It Is My Opinion

Wildlife property tax reduction

2008-07-28T17:25:00.000-04:00

A bill that recently passed the NC General Assembly will change the property tax classification for certain land that benefits wildlife.
The new tax classification for wildlife conservation land can reduce the pressure to sell land caused by increasing property taxes. The bill, HB 1889, introduced by Rep. Pricey Harrison of Greensboro, would help protect some landowners from increased taxes. These tax increases are caused by higher potential value of land that could be developed. An existing law protects land that is actively farmed.

However, the bill was amended in the Senate to apply only to 20-acre or larger properties, rather than the 10-acre minimum the House passed. There is a 10-acre minimum in existing law for farmland.

I hope the General Assembly will reduce the minimum size for wildlife land. The minimum for farmland and wildlife land should be set to five acres.

John Shaw
Cary

We must conserve water, but will it save us money?

2008-06-30T17:24:00.000-04:00

We must conserve water. If we do not conserve during a drought, we could run out of water, or have cloudy water as the water systems pump from the bottom of the lake.

We do conserve water so, of course, we should be saving money on our water bills. But now we find out that our per unit rates may go up. That’s horrible! Why should we be paying more per gallon when we use fewer gallons?

What people must understand–but many do not understand–is that the water rate, or price per gallon, must go up as we conserve water and use fewer gallons.

The cost of the water services is based on the cost of facilities–the reservoir, treatment facility, and pipes to our homes–and the maintenance of these facilities. Only a small part is based on the amount of water used. As we conserve water we use fewer gallons per month. The cost of maintaining existing facilities and building new facilities remains the same, so the cost per gallon will increase.

The bottom line: Households who conserve the same as the average household will eventually find that their monthly bills are the same as previous bills. Those who conserve more than the average will see decreasing bills; those who conserve less than the average will see increasing bills.

When it comes to water pipes, “we must pay the piper.”

John A. Shaw
Cary, NC

Transfer Tax

2008-06-17T17:22:00.000-04:00

The Realtors are at it again. They intend to spend millions to repeal a law that allows county commissions to, with the approval of the voters, impose a 0.4% transfer tax on the sale of property.

The transfer tax will, if adopted, will provide funds to help build new schools and infrastructure for growth. The cost will fall primarily on commercial property and real estate bought for investment purposes. About one third will fall on residential owners.

In spite of the fact that the tax affects commercial property more than residential property, the Realtors and homebuilders are calling the tax a “home tax”. They have spent millions to defeat referenda in 19 counties by convincing people that this 0.4% cost on the sale will make it difficult to sell a home and that it “taxes the American dream”. Now the NC Association of Realtors has made a commitment to add $10 million to an advocacy fund to continue their efforts to defeat the transfer tax.

Fast growing counties will have to find a way to pay for new school construction. The only way that does not require a referendum is an increase to the property tax. This tax will be paid by all property owners, not just those who are selling property.

The bills to repeal the transfer tax option do not repeal the sales tax option. The sales tax is a very regressive tax, hitting a much larger percentage of the income of a low income person than that of a higher income person.

The Realtors and homebuilders must recognize that the growth in Wake County will force the school district to buy property and to build school buildings. These new buildings and land will come at a much higher cost than existing buildings and land. The county commissions and voters should have the option of placing that tax burden on the growth rather than on the backs of all citizens, including those who do not benefit from the growth. This burden will come in the form of higher sales tax or higher property tax–the real home tax.

John Shaw

Cary, NC

Not a year for increased state and local tax?

2008-05-24T17:20:00.000-04:00

Some people say that, with the current economic problems, this year is not one to raise taxes.

Yes, many people’s finances are tight at this time. Families are having to tighten their belts and do without many things they would like to have. Vacation travel, meals in restaurants, and many other things are being cut back. Many families will have to make the decision every time they spend money: must we have this expense?

However, the needs of municipalities, counties, and states continue. School districts have to buy more land and build more schools to handle the increased school population. The construction and land acquisition costs are far higher than they were for existing schools. Streets have to be improved to handle the increased traffic. A larger population will require more services.

A family may be able to do without many things, but we cannot ask them to do without classrooms for their children or roads to drive on. These things must be paid for, and they are paid for with our tax money.

I realize that times are tough for many people. Many people cannot pay higher property tax or higher sales tax on their necessities. However, beer and cigarettes are not necessities. Those who cannot afford or do not want to pay a higher tax can do without them. The legislature should consider these tax increases before they cut needed services.

Transfer taxes affect only those people who have just sold a home or other property, and at the time that they are receiving income from the sale of property. They have been rejected by voters who were led to believe that enactment of the transfer tax would result in a tax increase for everyone. Perhaps they will reconsider when they find out that defeat of a transfer tax will only mean a higher property tax – the real home tax – for everyone.

There are many who, in spite of the current economy, can pay more to provide the schools and services that we need. Shouldn’t we consider an increase of tax for the highest earning taxpayers? Perhaps an additional tax on luxury cars or on heavy gas guzzling cars could be used.

No one wants to pay higher taxes. But the schools, roads, and other services that we depend on must be paid for.

Scientists: no exceptions to seawall ban needed

2008-01-05T17:18:00.000-05:00

North Carolina has a law banning the use of “groins” (often known as jetties), man-made devices that reach out into the ocean from the beach. These are often used to prevent erosion of beach sand. However, they are very destructive to beaches “down drift”, that is, further down the beach in the direction of the prevailing current.

Because of the destructive nature of groins the General Assembly prohibited their use (G.S 113A-115.1). However, Ocean Isle Beach and Figure Eight Island homeowners are trying to change the law that would allow exceptions to be made. They claim the exception would be experimental and would establish a “pilot project” to study the use of groins.

A bill (SB 599) has passed the NC Senate to allow exceptions to be made by the Coastal Resources Commission to the anti-groin rule. This would allow, with conditions, groins to be built to protect some beach areas from erosion. The bill will be considered by the House in this year’s “short session”.

A report recently issued by a scientific study group argues against the change. According to the report, there is nothing experimental about groins. The proposed change would require that groins be monitored and removed if damage results from the groin. The report points out that it may take many years for groin impacts to become apparent. By the time they become apparent, removal of the groin will be too late to prevent damage to other areas.

The report, signed by 43 academic and other scientists, can be found at:
http://psds.wcu.edu/WebFiles/PDFs/Coastal_Scientist_Groin_Statement.pdf

John Shaw
Cary

Is Stam Against or For Naming Buildings for Living People

2007-12-11T17:08:00.000-05:00

Paul Stam, a Republican NC House member from Wake County, and Republican leader in the NC House, had the following comment about the naming of a new NC State library for former Governor Jim Hunt”

“Normally to get your name on a government building, you have to be dead. But I’m not on a crusade about this.”

But he must have forgotten about the Holshouser building at the state fair, named for the still alive former Republican governor and the Reagan National Airport, renamed for the former Republican president before his death.

The above is from Gary Pearce in the Talking About Politics blog.
www.talkingaboutpolitics.com/Home/tabid/36/ctl/ArticleView/mid/364/articleId/992/NoClass-Paul-Stam.aspx

There is also the George H. W. Bush Intercontinental airport in Houston and the ironically named George Bush Center for Intelligence (CIA HQ), appropriately near the Turkey Run park on the Virginia side of the Potomac river.

North Carolina’s Tough Lending Laws Get Business Week Attention

2007-12-09T17:06:00.000-05:00

According to a recent Business Week article, North Carolina’s progressive protection laws for borrowers may become a nationwide model.

Looking over a past issue of Business Week today, an article about North Carolina and our attorney general, Roy Cooper, and the tough lending laws adopted by the state. Cooper introduced the1999 law when he was a state senator.

According to the article, critics of the 1999 law argued that it would harm the housing market in the state. However, studies have found that it did not. The recent economic problems have not affected North Carolina as much as other states. The foreclosure rate has not risen as much as in the rest of the nation while the median home prices rose much faster than in the rest of the nation.

For more, read the article:

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/07_45/b4057078.htm?chan=search

John Shaw

Cary, NC

Ban Possible on New Water Tie-Ins

2007-12-06T17:04:00.000-05:00

From 12/5/07 Raleigh (NC) News and Observer:
Ban Possible on new water tie-ins
“With water supplies drying up in Raleigh and Durham [NC], elected leaders in the Triangle’s two biggest cities are considering tough new restrictions that could include a ban on new water customers.

“Development in Raleigh and Durham effectively could be frozen until the region’s severe drought lifts, because new homes and businesses wouldn’t be allowed to tap into city water.”

http://www.newsobserver.com/weather/drought/story/811889.html

The Most Urgent Environmental Problem

2007-12-01T17:02:00.000-05:00

On November 9 I posted a poll on Blue NC asking “What is the most urgent environment problem facing North Carolina?” I promised to give my opinion later. It is now later.

The choices in the poll were:
Global warming and lack of water,
Water pollution,
Loss of farm land, and
Air pollution.

The results were very close. All four of these environmental problems are very serious and must be addressed by members of the public and by elected officials.

It is my opinion that the most significant environment problem is the loss of natural land-farm land and forest-to development. The significance is that this cannot be reversed. If we pollute the air or water, and then stop the pollution, the air and water eventually will be cleaned up. However, once a farm or forest is destroyed to build a shopping center or subdivision, the natural land is lost.

it is my opinion
John Shaw

Chatham County, N.C. has reacted to the defeat of the transfer tax and it does not involve sales tax.

2007-11-25T17:00:00.000-05:00

The Chatham County N.C. Board of Commissioners has addressed the need for more money for schools by increasing the school impact fees from $2,900 to $3,500, the maximum amount allowed. The Board also approved a new impact fee study, which will be underway within the next few weeks. The new study will likely result in a maximum level well above the present $3,500 limit.

According to Board Vice Chairman George Lucier, it is the commissions’ responsibility to “put fees and regulations in place to assure that the county is not overwhelmed by growth.” He also stated that the board has very limited options to pay for schools. According to a press release, “an increase in annual property taxes is the only other option currently available to county commissioners.”

http://www.chathamnc.org/index.aspx?recordid=265&page=19

John Shaw
11/25/07

GOP House Minimum Wage Bill Attacks Worker Tips, States Rights

2006-08-02T21:24:00.000-04:00

Most workers are covered by two minimum wage laws, the federal law and their state law. The minimum wage that applies is the higher of the two. (The exception is the small number of workers whose employer is not engaged in interstate commerce). Twenty-three states (and D.C.) have enacted minimum wages that are higher than the federal minimum wage.

A special case involves tips. Both the federal minimum wage and most state minimum wages allow employers to reduce the wages of workers who receive tips so that the total of wages and tips are equal to the minimum wage. Seven states do not reduce the minimum wage by the amount of tips. That is, for the state minimum, the tips are on top of the minimum.

The federal minimum wage is now $5.15/hr. California, for example, has a minimum wage of $6.75/hr. and does not reduce that minimum for tips. So a waitress in California must receive an hourly wage of $6.75 plus tips she receives.

The House passed a bill (H. R. 5970, now before the Senate) that increases the minimum wage from $5.15 to $7.25 per hour. However, a provision in that bill, Sec. 402, called Tipped Wage Fairness, will force states such as California to reduce the states minimum wage by the amount of the tips received. This section of the act would take effect immediately, even though the federal minimum wage will not take effect until January 1, 2007 and will not be higher than the California minimum wage until June 1, 2009. After June 1, 2009, a waitress in California may be paid less than she is now paid.

This provision, to actually reduce the pay of some minimum wage employees was supported by the National Restaurant Association and other business groups. It was passed in the House with Republican support. These are the same people who support "states rights", the ability of states to make their own laws. In this case, they want the federal government to override the state governments.

More:
Harold Meyerson Op Ed Column in the Washington Post

Tips at Issue in Minimum Wage Bill, Erica Werner (AP) Washington Post, 8/2/06

An Estate Tax Twist Reverses Party Roles On Minimum Wage, Jeffrey Birnmaum, Washington Post, 8/3/06

Stopping Misuse of Social Security Numbers

2006-07-07T21:43:00.000-04:00

There have been too many recent reports of Social Security numbers being stolen and possibility falling into the hands of identity thieves. While most of the Social Security numbers that have been stolen have not been used by identity thieves to open fraudulent accounts, that possibility is present.

(see Washington Post story 7/12/06)

Given the number of people who have access to our Social Security numbers, there is always the possibility that someone will gain access to the number and use it fraudulently. I doubt if it is really possible to completely protect the numbers if they can be used by criminals to open accounts and borrow money in other people's names.

The Social Security number was originally intended to be an identification used to keep social security accounts and income tax accounts. It was to be the same as a name, only without duplications. However, the social security number has become an identifier for many purposes, including credit reporting and credit accounts. Some businesses even use the social security number as a form of a password--if you know a person’s “social” you must be that person.

Attempts to keep fraudsters from learning of people's Social Security number are probably futile. The number of cases of fraudulent uses may be reduced, but not eliminated.

Apparently it is now possible to apply for and receive a credit card account on-line or by phone with only a name, address, and Social Security number. With the SSN and other publicly available information one person can obtain credit in another person’s name. The victim is then left with a bad credit record and difficulty obtaining loans or even jobs.

Perhaps a better approach would be to eliminate the use of the Social Security number as a confidential identifier for credit applications. If this is done, there would not be a need to keep the SSN confidential. We could carry social security cards in our billfolds, and we could stop worrying about theft of the numbers.

A credit application may still require the SSN to allow the credit of the applicant to be checked, but it would be no different from the applicant's name, address, phone number, and other non-confidential information. There should be no assumption that knowledge of this number is proof that a person is the person he says he is.

If a credit granter wanted to protect against fraudsters pretending to be other persons, then he could keep photographs, fingerprints, or even DNA to assist in the arrest of the applicant if the application later turned out to be fraudulent.

If a lender is liable to the victim for the cost resulting from credit card fraud, certainly the lender will be more careful to be sure that a borrower is who he says he is.

Priorities of Congress Revealed by Penalty Limits

2006-06-10T22:08:00.000-04:00

Two items, when taken together, show the priorities of the present Congress. As noted in the blog Confined Spaces, Congress passed two increases of fines that may be levied by regulatory agencies.

In a reaction to the recent mine accidents that have killed 33 coal miners this year, Congress increased the maximum civil penalty for violations of safety regulations from $60,000 to $220,000.

Responding to Janet Jackson’s 2004 "wardrobe malfunction" at the Super Bowl and other incidences, Congress increased the maximum fine that the FCC may impose for indecent conduct from $32,500 to $325,000.

So a mine safety violation that may kill minors is now worth less that a breast exposure.

New York Times articles on the mine safety fine increase and on the indecent conduct fine increase.

State Secrets Doctrine

2006-05-23T08:05:00.000-04:00

An article in the on-line magazine Slate by Henry Lanman reports that the US Government has used the concept of state secrets to shield the government from law suits.

Lanman discusses the federal government's use of the doctrine of state secrets to shield itself from embarassment, examining the case of Khalid el-Masri, a German citizen who apparently was grabbed under "extraordinary rendition", held for months, and released only after the government decided they had the wrong guy. Mr. el-Masri's suit was dismissed under the state secrets doctrine.

See also this article in the Washington Post.

Other blogs:
Out of the Jungle: State Secrets Doctrine

Political Animal: State Secrets Revisited

Is Bush Preparing for War in Iran?

2006-04-09T07:39:00.000-04:00

According to a story in the Washington Post today (Sunday, April 9), the administration is considering its options for military strikes against Iran. This is all part of "coercive diplomacy", pressure on Iran to abandon any nuclear development programs they may have.

According to the Post, no attacks appear likely in the short term. There are also doubts about whether military methods would be effective against Iran's alleged nuclear weapons program. But, according to the Washington Post, "administration officials are preparing for it as a possible option and using the threat 'to convince them this is more and more serious,' as a senior official put it."

The possibility that Iran may develop nuclear weapons, particularly small weapons that could be sold to terrorist organizations and smuggled into the US is serious. Deterring Iran by being prepared for military action may be a useful strategy. However, with our military stretched to the limit by the war in Iraq, and with the growing opposition to Bush’s war, it is not likely that the president could obtain permission of Congress or support of the American people to strike Iran.

One of the consequences of the Iraq war is that our ability to pressure other countries with the threat of military action is greatly diminished, or eliminated.

Congress May Eliminate State Privacy Protection Rules

2006-03-27T21:46:00.000-05:00

The Congress is at it again. In a previous post I pointed out that a bill had passed the U. S. House of Representatives that would preempt, or override, state regulations on feed safety that were more restrictive than Federal law.

Now a bill has been adopted by the House Financial Services Committee that would eliminate many state laws that allow consumers to place a freeze on their credit records to prevent unauthorized access.

The bill, H.R. 3997, introduced by Rep. Steven LaTourette (R-Ohio) would eliminate state laws that are stricter than the federal law on consumer notification on security breeches and allowing consumers to freeze their credit files.

According to critics Susanna Montezemolo of Consumers Union and Ed Mierzwinski of US PIRG, eleven states have stricter notification standards than the federal bill, and eight states have freeze laws stronger than those in the bill: California, Colorado, Connecticut, Louisiana, Maine, Nevada, New Jersey, and North Carolina. All of these laws would be eliminated under the measure.

Chertoff and Chemical Plant Security

2006-03-24T06:35:00.000-05:00

An editorial in today’s New York Times criticized Michael Chertoff, Secretary of Homeland Security, for his lack of leadership in the area of chemical plant security. Chemical plants are one of the ways terrorists can attack the U. S. For example, an attack on a chlorine plant, releasing significant amounts of poison gas, could endanger thousands.

OSHA has regulations designed to reduce the chance of an accidental release of hazardous chemicals or of an explosion. However, these regulations are designed to protect against accidents, not deliberate acts. Many chemical plants have security plans and methods to protect against deliberate acts that would endanger the public. However, many plants do not have such protections, and the federal government has been slow to issue regulations to require them.

In a speech to leaders of the chemical industry, Mr. Chertoff supported the concept of federal preemption of state regulations of chemical plants if the federal regulations were weaker.

According to the New York Times, "Mr. Chertoff seemed perfectly content to defer on key security matters to an industry that contributes heavily to Republican campaigns but has proved to be dangerously unwilling to take public safety seriously."

Senators Susan Collins and Joseph Lieberman, a Republican and a Democrat, have introduced a bill that would require the Department of Homeland Security to develop safety standards that would be mandatory for all chemical plants. This legislation is needed. But action will still be required by Homeland Security to write and enforce the regulations.

Corporate Offenders Not Paying Fines

2006-03-20T21:06:00.000-05:00

The government regulatory agencies enforce regulations by imposing fines on those who violate the regulations. This ability to fine violators puts teeth into the rules.

Therefore if the violators can escape the fines, the regulations have no teeth. According to an Associate Press story in the Washington Post Sunday, corporations are stiffing the government on fines. Some examples: A $3 million fine to a pipeline company after a deadly fire was reduced by 92 percent. Coal firms were charged more than $1.3 million for deadly violations. The penalties are largely unpaid.

According to the AP, criminals and civil offenders owe the government more than $35 billion in fines, based on Justice Department figures, more than five times the amount owed a decade ago. This is enough to cover the annual budget of the Department of Homeland Security.

The ability to impose penalties is the heart of the ability of the government to protect workers and other citizens. When the government does not effectively collect the money owed, it is not only cheating taxpayers but is giving up its ability to protect us.

U. S. House Passes Bill to Prevent States from Regulating Food Safety Labels

2006-03-09T05:52:00.000-05:00

Usually Republicans support the concept of Federalism, the reliance of states to make decisions about the welfare of their residents. Sometimes known as "states rights", the idea is that individual states should make their own rules based on the preferences of their citizens rather than rely on the Federal government.

That is, unless the Republicans in Congress don’t like the actions states are taking.

A bill passed by the U. S. House of Representatives, H.R. 4167, introduced by Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Michigan) would "preempt", or overrule, all state regulations about food safety, including labeling requirements to warn consumers of about dangers to the food supply, including carcinogenic and toxic substances in food.

The bill passed the House on Wednesday on a largely party line vote (92% of Republicans, 35% of Democrats voting for the bill)

Not only does Congressman Rogers want to limit the federal government’s food safety labeling regulations, he does not want any state to require food safety warnings not approved by the federal government.

bill
Story in Washington Post

AT&T, BellSouth Tout Competition and then Announce Merger

2006-03-06T21:46:00.000-05:00

On March 1, 2006, both AT&T and BellSouth submitted their comments to the FCC's rulemaking proceeding concerning consumer protection for broadband customers. As in the earlier round of comments, both companies opposed broadband consumer protection regulations because, they said, the competition would prevent any need for the protection. (I submitted comments on the same day in favor of consumer protection regulations).

AT&T commented that "In light of this robust, head-to-head competition, the Commission should stand firmly by its well-established policy of letting 'the marketplace, not the government, pick the winners and losers among new services.'"

BellSouth commented that "The BIA [Broadband Internet Access] services market is competitive; it adequately protects consumers from the concerns contemplated in the Notice [Notice of Proposed Rulemaking]".

Four days after the two companies told the FCC about robust competition, they announced their intent to merge. This merger would create a massive telecommunications company that would supply long distance, local telephone, cell phone, and broadband wireless (DSL) service. Cingular Wireless, which will be part of the new company, had recently acquired the wireless business of AT&T.

Not only will the new company be the largest provider of broadband Internet service and the largest cell phone carrier, it will provide nearly half of all telephone lines.

Will we still have "robust, head-to-head competition"?

Even the NRA Supports Speech Regulation

2006-02-26T17:20:00.000-05:00

Those who oppose regulation often forget (or ignore) the fact that a large amount of regulation is supported by (often requested by) business groups and other groups generally "anti-regulation".

The National Rifle Association usually opposes regulations concerning firearms. The NRA claims to support free speech, opposing campaign finance regulations that would limit their advertising and support for politicians that take their views.

But how strong is the NRA's opposition to statutory limits on speech? The NRA supports a Virginia bill that would prevent a doctor or other health professional from asking a patient about firearms except in the case of a gun injury or if the patient asks the professional about gun safety. For example, a pediatrician might want to remind parents to keep firearms locked up around children. A mental health professional interviewing a young person who had shown signs of possible violent behavior if the young person had access to guns or used guns.

If you don’t like for your doctor to ask about gun safety, why can’t you just either refuse to answer or find another doctor. Isn’t a “speech code” for health professionals just as much a restriction on freedom of speech as campaign finance regulations”

Is this restriction on doctor-patient communications necessary for the public health and safety?

The Volokh Conspiracy has more.

Does Competition Prevent the Need for Regulation?

2006-02-24T07:27:00.000-05:00

One of the objections to regulation is that free market competition prevents the need for regulation. In some cases, this may be true. In a monopoly market, such as electric, gas, cable, and telephone service when there is only one provider for a service, the government not only selects the company that is allowed to provide the service but sets the rates for the service. For example, only one company strings power lines down the street in any particular area. We don’t want multiple power lines in our neighborhoods. Because this is a monopoly, the government (in most cases, states) set the rates that can be charged.

But what about regulations concerning consumer protection when there is competition. The Federal Communications Commission is now proposing regulations that, among other things, would protect certain consumer information that broadband internet services (such as cable companies) obtain from customers. In opposing the regulations, Time Warner, owner of AOL and provider of Road Runner broadband access in many areas, claims that privacy protection regulation is unnecessary due to competition.

According to Time Warner, in their comments to the FCC:

Broadband service providers currently operate in a marketplace in which consumers expect providers to make their privacy policies available on their websites. In fact, some ISPs compete on the basis of their privacy policies, and experience has shown that ISPs that fail to protect their customers’ privacy risk incurring their wrath and driving them to an alternative provider that takes privacy more seriously.

Time Warner seems to be saying that when we select a broadband internet service (usually a choice between the cable company and the phone company’s DSL service) we look at the privacy policy and decide which service we want based, in part, on those privacy statements.

I looked for Time Warner’s privacy statement. It is found at a small link on the bottom of their home page (www.rr.com, linking to content.rr.com/rr-privacy) that leads to a statement of approximately 3000 words. By scrolling more than half way down the page you find the statement "Unless you object, the Cable Act also permits Cable Operators to disclose personally identifiable information to others, such as advertisers and direct mail or telemarketers, for non-cable related purposes." (emphasis added).

Is this an example of competition making regulation unnecessary?

Bush Appoints Foxes to Guard Hen House

2006-02-15T22:24:00.000-05:00

Two of the most important agencies that protect worker safety and health are the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA). President Bush has appointed industry insiders to head both.

Richard Stickler, with 30 years of work in the mine industry but little experience in mine health and safety.

As stated in an editorial in the Charleston (W.Va) Gazette, "Despite widespread belief that more communication equipment and better safety enforcement might have saved at least 11 of those men, Stickler told U.S. senators that current mine safety laws are 'adequate'. A day later, two more miners died in separate incidents in Boone County."

According to AFL-CIO President John Sweeney "His only experience with public enforcement of health and safety standards was marked by repeated attempts to limit regulations and reduce health and safety for miners in Pennsylvania".

Edwin Foulke is Bush's nominee to head OSHA. Foulke has been the Workplace Safety practice area coordinator at the law firm Jackson Lewis. This group, according to its web site, has "the expertise to contest citations before the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission".

Bush Fighting Regulations in the Public Interest

2006-02-11T22:28:00.000-05:00

There are many people, particularly conservatives and business interests, who seem to abhor all regulation (but conveniently ignoring regulations that benefit them). Regulations that protect consumers, workers, and the environment are high on the hit lists of businesses and conservative politicians.

Examples are common today. The president suspended, until opposition arose, worker wage protection regulations for the Katrina recovery work on the Gulf coast, as if it would be easier to hire workers if companies paid a lower wage. The administration weakened mine safety enforcement, and recent stories from West Virginia tell of the results.

The Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration lobbies Federal agencies on behalf of businesses against consumer and worker interest, using our tax dollars to argue against our interests.

OMB Watch www.ombwatch.org is one non-profit watch dog group that is watching government regulation and how it helps the public.

In future articles on this site I will provide more news on government regulation, how it can help protect workers, consumers, and the public against the actions of businesses.

Two Senators Want Safer Chemical Plants

2005-12-27T19:37:00.000-05:00

U. S. Senators Susan Collins, a Republican from Maine, and Joe Lieberman, D-Conn, have introduced legislation that would attempt to reduce the danger from terrorist attacks on chemical plants.

Federal and state regulations have long attempted to reduce dangers to the public from releases of chemicals from chemical manufacturing plants and from chemical storage and transportation facilities. However, these regulations are based on the danger of accidental risks. There is the assumption that, while chemical company managers and employees may make mistakes and take chances, no one wants to cause a deadly chemical release or explosion. However, protection from terrorist attacks must be based on the concept that some people want to cause a chemical incident that kills many people.

It has been estimated that a single chlorine tank could release enough vapor to kill several times the number of people killed by the 9/11 attacks. Yet, with all of the new security at airports, little has been done to protect the public from chemical plant attacks.

The Collins/Lieberman bill will require plants to assess vulnerability and to develop security and response plans. The bill will also require the Department of Homeland Security to develop standards for chemical plant security, with the ability to shut down plants that fail to develop acceptable plans.

Proponents of additional chemical plant security feared that the legislation would pre-empt state law that is stricter than the federal law. For example, laws in New Jersey that are stricter than the federal law could not be enforced. However, language to pre-empt state laws has been removed from the proposed law.

On the web:
New York Times Op-Ed

Washington Post

American Chemistry Council press release

Terrorist Suspect Jose Padilla Indicted

2005-11-22T20:33:00.000-05:00

The Bush administration today avoided a showdown before the U. S. Supreme court when Jose Padilla was indicted (with four others) for conspiracy to commit terrorist activities in foreign countries.

Padilla, an American citizen born in Brooklyn has been held in military a prison for over three years. Most of that time he was denied any contact with his attorney. Padilla’s case, long delayed by jurisdictional and other disputes, has been appealed to the Supreme Court. Padilla's lawyers had asked justices for a review of his detention without charge last month. The Bush administration was facing a deadline of next Monday to file its reply.

"They're avoiding what the Supreme Court would say about American citizens. That's an issue the administration did not want to face," according to Duke University law professor Scott Sillman. "There's no way that the Supreme Court would have ducked this issue." Some court observers feel that the Supreme Court would most likely would have held that Padilla’s detention was illegal. (see law professor Stephen Vladeck’s discussion of the Supreme Court case here.)

According to then Attorney General Ashcroft, Padilla was arrested and detained because he was planning to build a "dirty bomb", a conventional explosive device that would spread radio active material. However, his indictment (read it here) does not accuse him of planning a dirty bomb but of planning to carry out terrorist activities outside the United States.

The government is, we assume, planning to try Padilla. The trial will determine his guilt. However, what about the question that was going to be brought to the court about holding citizens without charge and without access to legal counsel. The current case appears to be moot.

Perhaps the next move will be for Padillas attorneys to ask for a dismissal of the indictment based on Padillas Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial.

See Washington Post article.

"In one of the most intellectually incoherent major speeches ever delivered by a minor president..."

2005-11-18T19:32:00.000-05:00

Richard Cohen started Op-Ed column in the Washington Post Thursday "In one of the most intellectually incoherent major speeches ever delivered by a minor president, George W. Bush blamed 'some Democrats and antiwar critics' last week for changing their minds about the war in Iraq."

To Bush’s comment that "It is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began" Cohen replied that "it is even more deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how history was rewritten in the first place."

Cohen then points out the incorrect statements Bush made when he was selling his war to congress and expresses a lack of confidence in the Bush administration.

It is my opinion that Bush is doing everything possible to unite the country against his war.

The Supreme Court: Now What?

2005-10-27T21:49:00.000-04:00

Now that Harriett Miers has withdrawn, the question is "Who will President Bush pick now". Many moderates and liberals have worried that if her nomination failed due to opposition from the right, Bush would nominate someone more acceptable to the extreme right. He could nominate someone who has a proven right wing track record. That was my opinion. At the time I heard about Miers' withdrawal, I was writing a comment to post here supporting Miers' confirmation because of that very possibility.

Another possibility is that Bush will decide that the far right base is not loyal to him, and ignore their wishes and appoint a more moderate person who has a solid resume for a Supreme Court nominee. The Republican senators would not have the excuse of "lack of experience" as a base for their opposition. A moderate would also draw at least some support from the Democratic senators.

We will just have to wait and see.

Chertoff on Iraq

2005-10-19T22:05:00.000-04:00

Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff made a comment at a congressional hearing today that may be correct, but not in the way he meant. He made a comment about the time that it takes to plan actions (referring to the time they took to act on Huricane Katrina. Chertoff commented that the military took a "couple of years" to prepare for the war in Iraq.

We are told that the Iraq war was in response for the attack by a bunch of Middle Eastern (but non-Iraq) terrorists on 9/11. However, the air strikes on Baghdad started on March 20, 2003, less than a couple of years after 9/11.

Many have suspected that George Bush planned to attack Iraq before 9/11, but just needed an excuse. Did Chertoff let a secret slip our, or did he simply not remember the exact timeline? I think the latter is probably true. However, it is notable that the head of the government agency that seriously failed to keep the homeland secure (Chertoff was "Brownies" boss) may have made a correct statement only by accident.

Chertoff appeared before the House Select Committee on Hurricane Katrina today, and told them that the nations disaster relief system was overwhelmed by Katrina.

Still More Harriet Miers

2005-10-19T06:24:00.000-04:00

So now we know, from the questionnaire she filled out in 1989, that Harriet Miers would support a constitutional amendment to ban abortions. That isn’t a surprise, considering what is known about her beliefs.

The question for Ms. Miers is how her personal beliefs affect her judgment on constitutional issues. As a conservative, she should believe in judicial restraint and in not allowing her personal beliefs interfere with her interpretations of the constitution and law.

Miers supported this principle in her written statement to the Senate: "'Judicial activism' can occur when a judge ignores the principles of precedent and stare decisis. Humility and self-restraint require the judiciary to adhere to its limited role and recognize that where applicable precedent exists, courts are not free to ignore it. Mere disagreement with a result is insufficient to justify ignoring applicable precedent, but reconsideration under appropriate circumstances is also necessary."

Referring to her service on the Dallas City Council in which she voted to urge the adoption of a flag discretion amendment, Miers wrote "There was a vast difference between our vote as a policy matter to prevent the desecration of the American flag, and the job of the courts (including the Supreme Court) to rule whether such an ordinance was constitutional."

We will have to wait and see whether Ms. Miers follows the true conservative viewpoint that judges only interpret the constitution and statutes, or, like such activists as Scalia and Thomas, she is willing to interject her personal beliefs into the judicial process.

Is Nobel Peace Prize for IAEA a Slap in the Face for Bush

2005-10-08T20:42:00.000-04:00

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and its director-general, Mohammed ElBaradei were awarded the 2005 Nobel Prize for Peace. Some think that the choice was a slap in the face for George Bush.

ElBaradei is an Egyptian lawyer who was educated, in part, in the United States. Under ElBaradei the IAEA refused to support White House claims, before the Iraq war was begun, that Iraq had reconstituted its nuclear weapons program.

Among those are Peace Action, a nuclear disarmament group. According to the group, he awarding of the prize to ElBaradei "helps to shine a spotlight on the urgent need to deal seriously with the increasing danger of nuclear weapons, their spread and potential use."

"The Nobel Committee obviously understands something the Bush Administration does not, namely that international cooperation, rather than unilateral, pre-emptive war (or threats of such action) is the best way to halt the spread of WMD and enhance global security," said Kevin Martin, executive director of Peace Action.

According to Peace Action, "Awarding the prize to the IAEA and ElBaradei is also a none- too-subtle rebuke to the Bush Administration, which has sought ElBaradei's ouster. The Bush Administration tried to bully ElBaradei and the IAEA into supporting its erroneous claim that Iraq was attempting to reconstitute its nuclear weapons program in the lead up to the US invasion of Iraq in 2002 and early 2003. The Bush Administration has also accused the agency of being too soft on Iran regarding its nuclear development."

"While ElBaradei called them as he saw them -- supported by the facts on the ground -- regarding WMD in Iraq during the run up to the U.S. invasion, the Bush administration fixed facts to support their foregone conclusions and unilateralist ambitions. The bravery of ElBaradei in maintaining impartiality and professionalism in his mission to stem nuclear proliferation stands in stark contrast to the Bush administration's bending of intelligence to support their invasion plans," concluded Martin.

Bush: "Now they've set their sights on Iraq"

2005-10-06T22:27:00.000-04:00

President Bush and the supporters of his war in Iraq have always wanted to give the impression that radical Muslims were involved with Iraq at the time of 9/11/01, and therefore Iraq was a suitable target post 9/11.

He seems to have changed his tune with today’s speech on the war on terror. "Over the past few decades, radicals have specifically targeted Egypt, and Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan, and Jordan for potential takeover. They achieved their goal, for a time, in Afghanistan. Now they've set their sights on Iraq."

This time he seems to have it right. As long as Saddam was in charge, al-Qaeda was not in Iraq to any great extent. But now that there is a civil war in Iraq, the radicals see their chance to move in. So yes, Mr. President, because of your war the radicals have now set their sights on Iraq.

Reaction Mixed to Miers Court Nomination

2005-10-03T21:27:00.000-04:00

Today President Bush nominated Harriet E. Miers, the White House counsel, to replace retiring U. S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.

Miers, 60, has never served as a judge on any level and lacks a record of opinions that might reveal how she would serve on the U. S. Supreme Court. About the only thing known about her is that she is a hard worker and a Bush confidante.

Before her nomination was announced this morning, liberals had been warning that the nomination of a conservative in the mold of Justice Scalia or Justice Thomas would bring about strong opposition in the Senate, provoking a very contentious committee and floor fight and possibly a filibuster.

Conservative groups, on the other hand, have worried about the opposite. They point out that they were responsible for the election of President Bush and that there support was based, in large part, on the belief that he would nominate conservative justices who would likely vote to overrule Roe v. Wade, the decision that kept abortion legal in all states.

To the nomination of a lawyer with no judicial experience, reaction is mixed.
Both Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, and Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid of Nevada find advantages in the fact that Miers has not been a judge.

According to Hatch, “Harriett Miers will bring diversity and depth to the Court,” “She has broad professional experience that will provide a fresh perspective from outside the insular walls of the judiciary.”

Reid seemed to agree: "The Supreme Court would benefit from the addition of a justice who has real experience as a practicing lawyer. The current justices have all been chosen from the lower federal courts. A nominee with relevant non-judicial experience would bring a different and useful perspective to the court."
Added Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y.: "[W]hen I choose judges In New York, I look for practical experience. And so the fact that she hasn't been a judge before, to me is actually a positive, not a negative."

However, the downside of the lack of judicial experience is the lack of a record on which to judge her judicial temperament and ideology.

"We know even less about Harriet Miers than we did about John Roberts and because this is the critical swing seat on the Court, Americans will need to know a lot more about Miers' judicial philosophy and legal background before any vote for confirmation." - Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y.

Many Supreme Court justices had no prior experience: According to the White House, 10 of the 34 Justices appointed since 1933 came from within the president's administration, not from the judicial branch.
Among the other justices for whom the high court bench was their first judgeship were: Lewis Powell, Arthur Goldberg, Earl Warren, Tom Clark, Hugo Black, William Douglas, Felix Frankfurter and Louis Brandeis.

Conservative reaction is mixed:

Some conservatives are worried that Ms. Miers has not shown that she will support their views when on the bench.

Concerned Women for America released a statement saying it was taking a "wait and see" approach.
"We give Harriet Miers the benefit of the doubt because thus far, President Bush has selected nominees to the federal courts who are committed to the written Constitution," said Jan LaRue of CWA. "Whether we can support her will depend on what we learn from her record and the hearing process."

Family Research Council. President Tony Perkins: "President Bush has long made it clear that his choices for the U.S. Supreme Court would be in the mold of current justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. We have no reason to believe he has abandoned that standard. However, our lack of knowledge about Harriet Miers and the absence of a record on the bench give us insufficient information from which to assess whether or not she is indeed in that mold.

Public Advocate president, Eugene Delgaudio was clear in his opposition: "The president's nomination of Miers is a betrayal of the conservative, pro-family voters whose support put Bush in the White House in both the 2000 and 2004 elections and who were promised Supreme Court appointments in the mold of Thomas and Scalia. Instead we were given 'stealth nominees,' who have never ruled on controversial issues, more in the mold of the disastrous choice of David Souter by this president's father.

"When there are so many proven judges in the mix, it is unacceptable this president has appointed a political crony with no conservative credentials. This attempt at 'Bush Packing' the Supreme Court must not be allowed to pass the Senate, and we will forcefully oppose this nomination."

Operation Rescue also opposes Miers. "We must reject the nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court of the United States," said the group’s president, Troy Newman.
"President Bush promised that he would appoint strong constitutional constructionist to the Supreme Court in the mold of Thomas and Scalia, but Miers is no Thomas or Scalia. We must be given a nominee that will restore the protections of personhood to the pre-born. If your head was about to be crushed, would you want to trust you life to someone who will not state their position on your murder?"
Other conservative groups favor Miers.

Fr. Frank Pavone, national director of Priests for Life and president of the National Pro-life Religious Council, thanked President Bush this morning for nominating a replacement for Justice Sandra Day O'Connor in a timely manner, and called upon the Senate to do its work in an expeditious way as well.
"Our prayers are with Harriet Miers this morning as she begins this important process. We trust the President's judgment and his determination to fulfill his promises about the kind of Justices he wants to see on the Court.
"It is the judgment of certain liberal Senators, however, that gives us more concern. The demand that some make for preserving the current ideological balance on the Court, or for more "mainstream" nominees, is ridiculous. Do we have a more "mainstream" Constitution in some generations but not in others? Or do they think it is up to the Justices to re-write the Constitution? In short, there is no Constitutional requirement that Justice O'Connor's replacement should be a clone of Justice O'Connor.

"The place for arguments about ideology and mainstream positions is in political races. For the purposes of confirming nominees to the Court, the focus should be on qualifications to be a Justice, not on personal views on controversial issues." (We don’t know how Fr. Pavone would feel about nominees whose personal views supported the right to abortion.)

According to Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice, a conservative law group:
"Once again, President Bush showed exceptional judgment in naming Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court to replace Justice O'Connor," said Sekulow in a statement. "At a time when the high court is facing some of the most critical issues of the day – including a number of cases dealing directly with abortion and life issues – the person who replaces Justice O'Connor is critical.

"Harriet Miers is an excellent choice with an extraordinary record of service in the legal community and is certain to approach her work on the high court with a firm commitment to follow the Constitution and the rule of law. I have been privileged to work with her in her capacity as White House counsel. She is bright, thoughtful, and a consummate professional, and I enthusiastically endorse her nomination."

Sekulow said his organization is ready to mount a campaign in support of Miers, similar to their support of John Roberts during his confirmation process as Chief Justice.

"We know the intentions of the liberal left – to do anything possible to derail this nominee," said Sekulow. "We are prepared to meet those challenges head on and ensure that this battle ends with the confirmation of Harriet Miers as an associate justice of the Supreme Court."

Sekulow may claim to know the intentions of liberals. However, their reaction is also mixed.

"I see no negatives at this stage in Harriet Miers. ... What her values are and where she will stand on this court remains to be seen." _ Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.,

"America can't afford a replay of the unrevealing confirmation process that preceded Chief Justice Roberts' confirmation. ... Without a meaningful exchange during the confirmation hearings, there is no way to know how Ms. Miers views the Constitution, whether she's a strict constructionist in the mold of Justices Scalia and Thomas, or whether she will protect fundamental rights." _ Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass.

"With no past judicial experience for the senators to consider, the burden will be on Miers to be forthright with the Senate and the American people. She must outline her judicial philosophy and provide direct answers to questions about how and whether she will uphold fundamental rights, liberties and legal protections on which Americans rely. ... There must be no rush to judgment." _ Ralph G. Neas, president of People for the American Way.

At this point we know very little about Miers. Her nomination and confirmation debate will probably be more important than those for John Roberts, who replaced Chief Justice William Rehquinst. Rehquinst was clearly one of the most conservative members of the court; it is unlikely that his replacement by Roberts could move the court any more to the right. However, Miers is replacing the more moderate, and often swing vote, of Sandra Day O’Conner. If Miers turns out to be a Scalia-Thomas type conservative, her confirmation would swing the court to the right.

DeLay Indicted

2005-09-28T21:54:00.000-04:00

The House Republican leader, Texas Representative Tom DeLay, was indicted today on Texas felony conspiracy charge for his alleged involvement in campaign finance irregularities.
A copy of the indictment, including a copy of a check allegedly involved in the crime, can be found on the Smoking Gun web site.

DeLay temporarily stepped down from his leadership position which will be filled by Roy Blunt from Missouri.

The Washington Post has an editorial and analysis of the effect of the DeLay indictment.

CBS News: Michael Brown Hired as FEMA Consultant

2005-09-26T20:51:00.000-04:00

According to the CBS news web site, correspondent Gloria Borger reported this evening that Michael Brown, the former FEMA director, has been rehired by the agency as a consultant to evaluate it's response following Hurricane Katrina.

This has not, as of the time of this post, been reported independently elsewhere. We hope it is not true. Certainly not even the current administration would hire a disgraced FEMA director to evaluate his own performance. But strange things happen.

If CBS retracts the story, we will report it. If the story is confirmed, it will be reported here. Stay tuned.

Note: The story has been confirmed by multiple news services. - 9/27/05

Judge Roberts Should Be Confirmed, with Democratic Support

2005-09-25T20:00:00.000-04:00

John Roberts appears to be very conservative, far to the right of the opinion of the majority of Americans and to the right of the majority of the already conservative court. He is not the person itismyopinion would select for Chief Justice of the United States, if we were given the choice.

However, we were not given the choice. The choice belongs to George Bush, who will appoint someone acceptable to his far right base. If the Senate does not confirm Roberts, Bush will simply appoint another conservative, and probably someone less desirable than Judge Roberts.

There are several important points to consider about Judge Roberts:

He will be replacing the late Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist. Because Rehnquist was one of the three most conservative justices, his replacement by Roberts will not move the court to the right. Roberts may even be more moderate than Rehnquist.

Roberts is very qualified. He has experience, from being a clerk to Justice Rehnquist, and writing many briefs and arguing many cases before the Supreme Court, and serving as a judge on the Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit.

Roberts has told the Senate of his respect for precedent (stare decisis) and his belief that there is a constitutional right to privacy. This indicates that he might not vote to overturn Roe v. Wade and destroy constitutional protection to the right to abortion. We don’t know how he will vote, but we do know that Chief Justice Rehnquist would favor overturning Roe. Most likely any other nominee by President Bush would favor destroying the right to abortion.

Unlike Justices Scalia and Thomas, Roberts is not an “originalist” who believes that the constitution should be interpreted just as the framers would interpret it.

Another reason for Democrats to vote to confirm Roberts is political. There is no question that Roberts will be confirmed; the Republicans are in the majority in the Senate, and it does not appear that 40 Democratic Senators will join a filibuster. However, confirmation is not the only issue. Both the President and the nominee would much prefer a strong vote for confirmation than a close vote. If the Democrats vote against confirmation, why should Bush nominate someone of Roberts’ quality when he could just as well nominate a less qualified but more right wing justice who will receive the same close Senate vote but will excite the president’s far right wing base.

see Washington Post editorial

George Bush Addresses the Nation

2005-09-15T21:46:00.000-04:00

So the president is going to spend billions rebuilding New Orleans. He didn’t say where the money is coming from. We still have a massive deficit, and are spending billions in Iraq. Does Bush just plan to borrow more money? He didn’t say anything about taxes. Will he continue to push for additional tax cuts or will he admit that we have to cancel some of the cuts to help pay for the rebuilding.

He made a pitch for home ownership, wanting more families to own rather than rent their houses. But to own your home you have to have a good job. However, Bush has suspended application of the Davis-Bacon Act, a federal law that would require government contractors to pay prevailing pay. The suspension will allow contractors to take advantage of the high unemployment and pay low wages, even for work on no-bid contracts. The contractors can save on wages and not pass the savings to the government.

Do we need federal fast emergency response?

2005-09-13T12:28:00.000-04:00

Is FEMA a quick responder in case of major emergencies? Or is mission one of training, long range planning, and funding recovery efforts (leaving the initial response to state and local officials)?

Following the Katrina disaster, the resignation of FEMA director Mike Brown, and the accusations of ineptitude and perhaps dishonesty on the part of the Brown, Homeland Security Secretary Chertoff, there will surely be investigations of the bungling of the disaster.

In addition to fixing blame, there should be a discussion, and a decision on another more important issue: should there be a federal capability for fast response to a natural or manmade disaster.

Since 9/11, the consensus has been that there should be such capability. Ironically, the response to 9/11 may have played a role in the weakening of FEMA.

At one time, FEMA was not a fast responding agency. They would arrange, after the fact, to provide for temporary housing and relief funding for victims. After hurricane Andrew hit Florida, FEMA was criticized for its slow response. FEMA was placed under James L. Witt, who was given cabinet status in the Clinton administration. The new goals for FEMA included the ability to respond when needed.

Things changed under George W. Bush. Bush appointed his campaign manager Joe M. Allbaugh as director of FEMA. Allbaugh complained to a congressional committee that FEMA was an “oversized entitlement program” and planned to shift responsibility and funding onto state and local governments.

After 9/11 and the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, FEMA lost its cabinet status and became a part of DHS.

Certainly many emergencies can be handled by local and state authorities. However a major disaster, affecting multiple states, can overwhelm local authorities.

Should there be a federal quick response to major emergencies, particularly ones that affect small states with more limited capability?

Cleanup Cash Goes to Familiar Faces

2005-09-12T11:04:00.000-04:00

The Washington Post has a story about how tens of billions of dollars will be paid for Katrina related contracts. Many of these contracts are no-bid contracts given to contractors who have worked for the various federal agencies in the past.

This is certainly faster than requiring the usual bid process. However, we must be careful to see that the contract are awarded on the basis of proven success than on campaign contributions.

Bush Vacation to Set Record

2005-08-06T16:21:00.000-04:00

According to a story in the Washington Post Wednesday by Jim VanderHei and Peter Baker, President Bush’s Crawford Texas vacation, started Tuesday, will be the longest stretch away from Washington by any president in the past 36 years. This vacation will last about five weeks.

Adding to the cost of transporting the First Family on Air Force One, Bush plans to make day trips to seven states during the vacation. Also, it is expected that cabinet officers and other officials will be traveling to Texas to meet with Bush or with White House staffers traveling with Bush.

According to the White House, this will allow Bush to reconnect with everyday America. Press secretary Scott McClellan told reporters that it was a time for the President to “meet with folks out in the heartland and hear what’s on their minds.”

We will have to wait and see how many “folks out in the heartland” will be able to let Bush know what’s on their minds. However, Bush has missed many chances to hear what’s on peoples minds when he traveled to promote social security changes and spoke only to a screened audience and only allowed invited guests to speak

Fourth Anniversary of “Bin Laden Determined To Strike” Presidential Brief

2005-08-05T15:44:00.000-04:00

On August 6th, 2001, President Bush, while on vacation in Crawford, Texas, received the “Presidential Daily Brief” (PDB) that warned that Bin Laden was determined to strike the U. S., and brought up the possibility that hijacked planes would be used. Apparently the warnings were not taken seriously until slightly over a month later, September 11, 2001.

Just as four years ago Bush is again on vacation in Crawford Texas. We can only hope he is more serious about his briefings this year.

See Kicking Ass, the official Democratic Party blog for more.

Rep. Pete King (R-NY) "people like Tim Russert ...and all the media, they're the ones to be shot"

2005-07-13T15:42:00.000-04:00

Saying that members of the media should be shot for their criticism of Karl Rove is not becoming of a member of congress. However, Rep. Pete King, a Republican from the 3rd district of New York spoke on MSNBC's Scarborough Country on July 12 about the Karl Rove controversy. After defending Rove and criticizing Joe Wilson, King said:

"And Joe Wilson has no right to complain. And I think people like Tim Russert and the others, who gave this guy such a free ride and all the media, they're the ones to be shot, not Karl Rove. Listen, maybe Karl Rove was not perfect. We live in an imperfect world. And I give him credit for having the guts. " (emphasis added)

View the video on www.crooksandliars.com. Read the transcript on MSNBC. Thanks also to via Eschaton for coverage.

Did Paul Harvey Cross the Line?

2005-07-07T15:13:00.000-04:00

Paul Harvey, known for his biased and often incorrect "news" and commentary, made comments on June 23 that some feel support the idea of using nuclear weapons in the middle east and maybe even supported our killing (by spreading small pox) the Indians as well as slavery. Harvey seems to lament that we are now "made of sugar candy" because, although we quickly ended the war with Japan with nuclear weapons now "we sent men with rifles into Afghanistan and Iraq and kept our best weapons in their silos".

Read the transcript at www.chicagotribune.com
and send comments to Disney (distributer of his radio programming) at http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2569.

This is President Bush's Birthday. Send him a card.

2005-07-06T15:55:00.000-04:00

Today is President Bush's 59th birthday. You may send him a birthday card online at the GOP web site, but that is tied to a donation. You may also send him a free birthday card at the The Democratic Party.

You may wish to let him know how much you look forward to his retirement.

Bush to oppose global warming accord at G8

2005-07-04T15:10:00.000-04:00

According to a British television ITV in a story to be broadcast this evening, President Bush, soon to travel to the UK for the G8 summit, has told ITV that he opposed any Kyoto like agreement on global warming. `"If (the proposal) looks like Kyoto, the answer is no" Bush told ITV, according to an early transcript.

We will have more on the story later.

UPDATE

The Guardian has a transcript of the Bush interview with Britain's ITV1. Thanks to AmericaBlog for the lead.

Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's Announces Retirement

2005-07-02T11:15:00.000-04:00

On July 1 Justice Sandra Day O'Connor announced that she would retire from the Supreme Court in order to spend more time with her husband. This comes at a time when the retirement of Chief Justice William Rehnquist was expected but has not been announced.

Justice O'Conner's retirement will have a greater impact on the court that a Rehnquist retirement. Rehnquist is one of the most conservative justices; O'Conner is more moderate. President Bush has indicated that his judicial appointments will be very conservative, referring to Justices Scalia and Thomas as models. A replacement of O'Conner with a conservative of the Scalia or Thomas mold will definitely swing the court to the right.

Many conservatives look to the OConner retirement as a chance to make a change in the court. After the retirement was announced, James Dobson, of the far-right group Focus on the Family Action, commented that "President Bush must nominate someone whose judicial philosophy is crystal clear. And no one has been clearer about this than the President himself, who said during his campaign that he would appoint justices in the mold of Clarence Thomas or Antonin Scalia. We have full confidence that he will carry out that pledge."

Further information, speculation, and discussion can be found on the blogs SCOTUSblog and its companion The Supreme Court Nomination Blog.

Republican Congressman: Saddam involved in 9/11

2005-06-29T23:13:00.000-04:00

In spite of statements to the contrary in the 9/11 Commission report, Representative Robin Hayes (R-N.C.) told CNN Wednesday that "Saddam Hussein and people like him were very much involved in 9/11" When the CNN interviewer responded that no investigation had ever found evidence to link Saddam and 9/11, Hayes said "I'm sorry, but you must have looked in the wrong places."

Hayes said that legislator have access to evidence that others do not. However, Sen. John McCain (R-Arizona), was asked by CNN about Hayes statement, said "I haven't seen compelling evidence of that"

The 9/11 Commission report reported that Bin Ladin, the al Qaeda leader, had "been sponsoring anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan, and sought to attract them into his Islamic army." The report also said that investigators had nor found evidence of an operational relationship between al Qaeda and Saddam. "Nor have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States".

President Bush, in spite of mentioning 9/11 in his Tuesday night address (without defining any real link to Iraq), did state in September, 2003, that "We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with" the 9/11 attacks.

The blog Crooks and Liars has video of the CNN interview.

Bush: It is important...to lay out a timetable...

2005-06-28T20:35:00.000-04:00

No, in this evenings speech on TV President Bush did not announce a timetable or support for a timetable for withdrawal. However...

Speaking during the Clinton andministration's involvement in Eastern Europe:
Houston Chronicle April 9, 1999: "Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the president to explain to us what the exit strategy is."

Scripps Howard -- Feb. 9, 1999 "I would strongly urge that if there are U.S. troops involved, they be under U.S. command or NATO command," Bush said Thursday. "I think it's also important for the president to lay out a timetable as to how long they will be involved and when they will be withdrawn."

On his own war in Iraq:
White House press release June 24, 2005: "There's not going to be any timetables. I mean, I've told this to the Prime Minister. We are there to complete a mission, and it's an important mission. A democratic Iraq is in the interest of the United States of America, and it's in the interest of laying the foundation for peace. And if that's the mission, then why would you -- why would you say to the enemy, you know, here's a timetable, just go ahead and wait us out? It doesn't make any sense to have a timetable. You know, if you give a timetable, you're -- you're conceding too much to the enemy.

Thanks to Think Progress for the leads.

Blog Watch:

2005-06-28T17:30:00.000-04:00

June 28:
KIcking Ass, the DNC blog, had a statement from the North Carolina Democratic party chair Jerry Meek welcoming President Bush to North Carolina for his speech at 8pm tonight. He also suggest that maybe Bush should tell us how long we will be in Iraq and answer some other questions. Meek stated "While we are unwavering in our support for our men in women in harm's way, their Commander-in-Chief's leadership is lacking. Yes, Mr. President. Welcome to North Carolina. North Carolinians are eager for honest answers."

Meanwhile the Raleigh, NC News and Observer reported its poll showning falling support in that state for the war. The latest figures indicated that 49 percent of the respondents did not agree that the war had been "worth it"; only 42 percent agreed that the war had been worth the cost.

June 24:
In case you missed Howard Dean on the Daily Show last night, Crooks and Liars has video on their site.

June 23:

Atrios suggests that constituents of Republicans in congress contact their representatives to ask if Carl Rove speaks for them. (The Atrios blog refers to http://www.first-draft.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=3540&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0) Rove, according to reports by the New York Times, stated "Let me just put this in fairly simple terms: Al Jazeera now broadcasts the words of Senator Durbin to the Mideast, certainly putting our troops in greater danger. No more needs to be said about the motives of liberals." (emphasis added).

Kicking Ass, the DNC blog, has a story "GOP exploits memory of 9/11 for partisan gain" concerning Rove's statements and inconsistencies with previous White House statements, in a well researched piece by DNC Research.

Rove, Liberals, and Therapy

2005-06-26T15:03:00.000-04:00

Carl Rove told the conservative party that liberals wanted to offer therapy and understanding for our attackers. He is a little mixed up. Liberals want to offer therapy for Mr. Rove. Perhaps he can hire Tom Cruise for some psychiatry.

Cheney: "If you look at what the dictionary says about throes... "

2005-06-24T10:53:00.000-04:00

Dick Cheney has come under criticism for is comment on Larry King that the Iraq insurgency was in its "last throes". On Thursday, June 23, Cheney went Clintonian, discussing the meaning of "throes".

In an interview with CNN’s Wolf Blitzer, Chaney said "If you look at what the dictionary says about throes, it can still be a violent period, the throes of a revolution". Cheney went on to predict a huge defeat for the insurgents.

General John Abizaid, told a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing otherwise.

Senator Carl Levin: General Abizaid, can you give us your assessment of the strength of the insurgency. Is it less strong, more strong, about the same strength as it was six months ago?

General Abizaid: Senator, I'd say… In terms of comparison from six months ago, in terms of foreign fighters, I believe there are more foreign fighters coming into Iraq than there were six months ago. In terms of the overall strength of the insurgency, I'd say it's about the same as it was.

Levin: So you wouldn't agree with the statement that it's 'in its last throes'?

Abizaid: I don't know that I would make any comment about that, other than to say there's a lot of work to be done against the insurgency.

Levin: Well, the Vice-President has said it's in its last throes. That's the statement that the Vice President. Doesn't sound to me from your testimony, or any other testimony here this morning, that it is in its last throes.

Abizaid: I'm sure you'll forgive me from criticizing the Vice-President.

Levin: I just want an honest assessment from you as to whether you agree with a particular statement of his, it's not personal. I just want to know whether you agree with that assessment. It's not a personal attack on him, any more than if he says that something is a fact and you disagree with it, we would expect you to say you disagree with it.

Abizaid: I gave you my opinion of where we are.

Salon.com News | Dissent within the ranks

2005-06-23T13:06:00.000-04:00

Salon.com today has a story about politicians who can't be considered "anti-war lefties" who are criticizing Bush's Iraq policy. Even Republicans are more openly opposing the war.

Sen. Chuck Hagle (R-Nebraska) said that "the White House is completely disconnected from reality ... The reality is that we're losing in Iraq." Sen. John McCain (R-Arizona), was asked on "Meet The Press" if the Iraq insurgency was in the "last throes", as Dick Cheney claimed. McCain replied "no".

And Rep. Walter Jones (R-N.C.), who, at the start of the war asked that french fries be called "freedom fries", has asked that the troops be withdrawn from Iraq.

Salon.com News | Dissent within the ranks

June 23: Add Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C. to the list. In today's Senate hearing on Iraq, while questioning Sec. Rumsfeld: "The public views this every day, Mr. Secretary, more and more like Vietnam. ... In the last year, Sir, the public support in my state has turned, and I worry about that, because that's the only way we'll ever leave before we should, is if the public loses faith in us." From Fox 23, WXXA-TV, Albany, NY.

Jenna? Barbara? Your war is waiting

2005-06-22T16:56:00.000-04:00

Salon.com points out that with the military's inability to meet its recruiting goal, perhaps President Bush's daughters, Jenna and Barbara Bush should enlist.

White House spokesman Scott McClellan was asked at a White House press briefing if any of the president's family are currently serving in the military. McClellan did not admit to knowing the answer. The answer however, is no.

We still have two types of people in the United States: those who decide to go to war and those who go to war.

Kicking Ass (DNC) - White House Disconnected from reality

2005-06-20T14:15:00.000-04:00

In a post today, the Democratic blog comments on the disconnect from reality of the White House with the "last throes" comment of Dick Cheney compared to quotes from Republican Senators John McCain and Chuck Hagel.

Congress Assaults the Courts, Again - New York Times

2005-06-20T14:05:00.000-04:00

The New York Times published an editorial Saturday concerning a measure the U.S. House of Representatives pass that would bar federal money from being spent to enforce a federal court ruling regarding the Ten Commandments.

A mounument depicting the Ten Commandments is displayed on the Gibson County Courthouse in Princeton, Indiana. A federal district judge ruled that the presence of the monument to an endorsement of religion because, as he states, the display is “in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.”

The local Congressman, Rep. John Hostettler of Indiania's Eighth District wrote a letter to President Bush on Feb. 17, 2005 asking that the president instruct the Department of Justice and the U. S. Marshal Service not to enforce this decision (or the decision of any appelate court or the Supreme Court) to remove the monument. In the letter Rep. Hostettler claimed that enforcement of such an order would be "inconsistent with both the clear intent of the Framers and the Christian heritage of the United States".

Rep. Hostettler admits that federal law provides that "Except as otherwise provided by law or Rule of Procedure, the United States Marshals Service shall execute all lawful writs, process, and orders issued under the authority of the United States...". However, he claims that "this ruling by the Southern District Court in Indiana is not a lawful decision consistent with the Constitution". Apparently, Rep. Hostettler believes that it is for himself, or for the president, rather than for an appellate court or the Supreme Court, to determine if a lower court ruling is consistent with the constitution.

Rep. Hostettler then introduced an amendment to the bill that funds the Justice Department that would prohibit federal funds from being spent to enforce the court's order. This would, in effect, prevent the Marshals Service from carrying out their required duty of enforcing court orders. The amendment passed the House by a 242-182 vote.

Rep. Hostettler, and many other House members, apparently do not understand two important values of our form of government.

First, we have a government "of laws, not of men". It is the proper role of the courts to uphold the constitution. It is not up to individuals, either Members of Congress or presidents to substitute their judgement.

Secondly, while the majority of the founders of the country may have been Christian, we do not base government action on "Christian heritage". Our country is one of many religions, some of which recognize the Ten Commandments and some of which do not. Some Americans would consider government protection of "graven images" to be against their religion.

NYT Editorial
Hostettler press release
Hostettler letter to the President
Blogs:
Crooks and Liars
Atrios

The Supreme Court Nomination Blog: Analysis: Today's Washington Post

2005-06-19T23:06:00.000-04:00

The Supreme Court Nomination Blog is a blog that will certainly become very important over the next few weeks if, as expected, Chief Justice Rehnquist announces his retirement at the end of the current term. This announcement may come Monday, 6/20/05, or within the next couple of weeks.

Tonight the blog posted an in-depth analysis of an article in today's (Sun., 6/19/05) Washington Post. I won't try to recap it here, but recommend it as important reading for those who are interested in the future direction of the Court.

Is the Justice Department Undermining the Protection of Medical Privacy?

2005-06-19T14:31:00.000-04:00

An opinion dated June 1, 2005 but not made public until New York Times article of June 7, answers a request from the general counsel of HHS for clarification of the scope of the HIPAA criminal provision.

According to Swire’s analysis, “the OLC opinion is terribly frustrating to read. The opinion reads like a brief for one side of an argument. Even worse, it reads like a brief that knows it has the losing side but has to come out with a predetermined answer.”

Swire states that “The opinion had assumed that Congress wanted to exempt employees and thieves from criminal penalty.”

Jeb Bush Just Won’t Stop Exploiting Terri Schiavo

2005-06-18T21:40:00.000-04:00

Florida Governor and presidential brother Jeb Bush just won’t let go. The sad case of Terri Schiavo was good for his courtship of the extreme religious right. After Ms. Schiavo’s autopsy revealed that her condition had been beyond hope and that therapy would not have been of any use, Bush jumps back into the Shiavo news by asking a state prosecutor to investigate Michael Schiavo, Terri’s husband.

The reason for the investigation: Bush’s allegation that Michael Schiavo waited from 40 to 70 minutes from when he heard is wife fall to when he called 911.

In a statement issued by his lawyer, Schiavo stated “I have consistently said over the years that I didn’t wait but ran to call 911 after Terri collapsed.” The 911 call was recorded at 5:40 a.m. on Feb. 25, 1990. There is no evidence that there was any delay in the call except for statements made by Michael Shiavo. In a 1992 medical malpractice trial he testified that he found his wife at 5 a.m., and in a 2004 television interview he said that he found her at 4:30 a.m.

The autopsy report places the 911 call about 5:40 a.m. Paramedics found her not breathing at 5:52 a.m., and a pulse was measured at 6:32 a.m. A University of South Florida pathology professor, Dr. Amyn M. Rojiani, who reviewed the autopsy reports for the St. Petersburg Times said he does not believe Schiavo could have been revived if her husband had waited 70 minutes to call for help.

In the malpractice trial in 1992 in which Michael Schiavo successfully sued his wife's doctors, the doctor's attorneys likely would certainly have used any evidence in a delay in calling for help.

But is there any significance to the conflicts in the statements? The one consistency, and the one thing that Schiavo could be reasonable certain, is that the call was made immediately after he heard her collapse. However, in such a situation it is not likely that he would have noted the time. He has said that he was not wearing a watch and did not look at a clock. Not having known the time, his statements two years later and again 14 years later were guesses and could not have any real validity.

Bush, however, is more certain of which statements were correct. "Between 40 and 70 minutes elapsed before the call was made, and I am aware of no explanation for the delay," Bush wrote. "In light of this new information, I urge you to take a fresh look at this case without any preconceptions as to the outcome."

Trade Deficit at New High

2005-06-17T23:37:00.000-04:00

Some say that the loss of manufacturing jobs to foreign contries is offset by more exports to those countries. However, if this is the case, why is the trade deficit continuing to rise?

The deficit in the broadest measure of international trade rose to an all-time high of $195.1 billion from January through March of this year as the country sank deeper into debt to Japan, China and other nations.

The Commerce Department reported Friday that the deficit in the current account rose by 3.6 percent from the previous quarterly record, an imbalance of $188.4 billion in the final three months of 2004.

Read Article on Yahoo! Finance

Danforth: Onward, Moderate Christian Soldiers - New York Times

2005-06-17T19:20:00.000-04:00

Episcopal minister and former Republican Senator John C. Danforth, in a NY Time Op-Ed, made it clear that culture wars are not between people of faith and nonbelivers. Danforth pointed out that many religious people favor stem cell research and were against government intervention in the Terri Schiavo case.

According to Danforth, "In recent years, conservative Christians have presented themselves as representing the one authentic Christian perspective on politics. With due respect for our conservative friends, equally devout Christians come to very different conclusions."

"Many conservative Christians approach politics with a certainty that they know God's truth, and that they can advance the kingdom of God through governmental action. So they have developed a political agenda that they believe advances God's kingdom, one that includes efforts to 'put God back' into the public square and to pass a constitutional amendment intended to protect marriage from the perceived threat of homosexuality."

Danforth continued: "Moderate Christians are less certain about when and how our beliefs can be translated into statutory form, not because of a lack of faith in God but because of a healthy acknowledgement of the limitations of human beings. Like conservative Christians, we attend church, read the Bible and say our prayers."

In a March 30, 2005 New York Times Op-ed, Danforth said that it was a problem that "a party that has gone so far in adopting a sectarian agenda that it has become the political extension of a religious movement."

Read NYT article
Politics

NPR : Taking a Second Look at Nuclear Power

2005-06-17T15:08:00.000-04:00

There was a discussion of nuclear power as an alternative to greenhouse gas on NPR's Talk of the Nation this afternoon. Much of the discussion was a debate between Arjun Makhijani of the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research and Angie Howard , executive vice president, Nuclear Energy Institute.

The atudo for the story will be available after about 6pm ET this evening at NPR's web site.

Tom DeLay Going to the Moon?

2005-06-17T11:01:00.000-04:00

House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas) today said the Science, State, Justice and Commerce spending bill, which includes $16.5 billion for NASA, will continue Congress' work to implement President Bush's bold new vision for space exploration. The bill, which includes far more than space spending, past the House of Representatives by a large, bipartisan vote.

"The return of the shuttle to flight is the first step in a long process that, truth be told, may outlast most of our careers," DeLay said. "We're still years away from the moon, and even further away from Mars, but make no mistake - we're going.

The funding bill passed today sets aside $16.5 billion for NASA, an increase of $275 million above last year's bill and $15 million above the administration's request. In addition to providing the full request for the Space Shuttle program, this legislation funds the president's vision for space exploration at $3.1 billion.

DeLay is known as one of Congress' strongest proponents of space exploration.

While many people, in the face of a record and growing national debt, would like to limit government expense, many of the same people would love to see Tom DeLay travel to the moon or Mars.

2005-06-16T22:53:00.000-04:00

Haloscan commenting and trackback have been added to this blog.

Senate Energy Bill to Help Former Enron Executive

2005-06-15T23:13:00.000-04:00

According to Public Citizen, a public interest non-profit organization, the energy bill currently being considered in the U. S. Senate provides for a load guarantee for an energy from coal project. The description of the project in the bill narrows, according to Public Citizen, the load guarantees to one company's project. And that company, DKRW Energy, was founded by Jon C. Doyle, Robert C. Kelly, H. David Ramm, and Thomas White, all former executives of Enron. White was President Bush's Secretary of the Army after leaving Enron."

Read more http://www.itismyopinion.com/articles/60805energybill.html

It Is My Opinion - Working Three Jobs. Uniquely American?

2005-06-04T23:05:00.000-04:00

On Feb 4, 2005, President Bush traveled to Omaha, Nebraska to push for Social Security privatization. One of the people he talked to was Mary Mornin, a devoiced mother of three grown children. Part of the discussion:
THE PRESIDENT: There's a certain comfort to know that the promises made will be kept by the government. You don't have to worry.
MS. MORNIN: That's good, because I work three jobs and I feel like I contribute.
THE PRESIDENT: You work three jobs?
MS. MORNIN: Three jobs, yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Uniquely American, isn't it? I mean, that is fantastic that you're doing that. (Applause.) Get any sleep? (Laughter.)
Does President Bush really think that working three jobs is "uniquely American"? Does he think that it speaks well for our economic condition that someone would have to work three jobs? Apparently, to him it is "fantastic". It is good to know that he has created so many jobs; Ms. Mornin has three of them. Doesn't he understand that with the jobs he is creating it takes more than one to support a family?
Morton Bahr, president of the Communications Workers of America union, stated that Bush's comments "show how frighteningly out of touch he is with reality. He refuses to acknowledge any link between Americans working two, three or more jobs and the impact of his devastating tax cuts for the rich and budget cuts for the poor. From his point of view, working that hard is 'fantastic.' For him, it's all about character, not financial desperation."
Transcript at:www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/02/20050204-3.html

It is time for Democrats to propose a Social Security plan.

2005-05-24T20:16:00.000-04:00

President Bush is stuck on his plan to privatize Social Security and will not discuss any plan other than privatization. Social Security is not in the crisis that Bush claims. However, to maintian solvency after 2041 something must be done. It is time for the Democrats to assume leadership of the issue and propose their plan.

Republican Strategist Claims Evangelical Christians Have Taken Over GOP

2004-11-26T23:31:00.000-05:00

Arthur Finkelstein, GOP strategist, accused Bush of trying to 'dictate to America how to live and what to believe in' and said that 'the Republican Party became the Christian right, the most radical in modern history ever."
Read More

Zell Miller Called John Kerry "Authentic Hero"

2004-09-17T21:29:00.000-04:00

Zell Miller, the retiring Democratic U. S. Senator from Georgia, gave a fiery speech at the Republican convention accusing Kerry of not supporting the military. In the speech, Zeller stated that “For more than twenty years, on every one of the great issues of freedom and security, John Kerry has been more wrong, more weak and more wobbly than any other national figure. As a war protestor, Kerry blamed our military.” (available on the RNC web site).

Miller did not always feel that way. In a March 1, 2001 speech at the Democratic Party of Georgia’s Jefferson-Jackson Dinner (the speech is available on Miller’s Senate Website), Miller introduced Kerry with:

“My job tonight is an easy one: to present to you one of this nation's authentic heroes, one of this party's best-known and greatest leaders – and a good friend.” In addition, he said that “In his 16 years in the Senate, John Kerry has fought against government waste and worked hard to bring some accountability to Washington.”

He referred to Kerry’s military support in a tone quite different from the GOP speech: “John has worked to strengthen our military, reform public education, boost the economy and protect the environment. Business Week magazine named him one of the top pro-technology legislators and made him a member of its ‘Digital Dozen.’".

Miller also made reference to Kerry’s military service: “John is a graduate of Yale University and was a gunboat officer in the Navy. He received a Silver Star, Bronze Star and three awards of the Purple Heart for combat duty in Vietnam. He later co-founded the Vietnam Veterans of America.”

Who is it that flip-flops?