WHAT MAKES A SENATOR A GOOD SENATOR?

   With an emotional farewell, the citizens of Massachusetts paid tribute to their senior senator for the past 46 years, Edward Kennedy.  Putting aside all elements of whether Senator Kennedy served a useful purpose to the citizens of the United States, there is no question that to the people of Massachusetts he was “their” Senator.

   The beauty of the governmental system established by our Constitution, is that no one can tell the citizens of any state who they should elect to represent them.  But, how many of our citizens realize the uniqueness of the senatorial seats allocated to the states?  It is that allocation that allows small states to stand on an even platform with large states.  Idaho’s two senators have the same equation to the total vote of the Senate as do Massachusetts’ two, and New York’s two, and California’s two.

  Yet, even in death, Idahoans will stand and be critical of the man that Massachusetts chose for its senator for over four decades.

  As I left church in Nampa, Idaho last evening, two old ladies stood at the foot of the back stairs to the church and cursed the nature of Senator Kennedy.  They used such hateful terms that I wondered if it occurred to them that less than half an hour before they had no doubt expressed an oral belief that Jesus was crucified to save sinners.  But how could that be?  If they believed that, then how could they then damn Kennedy who I imagine is well within the parameters of sinners saved on the day of crucifixion.  I suppose it isn’t fair to try to hold them to the words they expressed however.  After all, its just a church ritual, and damning an actual sinner---well, that’s real, not ritual.

  So, I said nothing to them, let them have their fun.  But, as I walked on by, one of them said “he wasn’t even a good senator.”   By whose standard---some Canyon County, Idaho citizen who was represented by Larry Craig until this last January.  I couldn’t help but wonder if she has forgiven Craig  for his Minneapolis foray.  Or, perhaps she is one of the apologists who still to this day believe that Craig was a victim of the press.

 The only standard by which a person can judge whether a senator is or was a good senator is that imposed by the citizens of the state he/she serves.

  So the standard of whether Senator Kennedy was a good senator is that set by the people of Massachusetts.  They elected and re-elected him for over four decades, and they paid tribute  by the thousands and thousands.

  One reason they paid tribute, and voted for him repeatedly is that he served their interests.  The stories are now legion as to how he wrote to citizens concerning their problems, how he and his staff worked to help the state’s citizens with their individual and personal problems, how he and his staff gave comfort and support in times of need.

  One such story sets the stage to show why the people of Massachusetts cared.  On August 18, 2008, just a little over a year ago, Senator Kennedy read that two Massachusetts service men had died in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Their families were gathering that afternoon prior to a candlelight service at a veteran’s memorial.

   Kennedy was in the middle of a chemotherapy treatment at Massachusetts General Hospital.  He announced to his staff that he was going to visit the families.  They argued that it was not a good idea with the exhaustion setting in from the treatment.  But, to no avail were their arguments.

   When he arrived, the house was filled with relatives of the sacrificed soldiers.  He hugged them all, he thanked the parents for their sacrifice for the country, and he remembered with them what it was like when he and his family received the news that his older brother Joe had been killed during World War II.

  He sat in the living room, thumbed through a photo album, with the mother of one of the soldiers telling him about her son.  Maria Conlon, mother of Paul Conlon, killed in Afghanistan, was moved by the fact that in the midst of chemotherapy treatments he “took the time to go to the family’s house, to sit there not for five minutes but for hours.”

  The families invited him to go with them to the candlelight service but he declined, saying it would be better if he stayed away.  Paul’s aunt, Vicky Baron, quoted him as saying “If I go, I’ll be in the spotlight.  I don’t want to take away from what these young men did and what they gave up.”

  So, the Kennedy hugged the families again and left without the press knowing he had been there.  The visit would still be unknown but for the fact that the families, citizens of Massachusetts who voted for this man, told the story after his death.

  So, whoever you Nampa, Idaho ladies were----“good senator”?---well the people he represented  thought so----and in America that’s all that counts.  So, perhaps you should just expect from your Senators the same type of services and care that Kennedy gave the people of Massachusetts.

THE CONSCIENCE OF THE UNITED STATES SENATE IS GONE---THE END OF AN ERA IN LAW-MAKING

   Senator Edward Kennedy, the senior senator from Massachusetts for the last three decades, has moved the Senate of the United States with his booming, passionate oratory for the last time.

   The man was plagued by his own inner demons caused by or resulting in over-drinking, over-sexing, over-carousing, over-riding the law in behalf of himself and his family.  Yet, he was the driving force behind more than 300 pieces of legislation which lightened the loads borne by the working men and women of this nation.  

   The man was the epitome of an over-indulgent member of a family of wealth so great that it could buy anything---freedom from law enforcement, risqué parties, escape from entangling alliances.  Yet, he was the champion who secured passage of the more than 300 bills that gave Blacks the right to vote, gave the handicapped access to public transportation and facilities, gave the elderly access to companionship and nutrition through meals on wheels.

  The man appeared to have no respect for women or their feelings as a result of his affairs, his open promiscuity, his unfaithfulness as a husband and father.  Yet, he successfully fought for and secured passage of over 300 bills that gave girls and women the opportunity to participate in all elements of education, including sports activities, on a even field basis, that gave women the right to expect equal pay for equal work, that gave women the opportunity to pursue a career while single-parenting a family.

    The man who left Mary Jo Kopechne and swam for safety at Chappaquiddick, who cheated on exams and was forced to leave Harvard, who mis-used his fortune and his power to influence law authorities in their handling of sex crime allegations against his family, also bullied, cajoled and persuaded the United States Senate into passage of bills that protected women—rich and poor—from sexual harassment, that provided support for single mothers seeking child support from deserting fathers, that provided women with a means of protecting against domestic abuse.

   The man who has been called the “most liberal of all liberals”, a “socialist”, and a “communist” by ultra conservatives, was friend and colleague to President Ronald Reagan and his widow, Nancy, and to President George W. Bush and his wife Laura.  Nancy Reagan said yesterday that the Senator was “an ally and a dear friend”.  She said “Ronnie and Ted could always find common ground, and they had great respect for one another.  In recent years, Ted and I found our common ground in stem cell research.”

  President W. Bush applauded the accomplishments of the Senator who is so reviled and hated by many Republicans---particularly the mean spirited republicans who seem to be in charge of the party these days.  Bush credited Kennedy with giving the push needed to bring about passage of the “No child left behind” law which was so important to George and Laura Bush---a law, by the way, which is still deplored by many democrats within and without the Senate.  He helped Bush accomplish a major goal by pressing passage of the medicare drug benefit for the elderly. 

  When something seemed right to Kennedy, he fought for it even if it meant miffing his own party.  Senator Orrin Hatch, an ultra-conservative most unlikely associate, called Kennedy “Iconic, larger than life.  We were like fighting brothers.”  Hatch, who considered Kennedy not just a colleague but a friend, said that there would already have been a health care deal in the Senate had the Senator been healthy enough to work with Hatch.  The two of them collaborated in gaining passage of children’s health insurance, volunteer services, and student aid as well as many other bills benefitting youth of the nation.  

   There has been no major law passed in the United States which benefits the elderly, the young, the poor, the working class, women and minorities---whether at work, in school, or in retirement---for the past three decades that was not lead to passage by Kennedy.

  More than anything else, I will miss the speeches in which he built, with staccato phrasing, toward a crowning crescendo, booming forth his admonition to his colleagues---to all Americans---to help the less fortunate, the underprivileged, the vulnerable, the helpless, the hopeless in the name of “right”.  Time and again, through the years, he called on us all to assure to all Americans the opportunity to fulfill their version of the American Dream.

  Those passionate entreaties to the Senate, and the bi-partisan, personal relationships through which he was able to accomplish legislative goals which carried the mark of both parties, will be missed.  No one else in the Senate has the skill, the personality, the commitment to carry on the successes he brought.  The conscience of this Senate is dead.  In its stead stands, in the words of Tom Brokaw, “mean spiritedness” of a nature never before seen in our lifetimes.

   During my 74 years, I have witnessed the performance of many great senators and leaders.  I have studied their techniques and their personalities, their goals and the means by which they achieved them or missed them.  All those of you who are close to my age will remember the eloquence of Senator Everett McKinley Dirksen, and the bi-partisan abilities of Senator Dirksen and the ultra, ultra-liberal Paul Douglas to achieve legislative benefits for their state of Illinois and the nation. 

  You will remember the ability of Lyndon Johnson and Speaker Sam Rayborn, both of Texas, to achieve any and all legislative goals which they set---Rayborn by having helped every member of the House achieve some personal goal and then calling in the favors when needed; Johnson by arm-twisting, intimidating threats in addition to demanding returns of favors.

  In Idaho, the citizens were lucky to have the late Senators Frank Church (democrat) and Len Jordan (republican) who worked together for their state interests and the interests of the nation.  Their bi-partisan efforts were perhaps the highest elevation ever reached by Idaho politics.  Church, eloquent like Kennedy, had the audacity of a Kennedy in running for the democrat presidential nomination and actually winning and showing well in some early primaries.  He “had the touch” of being able to work with democrats and republicans for the good of the nation.

  But, since losing the 1976 campaign for the democrat nomination for president to Jimmy Carter, there has been no comparison to the Senator that emerged from that disastrous experiment.  He seemed to be almost freed from some kind of over-riding presidential legacy syndrome as a result of the loss, and it was as though at that point he decided to be the best senator the state of Massachusetts ever had.  He accomplished that, and then some.

   Characterized by Howard Fineman of Newsweek as the picture of a successful Irish politician, of a beaming Irish personality, Senator Kennedy was a champion of peace in the Emerald Isle.  He was proud of his Irish ancestry as am I.  Appropriately to his Irish traditions, he readied himself for the hereafter through prayer and communications with his priest over his last days.  He will be missed by Irish men and women everywhere who I am sure will be wishing for him, in the words of a famous Irish blessing “May you be in heaven before the devil knows you’re dead.”

By now everyone has heard about the senseless rape, torture and murder of Denise Amber Lee, wife and mother of two. The accused is out of work plumber Michael King. I have heard everything from how his lost job or his house being foreclosed made him snap, what a crock of @&#$. There is a whole nation full of homeless, out of work people that snap... some of them even have stooped to robbery or manufacturing methamphetamine but at least they were misguided attempts to stay afloat. King was nothing more than a sick, sadistic piece of filth who has had these feelings a long time and been acting them out since he was young in other ways.  Or we will find out in this case there are other missing girls out there for whom this guy is responsible for!

Having lost a job myself and being responsible for bills and loved ones, I have found it stressful. When times got bleaker and bleaker, I could feel myself getting desperate, but never did I have thoughts of raping and torturing any young girls to make things better... go figure! I guarantee you King's computer is filled with S and M stuff. This guy is and has been a slimey scum filled predator for a long time and when he is found guilty they need to treat him as such and KILL him! While I’m on the subject I believe that we can not rehabilitate rapists, pedophiles, arsonists, the ones that do things because that’s who they are and who they always have been. After you dig through their lives and homes you know which ones really love it, I believe we should punish those guys like they do in Japan.

 In Japan, it is their custom to keep condemned men completely isolated from the outside world, with no newspapers, books, radio, television or exercise privileges. They are left in their cells 24 hours a day to ponder their crimes. The best part is that they are never told when their date with the executioner will be. One day the warden just shows up at the cell door to haul them off to their appointment with a rope. No special last meal, no final prayers, nada. Their time can come in two weeks or five years. They never really know when. That would help me sleep at night and might bring some sense of justice to the families destroyed by these animals!

Jon Grant

Barack Obama is a "Post Turtle." What is a "Post Turtle" you urbane urbanites and city slickers might ask?

Well one day an old cowboy was out ridin' fence and he saw a turtle balanced on top of a fence post. When he got back to the bunkhouse he told the other fellas that he saw a "Post Turtle". They all asked, "What the hell is a "Post Turtle"? And he said it was a turtle settin' on top of a post! He then went on to explain that "you know he didn't get up there by himself, he doesn't belong there, he doesn't know what to do while he's up there and you just wonder what kind of fool put him up there to begin with!" 

And that pretty well sums up the Obama phenomenon.

He was never really vetted by the adoring media, he has never had his nose bloodied in a real political fight as he perfected voting "present" to an art form, he has no real understanding or knowledge of the struggles of his countrymen, and he has had no real hard life experiences that are the hot steel needed to forge and shape leadership qualities.

During the campaign when he made the comments about some Americans "clinging to their guns and God to a crowd of well-heeled San Francisco Democrats, it was almost as if he was giving them an anthropological lecture on the people of the rest of America. What he said demonstrated a total lack of understanding of his fellow citizens, but the way he said it was worse. It was as if he was saying, "You know I just returned from the hinterlands and I would like to tell you about the strange natives and their quaint customs I encountered in my travels." Not the way to talk if you want to lead these folks.

Barack Obama is the perfect President for our current "Age of Celebrity" where we take ordinary Americans like Jon and Kate and make them celebrities for no other reason than the ability to have multiple births.

In Obama's case he had two narcissistic books, a speech to the 2004 Democratic Convention, an undistinguished political and legislative career and a message "Yes We Can" that at times seemed to be more like "Yes I Can" the title of renowned entertainer Sammy Davis, Jr.'s excellent autobiography. I suggest he read it so he can see what a real life struggle is all about.

As Obama's hero old Abe Lincoln said, "You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time".

Patrick Dorinson

GRANDSON JETT STARTS FOOTBALL----FAMILY TURNS OUT IN FORCE

Today marks a big step in the movement of my oldest grandson to manhood—---and I am none too anxious to have him grow up so fast.  But, life is like that.  Yesterday, he is the little guy who dotes on grandpa, who stands at the end of the gym where his older sister is going to play basketball and watches the door until he sees grandpa come in, and then he runs full speed to be picked up and held.  Then, he looks straight into grandpa’s eyes and asks “did you bring me some candy?”  The next day when his uncle calls him a “turkey” he responds with “Grandpa says I’m precious”  Today, he is 13 and strapping on the football gear for the first time.

Yesterday, in spite of all my fears about football, I went with him to buy cleats.  Today, in spite of all my fears about football, I will watch him try out for quarterback/wide receiver.  I think of that body that has come through 13 years of development, and can be seriously hurt in less than one second.  Oh how I wish he had not wanted to play football. 

We have encouraged basketball, and he has become a very good player.  So, we got by all the Kiwanis programs for grooming youngsters for injuries.  But, now we run into school teams, and peer pressure is so great.  Plus, he loves to watch football games with dad, uncle and grandpa---so we all are complicit.

His mom told me years ago “keep up the praise of basketball, grandpa, maybe we can skirt football.”  But, it wasn’t to be, anymore than I could convince my son Jon, Jett’s father, to quit football even after he became paralized for a couple of hours after being tackled making a near impossible catch.  He played on until his shoulder was separated in the third game of the season of his senior year.  He had to turn down scholarship possibilities at all the passing schools in the Pac 10, and I thought that story would discourage Jett from football and cause him to really concentrate on basketball.  Not to be.

It’s the classic “life moves on” chapter of our life.  Instead of hiding out at home waiting for a call as to injury, I’m picking up Jon to bring him to the practice.  Uncle Andy is joining us later with Jett’s cousins.  So, it will be a family audience to watch Mr. Jett at his football.  He was so excited that last night he called to tell me that he had run a mile in his new cleats and they felt good on his feet.  He was quite pleased that “uncle Andy and the kids are coming to see me practice”

So, on the warmest morning of the summer, practice started. The ninth grade team was worked at a pace that just astounded me.  For nearly two and a half hours, they moved through one drill after another, stopping only for two or three water breaks.  Jett’s group of 7^th and 8^th graders started at more measured pace, but kept steadily at physical drills.

The plan had been to go to “5 Guys Burgers and Fries”, a new burger spot in Boise, but recognized as “best burger” site in  Baltimore, Washington, Tampa, Atlanta, and Philadelphia. Every one ate but Jett.  He had stomach cramps from exercises probably never done before.  So, he settled for water and gator aid.  We assured him that the cramps would pass if he continued to drink liquids.  At last check tonight, he was feeling better, just in time to start again tomorrow morning on what will be an even hotter morning. 

My prayers will be constant that he doesn’t get hurt, my encouragement will never let him know that I fear for him, and my unconditional love will be there always in case of mishap.  For that is the story of grandparents, unconditional love no matter what.  Well, that’s half the story.  The other half is that the grandchild knows that the unconditional love is there no matter what.

My wife Lodice never liked the boys to play football.  She enjoyed watching the colleges and professional teams, but didn’t want her own sons to play.  Both suffered tears and fractures in one sport or another throughout their high school years, and then afterward. 

Grandpa can’t say too much. After all, just two years ago, I dislocated my shoulder and suffered a small fracture while playing basketball with Jett.  My cardiologist was glad that the injury came during play time instead of work, but cautioned “you know, you are 71 (now 73)” 

Jett learned today that football is not all “fun and games”.  It is work; it is discipline; it is hard; it is forcible.   I have no doubt that he will hang in there, and I already have placed his game dates on my calendar.  Issues of life and death will have to take a back seat to his games.  Lodice would have been there too, even though she wouldn’t have approved of him playing.  She’ll be there, but we won’t hear her comments and cheers for Jett.  That will be missed.

So, a new chronicle to follow on justicemyass.com---tracing the success of the football year of Jett Harrison Grant and the Fairmont Junior High School lightweight football team.

BRETT IS BACK---HAIL TO THE GODS OF FOOTBALL

        August 18, 2009  ---by Fred Kelly Grant

This morning I settled in with my coffee and orange juice to watch the most depressing part of any morning----getting caught up with CNN.  Today for a little spice up, I turned to Morning with Robin, the spin off from regular CNN.  Robin has a good personality, is easy on the eyes, and spends time on interesting news other than health care costs.

But, today, the so-called sports anchor on Robin’s channel caused me to leave my easy chair and respond to him early.  He announced the return of Brett Favre to the Minnesota Vikings to play another year of football.  He railed about it, how Farve couldn’t be believed because he had said he was retiring.  Called the Vikings “enablers” as in helping addicts continue to abuse themselves.  He likened Brett’s return to having spite for the Packers or a psychopathic addiction which forbids him to quit.

I sent a comment which said that the egos of the talking heads of sports would definitely be hit hard by Brett’s decision, because they all predicted he wouldn’t come back.  Heaven help the individual who spoils the egos of these “heads”.  Rafer Weigel gave a wild eyed rant that Brett was “working the field” of experts, and that Brett will not hold up, and that when he breaks down the land of 10,000 lakes will become the 10,001 with a lake of Viking tears.

My response to him was that as long as Brett Favre thinks he can throw a pass, I will be in the stands to watch---because at some time during that game, he will thrill every fan in the stadium.  It will be worth the trip to see him, when knocked to his back side, get up, look around like “what just happened?”, and then throw “the pass” to get out of a hole.  It will be worth the trip to see him throw an incomplete fourth down pass, or an interception, and watch him walk off the field, looking back at the interceptor as though he is figuring out what went wrong.  No head down, no dragging along, but stepping along like a pro who is planning to avoid that trap the next time.

It will be worth the trip to see him jump like a kid when he meets the receiver who has just taken in a touchdown.  It will be worth the trip to watch him look to the bench and reject the play that has been sent in---and then watch to see what his substitution is.

Last year I watched the New York Jets for the first time.  He gave them several exciting games, some late game wins, and turned me into such a Jets secondary fan that I picked one of their runners in fantasy football draft on Sunday.

So, out from the bayous of Mississippi the master returns once again.  This time to the Vikings, a one time awful foe of the Packers.  I have always had a lot of respect for the Vikings, but not much fan following enthusiasm.  Fran Tarkenton was a great show; my wife and I saw him play the first time in Chicago and she fell in love with him. 

What a sight to see slight Fran running for his life from a fearsome Bear defense, only to run long enough for a receiver to get open and long enough for him to get the ball to that open receiver.  Sometimes, either no one got open (in those days the Bear line itself was quick enough to cause the Quarter back trouble in his own backfield, leaving the secondary to retain coverage of receivers.) or he was so enclosed that he couldn’t get a clear view of his receivers, so he scrambled and he frustrated that great Bear line by repeatedly picking up 10 to 18 yards on those scrambles.

It is just quite a sight to see him playing football like he was still a kid---playing the game “for the love of the game”.  And, that’s what he’s doing.  He can survive the rest of his life without the money---he just has to have the excitement of the game, and this time he will wear the purple of royalty.  How happy must be AJ Peterson today, and receivers like Berrian who came from Chicago to change from one unknown qb to another.  And, now he will join the elite group of receivers who have caught passes from the master of excitement.

Here I make an admission that I have never made to my sons:  Johnny Unitas is my favorite quarterback of all time, as they know; but Favre is the most exciting qb I have ever seen.  Johnny thrilled us, game after game, but he did it in such controlled fashion.  He won game after game on final drives, but he did it in such controlled fashion that we came to expect it.  We were spoiled.

But, Favre is never controlled, or at least gives that appearance.  When he puts together a late game run, it doesn’t have the surgical precision that Johnny used.  His success will come on an unorthodox play, a pass to the last man on the field that you would expect, a scramble with men open for a pass, an errant pass that would make you think he didn’t know where he was on the field, and then the strike.  A final game series from Brett puts your mind and heart in an up and down roll not unlike a roller coaster.  With Johnny U, you watched his precision passes move steadily down the field, with the crescendo of victory increasing with each move.  The beauty of Johnny U is that you could predict where he would go with the next pass, so could the defense, but the defense couldn’t stop the U man and his receivers.

I remember an incident when one of his favorites, Jimmy Orr, was hurt and taken from the field on a stretcher.  He was taken from old Memorial Stadium to Union Memorial Hospital just a couple of blocks away on 33 rd street.  There was a spot in the end zone to the west end of the field called “Orrs ville”.  When he hit that corner spot, and the ball was right, it was a pass that couldn’t be intercepted, and when Orr caught it and ran out of the end zone he ended his run by running up  on the cover to the Oriole dug-out.  The crowd would shout “Orrsville” before the play was called.

We heard the announcement that xrays had been negative and Orr was all right.  But, in the fourth quarter, all of a sudden, here came Orr trotting on  to the field from the tunnel leading to the dressing rooms.  To a standing ovation, he ran right to the huddle of the Colts on offense, and his replacement raced off the field.  Not a man, woman or child in that crowd doubted for a second that the play would be to Orrsville.  The Bear defense started to change its positioning.  Out came the Colts, down to the corner went Orr, Unitas’ pass hit the corner perfectly, Orr caught the touchdown and ran up that Oriole dug out cover to the roar of a capacity crowd.  That was Johnny U’s brilliance.  He could be predictable, but it didn’t matter.  He threw passes that couldn’t be intercepted.  He threw to receivers like Jimmy Orr, Raymond Berry, Johnny Mackey, Lenny Moore that wouldn’t let a pass be intercepted.

But, Favre thrills in a different manner.  He will befuddle you with some of his calls.  He will call a play doomed from the start, and then have to hang out in the backfield long enough to find a receiver.  Johnny hated to run because he knew that it wasn’t the best play for the team---and a run meant that his play had completely broken down.  Brett likes to run, and would have been a good running back.  As with Unitas, you stand in a crowd expecting to see greatness----not just a “good game”, but greatness.  A win by the team is good, but if it comes without some sign of greatness, it has been a disappointment.  But, if you watch games every week, there will be few disappointments with Favre, as there were few with Unitas.  Unitas gave his all on every play; so does Brett.

And,now we have one more year to enjoy him on the field, another year where we don’t have to rely on classic game films to see greatness.

Twice before I have gone to see him play, believing it to be his last year.  This time I will go to see him play, and never even worry about whether it is his last year, because it may not be.  You gotta love football, and greatness.

Patrick Dorinson, Commentator and Publisher of The Cowboy Libertarian:

Patrick Dorinson, Commentator and Publisher of The Cowboy Libertarian:

WHERE ARE THE PROSECUTORS RE PAULSON

     The New York Times reported on Sunday the many conversations that Henry Paulson held with his old firm, Goldman Sachs, during the prime week of the Bush bail-out of AIG---more than any other conversations with any other company.

      Paulson, of course, sold his holdings in Goldman Sachs before becoming Bush’s Treasury Secretary, and committed that he would avoid substantive “interaction” with Goldman Sachs during his entire term of office, unless he first obtained “an ethics waiver” from some legal authority within the  Government.

     The first thing that occurs to me, little naïve guy now from Idaho, is how you waive ethical standards.  An action, a conversation, a relationship is either a violation of ethics or it isn’t.  My old dean, Edward Levi, of the University of Chicago School of Law, was brought into government service by Gerald Ford to restore confidence in and ethics within the Department of Justice following Watergate.  Levi at once issued the “perception” rule, that is, if a situation “can be perceived as being a conflict of interest it is in fact a conflict of interest.”  The Levi ethics standards prevailed until Bush’s Attorney General Rodriguez simply ignored them.  They still are in place, just ignored when it suits the president or attorney general.

     So, how do you “waive” ethics?  Well, upon researching the matter, I learned that an official of the United States Government can request that the general counsel of his or her department issue an opinion that the official need not comply with ethical standards in a particular situation.  The “waiver” then is simply a government lawyer’s permission to violate ethical standards or law.  So, the waiver doesn’t mean that what the official does is legal; it simply means that the lawyer for the department excuses him/her from obeying the law.

    Convenient, isn’t it?  Wouldn’t it be useful to all citizens in the nation if they could simply call their own lawyer, paid for by them, to excuse them for violation of law---and then have the police, prosecutors and judges comply with the permission to violate law?

   Well, Paulson agreed that he would not commit a conflict of interest with Goldman Sachs unless he got permission from the lawyer for his Treasury Department, a lawyer subject to the will of Paulson as to whether to keep his job.

    But, even that commitment was broken.  The Times had to file a Freedom of Information request to obtain Paulson’s calendars for the week during which the huge AIG bail-out was made.  The calendars showed that during the week of the bail-out action ALONE,  Paulson spoke by telephone two dozen times  with Lloyd Blankfein, Chief Executive Officer of Goldman Sachs.  He spoke with him FIVE TIMES with Blankfein on September 17, the day that he got permission to violate the law.  Two of the five times occurred on that day prior to his even requesting permission to violate the law.

   While none of the AIG bailout was paid directly to Goldman Sachs by the Government, AIG used  13 BILLION dollars of the bail-out to pay its debt to Goldman Sachs, and the Treasury Department officials KNEW that this debt would be paid.

    So, during the week that Goldman Sachs was assured of receiving 13 BILLION DOLLARS of tax money, Paulson conferred 22 times with the Goldman Sachs CEO BEFORE GETTING PERMISSION FROM HIS OWN LAWYER TO VIOLATE THE LAW.

   In an attempt to divert criticism from Paulson, Michele Davis, his personal spokesperson said that Paulson’s communications with Goldman Sachs did not involve any intent to save AIG---rather she said, according to the Times, “The waiver [permission to violate the law] was in anticipation of a need to rescue Goldman Sachs, not to bail out AIG”.    Now, how does that defend Paulson?  Of course his efforts were to save his company---at the expense of its competitors Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers who Paulson let go broke.

    As reported months ago in an depth Times review of Paulson, a personal investment of his was covered by the $13 billion paid to Goldman Sachs.  So, out of the whole mess came a personal benefit to Paulson, and the salvation of his company at the expense of its competitors.

   As Goldman Sachs reported record earnings during the prior quarter of this year, economists and ethics scholars throughout the country were not surprised---remove a smart company’s competitors and make good a $13 billion risk it faced, and the company will do very well.  In this case, Goldman Sachs did very well at the expense of the United States taxpayers.

   So, here we have a secretary of treasury who clearly violated the Department of Justice’s ethics standards,  who got permission to violate the law only after violating it, and who is interested?

  Where are the United States attorneys for the District of Columbia and Manhattan?  Where is Larry Fitzgerald who was so very interested in government ethics?  Where is the demand from an angry Dick Cheney who condemns every move that the new administration makes?  Where are the members of Congress who blindly allowed the bail-out of AIG without applying any standards or conditions for use of the funds?

   I know that President Obama has told his administration from Attorney General down that the “way is forward not backward”.  But, Paulson acted criminally, not theoretically, but in actuality.  He violated the law and taxpayers were harmed by the violations.  Where is the justice for the public?  All crime punishment is “backward”; we don’t punish for crimes to be committed, but crimes that have been committed.  So, it makes no sense to me that Paulson and many others involved in the bail out have not been called to task by prosecutors and grand juries for their actions.

    There has been far more furor over the firing of United States Attorneys by Gonzalez, at the behest of Bush’s White House Counsel and Dick Cheney personally, than the substantively more criminal actions of Paulson.  After all, the U.S. Attorneys could have been fired for no reason at all---they serve at the pleasure of the President.  So, there was no crime involved in the dismissals.  I fully believe that the treatment of the U.S. Attorneys involved was deplorable from a justice standpoint.  But, those actions pale into insignificance when compared to the Goldman Sachs ethical violations.

   The only thing that can be holding back even state prosecutors is that to take on Paulson, so many others would have to be taken on, that no one wants to open pandora’s box.  After all, did Paulson do anything that Bush and Cheney did not want done?  Of course not.  So, to open Paulson’s activities to a grand jury would be to place Bush and Cheney squarely within the parameters of grand jury jurisdiction.

   As I point out in my book Justice My Ass, now being edited before going to the publisher, a grand jury has a mind of its own.  When a good prosecutor gets the jurors on a roll, involved in the reality of the investigation, no one is beyond the scope of action.  At one point, as told in the book, a grand jury was ready to present a charge against the police commissioner of Baltimore even though the prosecutors didn’t think there was enough evidence to support a charge.

   So, politically, Obama and others in charge of our government for the next three years have decided to ignore the crimes of the bail-out.

   Even though I don’t personally like it, that’s the story.

   But, my curiosity is piqued by the absence of  comment by the leaders of the Republican party,  Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Pat Buchanan, Ann Coulter and Laura Ingraham.   They continue to denounce Obama for throwing away tax dollars; where is the criticism and call to justice regarding Paulson and Goldman Sachs.  They have now made the a360 degree turn and blame the entire tax swindle known as the “bail out” on Obama.  And, no one takes them to task for it.

   And, I marvel that so many people seem mind-set on pursuing for the next three years the baseless claim that Obama is not qualified to be president because he wasn’t born in the U.S.A.  They are intent on wasting time, energy, and assets on pursuing a mindless course----but they ignore crimes against the people that cost taxpayers greatly.

   The “birthers” as they are now called by the press, pursue a course that Bill and Hilary Clinton did not.  If there was one iota of truthful, actual evidence of lack of qualification by birth, the Clintons and their machine would have made the charge AND PROVED IT.

   The lack of Clinton pursuit of the cause aside, there is NO EVIDENCE of the lack of qualifying birth---but sheer speculation.   And, if the folks were even successful in the trial court level, the issue would not be resolved during the administration of Obama.  Have they just assumed that he will be re-elected, so that their claim can prevent a second term?  Anyone who believes that the courts would resolve the issue in favor of the claimants at all, much less within 3 years, would also be willing to buy the old Brooklyn bridge which I learned a lot about this week.  Did you know that a woman civil engineer was in charge of the building of the bridge.  Her husband took on the job, had a stroke and she took over and finished supervision of the construction of one of the most famous bridges in America---in fact in the world.

   So, where are all these folks, and the liberal columnists, with regard to Paulson.  I suppose for the die-hards who refuse to admit that 15 million more voters preferred Obama than did McCain, they ignore Paulson because to charge him would mean that the entire Republican administration would come down.  And, I suppose for the liberals, they ignore it because their leader said to ignore it, and look “ahead”.

   But, ignoring Paulson’s violations is not in the public interest.  Again, as I suggest in Justice My Ass, there is one element of justice that is constantly ignored, and that is justice for the community, for the public.  All speak of justice for the defendant, some speak of justice for the victim, but no one speaks for justice for the public, justice for the community.

   In this case, justice for the community, for the nation at large, would be so seek judicial action against Paulson and all who contributed to the violations of law that saved one giant financial company at the expense of others.  Only that way would there be any incentive for this administration, and the next and the next to avoid the same violations.

   Perhaps the political interests of the parties in America will not be served by recognizing justice for the people---if the republicans are not held to the law for past actions, perhaps the democrats will not be held to the law during this administration, and so on right on down the line.

   As our founders predicted, the two party system would not be good for America.  It is not.  We need a strong fiscally conservative, politically conservative element in the Congress, led hopefully by a class, charismatic woman.  Surely if England had a Thatcher, the United States has such a leader.

  In the meantime, I again believe that the best course for the public to take in this nation is to insist that its local government officials---county commissioners or supervisors, town mayors and councils, irrigation district and soil conservation district elected officials---take a firm stand in exercising local authority which exists under both federal and state laws.

   The whole movement to encouraging exercise of local authority is detailed on the website of Stewards of the Range  (now merged with American Land Foundation as American Stewards of Liberty), and on www.justicemyass.com.    A return to local government, recognized by our founders as the MOST IMPORTANT  level of government is needed---without it, America cannot be retaken by the citizens.

A MORNING AT ST. PATRICK’S CATHEDRAL

            This morning, I was blessed to be able to pray and participate in the Mass at St. Patrick’s Cathedral, church home to the Irish, in New York City.

           The Cathedral is a magnificent place of worship.  Revered by every day, walk-about catholics,  elected officials, and fans of the Daredevil fight against evil, it is breath-taking upon entry.

           I felt self satisfied with my early arousing, walking along Fifth Avenue with only the homeless, police, possible thieves and a few early exercisers as companions.  The “possible thieves” were two guys walking calmly down the street, each carrying a case of Heinekens on the shoulders.  A police car turned the corner, the officer hit his siren just a “bleep”, the two dropped the beer and ran,  and the officer just moved right on down the street.  So, I think my conclusion was more than just a profiling without evidence.

         I arrived early, at around 6:30, before the cathedral doors were opened.  So, I had time to admire the outside of the Catheral.    The larger than life iron doors, welcome the worshiper with the statue likenesses of St. Patrick and St. Joseph, Mother Frances X. Cabrini, listed as the Mother of Immigrants and Mother Elisabeth Ann Seton, listed as the daughter of New York.  

        Greeted by several people sitting on the steps waiting for the doors to open, I was again reminded of the friendliness of New Yorkers---expressed far more directly than people in my own hometown in Idaho.  These people express and exemplify an openness to daily life far and beyond that displayed in any other part of the country.  I’m sure that recalcitrant, uncivil

people abound in this City, just as elsewhere, but you wouldn’t know it from the people you meet on the “sidewalks of New York.”

        Inside, the enormity of the alter, and of the sanctuary is almost overwhelming.   Probably two hundred people attended this morning’s Mass, and they appeared lost in the pews which can hold thousands.

       The remarkable blessing of this morning’s Mass, for me personally, was the fact that the Pastor himself celebrated this early morning Mass---probably the least attended of the entire series of week-end Masses.  He celebrated this Mass as though it were attended by a full church, as though it were the highest celebration of the year---with a passionate voice and earnestness of prayer.

       His performance reminded me of Karl Nickerson Llewellyn’s admonishment, those many years ago at the University of Chicago School of Law, to do whatever you do “with all your heart, and as though it was the most important event in the world.”   He used as an example, the clerk of court who administers the oath to a witness.   Many of us have witnessed the oath recited in a bored, listless manner---and/or recited in a staccato, memorized fashion that stirs no feeling.  He urged us to perform every act, even ritual, with “fire and determination”.    I can still hear his rumbling voice as he illustrated the oath, emphasizing precisely and emotionally the final clause “SO HELP YOU GOD.”

        The pastor today, charged with the duties of serving and advising an enormous number of New Yorkers and tourists, celebrated this early Mass in a manner that would have done Llewellyn proud.

        His homily struck right at home with the needs which have led me on this odyssey.  He spoke of the vigilant search for the “Fountain of Youth”, beginning with Ponce de Leon, and continuing through today’s mass marketing of skin creams that “erase age”.   Using the example of the movie, “Cocoon”, he called upon us all to look to the Word of God and the examples of the Gospel to find our youth, to find our eternal life.

        The Word emphasized in his second reading was the message of the Angel to Elijah when he tired of the journey in the desert and was ready to give up.  Twice, he gave up, and twice he was awakened from a deep sleep by the Angel who warned that he must eat and get up and walk, or be lost.

         That, I think, is what I needed to hear.  So many times in the nearly two years since my wife died, I have leaned toward a state of near disinterest  in the mundane actions that are necessary to protect the rights of people I am helping.   It is not “disinterest”, but a state of mind of tiredness with which I have approached efforts which always were so important to me previously.

       An overpowering sense of futility struck me a week ago, when it seemed to me that no matter how hard American Stewards of Liberty worked, no matter how hard I worked, no matter how hard dedicated people throughout the nation worked,  the end result was still far from the mark needed to protect our rights.  Futility seemed to rule my thoughts which once soared with the vision of reclaiming our nation one town, one county, one irrigation district at a time.

      I was overcome, it seems, with the negativism that pervades the news.  Polarization, the uncivil attitudes that are expressed by writers from both extremes on the political spectrum have never bothered me----but it has become exasperating to see that lack of civility, that negative attack from those that I would consider to be the “middle”,  and from those that I would have previously considered to be “conservative”.

      The true conservative is just that, “conservative”.  He/she does not rant and rave about where the President of the United States was born, when the facts demonstrate that there is no more truth to the argument that he was born outside the United States than there is that the Fountain of Youth does exist somewhere in the Everglades of Florida.  He/she does not attend public meetings and shout down speakers with whom there is disagreement.  He/she does not attack, with derision, every single concept proposed by those with whom there is disagreement.

       The true conservative, exemplified by Robert Taft, Everett McKinley Dirksen, Barry Goldwater, Ronald Reagan,  and  William Buckley, persuades with facts and reasoning, with sound political analysis.  The quiet, calm of a commentator like Fulton Lewis Jr, conservative to the core, is as far removed from the arm waving, ranting of Rush Limbaugh as Mars is from Mercury.   Conservatives in the past did not exhaust themselves and their fellow citizens with constant streams of negativism. 

       I had become disgusted with the likes of Pat Buchanan opposing the confirmation of Sonia Sotomayor with anger and venom on national television---Buchanan who showed such good judgment in analyzing character and wisdom in pressuring Richard Nixon and the republican powers to select Spiro Agnew, the felon, as the Vice Presidential candidate in 1968.

      All the messages of doom, epitomized by those spread by  Ann Coulter and Laura Ingraham, but more disappointingly by grass roots spokesmen, seemed to me to overpower the message of hope that I believed was contained in the movement toward local government control to protect our rights.

      I don’t mean to be pretentious and liken myself to Elijah, but like him I was ready to sleep, I was very tired of the long trek to the Mountain.  All of a sudden it became clear to me that I had to go AWOL, to leave the details of my work and embark on an odyssey to either renew my energy or change the course of my life’s work for the time remaining.

      The last five days have begun to re-awaken my interests.  Being out of touch with the strident negativism with which conservative “wannabes” attack every living detail of life under a Democrat president and Congress, I again can begin to feel that there is hope for our country, a hope for return to basics and persuasion by fact and reasoning.   It is refreshing to be among people by the thousands who focus on more than just messages of doom and destruction.

      And, this morning, thinking about the dedication with which the Pastor of this great Cathedral pursued presenting his message to a small group of early morning worshippers, I quickened again to the Llewellyn’s admonition to do the job well, no matter how small or mundane the task.

     What a great way to start a Sunday morning.   On the stroll back to the hotel, I thought about how I had drifted in my thinking, in my approach to life’s daily work.   Past me went an exerciser on roller blades, skating right down Fifth Avenue, past me came two men debating the advantages of being a “born again Christian” over being a “life long Christian.  I passed homeless people sleeping on benches, and the two cases of beer still where they had been dropped over an hour before.

     I thought about all the people I encountered, beginning their Sunday mornings either with lively discussion or with the despair of being alone and homeless.  The choice seems clear:  I have to follow the course of the Pastor of St. Patrick’s.  I have to get back to doing the mundane things with vigor and life, in order to let them build to greater things, block by block by block.

    I lit candles for my friends prior to the Mass, and now I look forward to talking with them, to working with them with a new spirit of effort---the St. Patrick’s way.

MADAME JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR---FINALLY THE INEVITABLE IS SO

New York City, August 7, 2009----Tonight, a new t-shirt was unveiled in this greatest of all melting pot cities in the land: “Wise Latina”.  The story is that by Friday thousands of them will be on the streets where I will no doubt have an opportunity to buy one as a remembrance of one of the most futile and foolish political blunders in history.  Puerto Ricans and Latinos of all nationalities are celebrating in New York, and were already celebrating earlier this week when I was in Chicago, the confirmation of the first Justice of the Supreme Court of latin heritage.

    It has been clear from within three weeks after the nomination of Judge Sotomayor that she would be confirmed by the United States Senate, at least to all but 31 stubborn, very short sighted Republican Senators.

   By a vote of 68-31, the judge moved to Madame Justice, confirmed to replace Mr. Justice Souter who has retired.  Nine Republican Senators voted for the confirmation, and in so doing, showed that they would like to see the  party survive.

  As to the 31 who followed the ill-advised negativism of Jeffrey Beauregard Sessions II of Alabama, who had the audacity to charge her with racial or national origin leanings---a man who lost a confirmation because of clear and documented racial comments and actions---they not only betrayed the constitutional obligation of the Senate, they ran the risk of assisting in the suicide of a  party.

   The obligation of the Senate is to consult and confirm if the candidate is qualified to serve on the Court.  The 31 did neither.  They did not “consult” because they did not want to face the facts about the factual qualifications of this nominee.  They did not vote to confirm what may be the most qualified nominee ever to be sent to the Senate.  This “woman” as the imminently unqualified reviewer of judicial competence Pat Buchanan scornfully referred to her in a television fit of angry denunciation nearing, if not reaching, rage, has been a federal prosecutor, a federal trial court judge, and a federal appellate judge.  No other member of this Court has experience as a prosecutor and trial judge. And, experience of that kind has been sorely needed on the Court for decades.

  Any “conservative” among the 31 should have researched her record enough to know that she may be the most conservative of the 9 members of the Court when considering issues of criminal law.  In a decision rendered early this summer, the Court struck a direct and vital blow against all prosecutors in the country.  Five Justices, including Souter, voted that professional laboratory tests cannot be used in a criminal case unless the person conducting the tests is present to testify. 

  That decision will bring to a halt criminal trials in any jurisdiction in which defense attorneys decide to shut down the courts.  There is no way that already limited forensic lab personnel can attend every trial in which a lab result is needed as evidence.  It means that every lab test which simply shows that a substance is in fact heroin, cocaine, or amphetamine will be inadmissible in evidence unless the lab expert is present in court.

 It was a terribly naïve decision, in which the Court served even further notice that it cares not at all about the rights of victims of crimes, and not at all about justice to the community.  While Souter joined this insanity, every case indicator about Sotomayor shows that she would have voted with the four minority Justices.  Thus, the vote would have been 5-4 in favor of law enforcement and criminal justice for the people of the community.   I didn’t notice this even being discussed by the Alabama judicial genius, Sessions.    Of course not, why cloud the issue with FACTS? 

I have to applaud the 9 Republicans who demonstrated they understand their duty with regard to the confirmation process:  Voinovich of Ohio, Snowe and Collins of Maine, Alexander of Tennessee, Bond of Missouri, Graham of South Carolina, Lugar of Indiana, Gregg of New Hampshire, and Martinez of Florida. 

Not only did they recognize that their duty is to look at qualification for the appointment, they also recognized the reality that the Republican candidate lost the election by a margin of 15 million.  With the win, the Democrat got the chance to appoint, and he did not send up an ultra liberal; he sent up a moderate at worst.

The 31 put themselves in line with a completely inaccurate and disingenuous interpretation of the Fire Department “affirmative action”case.  In that case, as one member of a three judge panel, Sotomayor voted to follow precedent, and not become an activist one way or the other.  Now, that is the kind of non-activist judge that the Republicans have claimed they wanted.  But, what became obvious is that they don’t want a real non-activist judge, rather what they want is an activist judge who agrees with them.  Shameful. 

And, what is more shameful is that Sessions and others deliberately misstated the judicial meaning of the decision.  I am not completely sure that Sessions is smart enough to have known or even understood what the case was about, and why the decision was simply following precedent, but others who voted with him did.  The downright deception about the case was paraded by the true leaders of the Republican party right now: Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, Pat Buchanan, Laura Ingraham,  and others of like negativism. 

It really intrigues me that Buchanan stirs so much of a following; this is the man who lobbied hard for the selection of Spiro Agnew to be Nixon’s running mate.  Some judge of character and qualifications!!!

In Chicago on Tuesday, the Sun Times ran an editorial opining that the end of the Republican Party is at hand under the rudderless, writhing  of Senators and Governors swathed in the color of racism and anti-feminism put on the national scene by Sessions and followers in a most disgusting confirmation committee hearing.  It is an opinion I stated here several weeks ago during the hearing.   It is an opinion I hear everywhere I travel now. 

There is no Republican leader, and those of us who are conservatives have grown tired of supporting a party that runs, not shies, away from conservatism.

Meantime, Madame Justice Sotomayor will begin her tenure by participating in the September 9 arguments regarding the ability of a corporation to contribute to the political campaign funds of candidates---the most important First Amendment free speech case to be considered in decades.  It will be interesting to watch.

THE WAR ON  RURAL AMERICA IS FOUGHT WITH MANY WEAPONS---

-----ONE IS TYING UP MORE AND MORE FOREST LANDS TO PREVENT USE OF TIMBER, WATER, FIREWOOD, MINING, LIVESTOCK, AND JUST PLAIN RECREATION IN THE FORESTS THAT WE AS THE PEOPLE OWN.

Joining our Justice My Ass coverage of the War on Rural America is Fred D. Hodgeboom,  President of Montanans for Multiple Use, a fine organization with which I have had the pleasure to work often—Fred Kelly Grant

Fred analyzes  a bill which Senator Tester of Montana has introduced which will shut down forest lands to the great majority of people:

SENATOR TESTER'S WILDERNESS BILL FAILS REALITY CHECK 

Senator Jon Tester's "new style jobs and wilderness Bill" introduced July 17 models the current mode of Congress' handling of legislation:

• Prepare the actual bill provisions in secret with only representatives of selected political supporters at the table.
• Roll the Bill out with great political campaign style fanfare and carefully staged media events.
• Do not publicly discuss the actual mandates in the Bill, only spout selected talking points provided by staff that are often outright falsehoods or at best half-truths.
• Push the Bill through as quickly as possible using political tactics to squash debate so that other members of Congress and the public have little opportunity to learn details of the Bill and opponents have little opportunity to tell their side of the story.

Passing legislation using the current Administration tactics is un-American. Like most political hype reported in the media, what most people hear is mostly smoke and mirrors. From the rhetoric to date, it is likely that Tester, even if he has read his own Bill, doesn't really understand the actual consequences of mandates in the Bill.

The claim that the proposals are a product of open public "collaboration" and "consensus" is just not true.  There was no consensus on the Three Rivers designations on the Kootenai National Forest.  Tester's Bill violates the most important principle requested by stakeholders in the Lincoln County Coalition (which morphed into the "Three Rivers Challenge). The principle is a requirement for multiple use access and timber management with jobs in-place that are just as permanent as the wilderness designations at the time of any new wilderness designations.  Contrary to this request for equality, Section 7 of Tester's Bill even requires termination of the timber harvest targets after 15 years, or earlier if the Bill's timber harvest targets are actually achieved.  Apparently few or none of the Lincoln County Coalition stakeholders were involved in writing Tester's Bill except the Wilderness activists who plan to negotiate another "deal" for more wilderness in the same area after 15 years.

Like the current Three Rivers Challenge, most "collaboration groups" consisted of selected people, and many public land "stakeholders" such as county, State, and Tribal governments, multiple use, mining, motorized recreation and the general public were often excluded from participation.  Tester’s Bill violates the National Forest Management Act and many other Federal Statutes that require coordination with State, local, and Tribal governments.  Many of the "collaboration committee" meetings were not advertised or open to the public.  Most of the "stakeholders" that did participate in the collaboration meetings were certainly not consulted on drafting the provisions in Tester's Bill.

The Bill is not a "jobs" Bill by any stretch of the imagination. Every designation in the Bill permanently prohibits any significant future economic use of the land as mandated in the following provisions:

• The actual "Wilderness" designations permanently prohibit any mechanical equipment for access or development of any kind and doom the area to the "boom and bust" natural cycles of fuel buildup, insect attack and decay, and eventual catastrophic fire to release all the excess carbon buildup, destroy watershed function, wildlife and wildlife habitat, and pollute air and water with smoke and soil loss, as well as threaten private property, public health and safety.
• The permanent "Recreation Area" designations have very restrictive mandates that in effect are "quasi-wilderness":  No new roads, no timber harvests, no mineral entry or leasing, no new developments of any kind, nothing for jobs only a black hole of management and protection costs to taxpayers.  Motorized recreation such a snowmobiling or motorbikes are prohibited on most of the areas.  Some motorized access may be provided on "designated areas or routes" as a result of maps to be prepared.  Some areas are directed to have a "study" to see if and where motorized access will be permitted.  It is clear the Bill will only further reduce already inadequate diverse recreation opportunities for the general public.

In the general forest area outside the area designations, there is no guaranteed timber harvest, only target acres specified that are subject to National Environmental Policy Act compliance (p.26), appeals, and litigation just as all timber sales prepared under existing Forest Plans.  The reality is that the Bill provides no improvement over the existing situation regarding timber harvest to support industry and jobs.

Outside the wilderness and recreation designations, the Bill actually imposes additional onerous constraints over and above the existing Forest Plans.  For example, timber sales must use the "Stewardship Contracting Authority" that returns all timber receipts to the Forest Service to do their pet projects (like obliterating more public roads), the local governments get nothing for support of roads and schools.  Most access to National Forest lands use county roads, and Government employees educate their children in local schools.  In reality the Bill "Stewardship" provisions are "unfunded mandates" that force local governments to pick up the costs like road maintenance, law enforcement, search and rescue, and firefighting resulting from the unmanaged Federal land in the counties subject to the Bill provisions.

• Construction of permanent roads for sustained timber production and protection are prohibited (p.20).  Any road built to accommodate a timber sale or restoration project must be "reclaimed" at expense to the environment and taxpayers.  Removing timber for commercial purposes from public land with no plan or provisions for future timber management, only barriers, amounts to unsustainable "timber mining". There can be no sustainable forestry without access to annually or periodically remove excess biomass and insect and disease infested trees, and no access to quickly suppress fires.  In short, the existing problems of unhealthy forests and high fuel hazard will remain or increase on all the forest except the relatively few acres that may actually get treated. These mandates are totally unnecessary and costly, and the long term effect is to doom the areas to more catastrophic fires. 
• In addition specified maximum road density mandates will mean existing roads built with public timber money for multiple uses will have to be obliterated or "decommissioned" to meet the mandate. The temporary jobs tearing out public roads that could support forest protection and sustained future timber harvest indefinitely is touted as "good paying jobs" when the long term effect means loss of productivity and jobs.   
• Other unnecessary and vague prescriptive language in the Bill are invitations for litigation and abuse.  On p.21, "...ensure that timber harvest activities are limited to stewardship areas."  This invites "stewardship areas" to be gerrymandered to exclude areas that existing Forest Plans designate suitable.

There is a long-standing Congressional Protocol that Congress does not impose wilderness designations on States.  Congress traditionally has approved wilderness designations that are agreed upon by that State's entire elected delegation.  Freshman Senator Tester apparently doesn't agree or care to achieve consensus of Montana's elected delegation.  Tester's Bill should be defeated on that basis alone.

Due to the facts presented above, Senator Tester's "Jobs and Wilderness Bill" is bad for Montana's economy, environment, and citizens' quality of life.

Fred D. Hodgeboom, President

Montanans For Multiple Use

P.O. Box 2509

Kalispell, Montana

406.837-1363

CONSERVATIVES NEED A NEW FEMALE VOICE—--Why Not Tabatha Hale of “Raisin’ Hale”

             July 31, 2009---by Fred Kelly Grant

   Last night, I listened to Tabatha Hale of North Carolina on her show “Raisin’ Hale”, carried on RADIO FOR CONSERVATIVES, http://rfcradio.com.    What a refreshing voice of conservatism, instead of more republican propaganda.

     I have to admit, in order to discuss this, that I have actually tried using FACEBOOK.  I am not proficient in its use, or even in understanding its structure.  But, that’s how I first came across the name of this young Conservative, and started reading some of her posts on http://pinkelephantpundit.com. 

    At any rate, with that confession out of the way, I did see a notice that she would be on air for two hours of conservative talk.  I tuned in as I was re-reading and finishing up the last chapter of my book Justice My Ass which will be at the publisher within a few weeks.

    I enjoyed a fast moving two hours of talk of the conservative philosophy by a young person who is a real conservative.  I have grown tired of the negatism, whining, and harshness of Ann Coulter and Laura Ingraham.   It disgusts me that they pass themselves off as “conservatives” when in fact they are “republican” apologists to the core.  We found neither of them criticizing the Bush-Cheney big spending programs, or the sell out of American sovereignty through the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America.  And, since the election, they have done nothing but whine.

    Now, I don’t know how Hale stands on the Security and Prosperity Partnership, but I imagine she looks askance at the organization which has as its goal the dissolution of sovereign borders between Canada, the United States and Mexico.  As a conservative as true as she sounds, she would share conservative concerns that such dissolution of sovereign boundaries weakens our military, our judiciary, our very national existence.

     One thing I am sure about, though, after listening to last night’s broadcast is that at least when discussing the SPP, she would do so factually and logically----and not from a prepared script approved by the Republican National Committee and Rush Limbaugh.

      I was impressed by the manner in which she discussed the latest George Washington poll as to the popularity ratings of politicians and policies.  When she discussed the Obama numbers, it was from an analytical position, not a whining “gee I wish he hadn’t been elected” position.

      She took on directly the latest John Conyers “foot in mouth” comment made to the National Press Club.  He said he gets amused at members of Congress who stand up and say “read the bill”.  He then asked “what good does it do to read a 1000 page bill if you don’t have 2 days and 2 lawyers to find out what it means after you read the bill?”    She challenged the very core notion that the chairman of the House judiciary committee would even contemplate that Congress should pass a bill without reading it, a bill so long and convoluted as to be indecipherable.

     Her conversation about Megan McCain was refreshing, echoing my concerns about a young heiress believing that she really speaks for the “new” republican party.  She was critical of McCain, not in the negatively cattish, vacuous  way that Coulter and Ingraham that criticized her.  Hale based her criticism on the content of the McCain website and speeches.  McCain and Coulter have publicly clashed, leading Ingraham to join in defense of Coulter by peevishly criticizing McCain because she is overweight.  Now, that’s powerful stuff from a self-proclaimed genius at political analysis.

     Hale’s two hours passed quickly, with her moving from topic to topic instead of getting bogged down in one issue rut.

     Now, my question is, how do we do what we need to do to turn attention nationally from the Coulter-Ingraham-Limbaugh-Buchanan negatism, and from the McCain modernization, to the analytical youthful voice of Hale.  This young lady speaks up directly with the position that she is republican “sort of”, only because right now it is the lesser of two evils.  She is not afraid to proclaim that she is conservative, a libertarian with common sense.

      Her comments about immigration were refreshing, recognizing that there is no need for this magnificent country to separate parents from children in order to establish a sensible immigration policy.  A strong policy is needed to resolve the problem created by a porous border which allows the inflow of so many illegal aliens that they threaten to outnumber legal residents in the southwestern states and southern California within a decade.  But a strong policy need not penalize long established working families by separating parents from children.

     Her comments on every subject discussed put to shame the hostility spouted by the republican apologists who seem dedicated to making the party a white man’s exclusive membership club---not conservative, but exclusionary. 

     When I think of that negativism, the exclusionary nature of what the whiners want as a national party, I come back to the recent idiotic confirmation hearings on the confirmation of Sonya Sotomayor.  Whether one favors her appointment or not, she is qualified for the bench.  In fact, she carries to the job more experience than that of any of the current members of the Court.  She has been a private practice attorney, a federal prosecutor, and a federal trial judge before ever becoming an appellate judge.  There is no other trial lawyer on the Supreme bench. 

    Those of us who served in the trial trenches have always maintained that no person should be nominated to sit in judgment on trial strategies and decisions who does not have experience in the trial court.

     But if one took seriously the blather put forward by Sessions, Graham, Limbaugh, Hannity and Buchanan, that entire history of experience should be ignored as though it did not exist.  Focusing on one line in a speech, they leveled the charge of bigotry on her.  Frankly, I wish she had acknowledged that she indeed mean that any young latina could do a better job than an old man on the bench.  Because, that isn’t far from the truth.  For decades many of us have urged the appointment of more women to the bench, in order to attain better common sense and more analytical thought on the courts. 

     I can still see the angry indignation and scorn on Buchanan’s face when he denounced “that WOMAN” and her decision on the Newark fire department affirmative action case.  Ironically, her decision in that case did in fact follow precedent, and represented the type of anti-activism which Buchanan professes is necessary.  He must want non-activist judges, but non-activists who will become activist when it favors white males.

   But, I divert.  It happens every time I think about how Sessions and crew deliberately misled the public about the Newark decision which a panel of the Circuit Court, not Sotomayor, made.  A decision of the three member panel which, by the way, was approved by the majority of the entire Second Circuit Court of Appeals.

     Bottom line on Sotomayor, and maybe this will be my last blast-off on the subject (but don’t hold your breath), Graham at least had the sense to face reality:  the republicans lost by  the largest majority in decades, the democrats won and with victory goes the spoils, i.e., appointment of judges.

     We’ve come a long way down hill in the confirmation process from the days when Thurgood Marshall was nominated for the Court.  Strom Thurmond of South Carolina (my home state) was opposed, and he asked the question “Who was on the Committee that drafted the 14^th Amendment?”  Marshall responded that he didn’t know, but could find the answer and give it to him later.  Thurmond demanded to know “now”.  Marshall simply said “I don’t know, but I know how to find out.”  End of discussion.

    On the floor of the Senate when Thurmond opposed confirmation, he again pointed out that Marshall couldn’t name the people on the Committee that drafted the 14^th amendment.  That led Senator Kennedy to raise a point of inquiry, and said to Senator Thurmond that he too was interested in the membership, and would appreciate it if Senator Thurmond would advise the Senate of the names of the members.  Thurmond replied that he would be glad to, but would have to furnish the information later.  And, the confirmation vote went on.

    For now, I urge you to listen to Tabatha Hale.  I can’t even yet tell you how often she is on RFC, but I do know that she will be on next Tuesday, August 4.  Check RFC for time, and I will advise you of the time as I learn more about this broadcast and Ms. Hale.

        I end with a comment which I hope does not sink into the trivia featured on the McCain website:  as a native South Carolinian, I found Ms. Hale’s slight Carolina accent refreshing.  A southerner---a true conservative---a young lady with a sound, non-grating voice---an analytical mind.  Why not this as our spokesperson?  Listen and then spread the word.

CONSERVATIVES NEED A NEW FEMALE VOICE—--Why Not Tabatha Hale of “Raisin’ Hale”

             July 31, 2009---by Fred Kelly Grant

   Last night, I listened to Tabatha Hale of North Carolina on her show “Raisin’ Hale”, carried on RADIO FOR CONSERVATIVES, http://rfcradio.com.    What a refreshing voice of conservatism, instead of more republican propaganda.

     I have to admit, in order to discuss this, that I have actually tried using FACEBOOK.  I am not proficient in its use, or even in understanding its structure.  But, that’s how I first came across the name of this young Conservative, and started reading some of her posts on http://pinkelephantpundit.com. 

    At any rate, with that confession out of the way, I did see a notice that she would be on air for two hours of conservative talk.  I tuned in as I was re-reading and finishing up the last chapter of my book Justice My Ass which will be at the publisher within a few weeks.

    I enjoyed a fast moving two hours of talk of the conservative philosophy by a young person who is a real conservative.  I have grown tired of the negatism, whining, and harshness of Ann Coulter and Laura Ingraham.   It disgusts me that they pass themselves off as “conservatives” when in fact they are “republican” apologists to the core.  We found neither of them criticizing the Bush-Cheney big spending programs, or the sell out of American sovereignty through the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America.  And, since the election, they have done nothing but whine.

    Now, I don’t know how Hale stands on the Security and Prosperity Partnership, but I imagine she looks askance at the organization which has as its goal the dissolution of sovereign borders between Canada, the United States and Mexico.  As a conservative as true as she sounds, she would share conservative concerns that such dissolution of sovereign boundaries weakens our military, our judiciary, our very national existence.

     One thing I am sure about, though, after listening to last night’s broadcast is that at least when discussing the SPP, she would do so factually and logically----and not from a prepared script approved by the Republican National Committee and Rush Limbaugh.

      I was impressed by the manner in which she discussed the latest George Washington poll as to the popularity ratings of politicians and policies.  When she discussed the Obama numbers, it was from an analytical position, not a whining “gee I wish he hadn’t been elected” position.

      She took on directly the latest John Conyers “foot in mouth” comment made to the National Press Club.  He said he gets amused at members of Congress who stand up and say “read the bill”.  He then asked “what good does it do to read a 1000 page bill if you don’t have 2 days and 2 lawyers to find out what it means after you read the bill?”    She challenged the very core notion that the chairman of the House judiciary committee would even contemplate that Congress should pass a bill without reading it, a bill so long and convoluted as to be indecipherable.

     Her conversation about Megan McCain was refreshing, echoing my concerns about a young heiress believing that she really speaks for the “new” republican party.  She was critical of McCain, not in the negatively cattish, vacuous  way that Coulter and Ingraham that criticized her.  Hale based her criticism on the content of the McCain website and speeches.  McCain and Coulter have publicly clashed, leading Ingraham to join in defense of Coulter by peevishly criticizing McCain because she is overweight.  Now, that’s powerful stuff from a self-proclaimed genius at political analysis.

     Hale’s two hours passed quickly, with her moving from topic to topic instead of getting bogged down in one issue rut.

     Now, my question is, how do we do what we need to do to turn attention nationally from the Coulter-Ingraham-Limbaugh-Buchanan negatism, and from the McCain modernization, to the analytical youthful voice of Hale.  This young lady speaks up directly with the position that she is republican “sort of”, only because right now it is the lesser of two evils.  She is not afraid to proclaim that she is conservative, a libertarian with common sense.

      Her comments about immigration were refreshing, recognizing that there is no need for this magnificent country to separate parents from children in order to establish a sensible immigration policy.  A strong policy is needed to resolve the problem created by a porous border which allows the inflow of so many illegal aliens that they threaten to outnumber legal residents in the southwestern states and southern California within a decade.  But a strong policy need not penalize long established working families by separating parents from children.

     Her comments on every subject discussed put to shame the hostility spouted by the republican apologists who seem dedicated to making the party a white man’s exclusive membership club---not conservative, but exclusionary. 

     When I think of that negativism, the exclusionary nature of what the whiners want as a national party, I come back to the recent idiotic confirmation hearings on the confirmation of Sonya Sotomayor.  Whether one favors her appointment or not, she is qualified for the bench.  In fact, she carries to the job more experience than that of any of the current members of the Court.  She has been a private practice attorney, a federal prosecutor, and a federal trial judge before ever becoming an appellate judge.  There is no other trial lawyer on the Supreme bench. 

    Those of us who served in the trial trenches have always maintained that no person should be nominated to sit in judgment on trial strategies and decisions who does not have experience in the trial court.

     But if one took seriously the blather put forward by Sessions, Graham, Limbaugh, Hannity and Buchanan, that entire history of experience should be ignored as though it did not exist.  Focusing on one line in a speech, they leveled the charge of bigotry on her.  Frankly, I wish she had acknowledged that she indeed mean that any young latina could do a better job than an old man on the bench.  Because, that isn’t far from the truth.  For decades many of us have urged the appointment of more women to the bench, in order to attain better common sense and more analytical thought on the courts. 

     I can still see the angry indignation and scorn on Buchanan’s face when he denounced “that WOMAN” and her decision on the Newark fire department affirmative action case.  Ironically, her decision in that case did in fact follow precedent, and represented the type of anti-activism which Buchanan professes is necessary.  He must want non-activist judges, but non-activists who will become activist when it favors white males.

   But, I divert.  It happens every time I think about how Sessions and crew deliberately misled the public about the Newark decision which a panel of the Circuit Court, not Sotomayor, made.  A decision of the three member panel which, by the way, was approved by the majority of the entire Second Circuit Court of Appeals.

     Bottom line on Sotomayor, and maybe this will be my last blast-off on the subject (but don’t hold your breath), Graham at least had the sense to face reality:  the republicans lost by  the largest majority in decades, the democrats won and with victory goes the spoils, i.e., appointment of judges.

     We’ve come a long way down hill in the confirmation process from the days when Thurgood Marshall was nominated for the Court.  Strom Thurmond of South Carolina (my home state) was opposed, and he asked the question “Who was on the Committee that drafted the 14^th Amendment?”  Marshall responded that he didn’t know, but could find the answer and give it to him later.  Thurmond demanded to know “now”.  Marshall simply said “I don’t know, but I know how to find out.”  End of discussion.

    On the floor of the Senate when Thurmond opposed confirmation, he again pointed out that Marshall couldn’t name the people on the Committee that drafted the 14^th amendment.  That led Senator Kennedy to raise a point of inquiry, and said to Senator Thurmond that he too was interested in the membership, and would appreciate it if Senator Thurmond would advise the Senate of the names of the members.  Thurmond replied that he would be glad to, but would have to furnish the information later.  And, the confirmation vote went on.

    For now, I urge you to listen to Tabatha Hale.  I can’t even yet tell you how often she is on RFC, but I do know that she will be on next Tuesday, August 4.  Check RFC for time, and I will advise you of the time as I learn more about this broadcast and Ms. Hale.

        I end with a comment which I hope does not sink into the trivia featured on the McCain website:  as a native South Carolinian, I found Ms. Hale’s slight Carolina accent refreshing.  A southerner---a true conservative---a young lady with a sound, non-grating voice---an analytical mind.  Why not this as our spokesperson?  Listen and then spread the word.