Even Windbags Have First Amendment Rights

While working out in the wee hours of the morning today, I heard this interesting story on MSNBC. Some South Florida Democrat with a lack of Constitutional knowledge wants to revoke a radio station's access to vital hurricane information because it airs Rush Limbaugh. The story can be found on The Miami Herald's website, but I could not find it on any of the big 3 cable networks' websites.

Apparently, Broward County (remember that from 2000?) Commissioner Stacy Ritter refused to designate Miami radio station WIOD 610 AM as the region's emergency hurricane information broadcaster solely because Rush Limbaugh is on it. She said,

We want to cancel this contract here because we don't want to have our hurricane information on the station that Rush Limbaugh is broadcast on, and Sean Hannity. (source)

Rush, ever the inappropriate comedian, called Ritter "a babe" after he saw her photo in the Herald. He also commented on their shenanigans, saying:

...[L]iberals in the face of utter disaster will not tune to the station to get information because my show is on it. So who is stupid here? This is politicizing a nonpartisan issue. Hurricane emergency information is nonpartisan. (same source as above)

I can't believe I'm saying this, but I agree with El Rushbo. Any type of emergency information supersedes political ideology, and any attempt to revoke that based on ideology by the government is suppression of free speech. WIOD has a large reach, and therefore can reach a lot of people, so it's the logical choice for emergency information.

I look at it this way: let's say the tables were turned, and a Republican county commissioner decided to decline giving emergency information to a progressive station, even though it had the furthest reach. I would be up in arms at this obvious subversion of the First Amendment. Therefore, I have to support Rush in this battle, similar to how the ACLU supported him during his OxyContin troubles.

I have a couple of gripes, though. First of all, why can't the Broward County commissioners give every station emergency hurricane information? It's called a broadcast for a reason, and limiting the information to one station, regardless of reach, means that it will not reach as many people as it could if it were given to multiple stations. I'm sure that every county, city, or state has similar deals in place, but that's not the way it should be.

Second, in spite of his obvious disagreement with Ritter's statement, he still doesn't like that his show can be pre-empted by these emergency warnings, or even preparedness warnings (which are as important, in my opinion). Reading another Herald story on-air, he said:

"On the air Wednesday, Limbaugh joked that under the deal, the county would have the power to preempt his midday broadcast." They quoted me accurately here. I said, "All these idiots on the Broward County Commission have to do is schedule their press conferences from noon to 3," and by the terms of the deal, if they want to do a three-hour press conference, they can preempt my show that day. In fact, they could do it today. They could schedule a press conference, not emergency information, but preparedness and things you could do. These people are just blooming idiots. (same source as above)

So, Rush despises using politics with emergency information, and then plays politics with emergency information. Do you honestly think that the rest of those commissioners have it out for you bad enough to want to pre-empt only your show to broadcast "preparedness and things you could do" without just cause, just because they're all Democrats?

Dream on. The other commissioners said that they don't listen to you and don't really care about you. They want to ensure that the right information reaches the right people, their constituency, expediently. If it happens to be from 12 to 3, so what? It could be all day for all I care. Alleging that Broward County officials (save Ritter) want to prevent people from listening to you by using this designation to their advantage is baseless.

Rush finished off with this gem:

I'll tell you what's going to happen tomorrow. Tomorrow morning, there will be a press conference or a little statement that will go out, a sunshine emergency declared in Broward County, press conference at noon, drought emergency press conference at one. (Laughing.) How to protect your skin. (same source as above)

There you go again, Rush. Thinking your views are relevant. But then again, you have the right to say them, and I have to defend it. That's what true patriots do — protect speech they don't like too.

By the way, WIOD will likely get to keep their emergency broadcasts.

~Deep Blue

Spell Out IMPEACH in Reno and Tahoe - April 28th

As heard on the Thom Hartmann show today:

Reno:
Spell out the word "Impeach!" on the steps of the Bruce Thompson Federal Building in Reno (the corner of Liberty and Virginia). Saturday, April 28th, 1-3 PM. For more info, contact jpom22@myway.com. I'll try to get down there with a camera and take some photos.


South Lake Tahoe/Carson City:
Spell out "IMPEACH!" on El Dorado Beach, east of Sprouts Café and the hemp store, on Saturday April 28th (time not given). For more info, contact miss.heather@hotmail.com.


I got this information from A28 (link) and its ImpeachSpace (link).

~ Deep Blue

Ruminations on a Villain

I wish that I didn't have to do this, but thanks to the incessant media coverage Seung-Hui Cho is getting, I feel like it is my duty to say something to the media:

STOP FOCUSING ON THE GODDAMN SHOOTER!!

I know it may sound crazy, but we as Americans should not give this guy anymore posthumous airtime. Focus on the victims and their heroic acts and innocence. Don't focus on the guy who would've been in a mental hospital if it weren't for Ronald Reagan's mental health budget cuts.

I have to say this, though...stay with me. I have to admit that he was brilliant, in a very sickening sort of way. This mentally sick individual knew exactly what he was doing and why he was doing it. He planned this "media manifesto" 6 days in advance, typing an 1800 word nonsensical rant, taking endless photos with himself posing with his weaponry, recording rambling video (some of which occurred between shootings). He then sent it to the people who he knew would give him exposure: a national news network.

He wanted to be a star. He wanted to be glorified like the Columbine shooters after he killed himself. And NBC fell for it hook, line, and sinker. It was a brilliant point to make about the celebrity-obsessed, "if it bleeds it leads" media, but it was the complete wrong way to make it. Thirty-three people needn't have died to make your point. No one needn't have died at all. There are better ways to get your message across. Then again, I'm trying to rationalize an irrational person's thoughts.

Some people say NBC "did the right thing" by turning it over to the FBI after they received it. Bollocks. They made copies of the material so that they would have the exclusive, thinking of their profit margins only, then they sent it to the Feds. Someone on Wednesday night on MSNBC (I forget who it is) even said that they had the right to copy all the material because it was their property. I don't deny that they had the "right" to do so, but they shouldn't have done so. It makes me sick. The manifesto should have become an urban legend, vanishing into some FBI bunker in Quantico. Shame on the media for reveling in this killer's exploitation of that very media. He played all of you for fools.

The problem lies in the media's desire to make money off of everything, especially tragedies such as this. There were even Google ads that were sponsored for people searching "Virginia Tech shootings." A screenshot of when I searched is posted below:


I compare the handling of the manifesto to the Rutgers women's basketball/Imus controversy. These victims died heroically, some defending their classmates, and this villain ruins their moment. Just like Imus ruined the moment of the Rutgers women's basketball season. This time, however, we will never hear an apology from the Imus figure. Not that he would've apologized; in his own head, he was justified.

Because of the excessive airtime that this guy has been receiving, numerous copycats are already showing themselves all across this country. There was even one here in Reno, where an Iraqi war veteran and former University of Nevada student said in an e-mail to a relative that "the Korean was a hero" and that he would be "on a mission" in a few days (source). He was fortunately arrested last night, but not before the UNR campus was closed down. I won't even mention his name because that would give saliency to the argument that Cho made when he sent that damn media manifesto to NBC.

I for one am glad that there will be no victims at UNR. Not from that guy, anyway. But I can't help but wonder if the horrors of the Iraq war made the Reno guy think that way, that maybe his mental condition is Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. If that's the case, it would pretty much destroy the idea that this war is a good thing.

Anyway, just some thoughts. No one in their right mind would've done such a thing. I don't think it's a gun thing more than it's a mental health thing, although if Virginia had more stringent gun laws, such as provisions preventing mentally unhealthy people from obtaining guns, this guy would've at least been thwarted on that avenue.

~ Deep Blue

Update (1:12 PM PDT): Speaking of nuts with guns, some breaking news out of the Gun State (or Texas, as you may call it): Gunman Opened Fire at NASA Building, Police Say (CNN), NASA Evacuates Houston Building Amid Alert (MSNBC), Reports: Possible Shooting at Johnson Space Center in Houston (Fox News).

I think it's telling that all these gun crimes happen in places where gun laws are already lax. It really debunks that whole "more guns = less crime" argument. So when a gun crime happens in a place where guns are easy to get, the solution is to make guns easier to get?

Everything you know is wrong, I guess.

Update (4-23 9:46 AM PDT): Minor fix: I transposed "Seung-Hui" and "Cho" so that they are now westernized. I didn't know that Cho was his family (last) name until I read a story about his parents.

Carnage in Blacksburg

CNN: Officials: Gunman Dead After Bloody Campus Rampage
MSNBC: At Least 33 Dead in Rampage on Virginia Campus
Fox News: Virginia Tech Campus Reels from Shooting that Leaves at Least 33 Dead

It was a horrible tragedy. A lone gunman walked into a dormitory and shot some people, then he shot up a bunch more people in a classroom. Thirty-three people were confirmed dead with dozens more injured.

Fox News calls it the "worst mass shooting in U.S. history," then it asks, in big bold letters:

WHY?

The answer came when I turned on right-wing radio. I knew that as soon as the tragedy started unfolding that I'd have the pleasure of hearing all the gun nuts call up their sanctuaries, the right-wing pundits, and say "I gots ta keep mah gun!"

Some of them were just, I dunno, sickening. One person on the Bill Manders show called up and had the audacity to say that this tragedy didn't happen, that it was all a conspiracy by the left-wing anti-gun people to show the danger of guns. I'm sure that the families of the students who perished would love to know that people actually think that it was a conspiracy.

A majority of callers expressed the desire for people to carry their guns on campus. One caller even related this to the story of a country that allowed people to conceal their guns. His paraphrased call:

Let me tell you the story of a country that had so much gun violence that it allowed people to carry concealed weapons. That country was Israel. Before all the bombings started happening, the Palestinians were shooting Israelis with their guns. When the Israelis could carry guns with them at all times, everything got a lot better there.

Now, let me get that straight, people were allowed to carry guns everywhere...before there were bombings by the Palestinians. I'll say it again, people were allowed to carry guns before there were bombings. So, in other words, we should all carry guns around this country so that the wacky gunmen can resort to bombings? It's just like the arms race of the 1950's that brought about nuclear warheads and the constant threat of nuclear anihilation.

Another person pulled the Blame Society card, saying that kids today have those crazy video games where people can just "get up" after getting shot. Apparently kids are stupid, so they would think that they can shoot their friends with real guns just because they could in Halo 2.

Wow. How dumb can you get?

I grew up with FPS games. 007 Goldeneye is still one of my favorite games, but I never for a moment thought that I could take a Walther PPK and shoot someone, who would then respawn (or "get up"), completely okay, in another part of the city. I doubt that kids are that dumb.

Now, it may sound like I have a beef against all guns. Not true. I support hunters rights to carry weapons, but that's because they have tons of permits and protection behind them. What sort of purpose does a handgun serve? Killing a person. You don't take your handgun to shoot deer.

The solution to this problem is not easy. Pandora's Box has already been opened, and it's damn near impossible to cram it back in. As opposed to gun control, I actually subscribe to the Chris Rock "bullet control" theory.

You don't need no gun control. You know what you need? We need some bullet control. Man, we need to control the bullets, that's right. I think all bullets should cost $5,000. $5,000 for a bullet. You know why? 'Cause if a bullet costs $5000 there'd be no more innocent bystanders. That'd be it. Every time someone gets shot, people will be like... "Sh*t, they put $50,000 worth of bullets in his ass." People would think before they killed somebody, if a bullet cost $5,000. "Man, I would blow your f*cking head off, if l could afford it." ... "You better hope I can't get no bullets on layaway."

Makes sense to me.

~ Deep Blue

One Racist Shock-Jock to Go...

(For those of you born after 1986, the title is based on the title of one of Imus' comedy albums from the 1970's, One Sacred Chicken to Go)

Today would've been the last day that Don Imus would've been on the air before his 2 week suspension. Of course this is before he got fired from CBS radio on Thursday, so his wife Dierdre filled in for him on his radio telethon. Imus was fired just before he met with the Rutgers basketball team. He still kept the appointment, which I feel shows genuine concern and remorse for his actions.

Now this does not mean that his comment should be excused. I for one blame him for not having enough self-control and awareness that this is, in fact, the 21st century, and people tend to be a bit touchy when you call them "nappy-headed hos." His shock-jock schtick got old in the 1970's.

That being said, you know how some people when they're not paying attention repeat the last thing that was heard, then hurriedly continue with another train of thought? I think that's what Imus did. It was his executive producer, Bernard McGuirk, that said that the team was full of "hardcore hos," which initiated Imus' comments. McGuirk further commented that they were "jiggaboos and wannabes," referencing a Spike Lee film. These comments were very racially charged, as McGuirk has had other run-ins with racist comments in the past. Therefore, McGuirk deserves some of the blame.

Then there's MSNBC and CBS Radio. They knew what they were getting into when they signed up to broadcast and simulcast Imus in the 1990's. He's a shock-jock, for Christ's sake. It would be as if ABC Family signed up to simulcast Howard Stern and then became shocked — shocked! — when he talked about sex acts. They knew his style, which is why they wanted him, but they couldn't take the heat when their (fading) star said something offensive. They both deserve some of the blame.

The advertisers should have known too. Once again, he's a shock-jock. What part of "shock" don't they understand? If you don't want the shock, don't advertise the jock. Period.

The problem that Imus' firing brings about, however appropriate it may be, is the free-speech chilling effect that it could have. While it may result in more heads rolling (Rush Limbaugh for mocking Michael J. Fox's Parkinson's Disease, Michael Savage for his endless tirades against gays and lesbians, Glenn Beck for his Muslimophobia, etc.), it could reach into other arenas. For example, the Stephanie Miller Show, a liberal political talk/entertainment/comedy show on KJFK, bills itself as "too liberal for conservatives, too politically incorrect for liberals," which is kind of like this blog sometimes. One of their features is Stand-Up News, where "voice-deity" Jim Ward imitates public figures based on news stories. What if Jim Ward's imitation of Kim Jong-Il rubs Koreans the wrong way? Stephanie Miller's name is on the show, so she'll get canned, which cans her other two mooks.

In other words, the Don Imus comment situation could be the Nipplegate of talk radio.

I am a big advocate of positive race relations, but I am also a big advocate of free speech. I can disagree with the KKK and their vile hate speech, but I have to support their right to say it. I have to, so that I can have the same freedom of speech to call KKK members names such as bigots and white-hooded hicks.

Uh oh, I called klansmen "white-hooded hicks." I guess I gotta go meet them now and apologize.

~ Deep Blue

Update (3:22 PM PDT): Oh man, Bill Manders is playing into the talking point that Imus is a liberal Democrat. No liberal Democrat would support McCain, Manders, and he said that he is the only Republican in Manhattan. He may be a RINO, but then again, a RINO may not vote for McCain either. Manders is once again living in Right-Wing Fantasy World where everyone in talk radio is liberal and he is the great crusader.

I also like his comments about blogs, saying that other bloggers are calling for his head and that there are 3 blog readers and 50 blogs in Northern Nevada. Well, apparently he's one of those readers, because he wouldn't know about what us bloggers are doing if he weren't.

I am not calling for his head at this point in time because his rhetoric and talking points are tired and flaccid. They've already been talked about on Rush and Hannity before him, so he sounds like an angry grandfather telling "those damn kids" to get off his lawn and support the war. And yet I'm drawn to him, drawn to commenting about his every move. I guess I'm his watchdog. Well, one of them anyway. And even if no one reads my blog, I'll still do it. Every talk show needs to be held accountable for those kinds of things, even the almighty Bill Manders.

Deep Blue on Thom Hartmann

Just wanted to let you all know that I got on the Thom Hartmann program today, towards the tail-end of the second hour of his show, to talk about the Manders incident. He thought that it was great, saying "Good on ya, Deep Blue!" after I quickly recapped my experience to him. Unfortunately, I wasn't able to mention that I stopped him short of his expected path: Bashing Al Gore (probably also jabbing him about global warning) and illegal immigration in conjunction with Democratic policies. Nor was I able to mention that I wrote about it in my blog.

It was great talking with him, and I hope that I get on again in the future for another reason.

Maybe I should start pestering Manders and Michael Lafferty of the RN&R and any other right-winger who peddles in lies.

~ Deep Blue

Friday News Roundup

Here are the stories that got buried yesterday and that are being talked about today:

• Bush Campaigner's Conviction in New Hampshire Phone Jamming Case Overturned
  
  Yesterday, the US Court of Appeals First Circuit overturned the conviction of James Tobin, the Bush campaign chair for New England druing the 2004 election. He was convicted of jamming Democratic voting drive phone lines during the 2002 New Hampshire Senate election. Tobin, sentenced to 10 months imprisonment, 2 years probation, and a $10,000 fine, claimed throughout the trial that he had no clue about 800 hang-up phone calls placed to the get-out-the-Democratic-vote numbers. According to the first circuit, no intent to harass was alleged, proved, or disputed by the parties.
  
  Now I know why Laura Ingraham didn't get caught when she advocated people from her show jamming "1-800-DUMB-VOTE."
  
  That being said, others involved, including Allen Raymond, the former president of Republic consulting group GOP Marketplace, and Chuck McGee, the former executive director of the New Hampshire Republican Party, were convicted to the scheme. McGee actually admitted that he "paid a Virginia telemarketing company more than $15,000 in a scheme to jam Democratic Party phone lines with computer-generated calls."
  
  
• George P. Bush Signs Up for Naval Reserve
  
  President Bush's nephew has decided to join the Naval Reserve as an intelligence officer, being commissioned for an eight-year service. He said he was moved into joining the service when he attended the commissioning of the USS George H.W. Bush. "My grandfather's my hero, and what really sold me on the ultimate decision was having the chance to see the CVN-77 be commissioned under his name," he said. "That was pretty moving, and I had a chance to meet some Navy admirals, as well. I had a chance to talk to them briefly about the opportunity, and I was won over." At the bottom of the article, Bush said that he wouldn't talk about his own political plans, but "friends say they believe the family may soon be in store for another gubernatorial campaign."
  
  This is just what this country needs right now: Yet another offspring of the Bush dynasty in politics. Gag me.
  
  On a side note, it's the first time "Bush" and "intelligence" has been in the same sentence since H.W. was in the CIA. And I'm still holding out for the twins joining the Army infantry.
  
  
• UK Soldiers Captured at Gunpoint by Iranians
  
  Fifteen British Navy sailors have been captured close to the Iraq-Iran border aboard the HMS Cornwall. The sailors, on routine patrol, are so far unharmed, and that the 15 people were "understood to be safe and had reacted in an 'extremely professional way, in line with the rules of engagement.' "
  
  The reason for the Iranians capturing the sailors could be due to the dispute between Iraq and Iran over the waterway the ship was patrolling. This waterway, according to CBS Radio News, was in dispute between Iran and Iraq ever since Iraq was created. The British fleet claims that they were in Iraqi waters, the Iranians claim they were in Iranian waters, and everybody hopes it was just a mistake over territorial waters claim.
  
  I for one hope that the soldiers are okay and that they are returned safe and expediently. I also hope that this is not the major Tonkin-esque event that draws the Coalition of the Willing into open conflict with Tehran. Iran is a damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don't situation: The Iranians themselves want freedom, and we should give it to them, but China and Russia have oil interests in Iran and will defend their investment disproportionate to the attack from the West. My worry: We send a few missiles into Iranian airspace and the Eastern Seaboard gets nuked by Beijing and Moscow, putting the Sino-Soviet split to bed and starting World War III. That conflict will be worse than any conflict the right-wingers have seen (mostly because they all got deferments from Vietnam).
  
  Here's an overview of the area, courtesy BBC:
  

I'm waiting for comments from the GOPeanut Gallery on the Iran story. Should be interesting.

~ Deep Blue

Zippy's Column

Gonzogate Update - March 22:

Tony "Zippy Longstocking" Snow is still defending President Bush's right to executive privilege in press conferences. This is in stark contrast to his opinion of President Clinton's right to executive privilege in a March 29, 1998 Detroit News column, as reprinted by the Chicago Tribune on March 21, 2007 (link). I've decided to take out all references to Clinton, exchange them for Bush references whenever possible (bolded), and reprint the article below. Enjoy:

From Day One, the chief challenge facing this White House has been to place maximum distance between George W. Bush and his behavior. That strategy has succeeded, but only with the help of mighty assaults on our common sense.

In order to exonerate the chief, aides have made fantastic claims: that they lied to their personal diaries, that Velcro-brained lawyers couldn't recall crucial incidents, that e-mails vanished or moved from one place to another as if by magic, that scores of people with nothing to gain from lying nevertheless perjured themselves, and that this contagion of amnesia, sloppiness and venality was just the gosh darnedest series of coincidences ever witnessed by man or beast.

The wall of separation between Mr. Bush and his deeds remains strong because minions have stuck to their alibis. But now comes an episode in which the Man from War stands alone. It is his recent attempt to claim executive privilege for Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove and former White House counsel Harriet Miers.

Mr. Bush can't blame his lawyers for this latest feint. He alone can assert the privilege. The maneuver places him at the heart of his administration's ongoing effort to use executive privilege as a way of concealing the truth about whether the president exposed himself. It is almost impossible to think of this as anything but a tactic to delay Congress long enough for Alberto Gonzales and other red-ant assailants to nibble at Congress and pump as much venom as possible into the political system.

Consider the key issues:

• Are former White House counsels subject to privilege?

*snip of Hillary Clinton material that doesn't sync up*

• What kinds of conversations does executive privilege protect?

The courts have said a president generally can shield communications that reveal fundamental deliberative processes. That includes communications between aides as they try to develop recommendations for their boss.

But protected conversations involve predictable categories: military, diplomatic or national security secrets or law-enforcement activities. Jurists haven't found a constitutional writ for protecting damage-control meetings involving allegations of using politics to fire attorneys. So unless Alberto Gonzales were ... advising the president on nuclear proliferation or the tobacco deal, the assertion of privilege seems highly suspect.

• What are the limits on privilege?

Earlier in the Clinton administration, then-White House legal counsel Lloyd Cutler decreed that the White House never would assert privilege in the face of a criminal investigation. He merely was reiterating long-standing executive-branch policy along those lines. President Ronald Reagan didn't invoke privilege in Iran-contra, and neither did President George Bush.

But precedent is gone, and Mr. Bush wants to protect conversations about subverting checks and balances. In so doing, he becomes the second president since Richard Nixon to use executive privilege in a criminal inquiry. (Deep Blue note on the "second": fair is fair)

Evidently, Mr. Bush wants to shield virtually any communications that take place within the White House compound on the theory that all such talk contributes in some way, shape or form to the continuing success and harmony of an administration. Taken to its logical extreme, that position would make it impossible for citizens to hold a chief executive accountable for anything. He would have a constitutional right to cover up.

Chances are that the courts will hurl such a claim out, but it will take time.

One gets the impression that Team Bush values its survival more than most people want justice and thus will delay without qualm. But as the clock ticks, the public's faith in Mr. Bush will ebb away for a simple reason: Most of us want no part of a president who is cynical enough to use the majesty of his office to evade the one thing he is sworn to uphold the rule of law.

Hypocrisy's a bitch, ain't it Zippy?

Aside from parts excluded about Hillary (which I almost could turn into a Harriet Miers comment if it weren't for the Kennedy Law), it translates perfectly.

Also of note is the comparison between Gonzogate and the -gate that started it all. In the 3,000 pages of e-mails released by the DOJ a couple of days ago, a 16-day gap was found, the loudest silence since the 18½ minute gap on the Nixon tapes. President Bush doesn't use e-mail (source), Alberto Gonzales doesn't use e-mail (source), and Harriet Miers has alleged that she doesn't use much e-mail (heard on Thom Hartmann show, 3-22-2007 9:17 AM PDT), so how do you think they communicated and why do you think the gap exists?

~ Deep Blue

Zippy Ruins a Bush Talking Point

Ellen Ratner of the Talk Radio News Service called the Thom Hartmann show on Air America Radio at 11:35 AM PDT today to give an update on the Ed Henry/Tony "Zippy Longstocking" Snow debacle. For back-story, what I didn't include yesterday in my Gonzogate post (because the news was coming so fast and furious) was that President Bush turned cowboy, making all sorts of veiled threats when the Democrats started threating subpoena power for his officials. The Democrats, spines intact, voted to allow subpoenas to be presented to White House officials today. Let's hope they don't wuss out.

Anyway, Zippy gave a press conference today saying that the decision to fire the attorneys wasn't made by President Bush or anyone in the White House but someone underneath him in the Executive Branch hierarchy. At this point, Henry asked "If the decision wasn't made by a White House official, why is the president using executive privilege to prevent White House officials from testifying under oath on these matters?"

Zippy's response was classic: "That's an intriguing question."

That's it. Four words long. And he never came back to it, according to Ellen Ratner.

This proves one of three things:

a. They're lying about not authorizing the attorney firings and they don't want to be found out.
b. They're telling the truth about not authorizing the attorney firings but don't want to reveal that they exerted influence on certain people.
c. They didn't have anything to do with Gonzogate but don't want this to set a precedent for subpoenas on, say, election fraud in 2000 or 2004, or misleading the country into Iraq, etc. ad infinitum.

It's not that they fear Gonzogate will be a media circus, it's that they fear their cronyism will be uncovered. Zippy showed that when he destroyed Bush's talking point on not allowing officials to testify under oath. The whole Executive Branch makes me sick.

I'm just glad the media is waking up from their post-9/11 slumber.

~ Deep Blue

Gonzogate Update

For those of you just tuning in, Alberto Gonzales just got bitch-slapped by the Senate. In a 94-2 vote, the Senate passed a bill that put the kibosh on a section of the Patriot Act, authored by the Justice Department, that allowed the embattled attorney general to fill vacant federal prosecutor seats without Senate confirmation and oversight (source). His resignation seems imminent (source).

Naturally, whenever any senior official is embroiled in scandal, President Bush gives out his "Heckuva Job" Award to that official before accepting (or forcing?) his resignation. This month, Gonzo joins Rummy and Brownie as the newest recipient (MSNBC source above).

The Justice Department, meanwhile, also released 3,000 pages of e-mails to congressional investigators, who will now sift through this material to determine wrongdoing on behalf of J.D. officials (MSNBC source above). I think it won't be long until they find something. Hell, they've already found a bunch of e-mails stating the original goal of firing all 93 prosecutors in one go, eventually reducing that number to 20% of prosecutors deemed to be "underperforming," keeping only the ones who were "loyal Bushies" (source).

The right-wing regressives are all up in arms over the Democrats' determination to bring this to light, whining on various sites (such as Free Republic) about all of the injustices that Democratic presidents did to the prosecutors when they were in office. For example, on one article called "Selective Amnesia on firing US Attorneys" (link), one Freeper pulls a reductio ad Clintonum, saying that Slick Willy fired them all (at the beginning of his term) and the mainstream media isn't mentioning it at all.

The problem with this logic is that while yes, Clinton did fire them all at the beginning of his term, so did Bush. This is the executive privilege that all presidents have. I and my liberal counterparts do not care that Bush and Clinton (and probably Bush Sr. and Reagan and Carter and…) fired the attorneys at the beginning of their terms. I don't even care that Bush did it 6 years in. That's not what matters.

What matters is why Bush fired only eight attorneys who had stellar performance reviews for investigating Republicans (such as with Duke Cunningham in California) and not investigating Democrats, according to congressional Democrats (source). What also matters is why Bush snuck in a provision in the PATRIOT Act saying that he can appoint any attorney without Senate confirmation. Bush hasn't seen a check-and-balance loophole he didn't like (why do you think he's using those signing statements all the time?), so naturally, he'd jump on the bandwagon on this one too.

I also like how rejected potential Supreme Court justice Harriet Miers was thrown under the bus again by the Bush administration, saying that she was the one who had initiated the program in 2005. Our old buddy Karl Rove also was accused of having a hand in this, because he does have a hand in lots of other scandals in Red Washington (source).

I really hope that when the Gonzales hits the fan for the Republicans that the Democrats grow a spine and do what we as a nation elected them to do: clean up our capitol. Right-wing corruption and cronyism appears systemic in the Executive branch, but apparently those held in GOP hypnosis in the Legislature are starting to wake up. The 94-2 majority to revoke the PATRIOT Act provision demonstrates that this is not a political issue but an ethics/morals issue.

The vote on the bill, S. 214, can be found here. Here are 2 that voted no and the 4 that didn't vote:

• Joe Biden (D-DE) - Did Not Vote


• Kit Bond (R-MO) - No


• Chuck Hagel (R-NE) - No


• Tim Johnson (D-SD) - Did Not Vote recovering from brain surgery


• John McCain (R-AZ) - Did Not Vote


• Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) - Did Not Vote

I'd like to know why Biden, Bond, Hagel, McCain, and Mikulski voted (or didn't vote) the way they did, especially McCain.

~ Deep Blue

Breaking News (12:00 pm PDT): Rove and Miers will be interviewed by committees probing the attorney firings, but not testify under oath., says Rep. Chris Cannon by way of CNN (source). Additionally, it will be behind closed doors with no transcripts, and "[a] representative of the Office of the Counsel to the President would attend these interviews and personal counsel to the invited officials may be present at their election" (source)

So they will once again sidestep the blame. Great, the same old song and dance. Why am I not surprised?

This cartoon from CNN's Bill Mitchell says it all:

Update (2:45 pm PDT): Patrick Leahy (D-VT) rejects the offer for interviews, stating that Rove needs to answer questions under oath and on the record, according to CNN's home page and MSNBC. I guess the Democrats are growing spines after all. Good on ya!

Is Tony Snow Dr. Evil?

Off-camera before a press conference today, Tony Snow lambasted the Democrats for supporting a so-called "Recipe for Defeat" for Iraq in the House today. Undaunted, CNN's Ed Henry decided to ask what the White House's corresponding "Recipe for Success" was. Snow, snotty and indignant, proceeded to ask Henry what his recipe for success was. Henry objected to the question, as it is not up to a reporter to define governmental policy, and repeated the question, where at that time Snow told Henry to "zip it" (source with video clip). Apparently, Snow revealed his true age to be five.

Snow eventually apologized and laid out the plan, which consisted of turning things over to the Iraqis at some point (without elaboration) but admitting "[y]ou don't know how things will play out" (same source).

Henry stated that it's the same thing that's been said for four years and one day now. I really wish that I had podcasting set up because at this point I'd play Sinatra's "Same Old Song and Dance" à la Bill Manders whenever he talks smack about the Democrats as of late. Put it on the to-do list, I suppose.

Which brings me to the question of the day: Is Tony Snow really Dr. Evil? I think I'm gonna start calling him "Zippy Longstocking" from now on. That's a great nickname.

~ Deep Blue

RN&R - Catering to Californians?

So I was out and about today, and I decided to pick up the latest issue of the Reno News & Review. It had a cover story that listed all soldiers who have died so far in the War in Iraq. It is very striking to me that over 3,000 have died fighting in a country where not one of the 9/11 hijackers was from.

However, today is not the day where I give an anti-war rant. The cover is the focus of this blog entry. It has a darkened American flag overlaid by a partial list of the names inside and a pair of unworn Army boots. A small image of the cover is provided at the left, courtesy of the Reno News & Review website.

What caught my eye is that on the partial list, only the names of Californians are bolded. This would not be such a big deal normally, considering that California is only 10 miles away as the crow flies. However, not a single Nevada soldier was highlighted. Take a look at this scan from the front page below; Sgt. Evan Asa Ashcraft of California has his name bolded, but Capt. Joshua Todd Byers of Nevada is not.

I investigated a little bit on the RN&R website and found that the Sacramento News & Review and the Chico News & Review both have the same cover. So the RN&R has been the victim of a recycled cover, as if somebody did not want to do the extra work of making a separate cover that included Nevada's dead soldiers...only California's.

Now, I'm not saying that Nevada's fallen soldiers are more important than California's or vice versa...every one is important. However, for a Nevada audience, Nevada's soldiers should get the respect on the front cover that they deserve. It's as simple as that.

I should note that on the inside, this mistake was not duplicated. I hope in the future that the News & Review team honors our state's fallen soldiers by highlighting their names on the cover as a testament to how the war affects all of us.

~ Deep Blue

Edit: I guess this might take me out of the running for RN&R's "Best Local Blogger" award.

Inaugural Post

Welcome to the inaugural post of Silver State Blues, your one-stop shop for Northern Nevada politics from a liberal point of view. I've only lived in the fine city of Reno for the past 9 months or so, and I love it here. However, I've been following national politics for the better part of a decade, and I feel that there is not enough of the progressive voice in a town that I feel has a very strong, yet underrepresented, liberal undercurrent.

For example, compare the amount of time dedicated to local political talk on two radio stations: KOH 780 AM, and KJFK 1230 AM. KOH is a 50,000 watt right-wing station (source) with a local talk show hosted by Bill Manders that lasts from 3 to 6 pm daily. Being a high-profile station, they have major media presence in the area, from contests and on-location broadcasts to connections to local TV stations and online radio streaming. KJFK, on the other hand, is an 820 watt small-time station (source) carrying the Air America family of programming (along with Jones Radio Network staples Stephanie Miller and Ed Schultz) with a local talk show that lasts only from 3 to 4pm, 2 hours less than Manders' rant-fest. In addition, KJFK's website has been under construction for almost two years, meaning that there is no chance for people outside of the tiny broadcast radius to listen to this station on-line.

But despite what Bill Manders may say about "Airhead America," KJFK happens to be doing quite well considering its small size. It has a 2.1 share in the ratings for this past fall, and though it is down from the 2.3 share in Spring 2006, it is an overall increase from a year ago. This makes it second among all Reno talk stations behind KOH's 11.7 share, a 557% difference (source). For those of you not in the radio business, a share represents the percentage of radios tuned to that station in a market. On the aforementioned "source" site, Reno's 12+ population is 384,900. So, assuming that the share is proportional to the population, KOH has 45,033 listeners and KJFK has 8,083 listeners, once again, a 557% difference. But KJFK has a higher listener-to-wattage ratio; KJFK has 9.86 listeners per watt, while KOH has 0.9 listeners per watt. This means, that for the wattage that they have, KJFK is better utilizing its signal, and if it were the size of KOH, it would have 10 times as many listeners.

Clearly the right-wingers would dismiss this as fuzzy math and not proving anything. But this shows that if KJFK had the market presence and wattage that KOH has, it would be the dominant radio station in town. But the station (rather, Americom Broadcasting, its parent company) isn't doing anything to promote the station. As I have mentioned, they don't have a website, they don't have streaming audio, and they have only an hour-long local political show. There are also no events promoting the station, or promotional materials, for that matter. I called up Reno Radio Representatives (Americom's Reno presence) asking for a bumper sticker to put on my car, and to my surprise, they don't make them! They also had no plans to create a website. I should've offered to build it for them. It shows that RRR has no plans to vault the station higher than it is now, despite clearly having the audience and the potential for growth.

That's where I come in.

I want to increase the liberal media presence because the actual liberal media won't do it. They won't add wattage, they won't promote the station, they just won't do anything. It is my goal, nay, my mission, to educate people and give them the facts on local and national issues that affect all of us.

I have enabled commenting for anyone on this site; you don't even have to be a Blogger member. You also don't have to be a liberal. At this point in time, your comments will go largely unfiltered, unless you make things like hate speech, reveal personal information that is not your own, or make threats of violence against myself or any American political leaders. So that means that you conservatives have a chance to respond to my ramblings. And to show I'm not a faceless machine, my e-mail address is silverstateblues@gmail.com. The same rules for commenting apply.

Also, if you've stumbled upon this blog and agree with the views, please tell your friends about it. Reader comments make me happy.

Finally, I am offering an open invitation for Northern Nevada bloggers that have a better grasp on local politics than I do to post on this blog as a contributor. If you're a liberal and feel that you have what it takes to join Team Reno, send me one of your lefty rants to the e-mail above. Amateurs and fellow bloggers only at this point in time; I like fresh faces and want to get people in on the action.

So that's it for my really long inaugural post. More will be coming soon, and remember, dissent is the highest form of patriotism.

~ Deep Blue

Edit: I added sources on the wattage information for each station. Also, compare the coverage maps for KOH and KJFK. KOH's coverage envelops the central California valley, while KJFK's local coverage area stops short of Carson.