Why The Straits Haven't Sparked Nationwide Debate.

Ah, the right wing has a new response the Trayvon Martin case: a tragic home invasion in Oklahoma. 

Here's the latest right wingnut meme:

This won't make coverage. Obama and/or any politicians won't bother with it...and the murderer will probably hire a Pro Bono lawyer (I have Jose Baez - Casey Anthony's lawyer) and if he is lucky, will have the trial moved to Florida with the same jury...
In fact isn't it sad that you will only find this story in a UK newspaper?

It's followed by a link to an article in the Daily Mail, a United Kingdom news outlet. It picked up a tragic tale from Tulsa, Oklahoma. Bob and Nancy Strait, a couple married for 65 years, were the victims of a brutal home invasion robbery; the husband was shot in the face, while the wife was raped so violently that she died of her injuries.

The  point being made, I guess, is that the President and everyone else should be having the exact same reactions to the death of the 85 year old Nancy Strait as we do to the death of 17 year old Trayvon Martin.  Why isn't Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson in Tulsa, protesting the vicious attacks on Mr. and Mrs. Strait?  Why isn't this all over the major networks?  Why isn't NPR doing analysis of it?  Is it because they Straits are WHITE?

I assume we're all familiar with the Martin case; the basic undisputed facts are that neighborhood watch member George Zimmerman shot and killed Trayvon Martin, an unarmed teen who was not breaking any laws at the time.  Zimmerman has not been charged with a crime as of the time this article was posted. The official story is that there is nothing to contradict Zimmerman's story that he killed the unarmed Martin in self-defense.  Of course, the only witness is the dead teen.

So let's see what the facts are in the Strait case.

Because that's the kind of guy I am, I will be referring exclusively to US news sources.  Yes, it turns out that we can find the story in something other than a UK newspaper. 

TULSA, Oklahoma - Nancy Strait, the 85-year-old victim of Wednesday's brutal home invasion died Thursday evening at a Tulsa hospital. Nancy Strait suffered the brunt of the attack that also critically injured her husband, 90-year-old Bob Strait. He remains in critical condition at the same hospital.

Tulsa Police named 19-year-old Tyrone Woodfork the principal suspect in this case. He was booked into the Tulsa County Jail and faces several charges, including 1st degree murder.
- NewsOn6.com, March 15, 2012

Tyrone Woodfork, 20, was charged in Tulsa County District Court with felony first-degree murder, two counts of robbery with a firearm and first-degree burglary.

Bob and Nancy Strait were assaulted March 14 in their home in the 3300 block of East Virgin Street. Nancy Strait died March 15 from injuries related to the assault. Bob Strait is still recovering from multiple injuries.
- Tulsa World, 3/26/12

Can you spot the main difference between the two cases?  It's not that in one, the victim was black and the attacker was white while in the other the victims were white while the attacker was black - although that is an interesting parallel.

No, it's that Nancy Strait's killer has been charged with her murder, and arrested.

There are no massive protests demanding justice because justice is already in process.  The killer was tracked down, and promptly placed in jail.

What, precisely, are we supposed to be outraged about?

But perhaps the rightwingnuts have a point; this white couple was brutally attacked in their own neighborhood, and the killer was found and arrested and charged, while the black teen was brutally attacked blocks from his father's home, and the killer walked away scott-free. Perhaps I've been in denial about the racist aspects of this crime; I've been going along under the presumption that Zimmerman is just a cop wannabe that stepped over a line because he has no training.

No, I'm convinced now that Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson should be holding up this story before the nation, and pointing out that these right-wingnuts have proven that white victims get justice while black victims get none.

Thanks, Tea Party; I was wrong.  You are good for something!

Sanford Prediction Came True

Unless you've been living under a rock, you've undoubtedly heard about Trayvon Martin, a teen gunned down in the streets of Sanford, Florida, by George Zimmerman, the son of a retired judge.  Everyone has been criticizing the Sanford Police Department about their failure to arrest the gunman.  After all, there are no questions about whether or not Zimmerman shot Martin; he absolutely did it.

But Zimmerman claims that it was self-defense; he maintains that the slender high school student, armed only with a Big Gulp and Skittles, decided to attack the stocky neighborhood watch captain.

This isn't the first time that the Sanford Police Department has failed to arrest an aggressor who clearly committed the crime; in 2010, they failed to arrest Justin Collison for beating up Sherman Ware, despite numerous eyewitnesses and video tape of the entire incident.  Ware was a homeless man, and Collison the son of a Sanford police lieutenant.

The arresting officer, Samuel McNeil, claimed that he couldn't arrest Collison because Ware, who had been beaten unconscious, wasn't able to make a sworn statement at the time.

My comments on that have become sadly prescient:

People must get away with murder in Sanford; after all, dead men tell no tales, and the cops ignore physical evidence and eyewitness testimony.  They might was well not have a police department.

Here we are barely 18 months later, and here's George Zimmerman getting away with murder.  Who'd a thunk?

Zimmerman was recorded calling 911 prior to the incident; he was talking to the dispatcher while he followed Trayvon Martin.  Martin was walking back to his father's girlfriend's house, having picked up a late snack at a nearby convenience store.  The dispatcher advised Zimmerman to stop following the boy.

Meanwhile, Martin was talking to his girlfriend back in Miami.  She said he was being followed by someone, and felt threatened. 

Zimmerman's attorney claims that it was Zimmerman that felt threatened, and that the murder of Martin is justified by Florida's "Stand your Ground" law, which allows the use of deadly force in self defense.  The City claims that the testimony they had at the time of the shooting supported Zimmerman's claim of self-defense, so they had no grounds to arrest him.

Of course, the only actual witness had been silenced.  All they had was the word of the perpetrator, which they accepted at face value. 

Sound familiar?

The reason this case stinks to high hell is that it relies on the judgement of the Sanford Police Department; but the SPD has demonstrated that its judgment can't be trusted.  After all, they used the same puny excuse eighteen months ago, and it turned out that there was ample evidence to support an arrest and conviction.  Then it became abundantly clear that police let a criminal walk free because he was the son of a white man with connections, and the victim was just some black guy.

How many more people will have to die before Sanford cleans up its corrupt police department?

Jeanine Notter Would Mandate Lying

The Huffington Post reports that New Hampshire  State House Representative has Jeanine Notter authored a bill that would force doctors to lie to their patients.

The Republican politician and Tea Party enthusiast introduced House Bill 1659, "AN ACT relative to the women’s right to know act regarding abortion information."  It's another one of those laws loved by conservatives and religious fundamentalists; its intent is to coerce a woman out of getting an abortion. Or, as the religious right likes to describe it, "establishing a woman's right to know."

Usually, this is done by shaming the women who have done all their soul-searching long before they decide that abortion is their best option, but Rep. Notter has a new approach: lying.

Section 132-B:5, part II (e) mandates that doctors must provide women seeking an abortion with:

"Materials that inform the pregnant woman that there is evidence of a direct link between abortion and breast cancer."

In fact, breast cancer studies find no correlation between abortions and breast cancer.

According to the American Cancer Society:

Several studies show that induced abortions do not increase the risk of breast cancer. Also, there is no evidence to show a direct link between miscarriages and breast cancer.

Apparently, so many people have been asking them about this, that they published a special fact sheet dealing with this issue specifically; Is Abortion Linked to Breast Cancer?

Abortion and breast cancer are both topics that can bring out strong feelings in people. The issue of abortion is often linked to personal and political viewpoints – even without a possible disease connection. Breast cancer is the most common cancer in women. It can be a deadly disease, and one that many women fear.

Linking these 2 topics creates a great deal of emotion and debate. But scientific research studies have not found a cause-and-effect relationship between abortion and breast cancer.

I don't know about you, but I think The American Cancer Society is pretty credible when it comes to cancer facts.  It's what they do; they educate us so we have the information we need to prevent getting cancer, or to effectively fight cancer if we have it.

The Mayo Clinic doesn't address the issue, but it does not include "abortion" on its list of risk factors for breast cancer.  Again, if, as Notter's noxious bill claimed, "such medical data exists,"  wouldn't one of the premiere medical clinics on the planet include that data if it did?


Ms. Notter is simply lying, and is attempting to create a law to force doctors and medical centers to spread the lie.  And worse, she would penalize medical professionals who refuse to support the lie.  Doing so would be classified as a Class B Misdemeanor, and the penalties include suspending and even revoking medical licenses.

When you have to lie to make your case, your case isn't worth making.  But when you not only force others to lie, and then punish them if they refuse to lie, you pervert our entire system of government.

The bottom line is that Representative Jeanine Notter is abusing her position as an elected official to pursue a personal agenda by forcing medical professionals to lie to their patients about possible outcomes of a medical procedure.  Not only should the state of New Hampshire not pass this law, they should censure her for her despicable and callous disregard for the rights of the people she is sworn to serve.

Let's Settle This Fairly

There's a lot of talk going around about how unpopular Rick Scott, the governor of  Florida, has become since taking office.  His current approval rating is a record low 27%, which supposedly led The Orlando Sentinel to declare that only hemorrhoids where more unpopular.

I have to admit, this delights me no end.

So I thought I'd put it to the test and find out how unpopular he really is:

I figure there's nothing like a good poll to sort this out once and for all.  Remember, vote early - and often!

(poll closed)

Maybe after this, I'll see what we think of Frank Paruas, who is responsible for electing Rick Scott in the first place.

Adler Tells an Old Tale

As I've been following the Rothstein ponzi scheme story, something about the the defense by the partners at Rothstein-Rosenfeldt-Adler Law Firm  seemed familiar.  And then when I read the article in The BizJournal about Russel Adler, I realized that I did know the story.

Charles, Lord Lichtman, is solicitor general for His Royal Majesty, The Emperor.

He is no fan of Russell, Lord BlackAdler, and his fiendish companion, the blackhearted Baldrickstein.  Lord Lichtman has been biding his time, knowing that Lord Russell's swagger will lead him to the scene of the crime.

But BlackAdler is as slippery as his venomous namesake, and in the timeworn tradition of thugs and thieves, has arranged matters so that his henchman, Baldricstein, will take the fall for the foul crime.

Lord Lichtman:  Lord BlackAdler, the Emperor has ordered that be you held for trial and face charges for defrauding the Crown by selling His Majesty imaginary clothes, while insisting they were in fact real clothes.

Black Adler: Oh, yes, Scott Baldricstein had me completely fooled.

Lord Lichtman: Excuse me?

Black Adler:  Oh yes, I had no idea that the clothes weren't real.

Lord Lichtman:  Do you expect us to believe that you didn't know that the clothes didn't exist?

Black Adler: Well, the governor and the sheriff didn't know.  Why should I have been expected to know?

Lord Lichtman: Really?  This is your defense?

BlackAdler: My dear Lord Lichtman, I assure you that I am as innocent as a suckling child.

Lord Lichtman:  Didn't you work on the clothes?

BlackAdler: Well, not as much as Baldricstein.  He sewed them together.  He's quite skilled.  I've little talent for manual labour, as you may know.

Lord Lichtman:  So what was your part in the affair?

BlackAdler: Management and administration, mostly.  Tried to modernize the old place, cut the red tape, go green, all of that - I made the firm paperless.

Lord Lichtman: In fact, did you not accomplish your "paperless office" simply by burning all of the firm's records?

BlackAdler: It was cold; I recycled them into heat.  Waste not, want not, that's what I always say.

Lord Lichtman: But getting back to the Emperors non-existent -

BlackAdler: - situationally invisible -

Lord Lichtman:  - NON EXISTENT - wardrobe, did you not have an active part in that?

BlackAdler:  Well, I did cut them to the pattern of course.

Lord Lichtman:  You... cut them to pattern.

BlackAdler: The pattern Baldricstein created. Yes.

Lord Lichtman:  You took scissors to the cloth....

BlackAdler: Yes.

Lord Lichtman:  ...and then you cut the cloth....

BlackAdder: Yes.

Lord Lichtman:  ...even though there was no cloth to cut.

BlackAdler: Well, I had no reason to know that.  I know, in hindsight, I suppose it does look rather foolish.  But you must understand, Baldricstein was so caught up with the styles and colours, and sales were so good...

Lord Lichtman: Sales?  You mean the sales of clothing that didn't exist?

BlackAdler:  The customers were always so pleased with their purchases.

Lord Lichtman: But you weren't selling them anything!

BlackAdler:  How was I to know that?  Everyone seemed to think they were buying stylish clothes, everyone has their own tastes, who am I to say different?  "To Each His Own."

Lord Lichtman:  In fact,  your firm never purchased cloth of any sort. Or thread.

BlackAdler: We had a sewing machine, and I used the scissors myself.

Lord Lichtman: On non-existent cloth.

BlackAdler:  So you say.  Baldricstein said it was "situationally invisible."

Lord Lichtman:  "Situationally Invisible."

BlackAdler:  Exactly.

Lord Lichtman:  And what does that mean?

BlackAdler:  In certain situations, you can't see it.

Lord Lichtman:  "Certain Situations."

Black Adler: Exactly.

Lord Lichtman:  Such as?

BlackAdler:  Well, this is according to Baldricstein, you understand,  if you were stupid, incompetent, or unfit for your position, you wouldn't be able to see the cloth.  That's what he maintained, anyway, and he was running the show.

Lord Lichtman:  And you went along with this?

BlackAdler: Well, I didn't want to appear stupid.  After all, the Governor liked them well enough.  He spoke highly of their fine textures and draping.  I'd like to believe that I'm at least as smart as the Governor.

Lord Lichtman: Wasn't the Governor an old friend of Baldricsteins?

Baldricstein:  You know, I do believe you're right.

(With apologies to Hans Christian Anderson and Rowan Atkinson)

Rick Scott; Liar or Idiot: Either way a Bad Choice.

I don't know which is worse; that Rick Scott ran a company that bilked taxpayers out of millions of dollars, or that his statements defending himself are so incredibly lame.

He's stated numerous times that he wasn't aware that his company was breaking the law; of course, as the CEO, it was his job to be aware of it.  Just as it will be his job as governor to know when legislation serves a legitimate need, and makes good use of taxpayer dollars.

And now, the Miami Herald reports that he was aware of his company's indiscretions.

The warnings were contained in the company's annual public reports to stockholders that Scott, now the Republican candidate for Florida governor, signed as Columbia/HCA's president and chief executive officer.

So it turns out that Scott has been lying the entire time.  But he offers up yet another incredibly lame defense:

"I don't know what the document said. I'm sure they used boilerplate that said something about they used all their efforts to comply with all the laws.''

And yet, he signed it.  He signed a document certifying that he'd read it, and that it was accurate.

Hospital expert James Roberts, now general counsel with Gainesville-based Shands Healthcare, said Columbia/HCA was playing a "roulette wheel,'' betting that the risk of fines was lower than the profitability of the physician arrangements.

Roberts agreed that the language about physician payments was "boilerplate'' but said Scott -- an attorney as well as a hospital CEO -- should have known better.

He's right.  "Ignorance of the law" is no excuse, particularly for a lawyer.

And again, what is the chief role of the governor?  To sign stuff.  To sign bills into laws.  To sign budget declarations.  To sign pardons excusing convicted felons.  To sign execution orders for condemned murderers.

Rick Scott couldn't be bothered to read documents in the past, critical legal documents, declarations of his company's intentions.  And now he expects us to elect him to a job where signing stuff is Job One?

Again, here's Rick Scott's statement on the matter:

"What happens in companies is that you have to take responsibility for what happens under your watch.  Mistakes that were made you take responsibility as CEO and you do everything you can to make sure those things don't happen. What I tell people is that's what I'll do as
governor.''

But Scott hasn't taken responsibility for any of it; he's done nothing but make excuses time and again: he didn't know, he wasn't told, he doesn't remember.

I have no doubt that he will do for Florida what he did with Columbia/HCA; and that's a problem.

Florida deserves a governor who will at least read what they are signing, and stand behind their actions later.  We deserve better than Rick Scott.

Fitzroy Plays the Race Card

It's bad enough that former Miramar commissioner Fitzroy Salesman is trying to argue that he's honest while having a name like Salesman, but it turns out his real problem isn't that he got caught accepting bribes to convince the City of Miramar to award bids to someone other than the lowest bidder.

It's that he's black.

The Sun-Sentinel reports that his defense, rather than argue that he didn't take the money, has chosen to accuse the Federal Bureau of Investigation of racial profiling.

"The government sought out to blemish the record of several of the most prestigious African-American elected officials in Broward County," Salesman's attorney Jamie Benjamin wrote in court documents filed Friday

"It might be coincidental that this approximately four-year investigation involved mostly African-American elected officials but given the small number of African-American elected officials in Broward County and the methods used by the United States government to try and bring the honest elected officials … into corruption, one must wonder and give this Court concern,"

That's a pretty serious accusation. They gloss over the bigger coincidence that they found an actual criminal while committing this alleged racial profiling.

They offer evidence to back up their case: when Salesman offered to introduce the undercover agents to other politicians in a position to help them win a contract, they were interested.

But aren't they supposed to be? If an undercover agent discovers one criminal, and that criminal says "hey, you like that crime? I know another guy who does that crime. Wanna meet him," and offers to hook you up, aren't you supposed to go for it? Two birds, one stone, and all that?

One of them, Lauderdhill City Commissioner Dale Holness, turned down them down flat:

"They tested me but that's not the kind of person I am," Holness said. "I really distanced myself from Salesman after that and I think I talked to him maybe one time since that. I found the approach very distasteful."

Holness wasn't arrested or accused of breaking the law. Offered a chance to take a bribe, he turned it down. If this were the racist witch hunt that Salesman's defense team claims it to be, wouldn't they have simply kept after Holness until they managed to implicate him?

Are we supposed to be offended that a black politician is connected to other black politicians within the same county?

Another black politician who was approached at Salesman's suggestion was State Rep Hazel Rogers.

Rogers was approached in a similar way, and the "government reached out to try to put money in her pocket so that she would be guilty of a crime," Benjamin wrote. He did not respond to a request for further details. Rogers told the Sun Sentinel that she was not aware of any improper approach that was made to her. "Thank God, I do things the way they should be done," Rogers said.

So we're supposed to believe that these two black politicians, whom Salesman led the undercover agents to in the first place, who both turned down bribes and have not been implicated in any crime, are victims of the federal government because Salesman approached them?

Let's face it, if Salesman had the moral high ground, he'd have turned down the bribe in the first place. And if he had just a scrap of moral fiber, when the feds asked if he knew other politicians who would cooperate for a price, he'd have told them to screw off.

Instead, he asked for a cut, and went knocking on doors.

In an earlier move by his defense team to have the charges dismissed because the laws under which he was charged were, in the words of his defense team, "so vague as to be unconstitutional."

U.S. District Judge James I. Cohn dismissed this argument rather succinctly:

"Certainly, accepting a bribe cannot, under any circumstance, be considered an honest service on the part of the elected official,'' Cohn wrote.

Notice that Salesman's defense isn't arguing that he didn't accept a bribe and deliver the goods: he can't deny he didn't do it because he was caught doing it red-handed when he accepted the bribe from the agents, and then went on to arrange the deal for them. That leaves only two approaches; 'fess up and do the time, or squirm and find some way to make accepting a bribe to usurp the rule of law legal.

No, Salesman wasn't investigated and charged because he was black: he was investigated and charged because he's a criminal.

Mark Sanford: Then and Now

Then:

“I think it would be much better for the country and for him personally (to resign). I come from the business side. If you had a chairman or president in the business world facing these allegations, he’d be gone.”

-SC Governor Mark Sanford, speaking in 1998 of Bill Clinton.

Now:
"I've been unfaithful to my wife."

-Mark Sanford today, after his office originally said he was absent from the state while hiking the Appalachian Trail.

So, according to Mark Sanford, the only option he has is to resign.

Understand that this isn't my opinion: I don't care who a person sleeps with as long as they're doing their job. His wife is the injured party here, not the electorate. But Sanford passed a judgment on another, and so it's only fitting that he face that same judgment. It's his own standards (or the standards he claims to adhere to) that he's crossed.

Have the courage of your convictions, Mark.

(h/t to Dusty)

No Justice In Oklahoma

There's no justice in Oklahoma while Daniel Martin is allowed to continue as a state trooper.

You might have seen the story on CBS News. Martin pulled over an ambulance transporting a patient, then beat up one of the paramedics in front of witnesses.

And Daniel Martin still hasn't been fired.

The entire incident was captured by the dashboard cam of his own cruiser.



And Daniel Martin still hasn't been fired.

A member of the patient's family videotaped the trooper as he assaulted the paramedic.



And Daniel Martin still hasn't been fired.

Martin's lawyer maintains that Martin was fully justified in keeping a woman from receiving medical care. He maintains that Martin didn't know that there was a patient in the ambulance even though it was one of the first things he was told when he approached the driver - as shown by his dashboard camera.

Martin is a bully, a thug, and a menace to society. The people of Oklahoma are not safe with him patrolling the streets, free to harass emergency personnel at his whim.

What kind of idiots must be running the Oklahoma State Troopers that they didn't fire him 30 seconds after his own dashboard camera revealed that everything he claimed about the case was a lie? That after an eyewitness videotape clearly shows that he attacked the paramedic, and not the other way around, Martin wasn't charged with assault and stripped of his badge?

There's no justice in Oklahoma.

(h/t to Carlos Miller)

Justice Served to Greedy Cop

You may recall the story of Andrea Eichhorn. While responding to a 911 call for a drowning child, she slipped and fell on a puddle of water from the boy. The boy was resuscitated, but suffered severe brain damage, and will spend the rest of his life in a vegetative state. Eichhorn recieved treatment for he injuries, then sued the boy's family.

The outcry from the public was loud, and it was unanimous: string the bitch up!

Against the overwhelming tide of public opinion, Eichhorn did drop her lawsuit. But the damage was done, and she was suspended, then fired from her job with the Cassleberry Police Department.

On April 16, the Orland Sentinel reported that she lost her appeal to be reinstated.

"We regretted the negative community impact this incident created and will continue to strive to build trust and high levels of confidence between our police department and the community it serves,"
-City Manager Barbara Lipscomb

"The arbitrator's ruling to uphold the city's decision will allow the Casselberry Police Department to move forward and put this unfortunate situation behind us and bring closure for the Cosmillo family,"
-Chief James Ruf, Casselberry Police Department

As I wrote in October of 2007:

"This might well be the most publicized career suicide in history."
-Me.

Now, if only David Heil, her scumbag lawyer, would be disbarred, justice would be complete.

The View on Wall Street

Received in email, I had to share:

Back in 1929, a lot of stock brokers jumped out of their office windows when they realized the extent of the losses of their firms and their clients. A lot of people pitied those poor stock brokers.



That was then, this is now:

Grab Your Ankles; You're Still Being Screwed.

Last week, I discussed some of the problems with the deal being made to purchase contaminated farm land from US Sugar in Bend Over: They're Not Done Screwing You.

Well, I wasn't kidding.

The Sun-Sentinel reports that the very first bid by the state of $1.75 billion was $400 million to high to start with.

...the New York financial firm Duff & Phelps - hired to render a "fairness" opinion on the proposal - estimated the combined value of U.S. Sugar's land, facilities and equipment at a maximum of $1.3 billion.

And remember, this doesn't include the money we'll be spending the remove all the toxic chemicals left behind.

PSC Assists FPL in Customer Rip-Off. Again.

I'm not sure which pisses me off more: FPL claiming it's not responsible for costs incurred by its own mistake, or that the Public Service Commission is letting them get away with it.

Back in 2006, an FPL sub-contractor drilled a one-eighth inch hole in a pressurized pipe in its Turkey Point nuclear power plant. The damage necessitated a five-day shutdown of the plant for repairs, at a cost of about 6.2 million dollars.

FPL claims that it should not have to pay for the damages, because they followed all the rules required of them for the work that was being done, and in allowing the sub-contractor access to the plant. Just because FPL hired him, and FPL vetted him, and he was doing workf for FPL, they argue that it doesn't follow that they should be resoponsible for the fact that this worker, with a questionable history of criminal charges, damaged their plant.

Such a move is not suprising from a company that collected monies from customers to fund alternative energy plants, but instead spent it on marketing. FPL seems to have a healthy sideline in bilking its customers.

But then there's the Public Service Commission.

Most of us probably think that the PSC is there to protect consumers - aka "the public" - against abuses by the various utilities we are forced to do business with.

And we would be wrong.

Here's the PSC's actual mission statement:

To facilitate the efficient provision of safe and reliable utility services at fair prices.

And just in case you missed the fact this mission statement says nothing about consumers, here's the very first goal they pursue in fullfilling their mission:

To the extent possible, streamline regulatory requirements to provide an open, accessible and efficient regulatory process that is fair and unbiased.

In other words, the PSC's primary purpose is not to protect the consumer, but to remove legislative roadblocks that might impede the utility.

That's not to say that watching over consumer interests isn't in the purview of the PSC; it is. It just happens to be its least priority, according the PSC's own website.

In any other field, if a company hired a contractor to do work on their site, and that contractor damaged the company's facilities, the company would have to cover repair out of its profits. Look at it this way: if you hired a guy to work on your roof, and in the process he knocked out a window, would you think it reasonable to ask your employer to pay to replace the window for you?

But this is hardly the first time that the PSC has sided with FPL against the public's welfare.

Hundreds of thousands of Floridians were without power following Katrina and Wilma, when category 2 winds knocked down rotting poles and excessive overgrowth that had grown around the lines, winds well below the survival threshold mandated for power lines.

And yet, the PSC signed off on FPL's request to lower the pruning schedule from every three years to every SIX! Since trees in sub-tropical South Florida can double their volume in TWO years, THREE years wasn't even fully adequate, but made fiscal sense. But a six year cycle is simply unacceptable. Unless, of course, you're on the PSC.

To add insult to injury, FPL also wanted to be reimbursed for lost revenue. Hundreds of thousands of its customers sat in the dark for days, and some of us went without power for a week or more. The PSC seems to have overlooked that a company should only be paid for the product it delivers, not for the product it can't deliver due to its own negligence. So FPL had record profits during a period when it not only had to replace a significant amount of its infrastructure, but a significant number of its customers went without any power at all!

Miami Chamber of Commerce presents A Puppet Show

Respected journalist Michael Putney has withdrawn from an upcoming debate because he discovered the participants would receive the questions in advance. And while the Chamber hasn't referred to the luncheon as a debate, they are implying as strongly as they are denying that's what it is.

How are they implying it? By having a moderator, and by collecting questions from the public for the forum members to answer; that implies a give-and-take discussion. Those are things you find in a debate. The moderator asks questions of the participants, and they do their best to answer those questions.

The sleazy weasels respected members of the Chamber are trying to eel their way out of it by claiming "The forum format is not a debate."

Let's turn to the dictionary, shall we?
Forum: 1. a public meeting or lecture involving audience discussion

Debate: a regulated discussion of a proposition between two matched sides, the formal discussion of a motion before a deliberative body according to the rules of parliamentary procedure

As you can plainly see, "debate" is much closer to what the Chamber claims it is trying to do. In a debate, issues to be discussed are decided in advance, which fits with collecting the questions. If the Chamber was honestly

In neither case do you give a cheat sheet to the participants.

What the chamber is actually presenting is a scripted event: it's a play. There is no "moderator," and there are no "questions;" there is an actor who reads his lines. The other players already know what the moderator is going to say, because they have a copy of the script. They've had days to prepare, to learn their lines.

There will be no glimpses into the beliefs or abilities of the candidates, because this event is essentially one of their paid commercials. The only difference between this and their commercial is that the suckers viewers are being charged to watch it.

Michael Putney was justifiable outraged when he found out that he was being brought in not as a moderator, but a ventriloquist's dummy.

"That reduces the moderator to some kind of puppet and if that's what they wanted, they can hire an actor.''

He stepped down from the event. But not to worry, they found a replacement: WTVJ's Nick Bogert apparently doesn't mind being a mindless puppet shilling for dime.


Hey, didn't Mike Wallace pitch cars back in the 50's?

I guess that tells us everything we need to know about the Chamber; they're stuck in the 1950s, while the rest of us are in the 21st century.

Sun-Sentinel Misleads Its Readers; A Shameful Poll

The Sun-Sentinel completely abandons any pretense of having even a modicum of journalistic integrity by setting up the most ludicrous poll of 2008 to accompany a story on former US Rep (and current sleazebag) Mark Foley.

The article itself is a pretty cut and dried story; The FDLE announces that it doesn't have enough evidence to warrant filing charges against Foley.

"FDLE conducted as thorough and comprehensive investigation as possible considering Congress and Mr. Foley denied us access to critical data," Florida Department of Law Enforcement Commissioner Gerald Bailey said.

The crux of the matter is that while Foley may be guilty as sin, they can't prove it.

Last year, the general counsel of the U.S. House of Representatives refused to release Foley's government-issued computers without Foley's permission.

Not surprisingly, Foley, through his lawyer, refused to let them dig into computers paid for with your tax dollars. Would any company in the private sector have gotten away with such an action? Of course not! But when you start dealing with the federal government, especially Congress, justice takes a back seat to saving your ass.

By the way, the article does not address the fact that Foley would not have been protected had he worked in the private sector; that's another lapse, although not as large as the Poll.

This story DOES raise a question that DOES warrant asking for opinions. Just not the one that the idiots who pass themselves off as editors chose to mount:

Just so we're clear, the only way this poll makes sense is if you assume that FDLE had enough evidence to prosecute Foley but let him off the hook. That assumption is a direct contradiction of the story that it accompanies.

Instead of asking readers how they felt about Congress' choice to obstruct justice and let a pedophile run free, the Sun-Sentinel chose to insinuate that the FDLE had a choice on whether or not to pursue a case in which they have no evidence to present at trial, even though the Sun-Sentinel just published a story that flat-out states Congress acted to hinder the investigation.

Did the editor who signed off on this idiot poll even read the story it accompanies?

This is an egregious breach of ethics on the part of the Sun-Sentinel. Instead of enlightening the public, the Sun-Sentinel has chosen to create a false issue, essentially lying to the public.

Let's be clear; if FDLE takes this case to court, and it gets to trial, the case will be lost because they don't have the original source of the emails in the chain of custody. Without that key evidence, Foley would be acquitted. And because of double-jeopardy, we'd never be able to re-visit this case. He'd be scott-free. By declining to file charges now, there will be no trial. If a Congress in the not-too-distant-future is overcome with decency and morality and a love of justice, they could choose to make the computer and its evidence available to the FDLE, and Foley could still be brought to justice. If Congress can be made to do the right thing.

But FDLE can't force Congress to do a damned thing. Only public outrage has a hope of doing that, but the Sun-Sentinel has acted instead to direct outrage at the FDLE.

This is worse than a simple omission of fact; the Sun-Sentinel is misleading its readers. They ought to be ashamed.

Who Spent the Money? Souto Did. Moss Did.

Where did all the money from the 1/2 cent tax go? It was supposed to expand mass transit.

But now we're facing budget cuts and routes being shut down.

SOUTO TOSSES MONEY DOWN THE TOILET

One of those routes is Route 82. It wasn't added as the result of studies showing it was needed. It wasn't the result of taxpayers clamoring for service along that corridor.

No, Javier Souto demanded the route. When the transit authority tried to close down the money-wasting route, Souto stopped them.

''They're killing bus routes!'' said Souto, who voted against the sales tax in 2002. "That's not what the people voted for! If you expand, you don't kill what you have. You expand.''
-- Miami Herald

I just want to make sure you understand this: Souto didn't want to pay for the expansion in the first place, and then demanded the addition of a route that didn't service the community. And when it was discovered that no one was riding this route, he overrode a decision to axe it.

So we've spent $1,080 a day for the last two years, servicing about 35 riders at a cost per passenger of $30. That's 13 times what's spent elsewhere around the county. That's your money, wasted by order of Javier Souto.

The problem with Miami-Dade County is the Miami-Dade County Commission. They micro-manage. They interfere. The spend your money like drunken sailors on leave. They bicker. They demand. They spend more money.

Mr. Souto, we didn't ask for random expansion; that's stupid. We want better service. We want routes that get us from where we are to where we want to go. You don't do that by dictating a bus "here" or "there." And if you're too stupid to see that, you're too stupid to sit on the Commission. Take a hike.

RUNNING ROUGHSHOD OVER THE LAW.

But while Souto thoughtlessly threw your money away, Commissioner Dennis Moss demanded that the Transit Authority violate county law. He forced through a bus line to a trailer park outside the Urban Development Boundary. The County had established that bus service would only be available inside the Boundary.

"These are working-class people out there saying, 'You passed this tax. You're running service, 24-hour service, all over the county. Where's our service? How about us?'"'
-- Miami Herald

How about you? You chose to live outside the UDB. You could have chosen to live inside it. Even I don't think we should run buses everywhere. That's crazy.

But in spite of Ross's claim that there was demand, these working-class people never rode the bus. An empty bus would make the trip every 20 minutes. Way to go, Dennis. We could have done something useful with that money, but you threw it way. $2000 a day, for over a year, gone forever.


Tired of your money disappearing? Tired of waste? Don't return anyone to the Miami Dade County Commission. Time to start from scratch.

Could we really do any worse?

On Political Power, Clout, and Compromise

When George Herbert Walker Bush was running for President, he made a promise that swept him into office:

“

And I'm the one who will not raise taxes. My opponent now says he'll raise them as a last resort, or a third resort. But when a politician talks like that, you know that's one resort he'll be checking into. My opponent, my opponent won't rule out raising taxes. But I will. And the Congress will push me to raise taxes and I'll say no. And they'll push, and I'll say no, and they'll push again, and I'll say, to them, ‘Read my lips: no new taxes.’

”

Of course, he did sign the largest tax increase in US history up to that time. It cost him much support during his administration, and utterly destroyed any chance at a second term in office.

Arguments have been made that he had to sign the bill into law in order to hold onto his political clout; after all, it was clear that Congress had the votes to override a veto. Presidents whose veto gets overridden, we are told, loses political power.

But the man made a promise, and the bottom line is he broke his promise. And people who break promises don't deserve any support from anybody.

Why am I bringing this up? Isn't this water under the bridge? No, not in light of recent events.

Miami-Dade Mayor Carlos Alvarez made a promise to the people of Miami-Dade County. He promised that he would fight urban sprawl and stand against the corruption of out-of-control developers. And he faced his greatest test so far with the incredibly stupid request to move the UDB (Urban Development Boundary) farther west.

Despite the fact that State and County regulatory agencies recommended against the move, and a lack of support in the community, the clowns in our county commission voted to do it anyway. Alvarez warned that he would veto the move, and the overwhelming majority of jackals on the commission retorted that they would overrided.

They voted for the move. Alvarez vetoed it, and the Commission, unfettered by intelligence, common sense, or decency, overturned it.

Some might argue that this cost Alvarez some political capital; they would be wrong. The fact that Alvarez kept his word knowing that he would ultimately lose the battle only underscores the strength of his integrity and the courage of his convictions. When you give your word unequivocally, you can not compromise.

Plus, when the Commission is forced to spend tens of millions of dollars defending the lawsuits that are being filed as I write this, the guy who tried to stop them is going to be the one standing on the moral high ground.

Mayor Alvarez is absolutely correct when says that this defeat is Miami-Dade County's. And as long as Joe Martinez, Natacha Seijas, Audrey Edmonson, Rebeca Sosa, Dorrin Rolle, Bruno Barreiro, Barbara Jordan and Javier Souto continue to sit on the Commission, we will continue to be the losers.

Lowe's List of Cockroaches: Their Board

I listed the scumbags on our own Miami-Dade County Commission, it's only fair to spotlight the cockroaches that will be destroying our drinking supply and savaging the Everglades.

The Directors of Lowe's:

David W. Bernauer
Leonard L. Berry
Peter C. Browning
Dawn E. Hudson
Robert A. Ingram
Robert L. Johnson
Marshall O. Larsen
Richard K. Lochridge
Robert A. Niblock
Stephen F. Page
O. Temple Sloan, Jr.

Be sure to tell them how feel: you can use this form.

Lowe's and the Miami-Dade Commission Fuck Us Over.

That's right. Lowe's and the Miami-Dade County Commission decided that access to paint and pesticides is more important than your drinking water.

In the coming years, as the cost of our drinking water skyrockets and half the plants and the animal species in the Everglade dissappear forever, remember that the loss was gifted to you by Lowe's and the following morally bankrupt commissioners:

Joe Martinez, Natacha Seijas, Audrey Edmonson, Rebeca Sosa, Dorrin Rolle, Bruno Barreiro, Barbara Jordan and Javier Souto.

Not one regulatory supported this decision, and most spoke out against it; it's bad for the environment, it's bad for our drinking water supply, it's bad for traffic, it's bad for the tax base, it's simply bad.

Can anyone seriously doubt that these nine scumbags weren't paid off? I hope someone's probing their financial records; we deserve to know what our future sold for.