Judge Teitelman & Missouri Judicial Retention

In a typical year, the first time typical Missouri voters hear about the judicial retention elections is when they show up and see a list of judges on their ballot, with a question as to whether or not each should be retained in office. While the Missouri Bar produces a helpful pamphlet every election cycle with a profile of each judge up for a retention vote and the results of lawyer surveys on the judge, the judges do not campaign and normally attract little attention.

This year, however, the system is being manipulated by the "Christian" radical right. They have targeted the only Jewish member of the Missouri Supreme Court for ouster, and are engaging in a campaign of automated calls and postcards to spread lies about him, lies which he is powerless to respond to because judicial ethics prevent him talking about cases before him or participating in a political campaign.

I know Judge Teitelman well, and have known him for about 15 years. He is the sort of gentleman to send a handwritten note to congratulate you on good news, and he is the kind of friend who will call when he hears that something bad has happened to you. I have experienced both. He is legally blind, but has devoted his life to helping the poor, having served for many years as Executive Director of Legal Services of Eastern Missouri. In 1998, Mel Carnahan appointed him to the Court of Appeals, and his hard work and common sense legal analysis won him an appointment to the Missouri Supreme Court in 2002.

Without getting into the tedious particulars of the accusations and why they are flat-out lies (the "moratorium" on the death penalty simply doesn't exist), suffice it to say that responsible lawyers of both parties are defending Judge Teitelman. This is an unprecedented, unfair and unjustified attack on a moderate judge who happens to be the first Jew appointed to the Missouri Supreme Court.

Two of the individuals out front pushing for the ouster of Judge Teitelman are Phyllis Schlafly (now with the "Eagle Forum", and the Representative Rod Jetton, known for his juvenile temper tantrums in the General Assembly. I don't know either of these individuals personally, so I cannot say what is in their hearts, but their choice of a target may provide a hint.

Supplying the Terrorists

Less than one pound of this explosive took down the plane over Lockerbie. The Bush administration's refusal to plan for the aftermath of the invasion of Iraq has now handed over 380 tons of this explosive to terrorists. There is no greater security risk to the United States of America than the Bush administration.

Bush Tries Honesty for a Moment

Bush admitted that whether the United States can ever be fully safe from terrorism is "up in the air", and Kerry has jumped on him for it. While I understand why Kerry is doing it, I sincerely wish that he could resist the temptation.

Every thinking person knows that the United States will never be fully safe from terrorism - just days ago, Kerry was being attacked for expressing his hope that terrorism is reduced to the level of a nuisance. It's almost funny to watch the two sides eagerly trying to catch the other side telling the truth.

I know, I know, Bush deserves an extra scolding because he has been such a hypocrite, and because if Kerry had mouthed these words, he would be called a French surrender-monkey, but still.

This is the crazy time of the election - expect a whole lot of tit for tat and outrage and nonsense over the next week, from both camps.

Why Don't I Believe the Bush Administration When it Says "No Draft"?

Here's why.

Please, think about a young person when you step into the booth next Tuesday. Your vote may mean whether or not he or she will die in Iraq.

Is it fear-mongering if you don't trust the President and his neo-con empire builders?

Jack Danforth

I saw Jack Danforth speak at lunch today. He is a former Senator from Missouri, and he headed up the Waco investigation. He is now U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations.

Jack Danforth is an example of what the Republican Party should be, but is not. He expressed his disappointment in the isolationist morons at the convention who booed when the United Nations was mentioned, and spoke glowingly of the need for the United States to be multi-lateral in such a complex world with such terrible problems, while pointing out that when it is necessary to stand alone, we should be willing to do so.

The emotion in his face as he spoke of the crisis in Sudan was impressive. Jack Danforth is a strong, moral leader, coming from a party that has lost its moorings. If he were truly representative of the Republican Party, it would not tolerate the amoral jackals that dominate it today.

KC Star Misleads Again, Only Worse!

The Bush/Cheney camp has obviously taken over the front page of the KC Star. After my rant yesterday about how they botched the reporting on their poll, they managed to run another front page article on the same poll (which is out of step with most polls, I might add), with the unsupportably anti-Kerry headline of "Poll shows Kerry hasn't closed the deal with his base". This piece of attack journalism goes on to do weak analysis of the states Gore carried in 2000, and pointing out that many of them are still in the margin of error - though a recent article on Bush's similar situation trumpeted that Bush narrowly leads in the red states.

Just to make certain that the front page did as much to suppress the vote as possible, the top headline, in large print and accompanied by an ugly graphic of a frowning ballot, blared "POLLING PROBLEMS FEARED". To make the point crystal clear, the paper included a speculative account of how tremendously inconvenient it might be to vote this year, (Voting could be a waiting game), and an article making the case that the votes might not really matter (Cynics, lawyers prepare for the worst).

Cheney Attacks Kerry's Goose Hunt

Dick Cheney criticized John Kerry for buying a new jacket on his goose-hunting trip. Who can blame him? When Cheney went hunting, he purchased a Supreme Court Justice.

Liberal Media??

I woke up this morning to the headline in the Kansas City Star: "Bush maintains lead in Missouri, new survey shows". Accompanying this disheartening piece of news is a pie chart, showing a 54 - 32% difference, in patriotic red, white and blue. Enough to make me turn to the sports page, where good news abounds today.

I'm glad I didn't though, because the headline and chart were terribly misleading. In fact, the article could just as easily have been headlined "Bush lead in Missouri shrinking", as the race has gone from 48-41 to 49-44, with 7% undecided - all while the press has been parroting claims that Kerry has "abandoned" Missouri. This misleading pie chart was tied to some nonsense about whether the chances of a terrorist attack in the US is less with either candidate (54% of the ordinary citizens polled say it doesn't matter who is in office - presumably they consulted with their intelligence experts and considered their deep understanding of what motivates terrorists).

Given the studies showing that most undecideds go for the challenger at a 2:1 margin, this makes the Missouri very much up in the air. Not that you'd know it from reading the Star, though.

The Fallacy of For-Profit Efficiency

It is an article of faith for the right wing that for-profit entities are inherently more efficient and effective than their non-profit and governmental counterparts. The wonders of the free market, they believe, will work to enhance productivity and improve the results to the consumer.

It simply is not true. In today's Kansas City Star, a disturbing article details the safety and health violations at local nursing homes, and a sidebar points out that for-profit had 40% more violations than their nonprofit and governmental counterparts.

Nonprofit facilities have a mission somewhat different from for-profits, which must make money for their shareholders, said John Grace, president of the Kansas Association of Homes and Services for the Aging.

“In our organizations, we never have that tension,” he said.

Denise Clemonds, executive director of the Missouri Association of Homes for the Aging, said any additional revenue goes back into the facility and helps pay for higher staffing.

As part of a study, University of Kansas researchers interviewed inspectors who told them for-profit homes were “more driven” and on “tighter budgets” than nonprofit homes.

“For-profit homes were described as more likely to beautify the building and forget about the staff,” according to the study, which was commissioned by the state's Department on Aging and released in December 2003.

Inspectors also told researchers that for-profit homes had greater staff turnover, which they said led to more deficiencies.

Indeed, researchers found that the administrators in for-profit facilities were seven times more likely to change jobs than those in nonprofit facilities, said Sarah Thompson, the study's leader. She speculated that for-profit homes were more likely to change top managers when one of their facilities receives a bad inspection. Thompson said turnover in top positions could contribute to other workers leaving.

The next time some free-market absolutist rails on about how privatization is always superior to nonprofit or government involvement, have him or her read The Case for Bureaucracy. Or have him or her talk to a neglected nursing home resident.

I Bleed Cardinals Red

The Kansas City Star ran a fine essay this morning by Justin Heckert about how he feels about being a Cardinals fan. I thought he did a fine job of conveying a bond between fan and team that has deeper roots than normal:

Cardinals fans. We have a great habit of filling the stadium, 3 million plus each year, for good teams and bad, a strange miracle for a city of no more than 380,000. With the numbers you cannot argue: we come from the city, from the bootheel of Southeast Missouri,from Southern Illinois, from Iowa, and Indiana, and Mississippi, Arkansas and Tennessee, and Oklahoma, from the banks and shores and mountains, where KMOX is still the radio voice of the team that can be heard across the country. We are not fans pinned to the heavy cross of a curse. We are not fickle with our undying passion, as are, say, countless other fans in sport; and we have a past of winning that is usurped by only that of the omnipotent New York Yankees. We bring to the stadium, regular season and especially playoffs,a home-field advantage unrivaled in baseball. But, that said, we have not been to the Series in a long time.

I am what you would call a diehard St. Louis Cardinals fan. I was during last week's NLDS, I am during the National League Championship Series against Houston, and I have been since I could fit atop my father's shoulders and stare out at the green turf and the deep fences, in that gilded age of Whitey Ball and Willie and the Wizard. I do not remember our last championship; I was 2 that year.

I, too, am a diehard Cardinals fan.

I've lived in Kansas City for the past 19 years, and I have come to enjoy the Royals. I like it when the win; I don't like it when they lose, but it doesn't change my mood the way the Cardinals can.

The Cardinals are a part of me the way that no other team can ever be. Many of my earliest memories have a soundtrack of Jack Buck and Harry Caray. I can still see my father,late at night, sitting at the kitchen table sipping a 9-0-5 beer and listening to a late game played on the west coast - it chokes me up to think how much I wish I could sit with him one more time, lit only by the stovelight and hanging on every pitch.

I remember the first time I went to a Cardinals game - at least I remember walking through the concourse and then seeing the shocking green of the field - green so green it almost hurt your eyes.

Iremember the "El Birdos", and the 1967 World Series - the joy of defeating the Red Sox, behind a lineup that included Julian Javier, Orlando Cepeda, Lou Brock, Curt Flood, Dal Maxvill, Tim McCarver, Roger Maris, and Mike Shannon- and the pitching of Bob Gibson, Nellie Briles and Steve Carlton. Even hearing those names these days brings a wash of deep - I don't know - nostalgia? Longing? Security?

The 1968 Series - I'll never forget Bob Gibson on the mound in game one, sweat literally streaming off his face, as he struckout 14, 15, 16 and 17 Detroit Tigers, breaking a record set by Cardinal great Sandy Koufax in the 1963 Series, just outside of my conscious Cardinals memory. I wasn't at the game - the nuns at Ascension School brought TVs into the classrooms and watched with the same passion as everyone else. We lost the Series, but it was 7 games and full of excitement. I was 8 years old and everyone loved the Cardinals.

Even during the years after 1968, when the team did not make it into the World Series, I loved the Cardinals. Vada Pinson, the sparkling play of Garry Templeton (I am the ONLY Cardinals fan who wishes we had never done the Templeton-Ozzie Smith trade), Al Hrabosky, Lou Brock dominating the base paths and signing my glove at Stix, Baer and Fuller, Ted Simmons and Keith Hernandez. Augie Busch and the Budweiser jingles. These were the Astro-turf years, and, at the time, it seemed like the coolest and most exciting thing ever. They laid a new carpet the year I graduatedfrom the U. High. Whitey Herzog came in 1980.

The year I got married and returned to Missouri, the Cardinals defeated the Brewers in the World Series, led by Lonnie Smith on the basepaths and Bruce Sutter on the mound in the late innings.

The year I graduated from Law School and moved to Kansas City was 1985. The less said about Don Denkinger the better.

The last words of my father were to tell my mother she was crazy after she said it was good that Willie McGee was traded.

Eventhough I rarely get to see Cardinals games, and only occasionally get to listen to them on the radio, they still evoke deeper emotions than can be thought to be rational. They bring me back to so much. In a family that eschewed sexuality and scandal, it was acknowledged with a wink and a nudge that a member of the previous generation had a fling with Dizzie Dean.

I know, I know they're only a baseball team, and that the players are hired guns. I know that baseball is big business, and that I shouldn't care as much as I do. But I do, and the Cardinals may well be on the way to the World Series. I understand that may not be important to you, but it means more to me than I can say.

Airline Security is Failing America

When I made fun of the morons in charge of our airline security for protecting us from Cat Stevens, I mentioned that the issue actually deserved more serious attention. The problem with this issue is that no candidate can really touch it. Bush can't touch it because it's a system that he set up, and he probably doesn't care, because his political base flies in private jets. Kerry can't touch it, even though the senior senator from his state has been hassled when he tries to board a plane, because the right-wing media would label him as "weak on homeland security".

We all know the system is ridiculous. In any reasonable cost-benefit analysis, making granny take her orthopedic shoes off while allowing the cargo holds to fill up with whatever anybody wants to sneak into them is a goofy waste of time. Any reasonable person knows that me armed with nail clippers or a wine corkscrew is much less dangerous than a 12 year-old trained in Kung Fu.

I sincerely believe that our approach to airline security has many goals, but preventing violence on aircraft is near the bottom of the list. What, then, is the purpose?

First off, I think it is intended to make people think that the government is doing something. Nothing makes you feel safer than a big show of intrusive security. Somehow, having a screener open your carry-on and look at your underwear makes it seem less likely that some bad guy will smuggle a plastic gun or a ceramic knife onto the plane. If Big Brother is hassling me, the thinking goes, he's hassling the bad guys, too. Nonsense, of course, but appearance is a comforting substitute for reality.

Secondly, airline security puts you in your place. It is a vivid assertion of the inalienable right of authority figures to be a pain in your ass. They can make you take your shoes off. They can haul you into a room and feel you up. They can take order you not to make a joke about bombs, and you'd damned well better listen, because they have the absolute right to tell you what to do. Airline security is yet another example of the Supremacy of the State - like DUI Checkpoints, it is an intentionally brazen interference with privacy, with the clear message intended to suppress silly notions that that government of the people, by the people, for the
people, has not perished from the earth.

Thirdly, airline security is a great way to deal with malcontents who think they can question authority. Cat Stevens is a peace-loving liberal, and says nice things about Islam. Can't allow that, can we? Jan Adams and Rebecca Gordon, two peace activists who want to know why their names had turned up on a no-fly list, ought to be able to figure it out. When Mahnaz Shabbir, author of “I am an American Muslim Woman” (and speaker at my Rotary Club yesterday), learns that her 3 year-old son is on the no-fly list, maybe she should stop talking about Muslims and start thinking about how to blend in.

Fourth, and finally, airline security is a fantastically inefficient system, with tons of government money around to fund it, and nobody in the government willing to take the heat for suggesting the airline security should have limits. What better boondoggle could you ask for? Corporations are making money, and who cares if a few people miss their flights?

Stewart on Crossfire - "Stop, stop, stop, stop hurting America"

I don't watch this show - it's a prime example of politically dishonest people playing with point issues, in my opinion. But I wish I had watched it yesterday when they had John Stewart on.

First (and I know this is a stupid issue that is only distracting people from focusing on issues that really matter - this is why I don't like the show, but I enjoyed this morsel), here is Begala on the Cheney daughter flap:

When he wants to look moderate, Dick Cheney invokes his lesbian daughter, Mary, on the campaign trail. When Republican Senate candidate Alan Keyes viciously attacked their daughter, Dick and Lynne Cheney said nothing. When John Edwards praised their evident love for their daughter, Vice President Cheney said this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DICK CHENEY, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Let me simply thank the senator for the kind words he said about my family and our daughter. I appreciate that very much.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BEGALA: But now, suddenly, after four debate losses and 18 days until the election, the Cheneys are shocked, shocked, that John Kerry mentioned their daughter in a debate.

There is an important lesson here. If you're gay and you want your rights protected by the Republicans, it helps to have a daddy who wants to distract the country from the millions he made from Halliburton, the billions he ran up in debt, and the war he lied us into.

But then, go read the transcript of John Stewart's appearance, starting with John Stewart:

And I made a special effort to come on the show today, because I have privately, amongst my friends and also in occasional newspapers and television shows, mentioned this show as being bad.

(LAUGHTER)

BEGALA: We have noticed.

STEWART: And I wanted to -- I felt that that wasn't fair and I should come here and tell you that I don't -- it's not so much that it's bad, as it's hurting America.

(LAUGHTER)

CARLSON: But in its defense...

(CROSSTALK)

STEWART: So I wanted to come here today and say...

(CROSSTALK)

STEWART: Here's just what I wanted to tell you guys.

CARLSON: Yes.

STEWART: Stop.

(LAUGHTER)

STEWART: Stop, stop, stop, stop hurting America.

BEGALA: OK. Now

(CROSSTALK)

STEWART: And come work for us, because we, as the people...

CARLSON: How do you pay?

STEWART: The people -- not well.

(LAUGHTER)

BEGALA: Better than CNN, I'm sure.

STEWART: But you can sleep at night.

(LAUGHTER)

STEWART: See, the thing is, we need your help. Right now, you're helping the politicians and the corporations. And we're left out there to mow our lawns.

BEGALA: By beating up on them? You just said we're too rough on them when they make mistakes.

STEWART: No, no, no, you're not too rough on them. You're part of their strategies. You are partisan, what do you call it, hacks.

There's much more in the transcript, including the "hacks" knocking Stewart for his weak questioning of Kerry.

Charlie Rose & Karen Hughes

When you've just watched your candidate smack his opponent around for the third straight round, you can be excused for losing interest in the boxing match and starting to watch the crowd . . .

What in the world was Charlie Rose doing with Karen Hughes?! He devoted half his show to letting her run her mouth about utter, imagined nonsense. It was funny how she didn't even act like Bush is competent - she spent all the time she had (and it was plenty) trying to say the stuff her idiot candidate should have said.

Right Wing Melt-Down

It appears that reality is fairly harsh when viewed through a right-wing filter. Jen Martinez, a somewhat (I was going to type "moderately" or "fairly", but neither word seemed to fit) well-known blogger on the right, totally lost it yesterday.

A couple excerpts from her posting may give some insight into the mind-set of some on the right. It's more than a little scary, but kind of enlightening . . .

It's fucking hopeless. I might as well hang it all up now. The most determined ALWAYS win. America is not determined. America has no determination whatsoever. We are not ruthless! Who are we trying to kid? Sure the pacifists always loose because they're punk ass bitches not worthy of sharing our oxygen. The point is, America is overrun with pacifists, sheeple, leftists, liberals, communists, socialists .... I have no faith in my fellow Americans. None whatsoever.

. . .

Look around you at the kerry signs and bumperstickers. Americans without a clue. Americans who will hand our country to the jihadi motherfuckers so as to insure that my kids and the generations after them will be forced into slavery, or beheaded, or forced to live under that Sharia bullshit. No thanks, I'd rather die and I'll chose the time and place, if it comes down to that, thank you very much.

Doesn't this sound like the mindset of a suicide bomber?

Finally, she wraps up with:

So this is what I'm feeling today and nine times out of ten I never tell anyone these type of things. Usually no one understands and thinks I'm crazy or else they all just agree with me.

Or else they all just agree with her?!?!

Bad News, Good News, October Surprises, and Patriotism

It is no secret that I want Bush to lose, and Kerry to win. In my opinion, the prospect of a second Bush administration, without even the check of reelection to keep it from imposing its goofy neo-con, billionaire agenda on the world, is likely to cause even more damage to the country I love than the disastrous first term. By electing Kerry, we can begin repairing our economy, our environment, and our international standing.

As of today, I'm feeling fairly confident that Kerry will prevail. The electoral college looks as though it's tilting his way, and the debates have shown him to be a solid, articulate contrast to the "flip-flopper" that the Bush campaign had fabricated.

But today is October 10, not November 2. So much can happen between now and then to change the result, and, if the events were to favor Bush, we would be sentenced to another disastrous 4 years.

The fear of pro-Bush events puts me in a quandary. So-called "good news" could help Bush, and "bad news" could help Kerry. A significant rise in the economic numbers could cause a crucial bump in the polls for Bush, and increased American casualties in Iraq could help Kerry.

The report that came out this week, showing weak job growth, provides an example of the awkwardness. Nobody wants more people to be unemployed, but the prospect of yet another statistic that shows just how badly the economy is responding to Bush's pro-billionaire policies is, frankly, welcome. But, when it comes, we can't trumpet it as good news, because the "good news" is just more evidence of Bush's incompetence causing more and more human suffering.

The issue gets even more complex when considering some of the bigger possibilities. The capture of bin Laden, ironically, could help Bush. (Ironic because it would come after 3 years of Bush failing to provide adequate resources to bring the mass murderer to justice.) A terrorist attack on American soil could (again ironically) help Bush. On the other hand, a "Tet offensive" in Iraq, with massive American casualties, could boost Kerry. A stock market crash could help Kerry.

So, what do I hope for?

In short, I keep my eye on the prize of what is best for America. Getting rid of Bush is clearly the best thing for America, but not at the cost of catastrophic events. On the other hand, I hope that bin Laden's freedom continues to demonstrate that the Bush's ill-conceived and unjustified adventure in Iraq has so distracted our nation's resolve that we cannot catch a 6 foot, 5 inch kidney dialysis patient. I hope that the reality of the economy improves, but that the measures of past performance continue to reflect the misery that Bush has caused those outside of his country-club set.

I am pro-America, but solidly anti-Bush. The two are consistent.

On Second Thought . . .

Whether I felt it or not, it looks like the majority of viewers gave Edwards a victory. Shows what I know. But I still say it signifies nothing.

One thing that surprised me was when Cheney claimed to have never met Edwards before. My wife and I agreed that it seemed unlikely. Well, it turns out that was a flat-out lie, as demonstrated by the written record and by photographic proof.

Cheney/Edwards

Watched it, enjoyed it, but it was all a show for the die-hards. I'd be surprised if it changed a single vote. To paraphrase MacBeth, it was a tale, told by vice-presidents, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

It could be easy, on the other hand, to get caught up in the spin. Honestly, I enjoyed Edwards' presentation more than Cheney's, and it's mildly tempting to claim a "victory" for him. But political honesty compels me to admit that my preference for Edwards' performance springs from a preference for Edwards, not from the debate itself. Edwards was sharper and more energetic, but Cheny has "gravitas" by the boatload.

I thought the most compelling, honest and interesting moment of the debates was when Cheney struggled mightily to explain how he can support the president's use of a gay marriage amendment to divide the country for political gain, and ultimately simply thanked Edwards for extending to his family a respect that the White House does not.

Right Wing Double Standard

Remember how the right-wingers wanted to tar and feather Dan Rather after he was apparently duped by possibly forged documents? Will they summon up the same level of righteous indignation toward Fox News, for "accidentally" getting duped by a bogus communist group? Will it matter to thee right-wing zealots that the site that fooled their lap-dog has an "About Us" link that explains that it is a satirical 527 run by the Hellgate Republican Club?

Anybody who watches Fox News for news is willfully seeking out propaganda. Anybody who watches Fox News for entertainment value, though, may have a point . . .

Thanks to the indispensable Eschaton!

Honey? I'm Home!!

Sorry for the extremely light blogging lately. First, I was off to NYC, to visit Sam, NYU, and a city that had changed vastly for the better in the past decade. The weather - upper 70s in the days, mid-60s in the evenings - made the city even more attractive than expected.

Sam obviously loves the city, and I can't blame him in the slightest. The pace is exciting, the diversity is inspiring, and the sense of being in the center of the universe is palpable. Oh, to be 19 years old and a college freshman in NYC, studying what I want to study!

I got home Monday night, and left Wednesday morning for the Missouri Bar Annual Meeting in St. Louis. It was a fine meeting, with plenty of highlights, but it was a little depressing for yours truly, having lost my reelection bid for the Board of Governors. I did manage to escape for a couple of delightful hours to sit at the Boathouse in Forest Park, drinking good beer and sitting in the shade in a rocking chair. The meeting itself was a well-deserved love-fest for my friend Bill Corrigan, who did a superb job in his year as president of the Missouri Bar.

While I was away, my logs show a significant up-tick in visitors to this site. Perhaps my audience enjoys me most when I'm absent!