Fitzgerald is off the reservation

The Illinois legislature wants to impeach Governor Blagojevich for alleged crimes for which he has been indicted by a federal jury.

Outstanding for them! Perhaps this will just be the first step in addressing the corruption pervasive in Illinois politics, but alas I doubt it. I actually have a problem with the Illinois House investigating impeachment charges without investigating the underlying charges first. The mere fact that King Rod was indicted is not necessarily a criminal act. The committee has a list of acts which they believe may constitute impeachment, which is fine. But the fact that they are going into this to determine if the charges warrant impeachment means they are far from a fair and impartial panel. Even the lieutenant governor of the state is on record saying the impeachment should be complete before January 5th. Not only has the decision been made they have a rush on it.

The panel investigating Blagojevich asked the federal prosecutor handling the case, Fitzgerald, for access to witnesses, tape recordings and other evidence to use in Blagojevich's impeachment hearings. Fitzgerald has denied most of these requests but has said he "wants to release recordings of four conversations that aren't central to the Blagojevich investigation."

My biggest problem is that the federal prosecutor involved wants to assist local government to conduct their investigation. The federal wiretap warrants were approved for a federal investigation, not a state investigation. If the Illinois House wanted to investigate Blagojevich for corruption, and they had plenty of reasons to do so prior to the indictment, they should have initiated their own investigation.

If the guy is guilty I say go for it. But the House investigation was not prompted until the federal indictment was announced and the panel, all ready to announce the Governor's impeachment, has no evidence with which to do so. The law applies even to a guy like Blagojevich who is so crooked he makes a spiral staircase look like a fireman's ladder. If the guy is guilty I say go for it.

Of course perhaps Fitz is out to scuttle his own case and avoid the embarrassment of having to run down other politicians who are tainted by their association with Blago.

Now do you get it?

It is Christmas 2009. Mexican drug cartels have begun launching rockets into the heart of San Diego as reprisals for drug interdiction programs. They choose the holiday as it is slow news worldwide and people are unlikely to catch their part as the aggressor but sure to hear about any reprisals on the part of the US. It is a calculated and bold move on the part of the narcotraficantes.

The US asks the Mexican government to control these criminals but the Mexican Army cannot control the cartels who operate outside the law.

Over the course of a few days several dozen US citizens are killed and injured.
The US finally says that enough is enough and using satellite imaging and on the ground intelligence makes precision air raids knocking out cartel targets, unfortunately a few dozen civilians are killed in the attacks which deal a devastating blow to the cartels.

The Mexican government stands idly by while the drug cartel tells the UN the US is unfair. The world outcry is reserved for the US saying the reprisals were out of proportion to the risk posed by the cartels.

Venezuela and Colombia, known to be enemies of each other, one an enemy of the US and the other a purported ally both sign up mercenary volunteers, one officially the other more seratipously, to support the cartels against this overt act of aggression on the part of the US.

The UN Secretary General condemns the US for this brazen attack.

The US stands alone except for one ally and the Mexican people who while they hate this attack on their sovereign nation they are no fans of the cartels which are interrupting their lives and causing misery on a daily basis. And while some support the cartels the vast majority would just as soon live and let live with the US.

*****

Now substitute 2008 for 2009, Hamas for the drug cartel, the Palestinian Authority for the Mexican government, Israel for the US, Israel for San Diego, Iran for Venezuela, Saudi Arabia for Colombia, and rocket attacks on civilians for drug interdiction; you now understand the current Israeli-Hamas skirmish.

Israel lost a lot of political currency with the Lebanese incursion last year, especially within their own country as it was wildly unpopular. But this is a clearly a case of a country defending itself against a terrorist organization who in it's charter vows to eliminate Israel and who holds a majority of seats on the Palestinian parliament.

I am not a proponent of wars, nor am I proponent of terrorism. But if Cuba started launching rockets into Miami the resulting reaction would be as brutal as it would be brief. And we would all be celebrating and telling he rest of the world to go f*ck themselves. The difference Israel will not celebrate because they live in a war zone 24/7 and they understand it is a necessary evil.

RIP NYT, 1851 - 2009?

The title of this blog may turn out to be correct, but most likely I am off by about 2 years. And speaking of two years, in the past 24 months I have blogged several times about the imminent demise of the Gray Lady, the former Newspaper of Record.

Certainly it is not only the New York Times that is suffering, many newspapers are, the decline in the relevancy of printed news began shortly after the phenomenon known as television swept the nation. The advent of the internet and web delivered media hastened the printed paper to the precipice of it's grave.

But not all print media is failing. You have to keep one thing in mind; all media, print, TV, radio and web have one thing in common, they survive solely on advertising. Some papers are doing great at selling to their market and generating income, two other NYC newspapers, the Daily News and the New York Post are not turning record profits, but they are comfortably in the black. Many papers have learned how to market themselves in print and on the web to get readers and viewers in both mediums.

And then you have the stodgy NY Times, which chose to turn it's back on it's vaunted history of being the Newspaper of Record and instead over he past two decades p*ssed on it's history of being a bastion of truth. In order to appear profitable the NY Times is looking at selling one of it's two remaining assets of any value, it's interest in New England Sports Ventures, owners of the Boston Red Sox, Fenway Park and majority stake in the cable network that broadcasts their games.

While considered to be a good investment and guaranteed to be sold for more money than the purchase price Times Co is likely to toss in the Boston Globe newspaper as an extra, making that investment a net loss. And regardless of how much more the Red Sox are worth now than when purchased, in this economy it may not make up for the write off of the Globe. (In 2006 Jack Welch was considering a purchase offer for the Boston Globe for between $550MM and $600MM but Times Co refused to sell, it is now valued at about $20MM.)
With their roughly 17% stake in NESV valued at roughly $166MM the New York Times can show profitability for a year. (Times Co is asking $300MM which is laughably high in this economy that some would argue they helped to drive down). But then they are left with only one asset left... The New York Times name. And quite frankly they mortgaged that when they stopped reporting the news and adopted their biased slant on almost everything they print.

Like any pathological liar you can only run that game so long before people stop believing anything you say. To recover from that type of self inflicted wound takes time, usually years, to rebuild that trust... and after the sale of their last real asset the time they have left can likely be measured in months, far less than is needed.

The shifting semantics of global warming

B. Hussein Obama has made it difficult to pin down his opinions on anything as he has metamorphosed immeasurably since June 2008 changing his policies and stated philosophy on a good number of subjects. On everything from Universal Healthcare to government funded abortions Obama has changed his public stances. Although as an Illinois legislator he was a rabid liberal he is now repackaging himself as having a record as a reformer and agent of change (without proof of any or reform demonstrable change). And while I could go on detailing how he changed since being handed the DNC nomination that is not the point of this blog.

One of the few areas Obama has remained consistent since either getting his party's nod or winning the general election is his support for the myth of anthropogenic global warming. And despite all of the media hype about his "centrist" cabinet he is packing his cabinet with global warming leftards.

Over the past half decade the Church of Global Warming has hitched their wagon to one horse, that being the "fact" that man has caused global warming through excessive generation of carbon dioxide, most notably through fossil fuel combustion. I refer to those who support this myth as the Church of Global Warming because like all religions (cults or sects), it requires a level of blind faith and willingness to not question the doctrine, even when science exists that contradicts the dogma.

In 2006 the IPCC assembled a bunch of scientists and released their now famous report that "ended the debate on global climate change". They affirmed the rising temperatures were caused by man made contribution of carbon dioxide. Case closed, the sole reason has been identified.

However, many people questioned this. And the more people questioned this preposterous claim the more the truth came out about the composition of the IPCC panel which raised questions but not in the media, which true to it's liberal bias was proclaiming this myth as fact.

Obama has proven he will change to get what he wants, his panel of global warming czars will be no different. They will change their arguments but they cannot change the facts that their belief cannot be substantiated. I predict however, that their rhetoric will expand from the simplistic "man made carbon dioxide" diatribe used by the Global Warming Troofers and will require better use of science to combat their rhetoric.

But make no mistake, while it might sound more polished and professional in nature than "An Inconvenient Truth" it will still remain nothing more than rhetoric. I predict it won't be long before we see a new and improved effort from the global warming cultists and see a movement towards global cap and trade as a "solution" to this myth.

While the topic of Global Warming has gotten a bye in the alternate media in 2008 my prediction it will be getting renewed attention shortly. And while these theories will be forwarded by scientists there will be nothing scientific about it.

Sloppy and incompetent journalism? Or just rabid partisan bias?

This morning I caught a quick uninformative AP blurb off the main Yahoo page mentioning the federal investigation of a US Representative this morning.

It briefly mentioned the investigation but not in any detail. As a matter of fact one of the missing details was the Congressman's, Chaka Fattah, party affiliation. You have to get to the third paragraph to even get to his name.

I did a Yahoo News search for Chaka Fattah were all newspaper articles that inked back to this AP story, but all also included a reference to it being from the Philadephia Inquirer. So off to Google News for a search for Chaka Fattah and at the top of the page was the link to the original news article the AP got their blurb from.

Besides identifying the Congressman by name in paragraph one, they mention his party when you get to paragraph four. It also mentions his membership on the House Ways and Means Committee and the millions in earmarks he secured for the group he founded and is now under investigation.

So why would the AP "reporter" who based their story on the Enquirer story omit such pertinent details? Sloppy, lazy journalism? Or unabashed bias? And why would Yahoo, who claim they just act as a publisher and are not content providers, not link a search to one of the nation's leading newspapers?

Getting dizzy from the media spin

Talk abounds in the media this morning about how the Republicans in the Senate voted to kill the auto industry and ran the global economy further into the mud.

Many of us know that is bull crap. Last night a cloture vote was held to call the bill to a vote without debate and it lost 52 - 35... and the media will tell you that is because of the evil, America-hating Republicans.

But what the media is not saying is that Reid had an alternative, he could have opened debate on the bill. Which brings me to a quick aside, the auto bailout bill was not a bill, it was an amendment, the bill was intended to address the AMT for 2008, a bill guaranteed to pass... unless Pelosi and Reid attach a fundamentally unsound amendment that will cost tax payers 14 Billion dollars so Detroit can keep making the same jacked up mistakes while the banks, who have received $350 Billion can continue to horde that money and continue to disregard the reason the government issued the financial bailouts in the first place.

The media is also ignoring that while they are blaming the bill's defeat on Republicans, only 31 of those votes were Republicans... so the media is telling people that 31 Senators somehow prevented the other 68 members of congress from passing the measure. Reid voted against cloture so it can be brought back up for another vote, but three other Democrats also voted against cloture. That means had Reid and the other three Democrats voted for cloture then they would have been one vote shy of winning and moving the bill for a vote.
Since 52 and 35 do not equal 99 (the current number of Senate seats) lets look at the missing members of the Senate. Smith, Sununu and Stevens lost and have taken their marbles and gone home, Craig and Hagel chose not to run again and stayed home, and Kennedy is home ill.

That means Alexander, Biden, Cornyn, Graham, Kerry and Wyden opted to not report and vote. Had any one of the three Democrats listed shown up the bill would have passed cloture and been brought up for a vote without debate.

The media, instead of blaming the bill's failure on Democrats should instead be laying blame where it belongs... at the feet of Harry Reid who has distinguished himself as not being able to control the Senate, especially his side of the aisle, he even had the benefit of having 7 Republicans vote for cloture.

Reid has no one to blame for his failure but himself.

*****
U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 110th Congress - 2nd Session
as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate
Vote Summary
Question: On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Motion to Proceed to Consider H.R. 7005. )
Vote Number:
215
Vote Date:
December 11, 2008, 10:42 PM
Required For Majority:
3/5
Vote Result:
Cloture Motion Rejected
Measure Number:
H.R. 7005 (Alternative Minimum Tax Relief Act of 2008 )
Measure Title:
A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide alternative minimum tax relief for individuals for 2008.
Grouped By Vote Position

YEAs ---52
Akaka (D-HI)Bayh (D-IN)Bingaman (D-NM)Bond (R-MO)Boxer (D-CA)Brown (D-OH)Brownback (R-KS)Byrd (D-WV)Cantwell (D-WA)Cardin (D-MD)Carper (D-DE)Casey (D-PA)Clinton (D-NY)Collins (R-ME)Conrad (D-ND)Dodd (D-CT)Dole (R-NC)Domenici (R-NM)
Dorgan (D-ND) Durbin (D-IL) Feingold (D-WI) Feinstein (D-CA)Harkin (D-IA)Inouye (D-HI)Johnson (D-SD)Klobuchar (D-MN)Kohl (D-WI)Landrieu (D-LA)Lautenberg (D-NJ)Leahy (D-VT)Levin (D-MI)Lieberman (ID-CT)Lugar (R-IN)McCaskill (D-MO)Menendez (D-NJ)Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)Nelson (D-FL)Nelson (D-NE)Pryor (D-AR)Reed (D-RI)Rockefeller (D-WV)Salazar (D-CO)Sanders (I-VT)Schumer (D-NY)Snowe (R-ME)Specter (R-PA)Stabenow (D-MI)Voinovich (R-OH)Warner (R-VA)Webb (D-VA)Whitehouse (D-RI)

NAYs ---35
Allard (R-CO)Barrasso (R-WY)Baucus (D-MT)Bennett (R-UT)Bunning (R-KY)Burr (R-NC)Chambliss (R-GA)Coburn (R-OK)Cochran (R-MS)Coleman (R-MN)Corker (R-TN)Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)Ensign (R-NV)Enzi (R-WY)Grassley (R-IA)Gregg (R-NH)Hatch (R-UT)Hutchison (R-TX)Inhofe (R-OK)Isakson (R-GA)Kyl (R-AZ)Lincoln (D-AR)Martinez (R-FL)
McCain (R-AZ)McConnell (R-KY)Murkowski (R-AK)Reid (D-NV)Roberts (R-KS)Sessions (R-AL)Shelby (R-AL)Tester (D-MT)Thune (R-SD)Vitter (R-LA)Wicker (R-MS)

Not Voting - 12
Alexander (R-TN)Biden (D-DE)Cornyn (R-TX)Craig (R-ID)
Graham (R-SC)Hagel (R-NE)Kennedy (D-MA)Kerry (D-MA)
Smith (R-OR)Stevens (R-AK)Sununu (R-NH)Wyden (D-OR)

I've been pilloried for saying it but I will repeat it... the auto bailout is a bad idea

Folks, I have to repeat myself... the auto bailout is a bad idea that keeps getting worse.

There are two clear cut reasons for this:

1. The government should not be loaning or in any other fashion giving money to private industry.
2. The last thing we want is the government having access to boardrooms
   

Both of these are equally important reasons. Not the least of which are the government can't satisfactorily perform their constitutionally mandated obligations.

Now Chris Dodd is starting to dictate terms not just for this bailout, but he is mandating terms if they want to get future loans. Dodd is saying Chrysler has to merge and GM has to replace their CEO. Now kids, let me tell you why this is patently disingenuous... both of those are forgone conclusions, but even if they weren't the government should not be setting any conditions on these loans that the shouldn't be making in the first place. (Added, since I wrote this the article linked to above added that Obama also said that some company execs should lose their jobs.)

Once the government starts to force it's way into the boardroom of one company it will get an uninsatiable appetite to get into more.

When the government guaranteed the loans for Chrysler the banks who made the actual loans put had access to the board and made sure that getting their money back was a priority. In order to get their money back they made sure Chrysler reinvented the way they did business, Lee Iaccoca was in a position to lead such change and did so.

The current crew in Detroit are not in a position or of the mindset to change. If the Big 3 do not file bankruptcy in a structured manner, assuring loans (perhaps government insured) from banks as part of the filing, it is a certainty that they will in the future. So they will declare bankruptcy AFTER getting the government loans and the government will be unsecured creditors and not be in a position to recoup the funds. And even if the government makes the loans so they are secured debtors there is no doubt in my mind that they will make sure other creditors get paid first in order to "save" those industries first leaving the taxpayer sucking hind tit.

Now notice Obama and Dodd have both said that there is a need for management change, Dodd even identified Rick Wagoner as being one to be replaced. Well, no crap, he piloted GM from $90 a share to $2 and change. The board should have replaced him, their failure to do so only underscores that there is no chance of the current brood in Detroit changing their business plans and the effecting the necessary change.

If the share holders don't care that their company is going bankrupt then the government should not step in to prevent just that from happening.

It is not the function of government to bail out private industry, it is not the job of government to run private industry, it is not the job of government to prevent private companies from tanking if their shareholders don't care.

Let the automakers declare bankruptcy and start anew with financing (if the government wants to force anyone to do something, they have already given the banking industry 350 Billion, they should force the banks to open up the credit lines, that was the sole purpose of the banking bailout... if that doesn't work the government can offer to guarantee the loans) that way they can slough off their legacy debt. If not the bailout will be annual events and the more the government "invests" the more they will have to keep tossing at the companies so they don't lose their money.

I predict that the automakers will declare bankruptcy anyway, so they should do so now and try to succeed befire they are subsidiaries of the US Government.