Larry the Grammarian

Oh. My. This just keeps on getting better. Larry's lawyer filed a 27-page brief formally initiating an appeal of the judge's October ruling rejecting his plea withdrawal argument.

In it they argue that wittle Warry's actions couldn't have been a crime because 1) they could not have been offensive to the officer because he invited Craig's response and 2) the law states that "the conduct at issue have a tendency to alarm or anger others" and there was only wun wittle officer.

Fun w/ Venn Diagrams

You know I never thought Barbara Walters could out dumb *teh dumb of that blond chick. However, a few months ago she added Sherri unsure of the earth's roundness Shephard to the show and now ...she's even outdone herself. Sherri evidently hasn't heard of B.C. because she doesn't believe " ... anything predated christians ..." and that Jesus came before the Greeks and the Romans.

But hey, she's just a talk show flunky on a program of which the viewership primarily consists of those possessing a similar level of sophistication but what of a presidential candidate?

Yes, Mike believer of creation, nonbeliever of evolution Huckabee who touts his theology degree as a foreign policy credential can't, apparently, even keep up with current events. Never mind that the National Intelligence Estimate has been in the news for days (as well as numerous times during the Bush reign) and that the Idiot in Chief (a member of Mike's own political party) thought it significant enough to hold a presser but elect-me Mike don't know nothin' 'bout no 'telligence. [my apologies to Margaret Mitchell. Also, obviously, the diagram is not to scale. Although Sherri and Mike are truly huge ignoramuses they certainly don't comprise quite the percentage of their ilk represented in the pic.]

And for the record ... you don't get to not believe in Evolution; it's not a belief system. Nor is it random or an accident. However, evolution deniers are correct on one point ... it's not a fact. Not a single one anyway. It's many many facts based on voluminous observations and testable, and tested, hypotheses leading to the theory.

You see, while it may be used in a manner to indicate as much, a theory is not a hunch. It's not something flimsy or weak but a very strong foundation that has been strengthened and refined over time. Evolution may never be a law, not owing to any deficiency but because laws tend to be mathematical in nature -equations with predictable solutions.

But while there's not any all encompassing evolutionary equation for which we can enter v, w and x evolutionary variables to solve for z that's not to say it doesn't have predictive capability. As a demonstrated theory that's a necessity. Long before the fossil record obliged by contributing a physical record, features of expected transitional species to fill in existing gaps in the evolutionary trail were predicted by scientists. For example, Tiktaalik discovered only last year looks (as expected) like a cross between primitive fish and the early tetrapods (4-legged animals) and represents the earliest appearance of tetrapod features - and around 12 million years before the first tetrapods.

Let's face it, most people find it difficult to solve even simple mathematical equations (another failure of our educational system but that's a topic for another day), evolution is a complex theory and the scale of evolutionary time is hard to fathom (perhaps especially so for such an ego-centric population as is our nation) but we really have to start to be aggressive in challenging all of this 'random' nonsense. It's just plain wrong. Wrong and dangerous.

Of course, like every other man of intelligence and education I do believe in organic evolution. It surprises me that at this late date such questions should be raised.

That was from Woodrow Wilson in 1922. Look where we are today. It's sad. It's depressing. Looking at the Republican candidates for president certainly doesn't assuage the feeling. Seriously, when was the last time the Republican party fielded a candidate that wasn't bat-shit crazy?

Okay, tirade finished. Sometimes you just have to get it out.

*Not a typo ... convention.

Hitting the Sauce Juice

Craig who, of course, never solicited sex in the MSP airport restroom, having lost the appeal to withdraw his guilty plea, tries another tack. Along the lines of OJ Simpson's If I Did It approach, Larry now wants us to believe (or rather a MN appeals court judge to swallow) that though he didn't do it, if he were to have done it, he should not have been able to plead guilty to it, because it would not have been a crime, as it would have represented free speech and therefore would have been protected by the Constitution.

Irony, along with hypocrisy, is alive and well in the Republican party. Craig who has acted as a rubber stamp for this administration while they have shred that same document by the use of torture, illegal wire-tapping, denial of habeas and the latest proposal of retroactive immunity for the criminally-inclined telecom corporations, thinks his solicitation of sex in a public bathroom should be a protected legal right.

We also learned that Craig had Mr. Martin (a criminal defense attorney) on retainer not merely before he entered his guilty plea but before he was even arrested.

While I never bought Craig's lie that he didn't consult an attorney before rendering his plea, the fact that he included that apparent lie in his formal (legal) filings with the court is tantamount to lying under oath. I categorize the lie as being apparent only in the sense that Larry hired an attorney to expressly defend him from the onslaught of the Idaho Statesman in efforts to out him as a nasty, naughty gay boy yet apparently was too embarrassed to let him in on his little arrest issue.

So, the saga continues and we can look forward to new allegations and other humiliating reports about the sad, pathetic, senator who refuses to admit he's no longer wanted by his party or his constituents. Maybe someday this will be made into an opera.

Codes

Never mind the trolling-in-bathrooms-for-sex secret code, evidently closeted gay republican politicians have a special addendum of their own.

I mean what are the chances that this is merely a coinky dink?

Joey DiFatta, Republican Councilman from Nola evidently withdrew from a state senate campaign when reports of his lewd behavior were about to surface.

In one instance he got caught doing the wide-stance-toe-tapping shuffle in a restroom and in both instances, when asked for his identification, he "produced his commission from the St. Bernard Sheriff's Office identifying him as a captain". [my emphasis]

The attempted power play didn't work for him either. Too bad for these guys that nobody else seems to think they're quite as important as they think themselves to be.

It's Lying Time Again ...

Craig won't leave the senate

He said he'd leave if stuck with his guilty plea

The judge didn't buy his line and we didn't either

It's one more renege, back to DC and lying time [to the tune of It's Cying Time Again]

Get outta the boat, Larry.

I have to agree with Larry and Billy on one thing though, I was disappointed in Judge Porter's decision today.

Not, mind you, that is was wrong - but I was soooo looking forward to the jury's field trip to the men's room to see a demonstration on just how wide one's stance has to be to reach into the next stall. I know if I were the prosecutor, I would have insisted on it.

And the perp walk. We'll never get to see Larry to the wide stance perp walk.

Some days it just doesn't pay to get out of bed.

Priorities

                                      [click pic to biggie size; data from here]

Yes, to ensure (in theory, because in actuality this is a state-run program) no one gets covered that shouldn't and the funding levels will have no regard to cost of living (that is people who live in areas like NY where the salaries are higher but the cost of living is as well - the income cut-offs remain the same); they'll vote it down. Get the troops out of Iraq? No. Ensure the troops have as much time at home as on tour in Iraq - no. Keep voting for these fiscal conservatives [what an oxymoron that is] and they'll keep digging us into a hole any time they're left to govern.

Update: It appears that Mr. Simpson voted in favor of the bill today.

If I were a cynic, I might suggest that he did so knowing that The House did not have a veto-proof majority so his vote was moot. Mike can have his cake and eat it too. He can tell his constituents (of which I thankfully am not one ... oh wait -never mind) that he understands, it's a travesty that the program didn't get renewed but, after all, he voted for it. So he is, of course, blameless.

That's what I might suggest were I a cynic but, then again, you have to admit that vote was a 180-degree turn from his earlier position:

...The Democrat bill is an underhanded, devious step towards Hillary-care: a government-run, government-mandated health insurance plan for everyone, regardless of income, age or citizenship.

...This bill is bad for Idaho and bad for children.

I believe I've previously discussed other aspects of Rep. Simpson's presentation of the bill.

Cynic? Who, me?

Oops ... He Did It Again

While this picture may not be worth a thousand words, it's likely worth a whole heckuva lot more than the dozens of words in this note. And doesn't Larry have neat printing?                                                                   [my emphasis]
Doesn't seem to indicate that Craig was all that stressed out or in any disagreement with the prosecutor does it? If Craig thinks this is going to play well, he ought to love the prosecutor's affidavit. [pdf] Here are just a couple of juicy tidbits:

13. (p. 3 of 33) ... I explained that the plea petition would be filed with the court and the petition and conviction would be a matter of public record. [As I said before, I couldn't believe he didn't know this and now, it appears, he was definitively informed of the fact.]

14. (same page) During the July 17, 2007 phone conversation, the Defendant expressed that he was in a difficult situation as a result of the nature of the charges and his position as a member of a zealous homophobic party United States Senator. I responded to the Defendant that I had appreciation for the fact that this was probably a difficult situation and told him that it was a situation regarding which he should seek advice from an attorney. ...[emphasis mine]

It's hard to argue misunderstanding of the situation based on these statements by the prosecutor. But if Craig's note and the prosecutor's affidavit don't sink him, take a gander at the prosecutor's motion to dismiss [pdf] that was filed in court today. Basically, the prosecutor isn't buying Craig's argument and calls him out for his political theater:

B. (p. 39 of 41) The Defendant Has Not Been Diligent in Seeking a Withdrawal of His Plea but Instead Has Waited in an Apparent Attempt to Gauge the Public Response to His Arrest and Political Turmoil.

It's difficult for me to imagine how Craig could possibly come to the conclusion that this exercise was going to come out favorably for him regardless of the legal outcome. Based on the prosecutor's motion, I don't think the legal outcome will be favorable either.

The Right Rights

What a great week for democracy in America.

It's good to know that Craig, who's fighting for rights he perceives he is owed as a member of the elite senatorial class, could take time out of his busy schedule to show up in DC and join Crapo to vote to deny the rights of others:

1) Habeas corpus - Never mind that our forefathers thought this right so important they sought to address it in the constitution, nonetheless congress with its passing of The Military Commissions Act back when the freedom-and-independence-loving Republicans were in power in 2006 suspended this right. Democrats attempted to restore the right but the GOP really isn't into the restoration of rights.

2) No taxation without representation. It seems to me there was a revolution or a war of some kind fought over this one but, again, Republicans don't think the population in the District of Columbia, which is greater than that of the state of Wyoming, deserves to be represented in congress. Blocked again by the individual-rights-loving Republicans. Of course, unlike the lily-white-red-voting Wyomingites the majority in D.C. are black and typically vote blue.

Did I miss anything? Oh yes, while our esteemed senators are willing to allow more of our young men and women die in Iraq to cover Bush's ass they stood up and condemned Moveon.org's ad calling General Paetreus out for the political whore that he is. Well, we've reached a new low now with our representatives condemning free speech on our dime.

As Edmund Burke said, all that's necessary is for good men to do nothing. Imagine if Colin Powell would have had the courage to speak up and resign before he enabled this administration to get us into this war in the first place, if Paetreus would have had the integrity and resolve to put forth the truth in his testimony before congress. Two generals ... good little soldiers both.

Fun w/ Venn Diagrams

Legalese Ease (or Not)

What did I say? Uh-huh.

Lawyers not involved in the case have said Craig faces a difficult challenge, pointing to Minnesota Rules of Criminal Procedure requiring that *a defendant show a "manifest injustice" to withdraw a guilty plea.

In Craig's case, he voluntarily signed a plea agreement that included a provision stating that the court would not accept such a confession of guilt from anyone who believed himself innocent.

Piece of cake, Larry.

*I don't think they made people think I'm gay is going to cut it.

Oh, and Butch, ya' know how you like to keep 'em guessing and do things contrary to what's expected of you... Call me, I could make myself available for a stint in the senate. Think of what that would do. This little scandal -it'd be forgotten in less than 24 hours.

Let the Good Times Roll

Larry Craig is apparently having second thoughts about resigning. Never mind how schadenfreudelicious^TM it will be to watch the GOPers falling all over themselves to retract their previous stance, if this article is any indication of the talents of the crack team Craig has hired to revive his image - get me some popcorn. In the mean time, here's a little friendly advice, Senator:

First, don't let your spokesman use phrases like " he's not crying in his bedroom".

Second, using Spector as a bellwether for changing your announcement to intend to resign -probably not such a great idea. I don't mean to imply that Arlen can't be counted on for the strength of his conviction but ... you have been in the senate, right?

Third, you should really examine how an attorney's other clients have fared. You know Vick is likely doing some time in the big house and have you seen Gary Condit on the hill as of late? [Not to mention the character of his other high-profile clients - wouldn't want the whole guilt by association to raise its ugly head. Iverson and Vick are not exactly Boy Scouts but I suppose you're going for a tougher, more manly image - so maybe that's okay, big guy. Although you wouldn't want that stance getting any wider.]

Fourth, I think your ethics attorney may have already tripped coming out of the gate when speaking of other Senate ethics cases:

“If you look at all the cases the Senate has tried, they’re all bribery, treason, taking gifts from outsiders, all things that are expressly prohibited by law, rule or statute,” Brand said.

So, his hotshot DC lawyer is going to argue that the Senate Ethics Committee shouldn't have jurisdiction in this case because all other ethics cases have dealt with actions that were illegal, unlike Senator Craig's actions which merely violated a Minnesota statute and, therefore, were not prohibited by law or statute. It would appear Mr. Brand took Tortured Logic 101 with Bush. Hey, it may not make sense but I'm sure he's on solid legal footing there - no worries.

While you're up could you get a couple of cokes and some jujubes -it could be awhile before intermission.

Update: [from original posting of 9/4/07 10:35 PM]

Senator Craig is sooo gay [how gay is he?] - he can't even dial a phone straight. [Yeah, I know]

Perhaps more interesting (though no unexpected) is that while KHQ reports the entirety of the voice message Craig left on the phone:

"Yes, Billy, this is Larry Craig calling, you can reach me on my cell. Arlen Specter is now willing to come out in my defense arguing that all he know that I've been railroaded and all that. Having all that we've reshaped my statement to say it is my intent to resign on September 30. I think it is very important for you to make as bold a statement as you are comfortable with this afternoon. I hope you could make it in front of the cameras. I think it would ride the story that I am willing to fight that I have quality people out there fighting in my defense and that this thing could take a new turn or a new shape, it has that potential. Anyway give me a buzz, or give Mike a buzz on that, we are headed to my press conference now. Thank you, bye."

The Statesman reporter/editorial staff saw fit to excise the emphasized portion above.

[So, he wants his attorney to make as bold a statement as he is comfortable with ... Comfortable with legally because Craig has admitted his guilt to his attorney or comfortable with personally as Billy knows Larry is gay. Could you do it in front of the cameras - I need all the help I can get here - I think maybe little Larry had spent some time crying in his bedroom. Nice deletion Statesman.]

Jeralyn thinks Craig may have a shot at his plea reversal as the mail-in plea form doesn't inform him of his right to counsel - but what's a defense attorney suppose to say. Craig was given his Miranda warning by the officer and that's on tape - I don't believe the law states that an individual has to be made aware of his or her rights at every step of the process.


You can listen to the message here.

Makin' Book and More

If I were a betting man gal, I'd say Saturday (or late Friday evening), after everyone has hit the road for their weekend destinations, for the announcement of Craig's resignation. That'll give him a couple of dead news days for the smoke to dissipate.

Craig's denials just aren't credible. But then, that's not really news. His denials, especially the preemptive one, have never been credible. Craig has never been a particularly nice or honest man. One might even say he's been a bad, naughty, nasty boy. Before this latest brouhaha over his peccadillo in the men's restroom, I was going to take him to task for the fundamental dishonesty [much like Simpson's] displayed on his website. It seems kind of pointless now but what the heck.

Although his denial presser has moved them off the front page, he has "releases" where he blames the Democrats for the failure of congress to pass any legislation and, get this, for the lack of fiscal responsibility. Yes, two Republican administrations (Reagan and the current White House occupant) digging our country into a hole several trillions of dollars deep (Bush decimating trillons in surplus first) and Craig wants to lecture Democrats on fiscal responsibility. But what can you expect from a guy who blames a newspaper (especially one who has gone out of its way to fawn all over him) for his pleading guilty to extranecessary^TM restroom activities.

As an aside, credit where credit due. While I may disagree with a few, several,many, most of his positions, Sen. Crapo's website represents all we should expect from that of an elected official. It's informative and has clear statements of his positions, information on legislation he's working on, complete contact information (and an invitation to do so) and links to the congressional record so we can see how he is voting on our behalf. Thank you, senator.

Rep. Sali? There's really no point is there? He's just fundamentally* insane.


* double entendre [for Sali supporters -here you can look it up]

He Said - He Said ... Right

What did I say? Can we now call him out for the amoral, hypocritical lying sack of human waste that is Larry Craig.

I know I should be more generous and humane as he is obviously a very troubled individual who, psychologically, cannot come to terms with his own homosexuality and were it not for the fact that his support for bigoted anti-gay measures adversely affects many other humans who don't seek to control the lives of others, maybe I could empathize with Mr. Craig.

Given his character, I have little doubt he will continue to attempt to lie his way out again. And what of our ace political reporter/columnist who took a leave of absence to investigate the senator based on previous reports of his homosexual activities - he couldn't even find an arrest report.

I don't want to hear any more from the Idaho Republican Party and their alleged values - legislate that two loving, committed people that admit their homosexuality cannot be united in marriage (which should be up to the given church) or civil unions but couples like the Craigs, no problem -they'll sanctify their charade.

One Down

One less grossly incompetent, totally dishonest, morally bankrupt boob is gone. [yes, I could have just said Republican as it's been synonymous since about 1980]



Would that there weren't so many in line to replace him. Recess appointment anyone?

Neat Trick

Ah, yes, private prisons.

So we take one private entity (who even by IDOC Reinke's admission is going to want a return on their investment) and Otter thinks they are going to build a prison and are going to be willing wait years before they even recoup those costs let alone make a profit and we're going to save money.

First, the annual costs of maintaining those prisoners is going to be more expensive than doing so in the state system - why?

Primarily because our correctional officers are paid a pittance here in Idaho even relative to other states correctional departments let alone private entities and secondly - did I mention return on investment? That is, profit.

And we wonder how trillions in surplus not only evaporated but plowed into the reverse depths of trillions in deficit. It's the math, stupid. Not their strong suit.

A Healthy Discussion

Rep. Mike Simpson falls somewhere between disingenuous and downright deceitful in his representation of the house bill to re-authorize the State's Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP).

Aren't you tired of the bogeyman tactics; leaders are supposed to assuage fears not create or exacerbate them. Simpson goes for the double-whammy of scripted Republican scare tactics that have somehow become the norm in this country. He raises the dual specters of illegal aliens and socialized medicine to elicit knee-jerk reactions that work to his liking, rather than rational examinations which might bolster public opinion [even among Republican respondents¹] on universal health care which, as indicated in nationwide polls², is contrary to Mr. Simpson's position.

I call bullshit. As a citizen of Idaho and the U.S. - it's my job. It's our job. We don't get paid for it and it sure would be nice if there was a journalist, perhaps a political columnist, who got paid to keep tabs on these things for us but we clearly can't count on it. [I still have not been able to fathom how that man receives a paycheck for his worthless drivel - nice gig]

Back to Mr. Simpson. First he claims that this new bill "radically expands coverage to virtually anybody^__including illegal aliens." Are you mad yet?[you're supposed to be]

Well, let's examine the actual bill, shall we?

No one, myself included, is going to wade through a 502-page document but let's just check out the highlights. Under the heading Subtitle D:Populations (as in, you know, populations of people that would be covered under the new bill) what do we find?

Here's a snapshot:



First, Sec. 131. Optional coverage of children up to age 21 under CHIP. [optional because what Mr. Simpson fails to inform you of is, as always was the case, the states determine eligibility - this does represent an increase if the state chooses to add this benefit because the original legislation covered individuals to age 19]

Second, Sec. 132. Optional coverage of legal immigrants under the Medicaid program and CHIP. [So, Rep. Simpson may not be disingenuous maybe he's merely illiterate]

Section 133 is immaterial to the discussion here and Section 134 I'll get back to in a minute.

Third, Sec. 135. No Federal [sic] funding for illegal aliens.[hard to miss that one - what do ya' say, Mikey?]

Fourth, Sec. 136. Auditing requirement to enforce citizenships restrictions on eligibility for Medicaid and CHIP benefits.

Admittedly, I'm not a lawyer but that seems to indicate there are eligibility restrictions based on citizenship and there's going to be some requirement [i.e., accountability - a term unfamiliar to the modern day Republican] to have audits to ensure no unnecessary funds are distributed. Sure enough, on page 68 we find the audits are necessary:

in order to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Secretary that Federal funds under this title or title XXI are not unlawfully spent for benefits for individuals who are not legal residents.

Now I don't know who else might be contained in Mr. Simpson's "virtually anybody" that this bill purportedly was expanded to cover but it, apparently, does not include illegal aliens.

I'll skip over his other inflammatory language about increasing border security instead of spending billions of dollars on benefits to these illegal aliens that, well, they're not actually going to receive because, frankly, there's only so much time. As I said, I don't get paid for this and there's only so much one can review in a couple of hours on a Sunday evening and there are a few other issues I'd like to address.

Next, he's aghast that adults will be covered. Well actually, more adults, as adults have already been covered. In various keyword searches of the bill I didn't find anything about eligibility requirements (for adults) let alone changes in those requirements. I suspect the reason is, as previously mentioned, the states (even in the original bill) were given great latitude in defining those parameters of the program.

Everything I read in this document indicates that federal expenditures are based on state population data of children under the age of 19. This is where (I think) section 134 may be relevant, which states, briefly, that states cannot exercise waivers to cover individuals other than low-income children or pregnant women unless, basically, the state can demonstrate that all the eligible children in the state are already covered (p. 67).

This would appear to be an added restriction on waivers that states have already been able to apply for under the initial legislation. Doesn't sound like expansion to me but if it is, it's exercised at the state level. So, if he wants to take issue with the states or address the loophole that was apparently in the original bill, then by all means ...

Next he plays with numbers, using the most egregious example of children from a family making over $82,000 a year being eligible. Are you outraged? [you're supposed to be] Is it true?

Again, in the actual bill (on p 67 -where is defines all the things that must happen before a state can allow for individual other than children or pregnant women to be covered) it refers to:

... targeted low-income children in families with incomes less than 200 percent of the poverty line.

Given the federal poverty guidelines (for the 48 contiguous states and DC) list an income for a family of 8 as $34,570 with $3,480 added for each additional child, Mr. Simpson's example would represent a family with 9.9 children making his $82,000.

I think we can all agree that wouldn't represent either the norm or a wealthy family as he intimates.

Granted some state programs kick in at other levels. For example, in Maryland families are eligible up to 400% poverty. However, families in the 200-400% range must pay a premium to participate in the program.

To suggest that Mr. Simpson's example is a little misleading would be a gross understatement. [link for data]

Finally, well as far as what I'm going to touch on tonight anyway, he talks about the Democratic bill being "devious" and "underhanded" with a "stealth provision" to ... [yes, you guessed it, I was wrong it wasn't a dual specter but a full on triple threat] raise taxes. [You'd think the Republicans could at least come up with a new meme]

The taxes would consist of a 45 cent cigarette tax [do we really need to go over the topic of the health care expense smoker's represent again?] and a $2 per person [that's annually] health insurance tax to fund research into cost-effective medical treatments.[now that's seriously scary; link to data].

Rep. Simpson states:

"If Democrats want to implement a national healthcare system, then Congress should have that debate, openly and publicly. "

If this hit piece is any indication of his idea of an honest and open debate, you can expect this won't be the last time I'll be calling out -bullshit, Mr. Simpson.

It's sad when we can't take our elected officials at their word and, unfortunately, it's not a new phenomenon. Ask yourself about possible other motivations the politician/candidate may have for a given position. Frankly, I was surprised to learn that 70% of Mr. Simpson's campaign contributions last election cycle came from Political Action Committees (PACs; interest groups) with the healthcare sector being his second largest donor.

Here's another clue, if the rhetoric appears designed to evoke emotion rather than thought and they don't provide any data to back up their assertions - call them on it. I intend to.

Perhaps a new campaign slogan is in order for Mr. Simpson:

Simpson for Congress '08: More Hyberbole, Less Fact

Kind of catchy don't you think?

¹In a poll conducted by GOP consultant, Tony Fabrizio, 51% of the Republicans responded that universal healthcare coverage should be the right of every American.

²In a NYTs/CBS poll form February of this year 64% thought the federal government should guarantee health care insurance for all Americans; only 27% thought it wasn't the role of the federal government [tantalizingly close to the percentage of Bush support].

For more information on SCHIP go here.