News, Opinion & NETcessities

Please support our Sponsors

Editorial 1 Russell Betts Russell Betts worked as Director of Operations for a U.S. Manufacturer, jointly serving as its Director of Corporate Communications and V.P. of Operations. From 1993 to 2000, he lived and worked in Mainland China. He is a founding member of the Wuxi Joint Venture Manager's Forum, a consortium of foreign invested companies in Wuxi, China. From 1996 to 2000, Betts served as Consulate Warden for American Citizen Services, Shanghai District, Wuxi Region. He now resides in the U.S. and is editor of GoGov.com.

Admitted Incompetence  "We have a responsibility as the U.S. Government to police our borders and we are doing the best we can" - Attorney General Alberto Gonzales   So says U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales in response to questions about the private citizens group formed to patrol the border and calling themselves the Minuteman Project. Gonzales is, of course, correct. The U.S. government does have a responsibility to patrol the border. It should not be up to a private citizens group. The rejoinder: So do it! Do your job. To his suggestion that the U.S. government is doing the best they can. The only way to put it is, BS! And that is what we just heard from the Bush administration by way of its Attorney General. But there is more. According to Gonzales, civilian volunteers patrolling for illegal immigrants in Arizona have the right to assemble at the border. But he says their approach isn't an effective way to stop people from sneaking into the country. Click to enlarge By all news accounts, successful border crossings at the section of the U.S. Mexican border patrolled by the Minutemen have been zero. And before the Minuteman project showed up. Here is an account by just one family living on the border. You be the judge. Robin said she hears gunshot every night on her ranch. Has no idea exactly where it is coming from. Since the Minutemen arrived, she claims the gunshots have stopped. The family's ranch is stampeded by illegal crossings. Years ago, they said their ranch was peaceful and safe. That it was rare to see illegal crossers. The husband, Edward, said he was recently on his property and was astounded to count over 200 illegal crossers in a group nearby. He said he called the border patrol on his cellular phone. He was told by the woman on the phone that it was not possible to see 200 hundred crossers because they would never cross in such a large group. As he was being told this, the 200 were crossing right before his eyes! (full account here) That's one family and one report. And by every report there are not a couple hundred or even a hundred hundred illegals crossing into the U.S. There are now 10 million people living illegally in the U.S., most of whom crossed the U.S. Mexico border through property owned by people like Robin and Edward. If the situation was not so infuriating, Gonzalez's statement would be laughable. His statements, though, are an insult to the intelligence of anyone that has even the slightest idea of what is going on with our borders. Either Gonzalez thinks we are all that stupid or he has just admitted his own incompetence. Gonzales: Volunteers aren't the best way Don't Feel Sorry For Terri by Russell Betts (March 26, 2005) What a mess this country has found itself in as it wrestles with the Terri Schiavo starvation. It results from our diminished value of life and the continual move towards cheapening it - at least when it comes to human life. When it comes to animals, there seems to be little debate or confusion. And only a small minority seemingly thinking that whatever you to to an animal is okay. Starve an animal to death, weather it be a dog left tied to a tree  neglected of food or as in the case of a farmer in Vermont that starved his cows, we seem to know and have worked out the answer. In the case of the cows, then-Washington County State's Attorney Tom Kelly said of the situation, "We think some jail time is appropriate. The cows suffered tremendously." But what of human suffering? In the Terri Schiavo case there is plenty of suffering to go around. For the family it is 15 years worth as Terri lay in bed unable to communicate, if not in actually in a vegetative state as she has been described, so severely brain damaged that she appears to be very close to it. And what of starving a human, Terri, to death? Is it right that Terri Schiavo should now die. Certainly she will soon be better off. She will be in heaven with the joys of life once again with her. But as is often said of the dead, it is not the dead we feel sorry for. It is those left behind. In the Terri Schiavo case, that is not just her parents and loved ones now fighting to keep her alive. This time it is all of us. What line have we drawn when we as a society decide the time has come that one of us is better off dead. The courts have said that time is now for Terri Schiavo. And the next one of us to fall victim to accident or illness? Who will champion our death? Who will fight to protect it as so many are now fighting to protect Terri's.  We can feel sorry for Terri Schiavo and should. But when we have so clearly defined what should not become the fate of an animal and so clearly have failed to address what should or should not become of a human, the ones we must truly feel sorry for are ourselves. Our day will come. The day Terri Schiavo dies, the question of when takes on new meaning.   John Kerry and the Sub-Media Culture by Russell Betts (March 16, 2005) We don't have any illusions that Senator John Kerry was talking specifically about us or that he is even aware of these pages. We are just a small part in a much larger group of new news outlets that John Kerry has just labeled a sub-media culture, a sub culture he does not find to his liking and that he says needs to be controlled. Speaking at an event at the John F. Kennedy Presidential Library in Boston last February, Kerry complained about us and the thousands of others in internet news. What he said is shocking only if you believe Kerry's words could ever put this new information age back in the bottle.  "We learned," Kerry said to the gathering, "that the mainstream media, over the course of the last year, did a pretty good job of discerning. But there's a subculture and a sub-media that talks and keeps things going for entertainment purposes rather than for the flow of information. And that has a profound impact and undermines what we call the mainstream media of the country. And so the decision-making ability of the American electorate has been profoundly impacted as a consequence of that. The question is, what are we going to do about it?"   What Senator Kerry would like to do about it is to shut us all up. But he can't say that publicly. What he did say publicly, though, is just as shocking. "When fear is dominating the discussion and when there are false choices presented and there is no arbitrator, we have a problem," said Kerry. In case you missed that, Kerry says the problem is the lack of an arbitrator to control the dissemination of news. He did not say who or what that arbitrator should be, only that we have a problem because there is not one. The "sub-media" is a problem for Kerry because the mainstream media is no longer in control to silence groups like the Swift Boat Vets by ignoring them and denying them coverage. Or to keep stories quiet like we chronicled about Kerry's lead in outsourcing trade missions to China in the late 1990's in conjunction with a Boston company boasting over 70 outsourcing projects - at the same time we were reporting on this, his preferred news disseminators were dutifully printing Kerry's campaign speeches calling for an end to outsourcing without a word of Kerry's involvement in the very thing he was speaking against. Surely the problem Kerry sees is that stories run by Dan Rather, The New York Times and the other media giants favorable to him are being knocked down as false by internet newsgroups calling themselves FreeRepublic, Powerline, and Little Green Footballs. The problem for Kerry is that he could not count on the mainstream media as the only information gatekeeper in his bid to take the presidency. A recent study that showed the mainstream news coverage was much harder on Bush is no doubt the reason why Kerry sees it as a problem that the mainstream media is no longer the only game in town, one that for the most part is a game in his favor. What is sub-culture to Kerry are the internet news outlets that  report what the mainstream media will not and expose what the mainstream media fabricates. It is you by the millions that increasingly rely on internet news for at least a part of the news you take in. Kerry does not like this new sub-culture. He does not like you having access to it. Says Kerry, "It is a problem," a problem in need of an arbitrator, an arbitrator "to protect the decision-making ability of the American electorate." It's a problem to Kerry that the only arbitrator is now you.   News forum that caught CBS fake National Guard documents shines light on another media blunder BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) - Iraqi militants claimed in a Web statement Tuesday to have taken an American soldier hostage and threatened to behead him in 72 hours unless the Americans release Iraqi prisoners. The posting, on a Web site (ansarnet.ws) that frequently carried militants' statements, included a photo of what appeared to be an American soldier in desert fatigues seated with his hands tied behind his back. Well, not exactly...Read on. "I need you all to look at this photo and tell me if you think the vest is what is being issued and worn in Iraq. Also does the M-16 shown look small?" - posted on 02/01/2005 11:26:05 AM PST by Dog "Ok, some things I'd like to point out... first, that vest, and those boots, they aren't military issue, if they are I've never seen em. Next, the mag in the M4 isn't issued I believe, it looks like a mag you would buy for civilian use." - posted on 02/01/2005 11:27:15 AM PST by BladeLWS "Is this a hoax? The 'captured soldier' suspiciously looks like a doll for sale on the internet." - posted on 02/01/2005 11:27:22 AM PST by BlackRain AP Story Here FreeRepublic Thread Here "Did you ever consider becoming an investigative journalist? You just broke this story wide open." - posted on 02/01/2005 11:29:45 AM PST by 1LongTimeLurker " I can't take any credit for the find. These guys deserve the credit - MilitaryPhotos.net - posted on 02/01/2005 11:35:09 AM PST by BlackRain "hee hee ....how embarrassing for AP." - posted on 02/01/2005 11:35:35 AM PST by Gator101 So goes a thread on the internet news forum Free Republic as a story about a toy soldier being held hostage was still being reported as a real hostage situation by the mainstream news media. As noted in the thread reposted above, in this case Free Republic was not the first to discover the doll become "hostage" story - MilitaryPhotos.net was - but as the most popular political news forum on the internet, it was first to amplify the mainstream media mistake. And it was way ahead of that media in getting the story out. It was the same news forum that first broke the CBS fake National Guard documents story. And so it has been on many other stories on a daily basis. Free Republic with its tens of thousands of citizen reporters, and commentators - albeit most of them amateur has become an influential source of news. In this age of the communications revolution, two way news has become a reality. Free Republic has taken that revolution a step further.  And for fact checking - with those same tens of thousands of forum participants having expertise in a variety of fields and professions,  you can find no better fact checking source for finding out a GI hostage was really a GI Joe.  Give credit where credit is due. Follow up: Since posting this article we have heard from several members of the Free Republic news forum letting us know that Free Republic has some other notable firsts in news reporting.  We found the following a fascinating read. First reports of problems with the shuttle Columbia. As the event unfolds in real time. It "didn't look right" and "It looks like it broke apart" were the first observations as the shuttle had disintegrated on re entry.   Why the manufacturing rush to China? The Scourge of Outsourcing There is no more a clear cut case of John Kerry's contradictions between his campaign utterances and his record as a U.S. senator than his pronouncements on outsourcing. Since August, GoGov.com has detailed Kerry's deep involvement in outsourcing of U.S. jobs to China through his association with Paul Marcus and Boston Capital & Technology. This story (detailed here) is one of direct involvement by Kerry in the set up of U.S. manufacturing in and the export of U.S. jobs to China.  Many supporters of Kerry have been taken in by the deception of Kerry's words on the campaign trail with complete oblivion to Kerry's past record on outsourcing. Among them is Anthony Wade, OpEdNews.com who recently opined that Kerry is the answer to the scourge of outsourcing. Wade writes:  Jobs – George Bush ... will do nothing to address the rampant outsourcing that is weakening this country and nothing to help create better jobs. We are losing quality jobs and replacing them with McJobs. When asked about what he would do during the debates about creating jobs, he only talked about No Child Left Behind. He has no answer. John Kerry thinks we can do better than that. His plan includes closing tax loopholes that reward companies for outsourcing American jobs and create tax incentives for those companies which create jobs in this country. That makes sense.  There is a clear choice here. Do we want more empty promises of job creation while the richest are laughing all the way to the bank or do we want common sense sacrifice from the most well off, with concrete plans to stop the scourge of outsourcing? (emphasis ours). With only a little digging, Mr. Wade will find that Kerry led the outsourcing charge with Paul Marcus, a neighbor of Kerry in the Beacon Hill district of Boston, and the company owned by Marcus, Boston Capital & Technology.  In the link provided above, you can see the full detail of Boston Capital & Technology's outsourcing scope. Briefly, Boston Capital & Technology specializes in helping U.S. companies set up operations in China with projects including advanced tool and die works and computer assisted manufacturing. So much was Kerry involved in the efforts of Boston Capital & Technology that Kerry actually led one of Boston Capital & Technology's outsourcing trade missions to China in the late 1990's. This involvement was detailed on the website of Boston Capital & Technology that has since been removed but is preserved here.  Supporting a candidate is one thing. Blindly touting something about that candidate that is far removed from the truth is quite another. The only excuse can be the main media's near complete ignoring of Kerry's record. We would think, though, that if someone like Wade were going to go to such lengths to detail his praises of John Kerry that he would at least take a moment to get it right. On the subject of Kerry and outsourcing, getting it right is this. Boston Capital & Technology not only helped U.S. companies (70 companies in all) set up in China, it did it with the support of an influential senator from Massachusetts. Other companies in the same line of work as Boston Capital & Technology (there are others that help U.S. companies move to China) can only dream of such a U.S. political connection and the advantage it provided Marcus and Boston Capital & Technology. While other companies facilitating outsourcing do it with only their traditional business connections, Boston Capital & Technology did with with the help and influence of Kerry. For those whose jobs have been lost through this outsourcing trade, it is a financially and emotionally painful experience. It is easy, then, to react favorably to a candidate that says he will do something about it. But in places like Xenia, Ohio where Kerry gave a speech on outsourcing and Mercer County, Pennsylvania hit hard by the loss of outsourced jobs, those people need to know that where they have seen pain and job loss, others see profits in facilitating the loss of U.S. jobs.  In those places and many other towns across America, unemployed workers would drool at the prospect of the jobs created by just one of the thousands of new factories set up in China during the 1990's. Those workers should know that Kerry himself himself worked to set up those overseas U.S. factories.  There is much talk of Kerry flip flops. But on the subject of outsourcing and Kerry's pronouncements about it, there is much more than a flip and a flop. For the U.S. workers that have lost their jobs to outsourcing, it was a thud and a crash that Kerry foisted upon U.S. workers, the very workers he and his supporters now say Kerry will look after. Outsourcing is, as Mr. Wade says, a scourge. But what he and other Kerry supporters miss is this: the scourge of outsourcing is Kerry.

Farmer Convicted For Starving His Cows BARRE – A Cabot farmer convicted of starving his cows to death has begun serving a reparative sentence imposed by Washington County prosecutors as part of a plea bargain. Christian DeNeergaard pleaded guilty to five misdemeanor counts of animal cruelty in January. He received a suspended one-year sentence as well as 30 days of work crew assignment as part of a deal with prosecutors. DeNeergaard, 47, may not own or possess livestock during his year of probation and must also undergo alcohol-abuse counseling. In October, then-Washington County State's Attorney Tom Kelly said he would seek at least some jail time for animal neglect, which claimed the lives of at least 11 cows. "We think some jail time is appropriate," said Kelly in an October interview. "The cows suffered tremendously."   GoGov Toons Click to enlarge GoGov Recommended Read Presidential Leadership See our Front Page NETcessities Computers Buy Books Currency Converter Metric Conversions  Stock quotes Job Search Movies Instant Messaging Horoscope RealEstate  Net Tech  Windows security GRC Personal firewall ZoneAlarm  WIRED NEWS E Opinions Test  Your Internet Speed  Fix it now What the heck is  Don't miss  another letter! See our Front Page   Opinion George Will Cal Thomas Walter Williams W.F. Buckley, Jr. Hugh Hewitt Joe Conason Russell Betts National Review New Republic Bob Novak Robert Paul Reyes Free Republic Consortium News Meet the Press Past Stories at GoGov.com 'We Know Where, Not When' Homeland Security raises security alert level. "credible, specific information." Information updated recently  LA Times Terror Plans 3 to 4 years old New York Times Attack 60 Days Before Elections Newsday Mfume calls Bush's reasons for not attending NAACP gathering 'legitimate' Suitcase Terror Dry Run? Mel Gibson's Passion  for County Seal Explanation of Seal Symbols "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." CNN Retracts Story that Rumsfeld Approved Torture Kerry says he will  back the troops Chilling global  warming prediction New Visa policy -  No more renewals by mail. Soldier Counters Overly Negative War Coverage While Sen. Kennedy likens U.S. soldiers to Saddam regime Iran racing U.S. for Iraq Shortage of Gasoline, Yes. But No Shortage of Oil No refineries built in last 20 years, different gasoline blends for different states lead to high gasoline prices says Saudi Minister Presidential Leadership Rating The Best And The Worst In The White House by: James Taranto and Leonard Leo Interesting Chronology of U.S. presidents in a series of essays that takes you through time with interesting facts and a quick, easy to read review of presidential history.  See our Front Page NETcessities Computers Buy Books Currency Converter Metric Conversions  Stock quotes Job Search Movies Instant Messaging Horoscope RealEstate  Net Tech  Windows security GRC Personal firewall ZoneAlarm  WIRED NEWS E Opinions Test  Your Internet Speed  Fix it now What the heck is  Opinion George Will Cal Thomas Walter Williams W.F. Buckley, Jr. Hugh Hewitt Joe Conason Russell Betts National Review New Republic Bob Novak Robert Paul Reyes Free Republic Consortium News Meet the Press  WIRED NEWS E Opinions Test  Your Internet Speed  Fix it now What the heck is  Detect Spy Ware Lavasoft Windows Add-On Freeware Help Forum Fight Spam Don't miss  another letter! See our Front Page  Net Tech  Windows security GRC Personal firewall ZoneAlarm  WIRED NEWS E Opinions Test  Your Internet Speed  Fix it now What the heck is  Opinion George Will Cal Thomas Walter Williams W.F. Buckley, Jr. Hugh Hewitt Joe Conason Russell Betts National Review New Republic Bob Novak Robert Paul Reyes Free Republic Consortium News Meet the Press Don't miss  another letter! See our Front Page NETcessities Computers Buy Books Currency Converter Metric Conversions  Stock quotes Job Search Movies Instant Messaging Horoscope RealEstate  Net Tech  Windows security GRC Personal firewall ZoneAlarm  WIRED NEWS E Opinions Test  Your Internet Speed  Fix it now What the heck is  See our Front Page

Since When Is It News? That's for ABC News to Decide. 

A news crew gets a tip that a U.S. military convoy is about to fall victim to a road side bomb in Iraq and puts a news crew at the ready to record and report the event. Does the reporter warn the convoy? No says the media, that would be interjecting the reporter in the news.

And when a news organization comes into possession of a terror tape warning America of a new and horrific terror attack, what is the reaction? Exactly the opposite. Says an ABC News source about a new terror tape ABC News is holding, "This is not something you just throw out there while people are voting."

Since when is it ABC's job to determine how the release of a tape will affect events? The answer is, it's is not. Not by the media's oft stated standards. By the media standards, it is the job of a news organization to report the news, not to withhold news - in this case because it is afraid to impact the outcome of an election.

With this rational, ABC News might just as well close up the newsroom and stop reporting until the election is over. Every story they publish, especially in the closing days of an election, has the potential to influence the election. The price of oil went up. ABC reported it. The economy is on the rebound. ABC reported it. Public opinion polls report one candidate is more popular than another, ABC reported it. 

For goodness sake (or so says ABC News), ABC News dedicated an entire Nightline broadcast to highlighting the Iraq war with a non-stop half hour reading of the names of the dead.

Excuse me for being more than a little skeptical of ABC News and its reasons for withholding this tape from the American public - presumably until after the election. A profession that would defend its standards to the point of sitting by and watching as a U.S. military convoy rolls into a roadside bomb can not so easily dismiss why it will not release this terror tape. Not if it has any credibility as a news organization.

There is one of two things going on: Either the people at ABC News don't understand their job as they have many times explained and presented it to us. Or, something else in going on. It is not that ABC News does understand its job. Something else is going. 

As of this writing, ABC News has five days to do the right thing. But if it does not air the tape, it will be because ABC News fears the release of the tape will be of benefit to one candidate or the other.  That decision will represent a direct intervention in the news and the election. The news will be, in the eyes of ABC News, for it to decide.

An Open Letter to Professor Rosen, 
Professor of Journalism, New York University 

Dear Professor Rosen,

You write in the Baltimore Sun newspaper:

"Radio hosts such as Rush Limbaugh and Web sites such as FreeRepublic.com and RatherBiased.com have filled the vacuum in explaining how the press works. Talk radio often uses bias to explain what makes news - and that explanation is accepted by many because the mainstream media have not offered an alternative, said Jay Rosen, a journalism professor at New York University."

Do you as a professor of journalism really not see that as the media moved to advocacy journalism, other advocates came along to counter the mainstream media's message? And do you really believe news consumers simply accept the alternative explanations?

With the mainstream media serving as political advocates, news consumers naturally are going to turn to other outlets of opinion, advocates with a different bias than the mainstream media. The demand for balance will be filled, now with a weighing of several sources where before a single source could be - or at least was - trusted.

You are correct in your statement that the mainstream media have not offered an alternative, or at least not one in a very long time. Journalist seems to have abandoned objective reporting long ago, balanced as it is called today and as it was taught when I was in journalism school.

My professors would have failed my me had I turned in what I see passing as news today. I'm curious Professor Rosen, is objective reporting taught in your classes?

Get Your House In Order Says China. They're right!
by Russell Betts - GoGov.com, November 23, 2004

In response to U.S. pressure to devalue the Renminbi, China's official currency, China has responded by telling the U.S. that if it wants to be competitive, it should focus on getting its own house in order.

Says Li Ruogu, the deputy governor of the People's Bank of China (interview FT.com), “China's custom is that we never blame others for our own problem,” said the senior central bank official. “For the past 26 years, we never put pressure or problems on to the world. The US has the reverse attitude, whenever they have a problem, they blame others.”

The U.S. is indeed complaining. And one of the most often heard complaints is China's significantly lower labor costs for manufacturers in China - roughly 3 percent of U.S. labor costs. For labor intensive industries, the 3 percent labor figure is a significant competitive advantage, even though automation in the U.S. can overcome some of this difference. 

But for most manufacturing companies, the vast majority of which are not labor intensive, lower labor cost is not the only or even the most significant draw for U.S. companies to set up in China.

1). China is a very big market in and of itself with an emerging middle class of over 300 million people. That's 300 million people buying radios, TVs, microwaves, cars, shampoo and all other manner of consumer goods and buying them in very large numbers. Companies setting up in China, even for the primary purpose of export from China, can find a significant domestic market share for their wares.

2). China provides a good jumping off point to other world markets, including other Asian countries, the Middle East and Europe, thus expanding a companies world market share.

3). The vast numbers of manufacturers already set up in China provide a very significant market for support services and secondary manufacturing industries. Supplying these manufacturers with items such as corrugated, tooling, ball bearings, rubber components, accounting services, and more represents significant business opportunity.

These are some of the pluses for setting up in China. But there is also some very big negatives in the U.S. for manufacturers that are actually driving U.S. manufacturers out of the U.S. and to China. These other factors far outweigh the draw of China's lower labor rates. 

One of the biggest draws for U.S. manufacturers to set up in China is to a desire by U.S. manufacturers to escape overbearing regulatory and legal burdens associated with manufacturing in the U.S. 

Just one line item of regulatory compliance on a U.S. based company's balance sheet will exceed the entire G&A expense of a small to medium sized company doing business in China. It is not uncommon for a small manufacturer with a administrative staff of just ten people to have at least one of those people dedicated solely to making sure the company complies with U.S. government reporting requirements.

In short, the U.S. represents a very hostile business climate whereas the Chinese welcome business. In many cases, U.S. manufacturers are not only being drawn to China, they are being driven out of the U.S. Change the business climate for manufacturing in the U.S. and you will see a significant slowing of U.S. manufacturing going to China. In this, China's admonitions are correct: The U.S. needs to get its house in order.

Illegals and What To Do?
By Russell Betts -GoGov.com August 31, 2004

For every action there is a consequence. And in the case of illegal immigration, the consequence has resulted from our unwillingness to control our border. Millions of people have crossed our borders and are now living here peacefully in the U.S. Most have jobs and mean us no harm, others are criminals doing harm. And certainly among the illegal are terrorist waiting and planning to do us harm. This is the consequence of our inaction. It is time to deal with the consequences. 

Dealing with it finds us with only three options: Continue to ignore the millions living in the U.S. illegally, round up all illegals and ship them back, or begin to sort out who is here and put those that here with law abiding and peaceful intent on a track to become legal residents or citizens.

The last option will not sit well with many people. How can we reward people that came here illegally? Those making this argument can point to a new study by the Center for Immigration Studies that estimates that households headed by illegal aliens used $10 billion more in government services than they paid in taxes in 2002.  That study, among other things, found that if illegals were given amnesty, the fiscal deficit at the federal level would grow to nearly $29 billion.

Uncontrolled mass and illegal immigration was never acceptable. But we have an issue to deal with. 

The only only realistic option is to put these millions on the road to legal status. But before any legalization process begins, strict and successful border control must be accomplished so the problem does not grow worse. A program towards legalization can not become incentive for millions more to illegally and successfully enter the U.S. Strong and effective border control must be a prerequisite to any effort to put those already here illegally on a program  towards legal status.

How can we reward people that came here illegally? That is not the question. The question is, how do we deal with the problem we ourselves created. The answer is, we must solve the problem. Solving the problem of illegal residents is not a matter of rewards. It is a matter of consequences. We no longer should ignore those consequences. It is time to pay for our inaction. And it is time to make sure our actions, or inaction as the case is more accurately stated, do not lead us into an expansion of the massive mess on our hands by continuing to leave our borders wide open.

9/11 Commission Report A Dud For Democrats.
But It Buried Berger! 
By Russell Betts -GoGov.com July 23, 2004

It is not a reporter's business to make wild speculation - or at least it should not be. Yet at many of the major media outlets that is exactly what is happening on the story about former National Security Adviser Sandy Berger's theft of highly classified documents from the National Archives and the now oft reported speculation of why the story was leaked to the press when it was. The media is not supposed to jump to wild assumptions either. But that too is exactly what they are doing.

Let's check that speculation and those assumptions.

As the story is now being penned, it was the Republicans that leaked the Sandy Berger story. Why? To diffuse the impact of the 9/11 commission report scheduled to come out just days after the Berger story broke. Says Dan Rather, The incident "was triggered by a carefully orchestrated leak about Berger -- and the timing of it appears to be no coincidence."  The assumption is that it was the Republicans that leaked the story. 

There is just one very major problem with that assumption. The 9/11 commission report was not a bombshell landing on the Whitehouse. Despite earlier extreme partisan positioning during the commission hearings, the final report was even handed and did not specifically lay blame on anyone and certainly not at the feet of George Bush or those in his administration.

Certainly the Democrats knew what the 9/11 commission report would contain. Details of Commission findings had made their way into the press before the bindings were placed on the 500 plus page final report and well before Thursday when the commission formally made its findings known.

So who was motivated here to leak the Berger story?

The 9/11 final report was a dud for the Democrats. They knew what the report would say and that it would not be a slam on Bush. On the other hand, the Democrats knew the Berger document theft was a very big story with terrible implications for their side.

Leaking the Berger story just before the 9/11 commission report was not to diffuse the 9/11 commission findings. It is not the 9/11 report that was to be overshadowed. It was the Berger story that needed to be buried and it was the release of the 9/11 commission report that was to bury it.

Of course, nothing is for certain in any speculation about who leaked the Berger story. Likely we will never know who actually leaked it, although some are now pointing to Lanny Davis. What is certain from following the news cycle of the past week, if it was the Republicans that leaked the Berger story, it was incredibly bad timing on their part. Berger may well come back to life. But as far as the first days of the Berger story goes, it has been off the radar of the major news media outlets.

That's hardly textbook strategy for leaking a story from the Republican perspective. It is exactly textbook strategy, though, according to Lanny Davis and right out of a book Davis has authored that details extensively the art of leaking stories for damage control.

But let's get back to the media coverage of Democrat accusations that the Republicans leaked the Berger story to bury coverage about the 9/11 commission findings. On what basis to do news people the likes of Dan Rather and news organizations the likes of the Washington Post go to press with an accusation that makes absolutely no sense?

The Gauntlet Berger Ran
At the National Archive Vault

The classified 6^th floor reading of the National Archives is the world's largest and most advanced archival facility in the world with each records vault larger than most people’s homes. To get in, even Archive employees with "secret-level" clearance must be escorted by a "top secret-level" employee. And once inside, no one gets out without proper clearance and a magnetic access badge.

Routinely one to three employees will be in the vault at all times depending on the number of researchers that are in the vault. Standard National Archives handling procedures require only one box can be opened at a time, only one folder out at a time. No pens are allowed to be brought inside the vault. Only pencils can be used and only pencils that are supplied by the archive. No private pencils are allowed. No paper can be brought inside but notepaper is supplied. There are no auto-feed scanners or copy machines in the archives, only flat bed machines. All documents to be reproduced are examined first by NARA employees.

In this environment, former National Security Adviser Sandy Berger would be watched closely, as we now learn that he was. Still, due to his stature he would have been afforded some routine consideration. He would have been given a private reading room within the main vault. Still, that room has large glass walls and is visible to the archive staff and others. The separate room is for noise reduction only.

That Berger was able to get away with documents in this environment was a successful running of a very tight security gauntlet? Certainly  Archive employees would not suspect someone with Berger's high level government status of stuffing documents in his pants. But that does not satisfy the need for more investigation on this issue.

Security cameras inside the vault monitor all activity in the vault but are not monitored regularly. They can be reviewed after the fact for gathering evidence. Certainly the FBI in its investigation of Berger for removing documents will have reviewed these tapes – and Berger caught in the act of concealing documents.

But that does not explain how Berger, as he claims, was able to leave the vault with document in his leather portfolio. When leaving the reading rooms, any papers carried out are searched by guards to make sure there are no documents mixed in, and in the classified room no notes containing classified info are allowed to be taken out. No bags, purses, hats, or brief cases are allowed inside the vault. Such items are kept in lockers elsewhere in the building – not in the vault.

That Berger had a leather portfolio with him as he stated would have been a special courtesy not afforded everyone. He may have been allowed to bring it into the vault. But, that portfolio should  have been checked thoroughly by an archive employee or guard when he exited the vault.

The larger question is what would drive Berger to make repeated trips to the Archives, each time illegally removing documents especially on subsequent trips after the Archive staff had confronted him?

Archive staff approached Berger on his first return trip to the Archive and confronted him about missing documents. Berger returned those documents. But when he did Archive staff found documents they had not realized he had taken. The staff then started marking any documents they provided to him for his review in the vault. Berger had to know the Archive staff was aware of his actions, yet he kept illegally removing documents.

Berger and his lawyer explain his actions as sloppy. Former President Bill Clinton said he and some friends had a good laugh about it when they heard the news. There was nothing sloppy about it unless you consider it sloppy that he got caught. And the stealing of highly sensitive documents, no matter what the reason turns out to be, is no laughing matter.

"What information could be so embarrassing that a man with decades of experience in handling classified documents would risk being caught pilfering our nation's most sensitive secrets?" House Speaker Dennis Hastert said. "Mr. Berger has a lot of explaining to do."

Indeed he does.

Soldiers In Harms Way
Pulling the Plug on Nightline  

Airing tonight was a broadcast that Ted Koppel and ABC's Nightline said was nothing political. An hour long reading of the names of soldiers killed in the Iraq conflict, according to Koppel and Nightline, was to honor the fallen soldiers. Taking this explanation at its face, the broadcast is still dangerous. Those who don't think so should think again.

While we mourn and Koppel reads the names of our fallen soldiers, our enemies will be emboldened and cheer these soldier's deaths. When 700 plus dead U.S. soldiers are put on Nightline's display, how many of our enemy will be increasingly motivated to make it a thousand, two thousand or more. 

Common sense in time of war and while our soldiers are still very much in harms way should tell anyone this broadcast is dangerous. You should never motivate your enemy, especially one that takes such celebrated and barbaric pleasure in the death of it enemies. And contrary to Koppel's explanations of innocence, the reality of this broadcast is that it is more rooted in politics than in honoring our dead and is a very foolish stunt to garner sweeps week ratings. 

That is exactly how Sinclair Broadcasting Group saw it when it directed the ABC affiliates it owns not to air the Nightline broadcast. On this decision, Sinclair was exactly right. And it was well within its editorial rights to do so.

Predictably, Sinclair's preemption has brought complaints of censorship. But, Sinclair's decision not to carry the broadcast is no more censorship than the decisions every news organization in this country makes on a daily basis when they decide what to and what not to broadcast or print.

Missing from Koppel's presentation is the cause these brave soldiers died for and the thousands, perhaps millions of lives here at home they have saved. They fight to protect us, not in vain. Koppel "censored" this.

Sinclair, by refusing to carry the broadcast, has amply pointed out that Nightline, Ted Koppel and ABC News do not have a monopoly on such editorial decision making. Good editorial judgment on an issue of life and death has prevailed, at least on the stations where Sinclair has temporarily pulled the plug on Nightline. But there will be no pulling the plug on the Nightline broadcast in regions of the world where our enemies live. In those places it will be played, replayed and each death cheered.

It Was Not by Invitation.
Restating the Case for Iraq 

U.S. and other coalition forces are not in Iraq for the benefit of the Iraqi people. Surprise! They are there for our interests and the interests of the free world first. They are there for express purpose of making the world more secure and to eliminate a very real threat posed by Saddam's regime that was harboring and directly supporting terrorists and now against hostile insurgents vying for control of the country.

That people have become confused on the issue of why we are in Iraq can in large part be blamed on the Bush Administration. Bush has not been clear as he once was on why were are there. And he himself has confused the issue with talk of altruistic intentions, allowing public opinion to become clouding on the reasons for our mission there that somehow this is primarily about the lives of the Iraqi people. Sure Iraqi lives will be better off  when coalition objective's have been met. But it is our lives that are the first priority.

To the Iraqis that may or may not want us there, to our friends - and our enemies - that want us to leave and most importantly to the American people, there is a simple and correct message. Simply because there are some that want us to leave is no reason to leave the job unfinished and our objectives unmet. We are not in Iraq by invitation. It is time for Bush to explain this, again.

On Rumsfeld's Mind
(If not Ted Kennedy's conscience)

What everyone was thinking and what Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld should have said to Senator Edward Kennedy (D-Mass) during hearings looking into the Iraq prison abuse scandal

"Senator Kennedy, I believe what you are asking is this, should we have done what we did and the answer is no. But let me assure you, nothing will remain submerged in our handling of this investigation. We did not run away from this incident and it has life today because we brought it to the surface."

Conversation at The Los Angeles Times

In a report filed by Bill Bradley of the LA Weekly, The Davis Touch
A Democratic operative is behind part of the Times’ latest story, we learn that the Los Angeles Times has not been altogether forthcoming in its attribution of sources for its story on Arnold Schwarzenegger's alleged sexual harassment of women 30 years ago.

The Times maintains that none of the women came forward at the behest of Schwarzenegger’s opponents. That claim, however, is looking increasingly dubious. One of the three women in the story says she came forward at the urging of Jodie Evans, described by the Times as a peace activist and "co-founder of the women’s peace group Code Pink." At best, this is an incomplete, misleading description.

Here’s what the newspaper should have said about Evans. She is actually a former close colleague of Gov. Gray Davis, a longtime Democratic operative and a friend of noted Democratic hit man Bob Mulholland. Evans is also the ex-wife of Westside financier Max Palevsky, the man who gave Gray Davis his first job in politics as the fund-raiser in Tom Bradley’s 1973 mayoral campaign.

Bradley goes on to detail that Evans worked closely with Davis in Governor Jerry Brown's administration. Davis served as Brown’s chief of staff, Evans was Brown’s chief fund-raiser and director of administration in the governor’s office.

With such revelations, one can easily imagine conversation now taking place at the LA Times.

LA Times: We printed your story and we are getting a lot of flack over it.
Democrat Operative: Look, we thought 6 women coming forward would be enough to do it. Now we have rounded up 4 more.
LA Times: There is a limit to what we can print.
Democrat Operative: We are only at 10 women. We are rounding up more as we speak. Just print about the 4 more and if that does it, then you won't need to print about any more.
LA Times: But what if it does not do it?
Democrat Operative: You expect me to believe you are out of paper?

For the rest of the conversation, read The LA Weekly article at this link.

If It's True, Limbaugh will Recover

Many, many very famous people have fallen to drug use. There must be something the rest of us don't understand that leads so many at the highest pinnacles of stardom to leap into drug use and tragic self destruction. Today Rush Limbaugh is in the headlines over allegations of abuse of controlled substances.

If it is true about Limbaugh, then this time it has come to light soon enough to save him a fate many other famous people have sadly been unable to avoid - the late John Belushi comes to mind - after falling victim to drug use and abuse.

In the case of  Limbaugh, it does not matter if you love him or hate him as some do, in these modern times everyone understands the problem of drug abuse and will sympathize with someone who seemingly has everything yet put himself instead on a course self destruction.

Limbaugh has overcome significant challenges, not the least of which - and most incredibly - is getting over adjusting to total deafness so he could continue his radio career. Again, if the allegations of drug abuse are true,  Limbaugh will get through this also. But this time, with Limbaugh's gift for communication, society too will get better with a renewed discussion and a new appreciation of problem that affects so many famous and not-so-famous among us.  See Limbaugh accused of drug abuse

We've seen Iraq, and it's no Alderaan!

Consortium News, a left tilting weblog with no love of George Bush, has just published confirmation of the left's view that George Bush and the "Empire" he represents are evil.  

This confirmation may not be news to many on the right, but the editorial, Bush's Alderaan, written by Robert Perry, is shocking in that it so forthrightly details the left's beliefs about Bush and what the left believes  Bush represents - The (evil) Empire.

It is a long stretch to suggest that Iraq is akin to Star Wars' peaceful planet Alderaan? Yet, that is exactly the comparison Consortium News would have us believe. For those of you not up on Star Wars detail, read this from a Star Wars site about the planet Alderaan (also cited below).  To help you put this in perspective, in this twisted leftward world, Saddam is supposed to be Princess Leia Organa , Bush is supposed to be Grand Moff Tarkin, and Iraq is the peaceful planet Alederaan.

The analogy is of course absurd. That is unless Consortium's Perry expects us to completely overlook the very grisly torture the Princess Saddam was up to.

By the way, Iraq is still standing, most of its population is greeting Bush with kisses and our soldiers with flowers.

I'll grant Consortium News that we have not and may not find the weapons of mass destruction - maybe there were none. But torture and ruthless repression does not make for a very peaceful planet. Iraq under Saddam was certainly no Alderaan. Whether it will be once the U.S. departs remains to be seen.

Clinton Administration blunder in 1996 
let terror mastermind suspect slip away
by Russell Betts - GoGov.com - March 3, 2003

Responsible heads in the U.S. government counter-terrorism unit must have been pulling their hair out during the Clinton years as they watched the Clinton administration pass up not one but two offers by the Sudanese government to turn over Osama Bin Laden. 

When we now learn that recently captured and suspected terror mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed could also have been nabbed but was let to slip away by the Clinton team in 1996, one begins to fully appreciate the frustration the government's counter-terrorism agents must have felt.

In a story released by reporter Terry McDermott, we learn that in the early 1990's  Khalid Mohammed lived openly in the Gulf, not even using an alias. He was known by the U.S. government and other counter-terrorism agencies to have been involved in several previous terrorists activities and was active in fundraising for terrorists organizations. 

U.S. agents had tracked Khalid Mohammed through Italy, Egypt, Singapore, Jordan, Thailand, the Philippines and finally to Qatar where he stayed as the guest of a member of the country's ruling family and the country's minister of religious affairs according to McDermott's sources.

Officials in the U.S. Government felt strongly that the US should act as quickly and with as much force as necessary to apprehend Khalid Mohammed. But the decision makers in the Clinton Administration were wary. Instead a meeting was called in early 1996. 

The result of that meeting was that rather than sending a squad to capture Khalid Mohammed, the Clinton Administration decided to send a letter to the Qatari Government asking for permission to come and get him. Permission was granted. But by the time formal written permission had been requested and received, Khalid Mohammed was gone, thought to have fled to Afghanistan where he joined al-Qaida and eventually rose to its highest ranks.

The implications of this bungling in the face of known terrorist elements are felt in every al Qaida terrorist act that took place between 1996 and the present day, including the very tragic September 11, 2001 attacks and the bombing of the night club in Bali late last year. 

"Look at what has happened in the last six years. You would have to assume that he played a role in everything from that point on," Neil Herman, a former top FBI counter-terrorism officer is quoted as saying in the McDermott piece. "He is right there. He is a common denominator. If he had been caught in 1996, who knows what could have been prevented?"

Indeed!

Read: Terror chief left trail of clues in his wake - by Terry McDermott

Liberals, Lawyers and Taxes
by Russell Betts - GoGov.com - December 8, 2002

A liberal friend recently took up defense of trial lawyers. No, he is not a trial lawyer lobbyist or a Democrat politician in the pocket of the Trial Lawyers Association. He was responding to an article that appeared in SFGate.com, The case against trial lawyers View from the right.

His view from the left is this, "Trial lawyers are capitalists. They are using the current system to their best possible lawful advantage, just like any person in business would." He summed up his defense by asking, "Are corporations 'greedy' when they use every possible legal loophole to avoid paying as much taxes as they can?"

Forgetting his oblivion to morality and that everyone does not operate at the uttermost fringes of legality, that for many there is a controlling moral authority even if the law proscribes none, there is a larger problem with his question. Like so many liberals blinded by their indoctrinated hate of business, my friend never stops to realize that companies don't pay taxes they only collect them. Only people pay taxes, either directly to the government or reflected in the cost of goods and services they buy - and passed on to them by companies.

You might think a liberal who so vilifies corporations would be smart enough to realize that those "big bad companies" are not so benevolent as to simply eat those taxes without passing them on in the cost of goods or services they "shamelessly" sell to us. 

Did a young liberal I met some years ago that had a bumper sticker on the back of his motorcycle that read "Raise Corporate Taxes" ever realize that his motorcycle cost him more because of those corporate taxes he likes, that they were added in to its sell price? After our short debate, he left looking perplexed in the face of a new reality but I'm still not sure it sunk in. 

But back to lawyers and my friend. At least with taxes paid directly or collected by corporations we get something. Not much, but something.

Lawyers, lawsuits and fear of lawsuits on the other hand, drive up costs with very little benefit. Twenty dollars of the cost of a $120 ladder is directly attributable to legal fees (source, R. J. Werner Company). Very little of that goes to bringing about a safer ladder unless one would suggest that every frivolous ladder lawsuit has led to improved ladder safety.

My liberal friend is correct that all lawyers are unjustly taking the full brunt of what is wrong with the trial law system - there are good lawyers and others share the blame. But there are plenty of examples where the scorn felt for lawyers is directly justified. They are not all just innocent capitalist operating at the moral fringes of the law as my friend suggests. Except for the shield on the wall that gives legitimacy to what they do, many, many lawyers are just like the extortionist in less legal professions - every bit as shady, cold and ruthless.

What If...the Republicans had dealt with Lott
before Lott dealt them this blow

Saturday, December 14, 2003 Posted: 7:46 PM EST (0046 GMT)

WASHINGTON (Hooters) In a major shake up of the Senate and blow to President George Bush, Trent Lott announced a switch in party affiliation and that will find him joining the Democrats in a move he says is the only way to preserve his status as Senate Majority Leader.

Citing Republican efforts to remove him as majority leader over comments he made regarding Trom Surmond, Lott said he regretted having to make the switch but felt he was forced into it.

"They forced my hand. What else could I do?" said Lott. "By joining the Democrat party, I will retain my Leadership position, can no longer be accused of being a racist and I will be joining a party that will stand by me no matter what I do."

The defection by Lott would not, however, be enough in and of itself to give Democrats control of the Senate. This is fueling speculation that another Senate Republican, perhaps Arlene Specter (R) Pennsylvania, will also switch to the democratic party at the same time as Lott.

Such a move would give the Democrats majority control of the Senate and make it possible, if such a deal has been reached, that Lott would remain as Senate Majority Leader, albeit as a Democrat.

While publicly refusing to confirm a second Republican defection, several sources close to the Senate Democrat leadership confirmed a deal had been reached whereby Democrats will regain majority status in the Senate. 

Such would be the news account from hell for many Republicans if it were true - and it is not. But before any Republicans go breathing a sigh of relief, consider that the blow to the Republican agenda by Trent Lott could hardly be any worse if the Democrats did actually take back control of the senate.

Lott has effectively handed that control to the Democrats on any involving race relations. It is going to be darn hard while back peddling as a Party on Lott's racial comments for the Republicans to effectively deal with any other issue directly or remotely related to race.

Already you can see the Democrats asigning "Lott's racism" to any and all sorts of racial issues from contract set asides for minorities to college affirmative action style admissions policy. 

If Lott did actually switch to democrat and causing another  "Jeffords" style Republican Senator opportunist to make the same switch, it  would only represent a formalizing of the events of this past week. Whether Lott switches or not, whether he remains Majority Leader or not, the damage to the Republicans has already be done.

The Republican establishment has only itself to blame. It should have dealt with Lott long before he was given the opportunity to do serious damage to the party. His excusing Clinton from impeachment was inexcusable to conservatives.  

All's Too Quiet On the Western-Front
of the Anti-terror War 
by Russell Betts - GoGov.com - December 7, 2002

In Australia, the government is preparing a campaign to tell its citizens how to spot a terrorists and is working on a pamphlet to serve as a survival guide in case of major terror attack. 

In England, a British plan for keeping its citizens informed includes sending a leaflet to 24 million homes to advise people to stockpile food and water and in the event of an attack, to stay inside and keep televisions and radios on for public announcements.

In the U.S., it is a different story. While everyday it does seem there is discussion in the U.S. media of the possibility that a U.S. city could fall to attack by terrorists using weapons of mass destruction, there is little if anything coming from the government to tell American citizens  how to prepare for a major terror event or what to do should one actually occur.

Perhaps this will change as the new multi-billion dollar super agency of Homeland Security gets to work. For now, though, while other countries are doing something to inform their citizens, all is a little too quiet from the U.S. government on this most western front of the anti-terror war.

China First with Maglev
Russell Betts - GoGov.com

The world's first commercial magnetic levitation train has just passed its test run in Shanghai, China. It hit a speed of 243 mph. Amazing enough. But truly amazing is not the speed of the Shanghai Maglev (top speed will be 258 mph) but the speed at which it was built.

Construction on the Shanghai Maglev began in March, 2001. Less than two years later, it is nearly complete and making test runs.

The Chinese required technical assistance from German engineers to build the line. The U.S., should it want a Maglev, has the technology itself to build and run it. But to get a Maglev going in the U.S., it appears we will need to take a lesson from China on how to get the thing started.

Environmental impact studies required in the U.S. will take at least as long as the Chinese took to build the entire 18 mile line that will run from a brand new airport in Pudong to downtown Shanghai.

Should the thought of a Maglev be floated in the U.S., surely claims will arise over the adverse health effects (Maglev Syndrome?) of a magnetic field that no one will want in their back yard. Public hearings and expert  expert testimony will have to be launched. These is addition to separate public hearings on every other subject imaginable. 

Once construction is underway (we are being optimistic now), a U.S. system can expect delays for costly rerouting around migratory paths of not yet found endangered species. Further stalling will occur when lawyers, a long queue of them,  move the project in every direction but forward.

Should the damn thing ever really be built, cost-to-ride will be more than the drive in your car or taking a plane. Few will ride. Even fewer will ride when they find the main terminal has been located in a blighted and dangerous part of the city as part of an urban renewal focus.

See article: Shanghai Maglev test run

Asserting Election Authority
by Russell Betts - GoGov.com - November 5, 2002

Anyone that says the Democrats have been up to no good in the election of 2002 would of course be right. But you have to look further to see the true cause of the problem. You start with the abuses of the courts in those states (New Jersey, Minnesota) that have allowed clear election law and the proper separation of powers to be turned upside down.

Many have called for action on the part of the U.S. Supreme Court. I don't agree. It is not for the U.S. Supreme Court to correct each and every instances of judicial abuse regarding elections. The U.S. Court was correct in not taking up the New Jersey case where clear election law was overturned.

No, correcting for these abuses is a matter for the Governors, state election boards and legislatures of the states affected. Those elected bodies need to assert their authority, tell their respective supreme courts they don't have jurisdiction, that they have overstepped their bounds.

It must be brought to a state of state constitutional crisis, a show down between the branches of government at the state level.

Then, and only then, should the U.S. Supreme court get into the fray, with the decision it is asked to make being one of defining a fundamental issue of separation of powers and who has the authority to write election law, not  how election law in an immediate instance at the state level should be applied.

I don't disagree that shenanigans and partisan judicial overreach is shamelessly taking place and that it needs to be corrected. But I'm in no hurry rush it to the U.S. Supreme Court. That is not the place to go about correcting the abuses we are seeing. At least not now.

Let those with the authority first assert it.

Used and Violated in Minnesota
by Russell Betts - GoGov.com

"I Feel Used. I Feel Violated." So says Jesse Ventura following his being snookered into attending what was supposed to be a memorial for the late Senator Paul Wellstone and by all accounts, even Democratic ones, turned into a Democrat Campaign rally - an appalling display by our account and that of many others.

As Governor of the great state of Minnesota, Ventura has the power to even the score. He can appoint a replacement to fill the seat of Wellstone and he has now said he will do just that. 

Conventional wisdom says any such appointment, however, will be short lived. A Ventura appointee holding the seat would do so only until the seat is filled by election and the winner of that election is duly certified. Under Minnesota law, a person appointed to fill the seat of a senator that has died or has become incapacitated takes effect immediately, not in January as would be the case with a change of senators by election.

Conventional wisdom then gives any Ventura appointment about one week as a full fledged Senator. Not much time to do anything. However, in this era of challenges to election outcomes, it seems at least a possibility that conventional wisdom in Minnesota could be wrong.

Already there are rumblings of a contested election - Ventura said days ago he sees one coming. There are those who will no doubt feel "disenfranchised" either at not being able to recast their absentee ballot now that they find they have  voted for a man that is deceased or under another discussed scenario, that their vote for that same deceased man has now been recast on their behalf to Walter Mondale, the appointed replacement candidate for the Democrats.

We can't think of every scenario that might come up post election - who would have thought a supreme court in New Jersey would so usurp established election law, even allowing that ballots already cast will be thrown out. The point is, it is not all that hard to imagine a challenge and its not entirely certain when the next senator from Minnesota will be elected, duly certified and cleared by the courts.

It would be mighty fast work if any election challenge were resolved by the courts in a week - do we need to bring up Florida? Every day longer it takes to resolve any election disputes will be another day for a Ventura appointment to serve as senator and that much more wrong conventional wisdom in Minnesota will be. 

Before the Wellstone memorial, Ventura likely had taken all this into account as he considered whether or not to make a temporary appointment - he was not certain he would. Now upset at the tone of the memorial and feeling "used" and "violated", Ventura likely will make that temporary appointment and it's not likely to be one favorable to the Democrats as Ventura might once have considered.

Says Ventura, "I'm leaning toward appointing a regular citizen, someone you don't even know." 

Just how well we come to know that appointment may very well be determined by the courts

A Far More Dangerous Place - October 8, 2002

The world is a far more dangerous place as a result of Bill Clinton having been President. Nowhere is that more evident than in the recent revelations about North Korea having embarked on a nuclear arms program. Those that favored a deal with North Korea back in 1984 and defend it now will tell you you, we had to try. 

What they "had" to try was a reversal of nine previous U.S. administrations policy towards North Korea. The Clinton-Gore administration, in 1994, committed not only to provide foreign aid for North Korea, but to earmark that aid primarily for the construction of nuclear reactors at a cost of $6 billion, an amount by the way that made a hostile and belligerent nation the largest recipient of U.S. foreign aid in Asia . 

Defenders of the Clinton administration will tell you it is easy to be critical of the deal in hindsight. But if ever there was a case of foresight being 20/20, this is one. The Clinton administration was warned at the time and those warnings having now been proved to be exactly correct. This is not a case of Monday morning quarterbacking. The call was sent to the huddle, the call was don't run that play.

Instead, lightwater nuclear reactors were provided to North Korea under the 1994 deal negotiated by the Clinton administration. According to a 1999 congressional study and warning by the House North Korea Advisory Group, that deal, those reactors, provided North Korea the capacity to generate enough nuclear fuel to produce almost 100 nuclear bombs per year.

Imagine this stupidity. On a promise not to build nuclear weapons the U.S. provided the funds and the technical know how to do just that. American taxpayer handed over billions of dollars on a promise. If the U.S. paid $6 billion then for a promise, can you imagine what North Korea is now going to expect to make that "promise" go away.

If the Democrats don't want to talk about it, it is because they know they are so completely and horribly wrong. Instead of humble admission, their retort will be that of Sam Donaldson, liberal talk radio host and Clinton supporter, when confronted with the issue by Sean Hannity on his nationally syndicated show Friday. "What would you have to talk about if you did not have Clinton?" said Donaldson. 

One can only dream, and take up a far less gullible effort towards that far safer place.

Downside for Democrats? Republicans to the Rescue! 
October 5, 2002

Does anything really surprise us anymore when it comes to election politics? The country's election process is now so corrupt one more election law blatantly ignored by those with the power to ignore it should disgust all and surprise no one.

When the New Jersey Supreme Court recently deliberated over whether Senator Robert Torricelli, (D) New Jersey, could remove his name from the ballot just 34 days before an election and be replaced by a candidate selected by the Democratic party it was a charade very few are inclined to take at face.

The Democrats had the judges lined up, ready to vote their way before the resignation of  Torricelli was ever announced. The democrats would not have moved to replace Torricelli had they not lined up - not just sized up - the judges in advance.

The New Jersey court has responded officially. Even though New Jersey Law clearly states a candidate can not be changed on the ballot 51 days prior to an election , the court ruled Torricelli could resign and that another candidate (former Senator Frank Lautenberg) could take his place. Absentee ballots already cast, incredibly, won't count and are to be thrown out.

The response of those who find this all very incredible is justifiable indignation. That's the easy response. The tougher response is how the Republicans should have responded officially.

Going in, the Democrats saw they had little downside and they mapped out a plan. Their candidate, Torricelli, whose campaign was rocked by ever growing  scandal, was a certain loser. No downside in giving him the boot and putting a strong candidate in his stead. As for the public disgust and outrage, they would deal with that later, after the deed was done.

They knew they could count on the New Jersey court for settlement of the legal issues. In mitigating the very negative public sentiment, they knew they could count on the Republicans.

Hard as it may have been to swallow and ignore the blatant corruption of the election process, that is exactly what the Republicans should have done, at least in as much as a legal challenge is concerned. The best court to try this case, if the proper case is to be made, was in the court of public opinion. If  there was to be a legal challenge, it should have been for others to carry the legal water, not the Republicans (California and other states are now jumping in).

If left to simmer and stew, the negative feelings about what the Democrats had done would haunt the Democrats to election day. With no active legal opponent or legal challenge, they would be left on the defensive, exposed in their naked shamelessness. The Democrats needed cover, something to obfuscate, confuse, distract attention from their original sin. They calculated correctly that the Republican's would provide it.

When the Republicans entered the legal challenge, the Democrats had what they wanted. They had the spin to spin to muffle the public outrage.

What spin is that? Listen to see if you hear these words or words similar to them in the coming days?

The Republicans are fighting to keep the voters of New Jersey from having a choice, they are again attempting to disenfranchise democrat voters, deny them the right to vote for a candidate from their own party. Unable to accept a unanimous ruling of the New Jersey Supreme Court they don't like and that should have stopped them in their tracks, the Republicans are now taking their case to their friends on the U.S. Supreme Court they hope will overturn the outcome in New Jersey  just like they did in Florida. This is why we need to elect Democrats to the Senate and Democrat Frank Lautenberg to the Senate from the great and fair state of New Jersey, so once and for all fairness can be restored to the election process and these election shenanigans of throwing everything the Republicans disagree with with to the courts.

No court challenge by the Republicans and you don't have the foregoing by the Democrats -