Also Also

No, YOU'RE Out of Order!

DailyKos certainly doesn't need the traffic boost, and a reasonably high percentage of A2 readership is likely to stop by now and again. So we're ordinarily not inclined to call attention to "what was on Kos today." However, I do think it's interesting to notice the editorial changes since Markos has, shall we say, amplified his reach to new auditoriums.

Kos certainly had the literary power to challenge perfidous men and the bloggers who loved them uncritically, but more recently constant custodians Hunter and Armando do not fear letting their outrage show. Again, ordinarily here we don't get all that excited by outrage as a rhetorical tool--certainly not the kind that bleaches your hair as you read it. "Tubthumping, chin-jutting, Bush humping gits" isn't really an on-point attack, y'know?

But this afternoon Hunter dropped an atomic crap sandwich onto Mark Noonan at BlogsforBush. First, Noonan:

This is not the actions of a political Party engaged in seeking a majority - it is the action of a Party determined to destroy its opponents entirely and sieze all power for itself...it is, in short, the stuff from which civil wars are made... I really do urge our Democrats to step back from the edge - you are sitting in a lake of gasoline and you are playing with fire. We on our side will only put up with so much before we start to pay back with usury what we have received.

A back-against-the-wall lashing out to be sure, almost Middle Eastern  in its absurd reflection of conflict reality.  "You will pee rivers of blood and inhale burning fire if you invade us!" Yeah sure, Ahmed. You and your 20 60s era Soviet tanks? Me, my first reaction to such a paranoid warning is to laugh. But Hunter had had enough:

This is the world of the Republican Party, split open like a rotting pumpkin. Crime after crime after crime being investigated, all revolving around the Republican money machine. Every seed connected by the strands of money they share between them. Barely-laundered campaign money passed in the palm of every flabby handshake. Every player in boldface, underlined print in the Rolodex of every other.

And still, this same bottom-tier world of flag-waving supporters still obsessed over an extramarital sex act, but offended to the point of sad, blustering threats at the notion that crimes by gilded and worshipped Republicans are really still crimes.

Your party has set aflame the entire political landscape, and now, once burned, you warn sternly from the branches of a burnt-out tree about "playing with fire". You used the ashes of one of the great liberal cities of America, New York City, as war paint for your own sick, racist dreams. You shudder at a burning flag, yet are willing to snip-and-cut basic tenets of the Constitution as needed or convenient.

And now, you're outraged, not by any of the rest of it, not by anything that has come before, but because a few prominent Republican faces have -- shock of shocks -- been indicted in probes that have spanned years of investigation, and interrogation, and deposition. That, you say, represents the underpinnings of a civil war.

Properly indignant, would be the phrase I'd settle on. But Hunter too finishes with a warning:

I know you hate me, and anyone else who dares disturb the thin strands of alternate reality in which George W. Bush is an intellectual giant, Saddam really was responsible for 9/11, the economy is getting better by the minute, and we capture the most very important members of al Qaeda on a weekly basis.

But here's some advice. You'd better start hating me more. This is the world you forged and, unfortunately for you, I'm beginning to take a fancy for it. Welcome to the politics of your own party, finally sprouting from the ground on which you planted the seeds and shat upon them.

Step back from the edge? You poor boy, asleep in the back of the car the whole trip, finally waking up and wondering where you're at.

Swift boats. Aluminum tubes. Niger uranium. "Mushroom clouds". Whitewater.

Vince Fucking Foster.

You can't even see the edge from here. You left it behind a hundred miles back.

I'm not reprinting this because I think it's cute, but because it is a marvelously crafted overtopping of channeled anger and disgust, that rarely appears on Kos or any other blog. "Bush-humping git" isn't necessarily where I'd go to get my point across, but by God I've thought something close to it 100 times if I've done it once. And on a political level even the tone can be justifiable in response to what inspired it--I mean, really: playing the victim and warning of retributions when you're standing on a hill of sand? That's so...Democrat. It's a sign of weakness, but it's such a classically ridiculous manifestation of it that it must be answered, and answered firmly. Don't cry for me, David Drier!

--TJ

Wyden to Vote Yea on Roberts as Chief

Yesterday I got a missive from somewhere (MoveOnPAC, maybe?) urging me to call Senator Wyden and counsel him to vote No on confirming John Roberts for Chief Justice. Before I did that, I figured I should ask if he'd made a decision yet. He had:

Judge Roberts’ combination of temperament and intelligence  give him the potential to be a conciliatory voice at a divisive  time. He has the skills to reach across the divisions in America to show that justice can be a healing force for the wounds that cut our society so deeply these days. He can help to unify the country by building a record of well-reasoned opinions, grounded in the rule of law, not ideology. He will receive my vote tomorrow to be the next Chief Justice of the United States.

I'm sort of down with that perspective; it reflects a view that seeks to broaden the scope of discussion beyond individual issues and toward a long-term vision of political amity, one that in our current times surely does seem visionary--at best.

Wyden buries the lede here--it's the 3rd to last paragraph in a fairly long statement, one that seems to confirm the speculation that he was seriously on the fence before today. He leads up to his conclusion by discussing his private talk with Roberts, the public testimony, the available record, and various media and advocacy group analyses. He makes good surface points, suggesting that he feels comfortable with a Yea vote because Roberts said he believes in privacy, believes in Griswold, and starts from a position of liberty and state control when it comes to life-end issues. He also takes a bit of a shot at the issue-advocates, saying that their belief that he's "not our choice" is irrelevant to his decision; by definition he's not Wyden's choice, he's the President's. (Wyden does indicate that he wouldn't personally choose Roberts for the job, either. How this virtual shrug on the devils of process  is supposed to salve the wounded base he's addressing here, I'm not entirely sure.)

What concerns me is not what he said, but what he didn't say. By deflecting the base advocates as simply being unrealistic to oppose for opposition's sake, he ignores the reasons WHY they urged him to oppose: the book on Roberts is mighty thin, the White House is holding back many chapters, and what's in the book doesn't match the cover Roberts drew in the Senate hearings this month. Where is the recognition that we don't have much to go on as far as rulings? Where is the outrage that the Bush administration prevented the Senate from making a fully informed judgement? Where is the analysis of why his writings as a scheisster for Reagan don't match what he's saying now?

It's not in there, and as I say that concerns me. The picture that develops of Wyden here is that like many other Democrats, he was disarmed by Roberts' personal style and comfortably couched statements under oath. As Wyden rattles off the reasons he is not worried by Roberts' views because of what Roberts told him, the question arises: why does he believe him? Which is not to suggest that Roberts is clearly a liar, but you at least gotta ask.

Two other things niggle at me about this 'concession' speech. All of the rationale building he puts together is potentially undermined, in my view, by his strong warning that the next nominee may not be so lucky. It suggests that Wyden himself knows he is punting on Roberts, or in the parlance of weak-kneed Senators, "keeping his powder dry." The implication is that his review of Roberts' nomination was not done in a vacuum, but looking ahead to the next battle. Politically I understand the nuance, but ideologically it's suspect: either Roberts is a qualified nominee, or he's not. Saying "I wouldn't choose this guy, but I'll give him a pass and I promise to spend more opposition capital on the next one" suggests that Wyden doesn't even buy his own lengthy rationale.

The reason I bring this up is that I'm suspicious about his motives in conjunction with Oregon's Right to Die statute. Let me be upfront and state that I fully support our death with dignity law, I definitely want both Senators to do their best to protect it from federal intrusion, and I appreciate Wyden's past positions on the issue. But while I applaud his concern for state legislation approved by his constituents, this isn't the first time he's sublimated a national duty for a state one. Wyden mentions the Schiavo affair in his statement; he declares that he believed it was unwarranted to federally intrude on the case with a bill in Congress. What he doesn't tell you directly, is that he went ahead and allowed unanimous consent on the final version of the bill, once assisted suicide in Oregon had been protected from its effects.

And here again, part of Wyden's statement is to reassure voters that he believes Roberts will not futz with Oregon's right to die law--a case among the first he will hear as Chief.  Beyond his suspension of disbelief that Roberts wasn't playing him like a National guitar, one might get the feeling that once his fears were assuaged on assisted suicide, he rolled over on the bigger question. As I said, I'm torn between approving of his strong concern for the vitality of Oregon law, and being dismayed at his "what's in it for me" approach to decisionmaking.

Perhaps taking a cue from Wyden himself, my final inclination is to take what he says as being in earnest, and move on. But in my own example of burying the lede, I'm not real happy with Ron today.

--TJ

Minnis the Focus for Oregon House Races

Due to a highly successful planting job into The Oregonian in later editions, the slowly developing "Minnis is the White Whale" story is getting some play in Oregon blogs. Like this one, now. (For those non-Oregonians among you, Karen Minnis is the current Speaker of the Oregon House, and has earned a reputation through unique political behavior. Her two grandest achievements of the last session were hiding and manipulating the passed Senate civil rights bill so as to avoid a vote at all costs; and taking her caucus out of traditional budget committees to write her own version.)

The story had become the street final headline above the fold, and as I saw it walking by I figured someone would pick it up online. Sure enough Blue Oregon weighs in by concentrating on the rather peevish commentary from Minnis flack Chuck Adams, crying foul over the hurtfully personal things allegedly being said. At this point, the offensive acts appear to be a reference to her suggested matriarchally monarchial stature, and a call to stick it to her, in some metaphoric and nonpenetrative fashion. Apparently the more ridiculous the projection the better for Chuck.

A commenter at BO makes a salient point that Middle Earth Journal raises as part of a more discerning overall view of the article: so who's the tout who's going to run against her? It's early in the season, but who's out there? How about the person who ran last time? Is any Democrat in East County known and available? Is there a recruitment effort in earnest, and who's running it? Those are my questions, actually*; Ron's got a sober assessment about how the O treated Democracy For Oregon's attempt for press. They let DFO put a message out on their backs, but they also took a subtle editorial stance for Minnis, apparently to balance it into a "news" story. Blue Oregon wouldn't have gotten to titter over the lameness of Minnis' spokesperson, if the O hadn't given him several column inches in which to be lame.

The article claims that NARAL Oregon and BRO are part of the Summit Against the Speaker in Sunriver (rough gig!) and I don't disbelieve them for a Minnit. But it also seems to want to puff the workshop into an already organized, furious campaign to take Minnis out. DFO is definitely motivated and focused on what they want to do--get rid of Minnis--but even the Minnis Watch is still getting started.

And they're really the only ones. NARAL-OR has nothing on Minnis I could find, and neither does BRO beyond their frustration piece once civil unions died on her watch. Multnomah Democrats? Not so's you'd notice. The state party page continues to be rather clueless, although the House Dems at least made the point in August. (Note that top Dem Peter Merkley seeks to take a lead role in the effort, and has East County credentials to translate the message if necessary. I'd like to be talking to him about this soon).  And that's pretty much the online face of the movement.

So kudos to DFO for getting the meme across, but there's much more work to do if people are serious. Now is the time to capitalize on Republican party weakness at all levels. If candidates on the Democratic side aren't ready, focus on the person we know is running again.

*questions Jenni Simonis answers personally in later comments at BO...thanks Jenni!

--TJ

PS--sorry for the gap in stories. Zap will be back soon, but while he's gone you notice the breaks I take a lot more clearly...

Keeping an Eye on the Ball

Carla and the other folks at Preemptive Karma have been good to us--quick with a trackback, solid collaborators and offline sounding boards. There's been a spate of things lately at Also Also that have piqued their interest, and while I've been following their commentary I've neglected to point out several good pieces. Carla's done two in two days that I think address the overarching themes that need to be brought up again and again until we start getting them right: this is not how we want government to respond, either through insufficiency or ignorance--and this is not the way Americans treat each other.

Yesterday's item more directly addresses the first question: what foundation of principles does our notion of governance rest upon?

I want a country with a strong, centralized government that protects and respects the rights of individuals first and foremost (as opposed to groups or the majority). I want a country that promotes liberty and justice for all people, including those that aren't our citizens. I want a country whose rule of law is based in the laws our founders determined best, that of English Common Law.

Well, at least we have the 'centralized' part right. Some of the commenters offer their own visions, some more narrowly personal than others ("I want a government that buys me a pony.") Walker Willingham, whose own blog follows up at his place with a wonderfully pragmatic assessment of the liberty/order tension:

If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In forming a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.

And today Carla focuses in on a story that continues to bother me as I read more of it: the refusal of Gretna officials to allow an exodus from the Convention Center to leave New Orleans and cross over into the rest of Louisiana--starting with Gretna.  Accounts vary, from a first handed account to various wire rehashes of interviews with two paramedics who were among the crowd. But the repeated story is that in trying to use the Crescent City Connection out of town, they were definitively and unyieldingly blocked access out of New Orleans. Why? "To protect our assets."

As a commenter in that thread points out, there's no room to be high and mighty here in Whitey Central, OR. This isn't about southern racists, it's about people with views of prosperity that starts at their mailbox and ends at the back fence, and who create fear fantasies of unknown people based on what the local Fox affiliate presents as news. Read the accounts of the townspeople--black and white, they claim--that back the police chief of Gretna by referencing the nonstop killings, corruption and sloth afflicting New Orleans. They're not talking about the people on the bridge--especially since 250 or so of them were VISITING IN A HOTEL. The people they're talking about are the ominous 'they.'

Policies, both social and fiscal, that play the fears of one group off another are as old as feudal government and beyond. So this is nothing new. But it's getting mighty old.

--TJ

Dems Win Political Fight, Stun Themselves to Death

[thanks Whiskey Bar]

Nothing like a little caucus unity and popular support to get the job done. The number of capitulations announced in the last week or so--estate tax repeal,  permanent cuts, Social Security, now this--is simply stunning evidence of the speed with which political fortunes can turn on a single, unplanned event. Social Security was mostly an acknowledgement long overdue, but the tax cuts were by no means defeated, and this latest tactical loss represents a head to head test of political wills in which Frist, Hastert and DeLay found themselves forced to blink--and blink quickly.

The only way the Republicans were forced to admit that their intentionally stilted hearings were not going to suffice, was because no Democrats could be peeled off  to play against the rest. It was just a couple days ago that I reported on The Hill's pessimism, but I'm thrilled to discover they were wrong.

The bully is being faced down, and is forced to flinch. If this advantage is not pressed for all our sakes, we'll have missed the opportunity. As much as it may feel exploitative to victims of tragedy, some of the proximate causes of that tragedy are still running the show, and they need to be stopped. This has become a keystone moment where it seems many Americans are re-evaluating how they want government to respond to their needs--and how much they want to keep getting policy and protection on the cheap.

So here's to unity of purpose, and standing up for traditional principle. There are plenty of upcoming chances to set the frame for discussion in the weeks ahead. Let's hope the Party builds on success and continues staying vigilant.

--TJ

Dems Rolling in 4-Leaf Clovers, Worrying About the Dew

Both MyDD and Left Coaster note the convergence of Newsweek and Pew on the current "Congressional advantage" in polling--the Democratic Party holds a 12-point 'lead.' Soto is somewhat pumped for what he thinks they portend, or at least the vivid opportunities for taking power that now exist. Although I certainly agree with both the optimism and the cause for it, Bowers I think gets a little closer to the point, particularly with regards to Pew. Everyone on the left is completely ready to vote in Thursday's roast beef as President tomorrow, if you accept the 97% Congressional loyalty rating of Democrats as indicative of their mood.

But the people who are actually leading the Democratic party are not benefitting from that generality. Their disapproval ratings are just as strong as the Republicans'--but for entirely different reasons.  The GOP is screwing the country and moving it in the wrong direction, and the Democrats are either not stopping them or are helping them along, hoping to be seen as bipartisan.

The Bush administration has bungled things in ways unimaginable in November 2000, yet 3/4 of their supporters are so vested in that failure that they refuse to cut loose. The Democratic Party, who as the minority is generally powerless but in this Congress is near-impotent, has had little substantive effect on American policy the last five years and thus ought to be spared direct blame--yet their leaders can't even get majority support from their own backers. Look at the ideological assessment of leadership's ability to stand for traditional principle: 35%. Which means a good 60% of the left is scratching their heads at the DLC types thinking, "WTF?" When is someone going to read a fucking poll and open their mouths, and start responding to the call for action? Respondents in polls--even Republican respondents--are saying the Democrats need to start being the slightest bit vigorous in their opposition, and they are being given a not so subtle hint to get on the job. But like the prospect of a dew-soaked loafer blocking the serendipitous pluck of a handful of four-leaf clover, Congressional Democrats are eyeing their manifest electoral luck with a most curious jaundice.

--TJ

German Elections Sunday

I should know more about the current politics of the country that gives me most of my bloodline, but I don't. I do know that Schroeder gambled by calling for quick elections, given that he was well behind in polls at the time. But his efforts at campaigning appear to have brought him even with his opponent, former East Germany technocrat Angela Merkel. On the eve of the election, it's estimated that as many as a quarter of the electorate is undecided--so this could definitely go either way.

Since I'm not personally fluent on the subject, I turned  to the country that seems to love German-watching: the British. They'd never pretend to care about the French, the Italians and Spanish are too remote and swarthy, the Belgians are too much like the French, and why care about the Dutch when the Germans are the original? No, I think deep down the British consider the Germans overbearing type A versions of themselves.

My transnational pop psychology notwithstanding, the British press are covering one of the world's more key elections with far more energy than the Americans can muster. The Independent has a quite nice contrast of the two candidates, and the Times grumbles that it won't matter who wins because Germans will still be too constricted by dumb regulations to succeed.

What's the US political take? If you trust ABC, you get what you'd expect the CW would be: more conservative governance + defeat of disputnik Schroeder = win-win for Bushco. But the authors caution that a shift in attitude may not necessarily bring a shift in policy or assistance at the global diplomacy level. (Merkel rules out troops to Iraq, for instance).

To get info from as close to the horse's mouth as possible, the embassy has their own elections page--very helpful. The elections officer will attempt to produce partial results by about 10AM tomorrow, West Coast time.

--TJ

Smith Joins Rest of GOP Senate, Kills Katrina Kommission

Reflecting popular support tagged as high as 70%, Senator Hillary Clinton had proposed an amendment establishing an independent commission on the federal response to Hurricane Katrina.  Rather than the majority-proposed version that would have empaneled Congresspeople and with Republicans retaining agenda control, Clinton's version was modeled after the 9/11 Commission, appointed by the Executive and featuring no current politicians. Where are the Democratic ideas, you ask? Here's one Hillary had:  cut the crap and appoint some people without vested partisan interest to investigate the facts.

So what would the response of the GOP be? As if you had to ask--the amendment failed. Not only did it fail, it failed on a strict party line, David Vitter (R-LA) somehow missing from a vote on the biggest issue facing his state since secession. I'll leave it to Louisiana's constituents to ask Vitter what he had going* (since Sen Landrieu made the vote.) I was more curious about what our own Gordon Smith had to say for himself.

Of course, without access dollars you don't actually talk to Smith himself; for that he has people like Jared White (spelling guessed at). Jared was a delightful Young Republican who certainly did as much to help as possible, without actually yielding relevant information. It couldn't have been more than an hour after the vote had been taken, but Jared seemed ready with a firm answer to my initial question about his vote: because the commission vote was an amendment to an appropriations bill, and that bill was deemed "detrimental" to Oregon, Smith had to vote no.

One thing aides and phone answerers in Senate offices don't like, is follow up questions. They've given you what they got from above, and now you're asking them to wing it like Scotty McClellan. But two obvious followups emerged in my head and I went with them.
"So, what was the provision?"
"Excuse me?"
"What was the part of the bill that the Senator felt was detrimental to Oregonians?"
"Uhhmmm, I....don't know."

I hit the useful-info terminus on that one, I realized, and took the name of the applicable legislative aide for followup later. But before he could shunt me to voicemail, I gave him #2: "So the Senator's opposition was based on its placement as an amendment?" That got a yes, and we were at the moment of truth--would Smith support the idea of a 9/11 Commission as a standalone bill?

Jared parried with the reliable "I can't address details," to which I said, "Just address the principle. Does he support a task force appointed by the Executive, with no current Members of Congress?" Jared had Gordon be noncommittal on that one, not surprisingly. So does Gordon Smith support a 9/11-style Katrina commission? You bet he does or doesn't! We'll see if the LA calls me back and can explain things any better.

But hey, maybe there was some devilish plot in the bill to make Oregonians drink only Bud and Coors, and Gordy was just looking out for us. Surely if it were detrimental to the state, I figured, Smith wouldn't have wasted the chance to reach across the aisle and seek support from his Democratic counterpart, Ron Wyden. After all, the state has a long history of bipartisan cooperation at the federal level. Surely, I figured, Smith must have alerted his colleague to the danger in voting Yea, as Wyden did.

So I called up the Wyden office, and asked if they knew what Gordon was referring to. They didn't, and again I wasn't surprised. I was a little disconcerted that they referred me to the Thomas website to read the text (I had already been), rather than easing my mind by assuring me that Wyden wouldn't have voted for an appropriation that would hurt Oregon. They missed a prime opportunity to say what was true: Wyden voted to find out the truth; Smith just isn't that serious about it, and may even prefer NOT to discover it.

If you call and are able to find out what perplexed Smith so much that he had to join a panicked majority and kill the commission vote, let us know. So far I'm highly dubious any such provision existed, that isn't just a convenient out for his nay vote on the hearings.

This doesn't seem like the last word on an independent commission--Congress and the President dragged their feet under duress for months on the formation of the 9/11 panel before finally acquiesing--so don't forget which party was out front, and which was not ready to seek the truth.

*update 9AM--
commenter MFL at Kos noted that Vitter's staffers called it "a dire emergency", but that he would support an independent commission.

Update 10AM--
commenter LynnS at Kos claims that Smith's staffer changed their story to the broader "procedural problems with the amendment" line that many folks are hearing from GOP offices, but more importantly she notes that the staffer indicated clearly that Smith was IN FAVOR of an independent commission. If you get a confirm, or a different story, drop a comment on us.

Update 2PM--
Over at Tapped, they're citing The Hill to wonder how long the Democrats can remain unified on not participating in sham hearings controlled by the GOP.  I share their (Tapped's) revulsion--what on EARTH will it take for the opposition party to get some spine? We're not even asking for them to hang tough on difficult political issues like gay marriage (although it'd be nice); this one is both ideologically AND politically supportable. Jeee-sus.

--TJ

Bumvertising

An item pulled off the Seattle P-I caught my eye because of the headline: 'Bumvertising stirs debate.' I suppose that immediately buttresses the claim to fame of Seattleite Ben Rogovy, who asserts to have invented the term. He's certainly popularized it, appearing as radio fodder for weeks now, and graduating next week to the big Daddy of quirk, John Stewart. But more interesting than the name is the concept of hiring the homeless to advertise, and the socioeconomic dynamics of what Rogovy is doing.

It's rather clear from his website description that he's not exactly winning the "hand up, not hand out" award. You don't get the sense of caring or even interest in who's holding his signs, but I don't suppose the typical CEO gives much thought to his employees either, so it's not like exploitation on the cheap is limited to temping the homeless.

Where Rogovy does it it's legal, so there's really only an ethical question at stake: is it taking advantage of people begging on the street to use them as billboards for money? Although I'm pretty sensitive to the treatment of the homeless by the community, I'm pretty sure I don't have a problem with it. Should he give the people more money, and think of them as something besides 'derelicts?' You bet. Is this anything more than a transient (!) business relationship between a homeless person and a guy running about two years two late on the internet poker thing? No. And besides, you do see fully employed people standing out their in sandwich boards or waving "Free gordita" signs at cars. Sure they're getting paid at least minimum wage, but they have to do more than sit where they always sit, and beg for change like they normally do. That's not much of a gig.  (Or maybe it is, in Portland).

This isn't the first time someone's involved the homeless in advertising, speaking of Portland. Two years earlier, Andre Jehan of Pizza Schmizza (Rogovy, take note of the superior business model) gave homeless people free pizza and beverages, plus cash in order to hold a sign. The move generated even more publicity two years ago than Rogovy's less elegant idea, which makes it odd that the P-I wouldn't even bring it up in the new story--especially since they ran an article themselvses. An interesting criticism is here; Schmizza should have done more than Jehan did if they really wanted to help the homeless. On the other hand, two people enter into whatever contracts they like, and it's not clear what other charitable pursuits Jehan and Schmizza are involved  in.

The more salient criticism in my mind is the aesthetic and commercial overload they create downtown. Every good "country boy goes city" movie of the 50s has a guy sitting on his hotel windowsill or walking the streets of the big down, dazzled to distraction by the lights. And usually later in the film, disillusioned by the glamour the lights take on a garishness and pervasiveness that creates a kind of urban anomie.

Deep philosophy aside, I might be tempted to grab a slice of what really is pretty good pizza. I'm still having trouble remembering Rogovy's company name.  Point, pizza.

--TJ

PS--As long as we're talking about the underbelly of Seattle life, three cheers to a federal judge for letting the strip clubs flow from the faucet of naughtiness once again in Seattle. A 17-year moratorium on stripatoriums has ended. This is one area where Oregon, particularly Portland, is a national leader--so feel free to come down and take notes, Seattle entrepreneurs! Stumptowners like Bush if it's being pushed in your face for a dollar while you drink microbrews and play video poker. And speaking of exploitation for tips...

Report: Gov. Blanco Did Her Job

At least in the context of asking for federal assistance in a timely and legalistically sufficient manner, there is now independent evidence that shifting the blame to Lousiana Goobernor Kathleen Babineaux Blanco is a faulty prospect:

• The Governor must make a timely request for such assistance, which meets the requirements of federal law. The report states that "[e]xcept to the extent that an emergency involves primarily Federal interests, both declarations of major disaster and declarations of emergency must be triggered by a request to the President from the Governor of the affected state";

• The Governor did indeed make such a request, which was both timely and in compliance with federal law. The report finds that "Governor Kathleen Babineaux Blanco requested by letter dated August 27, 2005...that the President declare an emergency for the State of Louisiana due to Hurricane Katrina for the time period from August 26, 2005 and continuing pursuant to [applicable Federal statute]" and "Governor Blanco's August 27,2005 request for an emergency declaration also included her determination...that 'the incident is of such severity and magnitude that effective response is beyond the capabilities of the State and affected local governments and that supplementary Federal assistance is necessary to save lives, protect property, public health, and safety, or to lessen or avert the threat of disaster."

I said I was done blaming officials, but I'm happy to point out where blame doesn't deserve to be applied. It would appear that this is one instance.

update 12AM Wednesday--
The full text of the Congressional Research Service's report is pdfed here. Note in particular pages three and four, that lay out clearly what the President is authorized to do once the request comes in and is confirmed.

-TJ