Way too much Orange in GOP Fruitcake

First Richard Nixon, born in a citrus orchard (lemon?), who resigned his presidency to protect his pension. Now, we have Marilyn Davenport, self-proclaimed Christian humorist sharing her private chuckles with her like-minded friends, copy also (by mistake) to the President of the United States? She has "humbly apologized" for her abysmal behavior, but not for her bigoted mind. Nor will she resign from the Orange County GOP Central Committee of which she is a part. Elected part. California law says she can't be fired (from a duly elected position), so the onus is on her to resign.  Is it citrus pollen, or, something in the water out there? Arizona, California, Texas, Florida, hmmm?

Don't bother trying to get to the "contact us" page on the Orange County GOP server, it hasn't been able to handle the traffic. Or, maybe it's a deliberate move to:

My little digital dictionary lists, among others, the following synonyms for "humble":  lowly, working-class, lower-class, poor, undistinguished, mean, modest, ignoble, low-born, plebeian, underprivileged; common, ordinary, simple, inferior, unremarkable, insignificant, inconsequential.

All of the above seem somehow inadequate; too quick to apologize, too slow to think.  Where does the party find them?

Cross-posted to the Renaissance Post

Mother of All Ironies?

In the year 2011, one hundred years after the birth of Ronald Reagan, the American electorate is torn between honoring the "Great Communicator" and finally recognizing the shambles he made of the infrastructure of sentient governance in America. Almost lost in the string of pearls today recounting civil war in Libya, broken nuclear reactors, and the death of Elizabeth Taylor, was this little gem from Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood:

"It is not acceptable to have just one controller in the tower [at Reagan National Airport] managing air traffic in this critical air space".

This, in response to the unassisted landing of two commercial aircraft at D.C.'s Reagan National Airport. Hello! Is anyone home? Apparently not. Or, maybe they were just sound sleepers. They? Who are we kidding?  A solo air traffic controller sleeping through his watch just a few miles from the Pentagon, White House and National Capitol?  If you can control the airspace around the nation's capitol with a single person in the tower, why do we need two pilots in the cockpit of a single aircraft? Are we really safer without an Air Traffic Controllers' union? Who would have done away with such a union? And, why? Ideology, demagoguery, or, all of the above? Certainly not reason.

It is long past time to begin to answer these questions. Can we continue to believe in the free lunch fantasy in which good things happen even though we are unwilling to pay for them?  Go figure!  Really, GO!

Cross-posted to The Renaissance Post

A Horse named Walker

One important difference between a tyranny and a democracy is that dictatorial leadership is not constrained by the principle of a quorum, defined as "the minimum number of members of an assembly that must be present at any of its meetings to make the proceedings of that meeting valid". Robert's Rules of Order, the quintessential authority on parliamentary procedure, notes that the "requirement for a quorum is protection against totally unrepresentative action in the name of the body by an unduly small number of persons".

The practice of preventing attainment of a quorum, is, like filibusters and re-reading of the Constitution, a long-standing ploy to defer substantive action of a deliberative body either because there is no alternative to a dire outcome, or to protect a minority view from being desecrated by majority action. Both of our major political parties have used these and complementary procedures to effect their purposes. The conservative media have been too quick to cast the quorum rule in the light of a trick that defeats "the will of the people" in the current case of Wisconsin.

In fact, the will of the electorate is to have deliberative legislatures examining issues important to our governance. It is a perversion of any democracy to say that elections resulting in a majority of one party over the other means that minority party members should pick up their marbles and go home. Elections almost always result in a single party being in the majority. What they do with that majority, and especially, how they protect minority rights, is a measure of their mettle. Do we really want to return to the days of party bosses, where the Whip dictated the character of the vote, rather than merely calling for one? The legitimacy of a particular bill's passage is inversely proportional to the degree of "adherence to strict party lines" among its supporters.

And so, we find ourselves in the embarrassing position of having a state Governor unabashedly refusing to debate the merits of a potentially union-busting bill in Wisconsin. How dare he refuse to hear the arguments of dissention? How dare he lie about the available remedies for a budget shortfall? How dare he insert himself into limiting legislative debate? Where abides the "separation of powers" doctrine in Wisconsin? How dare he lock the doors of the state house?

I am reminded of a horse named Walker. A perfect horse to break-in a would-be ploughman. In harrowing the garden, Walker usually did what I suggested. But when it became clear that my guidance would lead us through the lilacs, he quietly came to a stop and awaited further instruction. He even looked back to verify that the reins were telling him what I really wanted him to do.

WALKER, Percheron X Standard Bred (with just a touch of Arab)

How is Walker to be remembered? Stubborn and unerring in plowing his way through the lilacs? Or, strong, unflappable, patient, willing to accept guidance but not blindly so, and willing to pull his share until the work is done. The more harrowing view is that of the south end of a northbound horse.



Cross-posted to The Renaissance Post

Fox Guarding the Hen House

Only the Governor's veto can now stand in the way of the Minnesota legislature's most recent ineptitude, if not malfeasance. 

Crossing the Governor's desk next week is the spectre of emasculation of Minnesota's environmental protection act, Senate File 42, and House File 1  This ill-conceived legislation would put the fox in charge of the hen house in an illusory attempt to decrease the time between applying for a permit to site an industrial plant and granting the permit. Playing upon the urban legend of "guv'mint inefficiency" the revision to Minnesota environmental statutes would be reworded:

Article 1, section 7, allows a project proposer to prepare a draft environment impact statement for a project for submission to and review, modification, and determination of completeness and adequacy by the responsible government unit. 

Current law requires the local "responsible unit of government" to undertake the environmental review specifically to avoid real or perceived bias in the content of the review. But, we're not done yet! The new bill goes even further by violating basic principles of judicial review:

Article 1, section 9, modifies the procedures for judicial review of decisions regarding the need for an environmental assessment worksheet, the need for an environmental impact statement, and the adequacy of an environmental impact statement.  Current law provides that these decisions may be reviewed by a declaratory judgment action in the district court of the county where the proposed action or any part of it would be undertaken.  This section provides that these decisions would be subject to review by the Court of Appeals, rather than the district court.

Reasons for this miscreant revision are obvious enough, opposition to citing industrial plants, especially "dirty" ones, arises from the grassroots at the local level. Sending the citizenry to St. Paul to attend Appellate hearings will clearly reduce citizens' involvement in the review process. No evidence has been provided to show that such a diversion of responsibility from district courts to the appellate court will be more expeditious, or, could even be handled on the crowded docket of the appellate court.

Best Governor Money can Buy?

Riddle overheard on the streets of Milwaukee:

QUESTION--How do you spell Walker?

ANSWER--B L A G O J E V I C H

Wisconsin really is broke; you get what you pay for and this Governor is clearly a bargain-basement purchase. If you need further proof, just look up the Journal-Sentinel Online or, better yet, hear the recording Audio: Prank Interview there of a prankster, posing as billionaire David Koch (Walker gift horse), in a telephone conversation with the new Boy Governor. I won't say anything more here at the risk of revealing the aural pornography in store for the listening audience.

Tommy Lee Jones said it best in No Country for Old Men, "You can't make up such a thing as that. I dare you to even try."

Fiscal bankruptcy is curable, but moral bankruptcy?  Ask Blagojevich.

Cross-posted to The Renaissance Post

A New Infantile Paralysis

My generation grew through childhood during those perilous years before Jonas Salk developed an effective vaccine against the poliomyelitis virus. One strain of the virus induced paralysis in about 1% of infected persons, children being especially susceptible, hence the name, infantile paralysis. The Good News is that the last reported case of wild polio virus transmission in North America occurred in 1979. The World Health Organization hopes to be able to declare world-wide eradication of the disease early in the 21st century.

The Bad News is that a new virulent plague of infantile behavior among elected officials is currently sweeping the country. This behavior has already paralyzed government in Wisconsin and is rapidly closing in on Washington, D.C., where it may cripple the federal government within the next two weeks.  What are the origins of this plague and the prognosis for a cure?

Nominate NBC for the Darwin Award

Keith Olberman’s firing represents an example of why corporate America cannot be allowed the privileges of moral beings in governance (as in the Citizens United v. FEC decision). The problem is not the virtually anonymous and certainly soul-less bean-counting of soul-less executives reviewing polls and Nielsen ratings. After all, could any of us pick Phil Griffin, Steve Capus, or Brian Roberts out of a lineup?  Rather, the problem rests in unaccountability for mindless decisions like this. There has clearly been a conscious effort among MSNBC executives to REFUSE TO THINK, a sin condemned by luminaries from Plato to Ayn Rand.