially expressed in our Right to Due Process to ensure any restraint on that Liberty is just.

One Right listed in the Declaration is different. It has no amplification in the Bill of Rights. The least discussed, it is the most important - the Pursuit of Happiness.

The Pursuit of Happiness is different in that it guarantees nothing. Other Rights we enjoy enumerate a concrete something. We have Freedom of Speech. Speech is a "something" that is mine. Just so with Life, Liberty, to Bear Arms, the Press - at the end of each we find something tangible. Not so with the Pursuit of Happiness.

Pursuing Happiness is the only Right which does not define an outcome. We are not guaranteed Happiness, just the Pursuit of it. We are not assured the road will not be difficult or poorly maintained, merely that it is there to be traveled. Because of this, the Pursuit of Happiness is our most precious Right. Because phrased another way, it guarantees our Right to Fail.

Happiness is different for every man. Our dreams are as individual as we are. It would have been folly to try to define Happiness; folly to determine the best path to Pursue it. Pursuits may be long or short; easy or difficult; straightforward or complicated. While I am grateful for the straightforward, short and easy ones, it is the value in the complicated, long and difficult ones which the Declaration anticipated. Because the Pursuits teaching us the most, both building and revealing character; producing the most opportunity for us, are the difficult ones or the ones we fail to complete at all.

Thomas Edison tried over 4,000 different prototypes of the light bulb before realizing his goal. He is reported to have said, "I have not failed 4,000 times. I have discovered 4,000 ways not to create an incandescent light bulb!" Undaunted by failing in his Pursuit, Edison learned from each. It was because of, not in spite of, his failures, that he succeeded. Even the simplest Pursuits face obstacles. A man's response to them determines not just his success in Pursuit of that specific Happiness. It determines his success for all future Pursuits as well.

Do we persist in adversity? Do we work as hard in anonymity as we do in the limelight? Do we collaborate or insist on solo Pursuits? There are a myriad lessons to be learned. Most of them are only learned through failure. As it is said, "Most good judgement comes from experience! Most experience comes from bad judgement!"

It is here where a man's success or failure in his various Pursuits is determined. Because along with recognizing man's Rights, the Declaration notes men institute government to secure them and that government does so only with the consent of the governed. It thus becomes vital for the governed to so value the Right to Fail they refuse to consent to any plan by government to take it from them. They must consent to striving in an environment, secured by government, in which failure is a valued result.

If We The People consent to government which takes away our Right to Fail, we consent to government which will take away our other Rights as well. Securing a government with power to eradicate our individual Pursuits, we secure a government with power to define our individual Happiness. When Happiness is defined for the many by government, individuals must surrender the rest of their Rights to facilitate the government's Pursuit. Those refusing to do so are threats both to government and the governed. We all know how threats are dealt with.

This is the question Americans must answer. Will we be allowed to fail or not? The Left, and far too many on the Right, say, "No! No one must fail!" There remains, however, a minority which understands the value in failure. It understands the pain in little failures along the way are motivation to great Happiness at the end of the Pursuit! It understands failure is not an impediment to Happiness, it is a stepping stone to a successful Pursuit. It knows temporary suffering in a failure while Pursuing does not compare to the eternal suffering in failing to Pursue at all.

Celebrating your Independence today, understand what it means to be Independent! It means your success or failure in the Pursuit of Happiness depends on you, not the government. It means you not only can, but will, fail while in Pursuit. When your Rights are secured by government and not defined by it, you embrace failure as a blessing and not a curse, as a teacher and not a thief. You truly have Life, you are truly at Liberty, you have the best chance for a successful Pursuit!

In college, I hung a poster on my wall which read, "A ship in a harbor is safe. But that is not what ships were made for!" Enjoy your Pursuit! Godspeed!

Blue Collar Muse

A friend sent me a link to an editorial from the Hartford (CT) Courant authored by Robert Satter. Mr. Satter is a judge trial referee in Hartford Superior Court and author of "Under the Gold Dome -- An Insider's Look at the Connecticut Legislature." He is also, in my opinion, a very dangerous man. He has power and influence and is using them to undermine the foundation on which our country was built.

Connecticut votes in November on whether or not to hold a Constitutional Convention to amend or revise its constitution. Some want to do so to give citizens the right to directly petition their government via the Initiative and Referendum (I&R) process. I&R allows an issue to be voted on by putting it put on the ballot by citizen request as opposed to legislative action.

The I&R process is not well liked by politicians as it usually limits what they can do. It may curtail their ability to raise taxes at will or to take your property if you don't want to sell. As such, it is not easy for citizens to actually get something on the ballot. I&R may be granted by a state's constitution but laws governing the process are made by the legislature. Lawmakers determine how many signatures are needed to get an issue on the ballot and the length of time available to collect them. Such power often impedes the process so effectively it's a wonder initiatives manage to get on the ballot at all. But If Mr. Satter had his way, you wouldn't even have that right. Mere citizens aren't qualified to speak to issues.

Satter starts out well enough.

The right of initiative is the right of citizens to propose laws or constitutional amendments that, if approved by a majority vote, have the force of law.

From there, his description of I&R makes it appear those desiring the power to propose a law are selfish, power mad and out to corrupt the process. Well, he's right about that, too. He just got the subject wrong. Satter thinks voters are like that. In reality it's a better description of lawmakers. I&R is a powerful tool for citizens to curb the excesses of government, not the other way around.

When Mr. Satter says I&R proposals

... are drafted by private lawyers representing narrow interest groups. Their wording frames the issue and cannot later be changed.

he's arguing that's bad for citizens. Has Satter never heard of lobbyists, lawyers and lawmakers? Are outsider Environmentalists OK as a narrow interest group when seeking to impose their view on the state but citizens who actually have to live with the laws passed too narrow an interest group to have an interest in the law?

Mr Satter says,

Those signatures are not spontaneously given by the public, but must be actively solicited. In the initiative states, a cottage industry of signature solicitors has sprung up. In California, it typically costs $1 million to obtain the requisite number of signers.

Does he not understand support for a bill in the legislature does not spontaneously arise? Lawmakers expend huge amounts of time and energy actively soliciting the support of their colleagues. He dismisses the labor by which I&R signatures are gathered and ridicules those doing the work as a "cottage industry". He misleads readers by irresponsibly using the figure of $1 million with no context. If signature gathering is a cottage industry, what sort of "industry" is lobbying the legislature to get an issue on the ballot? Satter does not say where the money comes from to pay for signature gathering, just that it is spent. But these are not tax dollars, they are privately raised funds. If private money should not be used to influence the legislative process, I'll have to point again to lobbyists. Satter doesn't provide the total spent on lobbying the Connecticut legislature when it is in session. Something tells me it's more than $1 million.

But Robert Satter's worst insult to the intelligence and character of voters is saved for later.

And how is the campaign over initiative proposals waged? It is waged by slogans, bumper stickers, 10-second sound bites and by TV ads as if selling toothpaste. The vote is yes or no, up or down. There is not the deliberation and accommodation of the legislative process in which bills are carefully scrutinized by committees of cognizance, subjected to a public hearing, debated in both chambers and ultimately signed by the governor. In that process, all sides of the issue are explored, its relationship to other matters of public policy considered, negotiations between opposing sides conducted, and compromises and changes of wording made. In lawmaking by plebiscite, people rarely read the exact language of the propositions. They vote their general impression of the issue.

Do only I&R campaigns use slogans and sound bites? Does Satter really believe every bill passed is carefully read, deliberated and analyzed before being voted on? Is Satter actually arguing amendments hung on bills at the last second are completely understood and their ramifications tested and deemed acceptable? Is he seriously arguing citizens are incapable evaluating the impact their proposed I&R will have? It is true citizens don't debate the possible impact of the law for a couple of weeks before passing it and hoping for the best as the legislature does. Citizens are forced to live with the actual results of those laws. Tens of thousands of hours of debate and analysis then take place in legislative chambers known as kitchen tables, water coolers, carpools and the like. By the time an I&R is proposed, the issue is well known. Usually because citizens have already asked the legislature to fix the problem and they have refused. In such cases, I&R is often the citizens last resort.

But Robert Satter thinks that's a bad thing. The people of Connecticut, or anywhere else, shouldn't be able to insist their lawmakers really represent them. Citizens are ignorant peasants without the requisite intelligence, interest, time or ability to understand the workings of government. That lofty pursuit is best left to better men. Satter's premise is flawed. His conclusions are wrong. His arrogant contempt for citizens he seems to believe should be ruled over as opposed to represented is offensive. I&R is precisely what Connecticut and every other state without it needs, including my state of Tennessee. Without it, we are at the mercy of elitists like Robert Satter. While he may consider that a good thing, I find the prospect terrifying.

Blue Collar Muse.

A friend sent me a link to an editorial from the Hartford (CT) Courant authored by Robert Satter. Mr. Satter is a judge trial referee in Hartford Superior Court and author of "Under the Gold Dome -- An Insider's Look at the Connecticut Legislature." He is also, in my opinion, a very dangerous man. He has power and influence and is using them to undermine the foundation on which our country was built.

Connecticut votes in November on whether or not to hold a Constitutional Convention to amend or revise its constitution. Some want to do so to give citizens the right to directly petition their government via the Initiative and Referendum (I&R) process. I&R allows an issue to be voted on by putting it put on the ballot by citizen request as opposed to legislative action.

The I&R process is not well liked by politicians as it usually limits what they can do. It may curtail their ability to raise taxes at will or to take your property if you don't want to sell. As such, it is not easy for citizens to actually get something on the ballot. I&R may be granted by a state's constitution but laws governing the process are made by the legislature. Lawmakers determine how many signatures are needed to get an issue on the ballot and the length of time available to collect them. Such power often impedes the process so effectively it's a wonder initiatives manage to get on the ballot at all. But If Mr. Satter had his way, you wouldn't even have that right. Mere citizens aren't qualified to speak to issues.

Satter starts out well enough.

The right of initiative is the right of citizens to propose laws or constitutional amendments that, if approved by a majority vote, have the force of law.

From there, his description of I&R makes it appear those desiring the power to propose a law are selfish, power mad and out to corrupt the process. Well, he's right about that, too. He just got the subject wrong. Satter thinks voters are like that. In reality it's a better description of lawmakers. I&R is a powerful tool for citizens to curb the excesses of government, not the other way around.

When Mr. Satter says I&R proposals

... are drafted by private lawyers representing narrow interest groups. Their wording frames the issue and cannot later be changed.

he's arguing that's bad for citizens. Has Satter never heard of lobbyists, lawyers and lawmakers? Are outsider Environmentalists OK as a narrow interest group when seeking to impose their view on the state but citizens who actually have to live with the laws passed too narrow an interest group to have an interest in the law?

Mr Satter says,

Those signatures are not spontaneously given by the public, but must be actively solicited. In the initiative states, a cottage industry of signature solicitors has sprung up. In California, it typically costs $1 million to obtain the requisite number of signers.

Does he not understand support for a bill in the legislature does not spontaneously arise? Lawmakers expend huge amounts of time and energy actively soliciting the support of their colleagues. He dismisses the labor by which I&R signatures are gathered and ridicules those doing the work as a "cottage industry". He misleads readers by irresponsibly using the figure of $1 million with no context. If signature gathering is a cottage industry, what sort of "industry" is lobbying the legislature to get an issue on the ballot? Satter does not say where the money comes from to pay for signature gathering, just that it is spent. But these are not tax dollars, they are privately raised funds. If private money should not be used to influence the legislative process, I'll have to point again to lobbyists. Satter doesn't provide the total spent on lobbying the Connecticut legislature when it is in session. Something tells me it's more than $1 million.

But Robert Satter's worst insult to the intelligence and character of voters is saved for later.

And how is the campaign over initiative proposals waged? It is waged by slogans, bumper stickers, 10-second sound bites and by TV ads as if selling toothpaste. The vote is yes or no, up or down. There is not the deliberation and accommodation of the legislative process in which bills are carefully scrutinized by committees of cognizance, subjected to a public hearing, debated in both chambers and ultimately signed by the governor. In that process, all sides of the issue are explored, its relationship to other matters of public policy considered, negotiations between opposing sides conducted, and compromises and changes of wording made. In lawmaking by plebiscite, people rarely read the exact language of the propositions. They vote their general impression of the issue.

Do only I&R campaigns use slogans and sound bites? Does Satter really believe every bill passed is carefully read, deliberated and analyzed before being voted on? Is Satter actually arguing amendments hung on bills at the last second are completely understood and their ramifications tested and deemed acceptable? Is he seriously arguing citizens are incapable evaluating the impact their proposed I&R will have? It is true citizens don't debate the possible impact of the law for a couple of weeks before passing it and hoping for the best as the legislature does. Citizens are forced to live with the actual results of those laws. Tens of thousands of hours of debate and analysis then take place in legislative chambers known as kitchen tables, water coolers, carpools and the like. By the time an I&R is proposed, the issue is well known. Usually because citizens have already asked the legislature to fix the problem and they have refused. In such cases, I&R is often the citizens last resort.

But Robert Satter thinks that's a bad thing. The people of Connecticut, or anywhere else, shouldn't be able to insist their lawmakers really represent them. Citizens are ignorant peasants without the requisite intelligence, interest, time or ability to understand the workings of government. That lofty pursuit is best left to better men. Satter's premise is flawed. His conclusions are wrong. His arrogant contempt for citizens he seems to believe should be ruled over as opposed to represented is offensive. I&R is precisely what Connecticut and every other state without it needs, including my state of Tennessee. Without it, we are at the mercy of elitists like Robert Satter. While he may consider that a good thing, I find the prospect terrifying.

Blue Collar Muse.

A friend sent me a link to an editorial from the Hartford (CT) Courant authored by Robert Satter. Mr. Satter is a judge trial referee in Hartford Superior Court and author of "Under the Gold Dome -- An Insider's Look at the Connecticut Legislature." He is also, in my opinion, a very dangerous man. He has power and influence and is using them to undermine the foundation on which our country was built.

Connecticut votes in November on whether or not to hold a Constitutional Convention to amend or revise its constitution. Some want to do so to give citizens the right to directly petition their government via the Initiative and Referendum (I&R) process. I&R allows an issue to be voted on by putting it put on the ballot by citizen request as opposed to legislative action.

The I&R process is not well liked by politicians as it usually limits what they can do. It may curtail their ability to raise taxes at will or to take your property if you don't want to sell. As such, it is not easy for citizens to actually get something on the ballot. I&R may be granted by a state's constitution but laws governing the process are made by the legislature. Lawmakers determine how many signatures are needed to get an issue on the ballot and the length of time available to collect them. Such power often impedes the process so effectively it's a wonder initiatives manage to get on the ballot at all. But If Mr. Satter had his way, you wouldn't even have that right. Mere citizens aren't qualified to speak to issues.

Satter starts out well enough.

The right of initiative is the right of citizens to propose laws or constitutional amendments that, if approved by a majority vote, have the force of law.

From there, his description of I&R makes it appear those desiring the power to propose a law are selfish, power mad and out to corrupt the process. Well, he's right about that, too. He just got the subject wrong. Satter thinks voters are like that. In reality it's a better description of lawmakers. I&R is a powerful tool for citizens to curb the excesses of government, not the other way around.

When Mr. Satter says I&R proposals

... are drafted by private lawyers representing narrow interest groups. Their wording frames the issue and cannot later be changed.

he's arguing that's bad for citizens. Has Satter never heard of lobbyists, lawyers and lawmakers? Are outsider Environmentalists OK as a narrow interest group when seeking to impose their view on the state but citizens who actually have to live with the laws passed too narrow an interest group to have an interest in the law?

Mr Satter says,

Those signatures are not spontaneously given by the public, but must be actively solicited. In the initiative states, a cottage industry of signature solicitors has sprung up. In California, it typically costs $1 million to obtain the requisite number of signers.

Does he not understand support for a bill in the legislature does not spontaneously arise? Lawmakers expend huge amounts of time and energy actively soliciting the support of their colleagues. He dismisses the labor by which I&R signatures are gathered and ridicules those doing the work as a "cottage industry". He misleads readers by irresponsibly using the figure of $1 million with no context. If signature gathering is a cottage industry, what sort of "industry" is lobbying the legislature to get an issue on the ballot? Satter does not say where the money comes from to pay for signature gathering, just that it is spent. But these are not tax dollars, they are privately raised funds. If private money should not be used to influence the legislative process, I'll have to point again to lobbyists. Satter doesn't provide the total spent on lobbying the Connecticut legislature when it is in session. Something tells me it's more than $1 million.

But Robert Satter's worst insult to the intelligence and character of voters is saved for later.

And how is the campaign over initiative proposals waged? It is waged by slogans, bumper stickers, 10-second sound bites and by TV ads as if selling toothpaste. The vote is yes or no, up or down. There is not the deliberation and accommodation of the legislative process in which bills are carefully scrutinized by committees of cognizance, subjected to a public hearing, debated in both chambers and ultimately signed by the governor. In that process, all sides of the issue are explored, its relationship to other matters of public policy considered, negotiations between opposing sides conducted, and compromises and changes of wording made. In lawmaking by plebiscite, people rarely read the exact language of the propositions. They vote their general impression of the issue.

Do only I&R campaigns use slogans and sound bites? Does Satter really believe every bill passed is carefully read, deliberated and analyzed before being voted on? Is Satter actually arguing amendments hung on bills at the last second are completely understood and their ramifications tested and deemed acceptable? Is he seriously arguing citizens are incapable evaluating the impact their proposed I&R will have? It is true citizens don't debate the possible impact of the law for a couple of weeks before passing it and hoping for the best as the legislature does. Citizens are forced to live with the actual results of those laws. Tens of thousands of hours of debate and analysis then take place in legislative chambers known as kitchen tables, water coolers, carpools and the like. By the time an I&R is proposed, the issue is well known. Usually because citizens have already asked the legislature to fix the problem and they have refused. In such cases, I&R is often the citizens last resort.

But Robert Satter thinks that's a bad thing. The people of Connecticut, or anywhere else, shouldn't be able to insist their lawmakers really represent them. Citizens are ignorant peasants without the requisite intelligence, interest, time or ability to understand the workings of government. That lofty pursuit is best left to better men. Satter's premise is flawed. His conclusions are wrong. His arrogant contempt for citizens he seems to believe should be ruled over as opposed to represented is offensive. I&R is precisely what Connecticut and every other state without it needs, including my state of Tennessee. Without it, we are at the mercy of elitists like Robert Satter. While he may consider that a good thing, I find the prospect terrifying.

Blue Collar Muse.

A friend sent me a link to an editorial from the Hartford (CT) Courant authored by Robert Satter. Mr. Satter is a judge trial referee in Hartford Superior Court and author of "Under the Gold Dome -- An Insider's Look at the Connecticut Legislature." He is also, in my opinion, a very dangerous man. He has power and influence and is using them to undermine the foundation on which our country was built.

Connecticut votes in November on whether or not to hold a Constitutional Convention to amend or revise its constitution. Some want to do so to give citizens the right to directly petition their government via the Initiative and Referendum (I&R) process. I&R allows an issue to be voted on by putting it put on the ballot by citizen request as opposed to legislative action.

The I&R process is not well liked by politicians as it usually limits what they can do. It may curtail their ability to raise taxes at will or to take your property if you don't want to sell. As such, it is not easy for citizens to actually get something on the ballot. I&R may be granted by a state's constitution but laws governing the process are made by the legislature. Lawmakers determine how many signatures are needed to get an issue on the ballot and the length of time available to collect them. Such power often impedes the process so effectively it's a wonder initiatives manage to get on the ballot at all. But If Mr. Satter had his way, you wouldn't even have that right. Mere citizens aren't qualified to speak to issues.

Satter starts out well enough.

The right of initiative is the right of citizens to propose laws or constitutional amendments that, if approved by a majority vote, have the force of law.

From there, his description of I&R makes it appear those desiring the power to propose a law are selfish, power mad and out to corrupt the process. Well, he's right about that, too. He just got the subject wrong. Satter thinks voters are like that. In reality it's a better description of lawmakers. I&R is a powerful tool for citizens to curb the excesses of government, not the other way around.

When Mr. Satter says I&R proposals

... are drafted by private lawyers representing narrow interest groups. Their wording frames the issue and cannot later be changed.

he's arguing that's bad for citizens. Has Satter never heard of lobbyists, lawyers and lawmakers? Are outsider Environmentalists OK as a narrow interest group when seeking to impose their view on the state but citizens who actually have to live with the laws passed too narrow an interest group to have an interest in the law?

Mr Satter says,

Those signatures are not spontaneously given by the public, but must be actively solicited. In the initiative states, a cottage industry of signature solicitors has sprung up. In California, it typically costs $1 million to obtain the requisite number of signers.

Does he not understand support for a bill in the legislature does not spontaneously arise? Lawmakers expend huge amounts of time and energy actively soliciting the support of their colleagues. He dismisses the labor by which I&R signatures are gathered and ridicules those doing the work as a "cottage industry". He misleads readers by irresponsibly using the figure of $1 million with no context. If signature gathering is a cottage industry, what sort of "industry" is lobbying the legislature to get an issue on the ballot? Satter does not say where the money comes from to pay for signature gathering, just that it is spent. But these are not tax dollars, they are privately raised funds. If private money should not be used to influence the legislative process, I'll have to point again to lobbyists. Satter doesn't provide the total spent on lobbying the Connecticut legislature when it is in session. Something tells me it's more than $1 million.

But Robert Satter's worst insult to the intelligence and character of voters is saved for later.

And how is the campaign over initiative proposals waged? It is waged by slogans, bumper stickers, 10-second sound bites and by TV ads as if selling toothpaste. The v