Dr. Pepper Info

I wonder what Axl thinks? Info for contacting Dr. Pepper:

Dr Pepper/Seven Up, Inc.
Attn: Consumer Relations
P.O. Box 869077
Plano , TX 75086

Chinese Democracy is Finally Here!

The album is good. I like it, and think its worth $12.99 to check it out. "Tunes" in Hoboken swore to me over the phone this week that Sunday at noon they would have it, but didn't. My copy came from Best Buy on 23rd Street. I like to go with the small retailer when possible, but in this situation they lied to me and I had to patronize corporate America.
Speaking of corporate America, Dr. Pepper is pissing me off. First, they promise a free 20 oz soda to everyone if "Chinese Democracy" is released in 2008. They set it up so that you have to register on their site today ONLY to get the coupon mailed to you. Of course, with so many people trying to get their free soda, the site has crashed. I am wondering what Dr. Pepper is going to do about all of the people who claimed they couldn't register because the site is down. I am going to write a letter to their "customer relations" dept. They knew they set up the promotion this way, so they shouldn't be surprised that their site has crashed. Where is the tech support? In addition, they are doing things like this:
In case you haven’t already found out about how Slash got snubbed by Dr. Pepper as part of the drink manufacturer’s recent “Chinese Democracy” promotion, I’m gonna give you a little heads up just so you know what I’m talking about.

Dr. Pepper has vowed to give everyone in the U.S. a free can of the drink if Guns N’ Roses’ long-awaited new album, “Chinese Democracy”, is released this year. Everyone, that is, apart from Slash and Buckethead [Guns N' Roses guitarist 2000-2004]. Oh well… here’s what Slash had to say:

“Yeah, someone sent me a text about that at 3:00 a.m. last night,” Slash replied. “I thought, ‘What kind of left-field shit is that?’ It’s pretty funny, actually. I guess Buckethead and I will just have to make do with Coca-Cola."

http://www.zmemusic.com/other/slash-comments-getting-snubbed-by-dr-pepper/

To me, that isn't cool of Dr. Pepper, to get involved in personal differences between various current and "ex" members of the band. Isn't their job to sell soda? I would think excluding Slash would offend many fans of the band, as it has surely offended me. Thoughts? Not that I bet Slash gives two shits about a free soda, but in principal, its a crappy move.

More carts in 3 days!

As of Tuesday, 3 days away, there will be 6 more carts showing up in the basement. I spoke with the super, who nicely asked me in the meantime to leave the cart I am using in the basement for the rest of the building to use to move clothes from the washer to the dryer, and I responded that I would comply. The cart shortage will soon be over. I will be returning my cart to the basement momentarily!! No more hoarding, guilt, or lack of supply!(I may have to remove my pic from my blog in case anyone in my building reads any of this. What are the odds of that?)

Supply/Demand Imbalance and the Human Response

When the normal balance of supply and demand shifty, to either oversupply or under supply, there is a predictable human reaction. In the case of oversupply, the "it" is suddenly cheap, and wasteful tendencies kick in. In the case of under supply, the "it" becomes dear, and hoarding tendencies kick in. For those of us who are bearish on future supply of crude oil, (thus bullish on price) such human habits and behaviors in response to economic trends have the potential to cause all kinds of problems, civil unrest being one, and must be monitored closely.
Outside of such a precious and vital commodity to 21st century America like crude oil, the human reactions to under supply in other situations, albeit much less important, are the same. Case in point: laundry carts. (see pic) I live in a building of about 50 apartments, likely 100 people or so, possibly more. And up until a couple weeks ago, the tenants of the building amicably shared about 8 laundry carts, for use in moving laundry and groceries from the basement to the apts via the elevator. Unused carts lived in the laundry room, and on any given day, there were usually 2 or 3 sitting unused. I personally had no knowledge as to the issue of ownership: I assumed they were owned by the management company for general use.
At some point, the management company decided to change the company that provides the building with washing machines and dryers. When I left to go on vacation, it was business as usual in the laundry room with no mention of any changes. When I returned, there were no machines down there, and a letter posted in the elevator that the old company had come ahead of schedule to take their machines, and that the new ones should arrive over the next few days. I was pissed! I had dirty clothes from a vacation and no way to immediately wash them. I grabbed one of 2 laundry carts sitting in the empty laundry room, and headed upstairs to begin sorting.
Two days later, there were new machines, and I got the vacation laundry washed. I returned the cart, however, had to take it back the next night to do an emergency load as my dog made an unexpected mess. I am ashamed and embarrassed to admit that: I kept the cart in my apartment for over a week as I kept anticipating doing laundry, but never quite got around to it.
Tonight,I finally got around to it, at least a week later. As I was exiting the elevator in the basement with my laundry in the cart, another tenant from the building pointed at the cart and said to his 3 kids standing next to him, "She has one." As I finished loading my clothes into a machine, another tenant who was also doing laundry asked if she could use my cart just to move her clothes from the washer to the dryer. (Prior to the cart shortage, such a request was unheard of.) "Of course," I told her. She explained to me that the carts are mostly gone, taken by the company that had previously provided the building with laundry machines, as that company owned them. Under supply!
Could the cart that I was using be one or two that had escaped repossession, as they were in some one's apt at the time? I know it wasn't my apartment, since I had been on vacation. I had been lucky enough to grab one of the few remaining carts the moment they were of least use: when there were no laundry machines present on the premises.
Now, I am in a conundrum. Whoever has the other cart(s) in this building aren't sharing, at least not to my knowledge. I haven't seen anyone with another one in a while, and to my knowledge the laundry room has been void of them altogether over the past week. Tonight, I have been spotted twice with the one that I have. What should I do? I can't hoard it forever, (it isn't even mine to begin with!) but I know if I return it to the basement for others to use it, I will likely not see it again for a long time. Its such a pain to move wet clothes from the washer to the dryer without a cart! What am I to do? Anything other than just putting it back in the basement for others to use it is wrong: unfair, wrong, and wrong. Yet, I find myself totally unwilling to voluntarily give it up. Eventually, if enough people spot me with it, someone will ask me directly if they can use it, and I must say yes. But in the meantime, I have dirty clothes that require transportation to and from the basement, just like the rest of my building. Currently, as horrible as this is, I am trying not to get spotted with it, to at least postpone the inevitable. Will update when something happens.
In the meantime I have been thinking about what this would mean if the "it" in this case were not a laundry cart, but some amount of crude oil. People would be hoarding it, not caring as to who else needed it. What cut in supply would be needed to ignite said hoarding instinct? And what would that mean for the rest of us? Over the summer when oil was at $147 a barrel, the Saudi Oil Minister told CNBC, "There is plenty of oil for everyone" but it surely didn't feel that way. It felt like hoarding time. Imagine if there really wasn't "Enough oil for everyone" and hoarding behaviors did kick in? The world is so much more interconnected that anyone realizes, which raises the potential for disaster infinitesimally. I can only image the hoarding that will take place if and when there ever is a true shortage of crude oil, and the civil unrest and disasters that will go along with it. JHK has a name for said disasters: "The Long Emergency". And, he is likely correct. It will be a "long emergency" with many trends interwoven, dominated by the lack of reliable supplies of oil. To make matters worse, the general public has no idea any such challenge awaits us, and so lacks everything from coping mechanisms to backup plans. It has the potential to be an economic Armageddon: oil effects food production, shortage of food sparks hoarding, hoarding leads to violence, fiat currencies cease to represent "value", consumers lose their "wealth" and resort to vigilantism, the govt collapses, "business as usual" becomes a thing of the past, and society at large creases to exist as we currently know it. While all of this scares me, I insist on being realistic about the potential challenges we may or may not face. (Maybe an alt energy industry will explode over the next 5-10 years and less access to fossil fuels may turn out to be a good thing, increasing the competitiveness of our new economy, who knows what the future holds?) What surprises and scares me most is when I try to start a conversation about such challenges with someone who doesn't work in finance or energy; it frequently flops completely because the other person seems to be totally and completely unable to process what I am saying and converse about this in any meaningful way. Unfortunately, this includes many people that I care deeply about. Any suggestions on this one?
In writing this post, I have hopefully reduced the likelihood of being spotted with my laundry cart. Wish me luck safely going to and from the basement as a laundry emissary. I must return the cart eventually, and soon guilt will kick and I will give it up. For the meantime though, I am trying to move as stealthily as possible, avoid being spotted, and return with clean clothes. Are clean clothes moved easily worth such a selfish hoarding act? Not forever, they are not.

Buyer Beware: Calvary Bridal Shop Defrauded Brides

Calvary Bridal House, located in Milburn has been exposed first by NJ.com & The Star Ledger articles and now on TV by CBS reporter Kirsten Cole for defrauding brides out of expensive gowns. Note the website is no longer available:
http://www.calvarybridalhouse.com/
Link to CBS story:
http://wcbstv.com/consumer/bridal.scam.calvary.2.868090.html
(My selections in italics) Elga Koehler, owner of Calvary Bridal in Livingston, N.J., is bankrupt, but she's still open for business. She's taking money for and promising brides beautiful gowns, but dozens say she's not delivering.
Ms. Koehler didn't explain herself on camera.
Since Ms. Koehler is in $400K of debt, the claims against her/the business by customers who paid cash for dresses they never received are unlikely to get their money back anytime soon. See below for chargeback info for credit card purchases. (If the amount is less than $5k, its less important legally than amounts greater than $5k. Many dresses are likely $4,999! Coincidence?!?) Hopefully the media coverage will help the brides, but if the business is in bankruptcy proceedings, can Ms. Koehler be forced to reimburse the brides $4k when she owes creditors $400K?
Elga Koehler's LinkedIn page is bare, but listed under contact settings are:
new ventures; job inquiries; expertise requests; getting back in touch
Why would someone running a business be interested in "job inquiries"? Why would someone who expanded a business too fast and is now bankrupt be interested in "new ventures"? The article from NJ.com reports a picket by defrauded brides in front of the 110 Essex St location in Milburn earlier this month. Good for them for picketing!

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2008/11/bridal_shop_goes_bankrupt_and.html

"We could have disappeared into the night like Celebration Studios," Ms. Koehler said. "We didn't. We opted to keep our doors open so we could service the other brides. We've tried to just do business so that a repayment plan can be formulated and these people will not immediately -- but eventually -- get their money back." A store expansion in 2007 led her (Ms. Koehler) to rent more space and hire more help, a "recipe for disaster" in the current economy, Ms. Koehler said. About five or six brides never received their dresses, according to Koehler, who said she understands they feel upset but she had no other recourse than to file for bankruptcy. (Pic of picket below.)

For those who paid with credit cards:
The Consumerist provides instructions on how to do a chargeback:
http://consumerist.com/consumer/chargebacks/what-is-a-chargeback-250656.php
This business may either be/have been in Florham Park, as LivingstonNJ.com lists:
Calvary Bridal House , 137 Columbia Tpke, Florham Park, 973-593-8330, a # which has been "disconnected." 973 376 2600 rings through to a machine, if anyone has done business at Calvary Bridal and wants to inquire. Although the website being taken down says it all. I am tempted to call and try to order a dress, just to see if Ms. Koehler would take the order. Ha! I wonder what she would say? For those interested in reading more, there are many good consumer postings about individual experiences. I googled "Calvary Bridal Livingston" and a ton of good ones came up. I would love to hear anything more on this story. I wish the best of luck to those that have been defrauded out of a wedding dress they paid for. Sucks, sucks, sucks.

City of Hoboken Raises Ridiculous Factor Another Notch

As you can see from the pics, the shoreline of Hoboken spans the entire eastern part of town and is utilized by the city for public space. On Sinatra Drive downtown there is a gorgeous public park at Pier A and walkway for several blocks, with Pier C being built now, all for public use. Uptown, the new Toll Brothers complex, at 11th and Hudson, has a public shore/ park area across the street from another public park at 10th and Hudson, Elysian. The Toll Brothers complex and Elysian Park both have beautiful views of the river and Manhattan skyline. The site of the former Maxwell factory, now called Maxwell Place, up by 14th Street also has gorgeous views. (See pic.)
The short version of it all is that back in the 1990s the city
began spending more than tax revenues brought
in, and dealt with the gap by selling municipal
lots to developers. The problem is doing things
like that don't work forever. The city's payrolls
are so bloated that this year Hoboken had to be
taken over by a lady from the state of NJ
due to these financial problems that currently include an $11 million shortfall. (See links at bottom of post.) Last FY the financial matters were never settled politically before the end, and this year's budget has a huge gap that will have to be spread out over 5 years. In short, property taxes are going to raise a whopping 47% over the next quarters. The problem is largely political: the city council is more concerned with making themselves rich in my opinion along with the mayor, so instead of working these problems out they name call and finger point. I read in the Reporter that one of the council members lives in a subsidized unit for $800/month, taking advantage of some loophole in the current law. He isn't living there because its all he can afford, he is living there because the policies in the city are ripe for being taken advantage of by those smart enough to know how. The city is under pressure from the State to get its act together, and one way the city is currently trying to increase revenue is writing summons. I have heard of many unjustified traffic summons in which people driving down roads in town in the same way they have for a decade are suddenly getting tickets by cops sitting there with radar guns looking for reasons to issue summons. Personally, with the $90 permit to park in Hoboken along with a $5/day garage cost, people who have to drive here for work are already taken advantage of enough in my opinion, they don't need to be bothered with additional matters like unnecessary traffic summons. The last time I checked, the purpose of writing traffic summons was to protect other motorists and pedestrians from careless drivers- not to solve political problems of budgetary shortfalls and an overall tradition of corruption.
Tonight, I got my own taste of this kind of unfairness. In Hoboken, residents are encouraged to have pets as many, many buildings permit them. Dogs don't just need shelter, they also need to be walked. In the suburbs, grass is plentiful: most people have access to a yard, and those that don't can go to the park. However, in Hoboken, the parks are highly coveted open space: for use by children, not dogs. Dogs are relegated to a small gravel enclosed area where they are permitted to run freely with other dogs. Aside from said "dog park," the city mandates that dogs wear an issued registration tag (costing $10 annually) and not go on public grass. The ticket for the dog setting foot on public grass is $250 - even if the dog doesn't go to the bathroom. The ticket for not cleaning up dog poo, the actual health hazard- $25. Finally, there is also a fine for not having the dog registered/failing to display the registration tag, but I don't know details.
I have several problems with this: why is public space focused towards parents with children? Oh yeah, they are the taxpayers. Don't children have areas, like school playgrounds, where they can play? Oh, and don't the parks have a specific playground areas where dogs aren't allowed at all? Isn't this enough "open space" for children? Aren't the parks big enough where one strip of grass can be "dog grass" and children can be banned from playing there, for their own good? Dogs instinctively want to go on grass so they don't step in their own pee. Perhaps puppies raised in urban areas can be taught differently. Country stays, like the dog I have, have been going on grass their whole lives and at this point, are too old to learn new habits. Why can there be any area on public grass for dogs to play on, pee on, whatever? Dog parks only work for social dogs, and it shouldn't be the only option. Finally, if the city doesn't want dogs on public grass, stop allowing many buildings to allow residents to have pets.
Tonight, I took my dog across the street to the park for her nightly walk. When we got into the park, there was another lady with a dog on the grass. Two minutes into the walk, we saw a cop car parked in the back of the park. I immediately got my dog off of the grass and fled. It wasn't worth the risk of a $250 ticket, which given the state of affairs with the budget, could become a reality. I was very lucky in the spring when a rep from the city health department set up shop in the park at 8am weekdays to scold the dog walkers from letting their dogs on the grass. I had to pick up my dog and flee the guy a few times, but by July, he wasn't there anymore.
Hoboken is out of control. While the town is a great place to live, the cost of living now rivals nice neighborhoods in Manhattan. Real estate is outrageous, and hasn't come down much with the housing/credit crisis. Politically, many of the people in municipal gov't have used their positions to advance the goals of their wallets first, and residents second (not all, but most). The fact that the city is spending $150k on a rep from the state to deal with the budget matter tells me that they couldn't resolve the matter internally: all I need to know about how seriously these people take their jobs. For the mayor, again, to allow a 47% tax hike under his watch tells me all I need to know about him. He can point his finger at the city council, but he is the mayor, and I believe has the authority to stop the wastefull spending. (Example- in Hoboken, painting a white line to mark the crosswalk area on Hudson Place in front of the train station is a 5 person job: 1 person the do the painting, 1 to drive the truck with the supplies and idle while the work is done to avoid a parking ticket, 1 person to move and arrange the cones marking the wet paint, and 2 more to stand there and watch, doing something useful here or there. Payrolls are bloated, and someone need to act like an adult and do something useful. Residents deserve better than the possibility of $250 tickets for letting dogs walk on public grass, and property owners deserve better than 47% hikes in their tax bills.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/21/nyregion/new-jersey/21hobokennj.html?ref=new-jersey
http://www.nj.com/hobokennow/index.ssf/2008/11/letter_hobokens_tax_hike_was_y.html
http://www.nj.com/hobokennow/index.ssf/2008/10/mayor_roberts_tax_hikes_arent.html

What the Liberal Left needs to learn from Wall St

1. There is no such thing as "free money." (Oh wait, I think Wall St needs to learn that one too.)
2. When something sucks, there is a reason. The Big 3 are currently sucking for a reason. Throwing money at them suggests their problems are a lack of money. GM is suffering from all kinds of anti-competitive practices, most of which are not directly improved by additional capital alone.
3. The interconnectedness of the global economy means that no one is safe from systemic risk: like devaluing the US$! (Didn't the Fed's balance sheet just double?) Isn't rapidly printing money in an environment of record debt to prevent a recession just postponing our financial problems rather than solving them? Throwing billions at companies that can't compete while encouraging the consumer to spend via stimulus payments doesn't change that the American economy isn't creating any new wealth that I know of. While no one wants a deep recession, aren't 6 to 36 months of economic hardship better than mortgaging our future and children's future to avoid the short term pain of the credit/housing crises? In my humble opinion, the liberal left needs to focus less on helping dying companies and more on the people who have lost their livelihoods. Provide (and possibly increase) the social assistance those families need and let the market shake out the winners and losers of the credit/housing crises. Our economy will be better off with fewer, healthier companies rather than keeping failing ones alive via bailouts. If GM fails in 10 years for the core reason they are currently in trouble: no one wants to buy the cars they sell in North America, the Fed isn't likely to get that $25B back. Instead, Congress and the Fed could use that $25B to help the families suffering from the job losses at GM, and in 10 years could recoup that money via taxes from the businesses created in the future out of the ashes of the credit crisis. Just sayin'.

Face The Nation this morning, Nov 16

On CBS's "Face The Nation" this morning, the $25B bailout of the Auto industry was discussed by Democratic Rep Barney Frank (left) of Mass, chairman of the Financial Services Committee, and Republican Senator Richard Shelby, (right) of Alabama. Link is at the bottom of the page, and see selections below:

"Frank said the House is ready to pass a bailout package, saying failure to do so would inflict pain on an already very weakened economy.
Shelby, however, said that a bailout of the auto industry would be "the wrong road to go down right now," and said he would prefer troubled automakers file for bankruptcy rather than get taxpayers' money.

'Some people believe that Chapter 11 bankruptcy would be a lot better management than what they have today,' said Shelby, 'where they would reorganize, they would get rid of the management that has brought them to where they are today, bloated contracts, everything that goes with it. No profits, no products to sell, to speak of. '[It's] headed down this road to oblivion. Should we intervene to slow it down, knowing it's going to happen? I say no, not for the American taxpayer.'

Frank disagreed: 'It might be one thing to tolerate a bankruptcy if we had a lot of jobs out there, if there was prosperity.

'When you talk about the negative shock that would result from bankruptcies of these companies right now - and by the way, I wouldn't be blithe about Chapter 11. There are suppliers out there who are owed money, smaller businesses. They get hurt in a bankruptcy. There are a whole range of people who didn't make bad decisions at GM here.'

My comments: In my opinion, people want to "buy American" when it comes to cars. GM and the other "Big 3 " can complain all they want about the $2k per car they must pay in health care and legacy costs versus the $800 per car for the Japanese auto makers, but the core of the issue is that the "Big 3" don't build cars that people want to buy. Its simple. If it were a question of paying 5-10% more for an American car of equal quality than a Japanese car, I think many Americans would do it. The reason the "Big 3" are in trouble is that no one wants their products, their cars have very poor resale value, and from the perspective of the average car buyer, they would rather buy a higher quality product of a lower cost that depreciates more slowly and has greater utility value. That is capitalism. While the "Big 3" employ 740K jobs in dealerships alone, around 3 million jobs total in America, (as per Shelby on "Meet The Press") Toyota has plants in the south and also employs Americans. Does Toyota qualify for Federal $ since they too employ Americans? Is the solution to any economic downturn suddenly to throw taxpayer money at any industry that is in trouble, regardless of their own role in why their are unable to compete? NSA? Finally, GM competes in Russia, China, and other overseas markets, so why not pull out of North America entirely and focus on the markets that they do well in?
Shelby is right that the "Big 3" have management problems and don't put out the right products. Those problems can't be directly fixed with $25B of taxpayer money. (1 in 10 jobs in America are "auto related" according to Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) on "Meet The Press" but how many jobs would disappear if GM declared bankruptcy and restructured, the way the airlines have had to do?) Supposedly $175B would be the cost to the economy if one of the "Big 3" declaring bankruptcy. At what point is nationalizing the auto industry not what it needs to compete here at home and globally? Also, what I think is the most important move the auto industry needs to focus on is building electric cars and encouraging the gov't to put initiatives in place to modernize the grid to support the increase in the use of electricity. What T Boone Pickens talk about with using nat gas as a transportation fuel, that requires infrastructure, which costs $. So, since we need to modernize the grid anyways, let's start now so the grid can support electric cars in 5 years or so? Worst case scenario is that we don't use the modern grid for electric cars, and instead use it to generate electricity via wind and solar from the heartland and transport it to the coasts. That works too. $25B should go towards a new grid, not the failed management and bureaucratic messes over that the Big 3, in which it may or may not be used effectively. The taxpayer jobs the $25B would save over at the "Big 3" would instead be created by modernizing the grid and putting the infrastructure in place to generate electricity renewablly and transport it to the high demand areas, with or without electric cars.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/11/16/ftn/main4607907.shtml
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27752329/

More Pics

Axl and Slash onstage at some time. Original band, including Steven Adler, circa 1990.

Great Book by G 'N R's Slash

I read a great book while I was on vacation. Its called, Slash by Slash of Guns 'N Roses with Anthony Bozza (formerly of Rolling Stone) helping him tell his story. Its a rock bio, yes, but with a totally honest feel. Slash talks about everything, its very detail oriented. As a result, I spent a lot of the trip listening to G 'N R on my ipod. Now, of course, I can't wait for Chinese Democracy that is released on Nov 223rd, I believe.
http://web.gunsnroses.com/splash.jsp
ONLY 11 MORE DAYS!!!
The first pic is Axl and Slash, and the second is young Slash.

Obama's speech

Did he not quote the Gettysburg address?

Go Back to Alaska!

Never to be heard from again!

VICTORY!!!

Its morning in America again. Tonight is a proud night for the left. We made it through the darkest hour, and are finally seeing the light. I am proud, I am honored, I am grateful to be a citizen of Obama America. With that being said, Pelosi, DON'T OVERREACH!! The right will be back in 2010 if you do!!!!

The Audacity of Hope

The title of Obama's book, which I personally didn't think was that good. So far, Obama has yet to turn a red state blue. PA appears blue, which is GREAT. North Carolina is appearing blue, but they are calling it, "too close to call" so who knows what that means. More updates to come.

Palin Gets Punked!

What To Do If You Have a Problem Voting

Don't leave the polling place. Call 1-866-OUR-VOTE (866-687-8683) instead to get advice. To simply report a problem, call 866-698-6831, which is 1-866 MYVOTE1 and leave a recorded, detailed message with your name, address, and phone number. Don't let the right steal your vote!

How the GOP steals votes from the left

How the GOP gets votes for the Dems tossed:
Paul Weyrich, a principal architect of the right and co-founder of the Moral Majority with Jerry Falwell, tells it like this:
"Many of our Christians have what I call the 'goo goo' syndrome-good government. They want everyone to vote. I don't want everyone to vote... As a matter of fact, our leverage in the elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down."
In 2002, after the Florida situation, the Bush admin and his rubber stamp legislature passed the Help America Vote Act,
http://www.fec.gov/hava/hava.htm
which basically makes it easy for GOP types to get left wing voters from voting. They use many strategies. To give you and idea as to what they have in mind, both Republican super lobbyist Jack Abramoff and primary author of HAVA Rep Bob Ney of Ohio, were imprisoned for their role in corrupting HAVA. (Pic of Ney under Bush on right.)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/19/AR2007011900162.html
The gifts Ney accepted from Abramoff included a golfing trip to Scotland and other travel that prosecutors valued at more than $170,000. In return, Ney sought to insert four amendments to benefit Abramoff's clients into a 2002 election reform bill. (from link above.)
HAVA is set up in a way to give Republicans on state and local levels help in eliminating some Democratic votes on election day. There are a variety of strategies. To justify this, the right claims an increase in voter fraud. This relates to the US Attorney General scandal that resulted in the resignation of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales started when the White House (aka Bush admin people) fired federal prosecutors who resisted pressure to cough up nonexistent cases of voter fraud. US Attorney for New Mexico says, "They wanted some splashy pre-election indictments that would scare these alleged hordes of illegal voters away. We took over 100 complaints and investigated them for almost 2 years- and I didn't find one prosecutable case of voter fraud in the whole state of New Mexico. "
http://pr.thinkprogress.org/2008/10/pr20081015/index.html

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/23638322/block_the_vote

I like to select news from CBS because I feel it is very "centrist" and "fair" with the reporting, usually. Now, lets not count our leftist chickens before they hatch. The right is a dangerous and cumming enemy. For the story I am sampling, see the link at the bottom of the page.

We feel good," Obama chief strategist David Axelrod said on CBS News' Face The Nation. "And it's not just the polls. It's the early voting that we've seen. About a third of the country is going to vote before Tuesday, and those numbers are coming in very strong for us and reversing some historical patterns. In states like North Carolina, it looks like as many as three million people may vote before Tuesday, and where that vote is coming from and the addition of so many new voters is something we're encouraged by.

"And the crowds we're seeing: I'm here in Springfield, Missouri, which is a traditionally Republican part of the state. We had a crowd of 40,000 people here last night, very enthusiastic crowd late at night. Three times as large as any crowd anybody has ever gotten here," he added. "And those things are encouraging, but we still have to win this thing. We have to vote and we can't be complacent. We have to fight to the end, and we will."

Pennsylvania- The state has gone for Democrats in the last four presidential elections, but the McCain campaign is fighting hard there for a Republican pickup, despite some poll numbers showing them well behind.

On Election Day, in addition to the presidential race, there are several Senate seats up for grabs. Democrats appear likely to increase their advantage in the chamber, but Republicans look to minimize their losses. The heads of each party's campaign committees — Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer, N.Y., and Republican Sen. John Ensign, Nev. — talked with Schieffer on Face The Nation.

Schumer said that he thinks Democrats will get a "whole bunch" of seats, but also that it's "unlikely" they will reach the magic number of 60 for a filibuster proof Democratic-controlled Senate. "As for 60, that's very, very difficult. It's possible, but unlikely," he said. "And the reason is because the terrain is so tough. In other words, of the 11 contested states, none are deeply blue. A whole bunch are deeply red. So even though the wind is at our back, it's hard."

Ensign agreed the Democrats are poised for some pickups, but said that many races were close. "There's no question that we are facing a fairly strong political headwind at this point," he said. "And the Democrats are poised to pick up some seats. The exact number we don't know, because there's so many races that are within the margin of error. "There's six or seven races out there right now," said Ensign "including the race in Louisiana, where the Democrats are defending down there. We have that race dead even now. So it's going to be an interesting night on election night."

Republican Sen. Ted Stevens of Alaska was convicted of seven charges this past week. Ensign said he thought Stevens should step down. "I think it would have been better, first of all, for this to have happened last year. The Justice Department had the information. They should have done this last year, so the people of Alaska, if he was convicted, like he was, they could have had a clear choice between a Republican and a Democrat," he said. "Mark Begich couldn't have won that state if it would have been a clear choice between a Republican — a normal Republican running up there. The only way he can win — possibly win, is because Ted Stevens was convicted. I have said that it would be the best thing for Ted Stevens to step down and I said that last week."

Schumer, meanwhile, responded to speculation that Sen. Joe Lieberman, an Independent who endorsed and campaigns with McCain, would leave the Democratic caucus, or be kicked out.
"Leader Reid, who's a good friend of Joe's, has said we're not going to debate that, discuss it until after Tuesday, And I'm sticking with Leader Reid on that one," Schumer said. "So I'm waiting. We're going to wait until Wednesday to even discuss that, publicly or privately. There have been no discussions about it among our Senate leadership or in the caucus."
Ensign's response: "If Joe wants to leave the Democrat Party and join us, we'd welcome him with open arms."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/11/02/ftn/main4563896.shtml

Bill O' Reilly Has Bodyguards!!

Selections: (link at the bottom of the page)

David Letterman bantered with O'Reilly on the subject: "Now, I joke about walking around and people say 'There he is ...get him!' But in your case it's true, isn't it?"

"My life is dangerous now," he said. "You know, I have bodyguards and security. I can't go many places. I can't be in certain crowd situations. When I do a book signing, I gotta have a phalanx of state troopers there because there are crazy people. And then there're the Web sites and all of that, which are just totally out of control.

"They encourage these nuts. You know, I was thinking about John Lennon, you know, and John Lennon was tryin' to be a nice guy, signing the guy's thing and [Chapman] pops him. So, that is the worst part of the whole 'Factor' experience. The best part is I get to look out for the folks. And the folks know it. They know it. I've been doing this for more than 12 years.

"If you're a phony, they know." In O'Reilly's case, you could take the boy out of Levittown, but you'd better not - no, you dare not even try to take the Levittown out of the boy.

"Do you know why you're so successful?" Smith asked.

"Yeah, I know, 'cause I'm one of the folks, that's why, and because I look out for them and they know that," O'Reilly said. "We had six million people watch us last night. And they know that now in the media there's somebody on their side, sincerely on their side, not some phony. So, why wouldn't you watch the guy like that?"

I hope Bill O'Reilly is no longer on the air after the election. I hope Fox News ceases to exist in its current state pretty soon. I hope he finds himself with no audience with which to spit his views at.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/11/02/sunday/main4563979.shtml?source=search_story

McCain mailer to PA tries to cause Clinton/Obama split

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/30/gop-mailer-mccain-is-inhe_n_139447.html

McCain sent a mailer around PA about Clinton's 18 million votes and how she did a lot for women, and how he will do a lot for women too if elected, attempting to steal Obama votes away from former Clinton supporters. Its disgusting, really.

McCain is not right to pick on HRC. She stands for the left, and she stands for it proudly because she knows its whats good and right in the world. To even compare Palin to her because they both wear skirts is quite frankly an insult. HRC is way smarter and more qualified than McPalin will ever be, and she fights for women more than Palin, who, remember, made rape victims pay for their own exams, ever will or can. Obama has had hard choices to make, and I respect that he didn't ask HRC to run on his ticket. My opinion, that HRC should have been on the top of the ticket, is known. However, she did what was in the best interest of the left and threw her support to Obama because seeing the liberal left lead the country is more important to her than her pride. I respect that and honor that humility it took after the primary to come out and support Obama.

"Pride cometh before the fall." Lets just see if we can make it one more week under the Christian right in America. I can't believe Obama is going to win the election until I see it to be true with my very own eyes. I continue to be grateful Obama is leading the left and am keeping my fingers crossed.

Many Republicans are for Obama!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/24/mccain-adviser-endorses-o_n_137590.html

Joe McCain calls 911 about traffic!

Joe McCain was was stuck in traffic on October 21st in Alexandria, VA. Extremely upset by the traffic backup, the possible future president's brother decided he would call 911 to complain.

Here's how the first call went:
Operator: 911 state your emergency
Caller: Well, it's not an emergency but do you know why on one side at the damn drawbridge of 95, traffic is stopped for 15 minutes and yet traffic's coming the other way?
Operator: Sir, are you calling 911 to complain about traffic? (pause)
Caller: "Fuck you." (caller hangs up)

So then, the 911 Operator, apparently a bit confused and bothered that someone would call an emergency number to complain about traffic, called back the number that placed the 911 call.
And instead of an answer, got his voicemail instead.
McCain's voicemail said, "Hi this is Joe McCain I can't take this message now because I'm involved in a very (inaudible) important political project… I hope on Nov. 4th we have elected John."

After receiving the message on his phone, an even more upset McCain called 911 again to bitch. That conversation went as follows:

Caller: Somebody gave me this riot act about the violation of police.
Operator: Did you just call 911 in reference to this?
Caller: Yeah.
Operator: 911 is to be used for emergencies only, not just because you're sitting in traffic.

The McCain campaign refused to comment. Nice!

Even Alaskans are for Obama!

The top newspaper in the home state of Republican vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin has endorsed Democratic candidate Barack Obama for president.
Alaska's Anchorage Daily News, said governor Mrs Palin was "too risky" to be one step away from the presidency.
In an editorial it says her nomination "captivated" Alaskans but that the focus should be on John McCain.
The paper has a liberal record and backed the Democratic candidate in the last three presidential elections.
It described Mr McCain as the "wrong choice".
'Stumbled badly'
The newspaper, which has a larger circulation than any other in the state, said many Alaskans were "proud to see their governor, and their state, so prominent on the national stage".
It also described Mrs Palin as a "force to be reckoned with".
"Passionate, charismatic and indefatigable, she draws huge crowds and sows excitement in her wake," the editorial reads.
However, it says that Republican presidential candidate John McCain has "stumbled and fumbled badly" in dealing with the economic crisis.
"[John McCain] embraces the extreme Republican orthodoxy he once resisted and cynically asks Americans to buy for another four years", it says.
By contrast, the Daily News suggests, Mr Obama "brings far more promise to the office".
It says: "In a time of grave economic crisis, he displays thoughtful analysis, enlists wise counsel and operates with a cool, steady hand."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/us_elections_2008/7692731.stm

Response to 1906 San Francisco Quake More Effective than Response to Katraina

Today the History Channel did a segment about the aftermath of the 1906 San Francisco earthquake. In addition to the damage to the buildings brought about by the quake and aftershocks, there were fires burning for 3 days that decimated over 50 blocks of the city. Many people lost their homes, and set up impromptu tents like the ones in the pic.
(If you want to read about the details of the aftermath, please see the links below.)
The death total has been estimated between 300 and 500 officially, but since the individual names of the people who passed away in the quake or the fires have not been recorded by the city officials, leaving many unanswered questions. A lot of the historians that talk about the quake seem to think that many more people than 400 died, likely at least 1000. No one appears to know for sure.

The donations for assistance and rebuilding efforts totaled $10 million in 1906 US dollars. My historical currency calculator says that $10 in 1906 dollars is today $244 in 2008 dollars, although I am not sure if that takes purchasing power into consideration, or inflation only. So, $244,000,000, or a quarter billion, dollars was certainly generous to the people in San Francisco.
Since food was not coming into the city and many residents didn't have the means to feed themselves as they did prior to the disaster, the Federal gov't set up a food station where people who needed meals could come enjoy for free. The line stretched for blocks. The private sector was also very useful. Women from as far away as Utah put freshly baked loaves of bread onto trains going to San Francisco. One reason there are so many pics of the damage is because Kodak was selling a popular camera in 1905 that a lot of people possessed, and used to record the many scenes.

The tent cities were useful in helping people who had lost their homes yet wanted to stay in town. Building codes were adjusted to more closely resemble their modern state during the rebuilding process to acknowledge the possibility of future quakes. The city is on the San Andreas fault, and the possibility of the Golden Gate Bridge being toppled by quake higher than 8 on the Richter scale exists today. One of the things that caught my attention was that after the quake, the Southern Pacific Railroad company transported 300K people into and out of the city for 9 post quake days FOR FREE. The citizens of San Francisco helped each other as best they could, the Federal gov't stepped up, the private sector provided greatly needed aid, and Southern Pacific selflessly transported people and cargo in a time of crisis without mandating payment.

Why was such a response, relatively orderly, done at at time where telephones aren't a given the way they are now, not possible after Hurricane Katrina? Why was there not Federal government camps set up with food & meds for the people in need? The FEMA people/ Feds had to know that the trucks that normally brought food into the city wouldn't be doing so with the town underwater, and those who stayed behind with a home under water might need food to eat?

The private sector did assist after Katrina, and my remarks are not aimed at the thousands of people that traveled to New Orleans on their own dime to help those in need. I am very proud of those Americans, as I am of the additional thousands unable to travel who selflessly donated money and supplies. My digs, as usual, are directed right at the Bush admin for the failure of the post Katrina assistance that was so badly needed in New Orleans. Reviewing the national response to the San Francisco quake & aftermath in 1906 reminds me of how disasters SHOULD be responded to. Given the gap in technology between 1906 and 2006, I am very impressed with the efforts after the quake and disappointed by those following Katrina. In my opinion, part of the job of the Federal gov't is to attend to those effected by natural disasters, part of why we all pay taxes, in an efficient and effective way. Again, I do not understand why the Bush administration failed so miserably in responding to Katrina, and why nothing has been done to prevent such a poor federal reaction from happening again. Thoughts? Responses?
http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history.do?action=Article&id=4493
http://www.sfgate.com/greatquake/
http://strangemaps.wordpress.com/2007/08/05/161-map-of-the-san-francisco-quake-and-fire-1906/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1906_San_Francisco_earthquake

What Is Wrong With This Country

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/22/nyregion/22cops.html

Its is horrible that Raul Nunez felt so scared that he would be deported that he acted out in this way. The 2006 laws that make small infractions deportable have to be reversed. Its creating incidents like this. Also, the article doesn't explain why the police assumed Mr. Nunez couldn't be a student with the student metrocard. So what if a student that he knows lent it to him? Its still not "turnstile jumping," as he did pay, just an unauthorized reduced rate.

Obama to seal the deal for the left

Obama to seal the deal for the left. http://www.usnews.com/usnews/politics/bulletin/bulletin_081021.htm

Suprise, Suprise, the GOP is full of lies!

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/10/20/politics/fromtheroad/entry4531945.shtml

First cold evening

Temps are supposed to be in the 40s tonight east of the Mississippi and north of the Mason-Dickson line, and so tonight will be the first night many will turn on their heat. One thing that the CNBC talking heads spout repeatedly is that the reduction in the price of crude from $147 this summer to $70 this past week is some kind of "stimulus" to the American consumer. I don't know too many people who re did their family budgets this summer expecting to pay $147 for crude and the equivalents for refined products. With crude at $147, wholesale heating oil was $4.20 a gallon, roughly the same price as retail gasoline in the state of NJ. Last week, heating oil sold for about $2.40 on the commodity exchanges, so retail heating oil is likely to be around $3/gallon, and over the weekend I saw gasoline at $2.95 for regular in NJ.
To me, that is expensive still. From what I have read, filling up a tank of 250 gallons of heating oil costs about $750 and lasts 2 to 3 months, depending on use & temps, in a single family home. Given that wages haven't increased in the past 8 years for many middle income people, that $750 is likely to strain many budgets. The price of nat gas, for consumers, is likely to be $12-$14/mcf this winter, with the cost of heating a home with nat gas for the winter averaging $1000-$1200 for a single family home, again, depending on temps and usage. Better than paying for oil, but not cheap.
The price of energy is the single long term issue that America has to deal with. Obama said exactly that at the third debate. While the price of oil is down, downside demand destruction won't last forever. People can only drive less so much, and come heating time, unless the winter is unusually mild (which is not predicted) homes will likely be kept warm. I expect prices for energy to stabilize soon. The emerging markets are cooling, however, they do not know cheap oil the way America does, and so at a certain price oil is cheap enough again to encourage demand. If the American consumer thinks that $147 for crude is a fluke, he or she is sadly mistaken. I hope that people remain vocal about the large parts of their budgets energy consumes, and remain vigilant that we as a nation need to take steps to secure an energy future. Any kind will do. This is as important to the election as any other issue, and I hope its something that people take with them when they mark their ballots in November.

Colin Powell to vote for Obama!

Colin Powell's interview on "Meet The Press" on NBC with Tom Brokaw in which he illustrates his support for Obama. His reasons, as he explains them:
1. He knows both candidates well, both are qualified
2. Both are dedicated Americans
3. Over the past few years, the Republican party has moved too far to the right for him
4. McCain is unsure on economics, and when dealing with the nation's economic crisis, seems to have a new strategy each day.
5. Choice of Palin, who is not ready to be President, says a lot about McCain's judgement
6. Obama is an intellectual and his judgment is steady
7. The McCain campaign is divisive, focusing on Bill Ayers, not something that effects Americans, the focus is very small and limited, goes too far with Bill Ayers focus
8. Obama is concerned with all American values: big city, small city, small town; not just small towns have values, crossing lines: ethnic, generational, etc.
9. Gov Palin has indicated a further right wing shift of the Republican party. The Republican party says "Obama is a Muslim. No, he is a Christian. But what if Obama is a Muslim? That's not America. There is nothing wrong with being a Muslim. "

10. Got to stop polarizing ourselves, and McCain's campaign is too polarizing
11. Obama reaches all across America, has style and substance, transformational figure, inclusive to all people.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032608

Face the Nation on CBS

Republicans are treading in deep water and drowning!
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/10/19/ftn/main4531219.shtml

Opinion Piece from Maureen Dowd

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/19/opinion/19dowd.html?em

Obama Campaign Raises $150M in September!

Obama campaign raised $150M in the month of September, 2008!!
This record breaks the previous record, set in August, 2008 of $66M! A majority of the donations were small dollar donors, which is how most people think campaigns should be financed. Small donor contributions (people giving less than $200) often do not expect anything in return from the candidate, helping to break the cycle of corporations giving large donations and then expecting favorable legislation in return.

Colon Powell to vote Obama!

Retired Army General and former Secretary of State Colon Powell told Tom Brokaw this morning that he will vote for Barak Obama. Reasons include:

1. McCain campaign too polarizing
2. Choice of Palin questions McCain's judgment
3. McCain campaign's attempts to tie Obama to Vietnam protester Bill Ayers is inappropriate

CBS's Sunday Morning Segment on Race

This morning on CBS's Sunday Morning news show, Bill Whitaker did a segment on Obama and race. The segment did a minor historical comparison about the 1982 Governor of California Bradley that lost the election despite a strong lead in the polls, the so called "Bradley effect" suggesting that voters are secretly biased against minorities. (link at the bottom)

Personally, I felt this segment missed the point. The point that Bush appointed blacks to high level positions doesn't mean that he cares about the black community. I hope this picture of people post Hurricane Katrina outside of the Convention Center in New Orleans suffering is an accurate illustration about how Bush concerns himself with the urban poor. After all, while these people were suffering, Bush was celebrating John McCain's birthday with him, ironically enough, instead of doing his job.

Obama is the child of a white woman and black man. For his parents to be together and having children was a breakthrough in the late 1950s and early 1960s. To me, what Obama represents about race is America at its best, working through difficulties and learning to love each other. In relation to the election, Obama was able to take on and defeat Hillary Clinton in the primary despite all of the Clinton's connections and powerful political experience. Obama did this by going to the heart of the matter- Americans are hurting in the current political and economic conditions and want something different- change. In defeating Clinton, Obama stood for what is possible when America is at its best, a politician striking a chord with the electorate over issues that matter most. Obama is just as American as anyone else who is not a Native American Indian. Both of his parents came here at some point from somewhere else. What Obama has accomplished in his life, Harvard, Illinois Senator, U.S. Senator, is what is important about his background, not what color his skin is. What matters is what his service to the country can do for us, not the race of his parents. In my opinion, focusing on Obama's race is a step backwards, not forwards.

http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/sunday/main3445.shtml

Republicans Are Disgusting

From the party that claims the Democrats "tax and spend" have done what I call "borrow and spend" since Reagan. On Face the Nation this morning, host Bob Schieffer was talking to Republican Senator Lindsey Graham from South Carolina about the election. Now, of course, Graham starts talking about how now is the time to cut investor's taxes, dividend, capital gains, etc, and how Obama wants to raise those taxes and how horrible that would be. To him I say, "STOP DEFICIT SPENDING!" If you want to spend, you have to tax. The future of our children shouldn't be compromised because the Republicans WILL NOT RAISE TAXES, EVER.
The Republicans want to wage wars on credit. The Republicans want to borrow and hope that the American people don't care. McCain wants individuals to be taxed on the health care premiums paid for by their employers. WTF? These people cannot be trusted. They have not collectively admitted that their policies over the past 8 years have miserably failed. What pisses me off the most about Graham's comments is that WALL STREET JUST GOT $700B in BAILOUT MONEY FROM THE TAXPAYER yet of course, investor related taxes can't rise AT ALL, even to help pay for the $700B bailout. Of course, the rich should have their liabilities paid for by everyone else. That is how the right presents their policies.

McCain has admitted that he doesn't understand the economy. Prior to the shit hitting the fan he was saying that the American economy was "fundamentally sound" and then banks and brokerages failed. He doesn't know what to do to fix our country. Yet my issue isn't with just McCain. My issue is with the right and their ridiculous positions on this crap. Instead of admitting that his party, the Republicans, wrecked our country with their borrowing and spending on a war that was based on lies, violated Americans' 4th Amendment rights with the NSA spying, deregulated our economy so industry was free to loot enterprises and pay themselves handsomely for their trouble while the middle class worked harder for the same money that bought less goods, all Lindsey Graham does is fear monger. That is his only card left to play, that what Obama MIGHT do regarding taxes MIGHT be bad for someone somewhere. Guess what, he is right. Obama might do something bad for someone somewhere. Yet, what Bush and the legislature has done has been bad for A LOT of someones and until Graham admits that, I don't want to hear his bullshit on taxes. Borrow and spend is NOT better than tax and spend. If you want to defend the "homeland" with your military adventures, tax. Don't mortgage the futures of unborn Americans with huge borrowing to finance bullshit activities without accountability.
I have one thing to say to you, Lindsey Graham: TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR YOUR FAILED POLICIES BEFORE YOU SPECULATE ABOUT OBAMA'S POLICIES AND HOW THEY MIGHT BE BAD.
http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/opinion/schieffer/main500158.shtml
http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/ftn/main3460.shtml
(The links for this week from Face The Nation aren't up yet, these are the links from last week.)
McCain is swimming an uphill battle and is getting desperate. Thankfully, American know they have worked harder for less purchasing power, and don't care what the Republicans say at this point. They know they care mainly about the rich. Obama wants to help all, as fairly as he can, not just helping the rich get richer.

One can dream

A US Army brigade has been assigned to the "Homeland"

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/09/army_homeland_090708w/

Read first article, then read this one:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/09/24/army/

Selections:

..."beginning Oct. 1 for 12 months, the [1st Brigade Combat Team of the 3rd Infantry Division] will be under the day-to-day control of U.S. Army North" -- "the first time an active unit has been given a dedicated assignment to NorthCom, a joint command established in 2002 to provide command and control for federal homeland defense efforts and coordinate defense support of civil authorities"

They may be called upon to help with civil unrest and crowd control or to deal with potentially horrific scenarios such as massive poisoning and chaos in response to a chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear or high-yield explosive, or CBRNE, attack. . . .

"For more than 100 years -- since the end of the Civil War -- deployment of the U.S. military inside the U.S. has been prohibited under The Posse Comitatus Act (the only exceptions being that the National Guard and Coast Guard are exempted, and use of the military on an emergency ad hoc basis is permitted, such as what happened after Hurricane Katrina). Though there have been some erosions of this prohibition over the last several decades (most perniciously to allow the use of the military to work with law enforcement agencies in the "War on Drugs"), the bright line ban on using the U.S. military as a standing law enforcement force inside the U.S. has been more or less honored -- until now. And as the Army Times notes, once this particular brigade completes its one-year assignment, "expectations are that another, as yet unnamed, active-duty brigade will take over and that the mission will be a permanent one."

The Defense Authorization Act of 2006, passed on Sept. 30, empowers President George W. Bush to impose martial law in the event of a terrorist "incident," if he or other federal officials perceive a shortfall of "public order," or even in response to antiwar protests that get unruly as a result of government provocations. . . .

It only took a few paragraphs in a $500 billion, 591-page bill to raze one of the most important limits on federal power. Congress passed the Insurrection Act in 1807 to severely restrict the president's ability to deploy the military within the United States. The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 tightened these restrictions, imposing a two-year prison sentence on anyone who used the military within the U.S. without the express permission of Congress. But there is a loophole: Posse Comitatus is waived if the president invokes the Insurrection Act.

Section 1076 of the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 changed the name of the key provision in the statute book from "Insurrection Act" to "Enforcement of the Laws to Restore Public Order Act." The Insurrection Act of 1807 stated that the president could deploy troops within the United States only "to suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy." The new law expands the list to include “natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition" -- and such "condition" is not defined or limited. . . .
The story of how Section 1076 became law vivifies how expanding government power is almost always the correct answer in Washington. Some people have claimed the provision was slipped into the bill in the middle of the night. In reality, the administration clearly signaled its intent and almost no one in the media or Congress tried to stop it . . . .
Section 1076 was supported by both conservatives and liberals. Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), the ranking Democratic member on the Senate Armed Services Committee, co-wrote the provision along with committee chairman Sen. John Warner (R-Va.). Sen. Ted Kennedy openly endorsed it, and Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.), then-chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, was an avid proponent. . . .
Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), the ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, warned on Sept. 19 that "we certainly do not need to make it easier for Presidents to declare martial law," but his alarm got no response. Ten days later, he commented in the Congressional Record: "Using the military for law enforcement goes against one of the founding tenets of our democracy." Leahy further condemned the process, declaring that it "was just slipped in the defense bill as a rider with little study. Other congressional committees with jurisdiction over these matters had no chance to comment, let alone hold hearings on, these proposals."

Military dictatorship, anyone?

Part of my issue with this is how similar the police have become to the military, which is why law enforcement is surely capable for "crowd control" or whatever. What law enforcement is not capable of is assisting with disasters like Katrina. That job should go to the national guard.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/4203345.html

Bush has stepped on Democratic protections in place over 100 years in his quest to make America as far to the right as Nazi Germany. From the treatment of immigrants in ICE custody to this, I am honestly ashamed of what America has become. While 9/11 was a true tragedy by any metric, the answer is not to throw away our Democratic protections and become as extreme as those in the middle east wanting to kill us. I am very disappointed in Ted Kennedy for going along with this without asking questions. He must have misunderstood what Bush had in mind.