Partyng with the Tea Baggers

On Saturday, I went to the "Taking Our Country Back" Tour at the Sprint Center. It was a whole lot less impressive than I thought it would be. I'm not sure if the place was air-conditioned, or if the presence of Karl Rove sent a chill through the air.

If you're interested, I wrote a lot more about it at KCFreePress.com.

Kansas City is Spitting Mad at Jo Ann Emerson (R - Mo)

Jo Ann Emerson's choice of whom to stand with could not be clearer. On the one hand, you have a mob of crazy tea-baggers, calling a civil rights hero the "N word" , calling Barney Frank the "F word", and actually spitting on a fellow Missouri Congressman. On the other hand, you have Reverend Emanuel Cleaver, a dignified Methodist minister and hard-working representative of fellow Missourians.

Jo Ann Emerson is making the wrong choice. She's standing with the spitters.

While she did not do the spitting, she egged on the unruly mob and has refused to reject the vitriol of the tea-baggers.

It's funny to contrast Jo Ann Emerson's immaturity and lack of discipline with the class and discipline of her opponent in this election cycle. Tommy Sowers is a straight arrow - if anyone dared to spit on a minister in his presence, no matter what the politics, educator/Green Beret Tommy Sowers would have the right stuff to put a stop to the nonsense, instead of encourage it.

Sometimes, the fog of politics rises for a moment, and you can see what kind of person someone is. Jo Ann Emerson is the kind of person who hangs out with people who would spit on Kansas City's chosen representative.

The Star Gives Republican Ryan Silvey A Free Pass to Lie

Jason Noble of the Kansas City Star proved today that he is a stenographer, not a journalist.

Back in the day, journalists had a higher duty than simply copying down whatever lies a favored politician offered up. Instead, they would ask follow-up questions to expose the lie, or even put a sentence in their article explaining that what the politician said was false.

But, at the Kansas City Star, if the lie you are spouting is an attack on our Mayor, you face no such hostility or defense of the truth.

Today, Republican Ryan Silvey pulled a shallow publicity stunt, threatening to harm Kansas City because he wants our city to take tax dollars from basic services and donate it to the County for the stadiums. So far, so good - I understand that Ryan Silvey is part of a minority of people who think that we should not fully fund our police department but we should fully fund stadiums for suburbanites. We disagree, but he's entitled to his own positions.

Ryan Silvey is not entitled to make up his own facts, though. In defending his publicity stunt, Silvey claimed, "Pulling the money breaches the city's contract with the Chiefs and Royals . . .".

Folks, that's a lie. A big, fat whopper of a lie that no serious observer of the stadium drama could fail to recognize. There is no contract between the city and the teams.

Did Jason Noble challenge the falsehood? Did Jason Noble point out in his article that there is no contract between the city and the teams? Did Jason Noble ask a follow-up question to clarify the point?

No.

(Update: A commenter below points out that the Kansas City Business Journal has the journalistic integrity and tenacity to look at the contracts and acknowledge that there is no legal agreement binding the city to any payment.)

It's Not Hypocrisy, It's Anti-Americanism - Republicans on Stimulus

I try to keep things interesting here, but I confess that the video below is tedious. About 6 minutes into the 10 minute presentation, even the most avid consumer of political trivia will begin to lose interest.

The topic of this tedium is Republicans scoring political points attacking the stimulus package as useless, and then scoring political points spending the stimulus dollars while praising their usefulness. There's even an amusing clip of Louisiana Republican darling Bobby Jindal actually signing a gigantic check, as if he is the actual source of funds.

There are so many examples of this hypocrisy that it's boring.

Republicans are caught on tape attacking a policy that they also claim is good and helpful. The reason for this two-facedness is because they feel compelled to attack the President we elected, which is simply a part of their Party of No strategy.

The Republicans have allowed their unprincipled opposition to lead them into true Anti-Americanism. When you can see with your own eyes the good that a policy is bringing to your own constituents - when you cannot help but share your joy at the opportunities and growth that a policy is creating - and then you attack that policy for cheap political points, you must know in your heart of hearts that your zeal for the political blood has led you to attack America itself.

I had plenty of disagreements with the prior administration, and I have some significant disagreements with President Obama, too. But I praised Bush when he did the right things, and I would never dream of opposing a policy that I knew was good for America simply because it comes from the Republican side of the aisle.

It's okay to be a partisan for your own party, but when it leads you to oppose what you know is good for America, you are actively working against our country. Senator Bond and the dozens of Republicans featured in the following video should be ashamed of themselves, and owe us all apology.

3 Big Differences Between Reid and Lott

The Republicans have suddenly discovered their previously undetectable racial sensitivity, and are calling for Harry Reid to resign as Majority Leader of the Senate because of some awkward language Reid used to describe his enthusiasm for Barack Obama's candidacy. They are equating Reid's stated enthusiasm for Obama's candidacy to former Senator Trent Lott's stated enthusiasm for segregation. Sadly, some soft-minded liberals are joining them in claiming that Obama and those of us too smart to fall for this false equivalency are hypocrites.

There is a difference between Reid and Lott, and what Reid and Lott said, that distinguishes the cases for anyone who is neither intellectually dishonest nor intellectually stunted. In fact, there are three big differences, and I'll point them out for those who think that all unfortunate mentions of race are equivalent, and justification for a political death penalty.

1. What They Said: Let's look at what Harry Reid said, in his enthusiasm for Obama's candidacy. He made the accurate observation that Obama's skin is relatively light, and said that he speaks "with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one." It uses a '50s era term for African-American, it (inaccurately?) implies that America might face more difficulty in supporting a darker-skinned candidate, and it implies that the pattern of speech employed by a segment of African-Americans is a broader "Negro dialect". One might just as fairly express joy that a Missouri politician speaks with no inbred hillbilly dialect.

Distasteful, I agree, and not the sort of thing I like to see from a Democrat.

Trent Lott, on the other hand, said that he was proud to have voted for Strom Thurmond when he ran as a segregationist and opposed anti-lynching legislation, and that "if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years, either." Do I need to map out the differences? While Reid was speaking enthusiastically about electing a black president, Lott was speaking enthusiastically about segregation and wishing that we could go back to the pre-civil rights South and lynching. To find a distinction between the two does not demonstrate hypocrisy, it demonstrates an understanding of the difference between a little insensitivity and a deep resentment of uppity blacks causing problems.

2. Who They Are: As President Obama points out, Harry Reid has worked with him and other Senators on socially progressive causes to help the underprivileged for years. He's got some credibility on racial issues. He's built up a store of good will that he can draw upon in assuring his friends that he is sincere in his remorse and forward in his thinking.

Trent Lott was a product of the Republican racist "Southern Strategy" to win the votes of those who believed exactly what Lott said to Thurmond - we'd be better off with segregation and lynching. Lott was an enthusiastic supporter of the Klan-like CCC, and sought to regain citizenship for Jefferson Davis. He voted against extending the Voting Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act. He voted against the Martin Luther King holiday. Suffice it to say, Lott had not built up a store of good will on racial issues.

3. Reid Has Been Forgiven: It is amusing to see all the pundits (especially the white ones, and certainly including me) and right wing politicians trying to tell everyone else how to think about a verbal exchange between two men who have already put it behind them. The RIGHTeous indignation on behalf of someone who has announced himself satisfied with an apology is enough to make one think that they are more interested in political opportunism than concern about Obama's tender feelings.

Folks, this thing is not about hypocrisy, for the simple reason that it is not hypocritical to distinguish between a thoughtless remark supporting a black presidency and a career spent yearning for the good old days of segregation and lynching. The intellectually corrupt Republicans and the fuzzy-thinking liberals who are attempting to equate the two are acting as though Lott's only flaw was one awful remark, and that Reid's remark is equivalent to a career.

Shoe Bomber vs. Underwear Bomber - A Study in Republican Effectiveness

Republican scoundrels are spinning the thwarted terrorist attempt on Christmas Day into a reason to attack President Obama, and the media are repeating the frothing opportunism as if it is legitimate discussion. It's an all-too-familiar pattern of attack and repeat, at a level that leaves thoughtful persons shaking their heads at the breathtaking hypocrisy of it all.

Honestly, it never ever occurred to me to accuse Bush of weakness or failure when the shoe-bomber attempt presented almost exactly the same opportunity to those of us on the left. Foolishly, I viewed the attempted terrorist attack as an attempted terrorist attack, instead of as a welcome cudgel with which to bash our nation's President.

Commenting on a post by Politico noting the wildly different Republican reaction to the two wildly similar situations, John Aravosis of AMERICAblog does a great job of explaining the difference:

I suspect a few things are going on here. First, the shoe bomber incident was three months after September 11. We were all still shell-shocked. Rather than being afraid to criticize the president, I think we were all so scared, the thought didn't even cross our minds (and the same thing applied to the media, which was also tempered following 9/11). Second, Democrats aren't as good at political PR as Republicans are. Republicans are always looking for an opportunity to take advantage of a situation, a crisis. Democrats tend to be more principled. And finally, Republicans are better at shutting down criticism. If Democrats had tried to speak out, the GOP would have accused us of being un-American, and the Democrats would freak.

Democrats are Better People than Republicans

But Max Baucus proves me wrong.

Ignoring the morality of it, how do you think that you will get away with nominating your mistress for one of the most important jobs in the United States, and one which involves investigations into the nominee's background?

Terrorists Defeat Republicans

It's sadly amusing to see how upset Republicans are that the Obama administration is going to put Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four other co-conspirators on trial in U.S. District Court in New York City for their role in the 9/11 attacks. The Republicans are frightened to the core about the thought that America is not good enough, not strong enough, not prepared enough to face up to these monsters. They are, in a word, terrorized.

Giuliani is fretting about the danger these bound and shackled men pose to the city, as if Batman: the Dark Knight was a documentary. He's terrorized.

House Minority Leader John Boehner thinks the terrorists will win their trial, so we should not dare to face them in a courtroom. He's terrorized.

Senator Jeff Sessions is having nightmares about swarthy men, and thinks they "will turn lawyers, juries, and judges into targets, and will needlessly endanger Americans living nearby." He's terrorized.

Thank God we have a president who has defeated terrorism by coolly moving forward as a proud American. He's not terrorized. And neither is America. Just the Republicans.

Tea-Bagger Potty Line?

Like most observers of politics, I was amused by the tea-bag parties organized by anti-tax protesters in response to Obama's tax cuts. The sputtering outrage of the right wing provokes not fear, dread or even respect from those that pay attention. How dare right-wingers protest taxes when Obama is cutting them for 95% of us? How dare the Republicans complain about deficits when the Bush administration launched us on a disastrous path after Clinton had generated budget surpluses? How dare the tea-baggers denounce government spending after Bush created an economic crisis and launched an unnecessary war on the wrong country?

The tea-baggers were not to be taken seriously, so I basically ignored them.

But this morning, I happened across Platte Countian Ivan Foley's hyped-up coverage of the protest, and saw that it was less of a protest than a gathering. Here is a picture that Mr. Foley took of their "crowd":

Seriously. A few months ago, that would have qualified as the shortest of the porta-potty lines for Barack Obama's rally. But, whatever, if they want to count that cluster of like-minded folks as a rally, that's their right. Personally, I'm a little surprised they could find even that many people to stand with this guy without wearing a hood:

No Idea is Too Stupid to Voice in Jefferson City - or to Win a Republican Majority

Missouri State Representative Ed Emery (R-Lamar) has proposed totally eliminating the state income, franchise and corporate taxes, and shifting the cost of government disproportionately onto the backs of the mid-Missouri poor through an increased sales tax. This may be the single dumbest thought voiced out loud in Jefferson City in the past quarter century, but it still passed the House on a voice vote.

Just think for half a second, and the flaws of this approach will occur to any but the most slow thinkers. The sales tax is a regressive tax, and Emery's idea would tax the poor at a far higher rate than the wealthy. It would eliminate virtually all retail business within an hour's drive from the border, and create boomtowns in our 8 surrounding states. The only positive economic impact would exist only in far-fetched "trickle-down" fantasies, in which corporate CEOs would somehow lower prices rather than simply use their tax boon to finance a new house on the border of Johnson County.

In reality, this thing has zero chance of passing, and only a few of the truly dense people in Jefferson City really think that such a radical, economically disruptive, and anti-working poor proposal is a good idea. But irresponsible Republicans moved it forward because now they can claim on the stump that they voted to eliminate the income tax, and they will draw a hearty cheer from the ill-informed.

In a better world, with better leadership, such a proposal would never see the light of day. In a more dignified time, Emery would feel ashamed of himself for making such a poorly-thought-out proposal, and his Republican colleagues would be embarrassed for him. Instead, we see a majority of his colleagues voting in favor just so they can have a cheap throw-away line in a campaign speech.

We deserve better than crackpot ideas embraced by opportunists.

Gingrich Finally Gets It

Back when Bush was in office, the Republicans tried to silence criticism of his disastrous foreign policy by claiming that "politics should stop at the water's edge." The claim that foreign policy should somehow be exempt from criticism was sheer idiocy, of course, and a particularly slimy form of political gamesmanship, challenging the patriotism and good judgment of anyone who disagreed with the President.

I am thrilled, however, to see that Newt Gingrich has somehow recognized the error of his ways, and, in 2009, feels free to voice his attacks on the foreign policy of a sitting President. Personally, I happily accept his implied apology for his unjustified and unjustifiable attacks on my patriotism.

Missouri Tax Credits - The Republicans Might be Right on this One

Tax credits are the sneaky twin of government appropriation. Sometimes, when the prospect of attaining direct government funding of your special interest is simply too daunting, tax credits offer an easier route to accomplish the same goal. If direct spending is "pork", tax credits are "sausage" - kind of the same thing, but more highly processed, and more likely to include snouts and anuses.

According to the Star this morning, there are currently 61 different tax credit programs in the state of Missouri. They are administered by the Missouri Development Finance Board, and their "counsel" is Gilmore & Bell, a law firm specializing in transferring public dollars to private pockets though tax incentive deals and bonds (or, as they phrase it, "one of the leading public finance law firms in the United States"). Gilmore & Bell's website brags about how many public dollar giveaways it worked on in 2008 - just under five billion dollars nationwide.

If you're looking for the heart of darkness for governmental spending, you've found it.

The funny thing is, this secretive little back room has flourished for years, because it has no natural enemies. Democrats tend to support it because much of the money goes to big projects in the urban areas. Republicans tend to support it because most of the money goes to insanely wealthy insiders who know how to work the system - country club Republicans and development lawyers. It's a rare opportunity to toss money around without supporting increased government spending, and appearing to actually be reducing taxation.

It's even shadier than that, though. There is actually a market for these tax credits, and they get sold to the wealthiest entities in the state, at a discount. If I get a million dollar tax credit, but I don't pay much in taxes because I don't earn much, I can sell that million dollar credit to a multi-millionaire for $850,000. The millionaire gets a million off his taxes for only $850,000, and I get $850,000, while the taxpayers get the shaft.

To Gilmore & Bell and the Missouri Development Finance Board, that's a victory to brag about on your website. For the taxpayers, though, that's a million dollars that needs to come from somebody else's pocket.

Of course, with this much money being tossed around, there are puppets who can be counted upon to stand up for the status quo.

Ironically, the loudest defense of tax credits is based upon the fact that they accomplish much good. Indeed, that is absolutely true. Not even a secretive board sequestered in a back room in Jefferson City can spend millions upon millions of dollars without accomplishing some good. Spending money makes people happy.

But, if the money spent is so darned wonderful, what's the problem with dragging the process into the light? The proponents of change want to set caps on how much money the Missouri Development Finance Board can give away from our treasury without approval - can anyone seriously argue there should be no limits? They also want to treat the tax credits like appropriations - and they are exactly like appropriations, only shadier, so I agree with that point as well.

When you hear the wonderful accomplishments of tax credits, and how many jobs they have created and how much investment they have spurred, congratulate the defenders of the status quo on their achievements.

But ask them why, if everything they are doing is so darned positive, they fear more accountability?

Is Bernie Madoff a Heroic John Galt?

Bernie Madoff deprived the super-wealthy of $50 billion, without resorting to the Estate Tax (a/k/a the Paris Hilton Tax) or armed robbery.

According to Republican economic theory, we should be throwing roses at his feet.

By fleecing the wise uber-wealthy folks of some $50 billion, he had provided a supply-side burst of incentive to those fine people to regain their former wealth. Those captains of industry are now incented to the tune of $50 billion, just to get back to where they thought they were a couple weeks ago. Better yet, he accomplished his gift of incentive without spending the money on wasteful government programs such as school lunches or welfare that simply disincentivize the poor. And BEST yet, he did it in a fashion that owes its existence to the under-regulated market the the Republicans have made a fetish of.

The bedrock of Republican "Economic Theory" is that incentives for the super-wealthy are critical. The wealthy - not lazy unionized workers, pampered teachers in our schools, or grossly inefficient government civil servants - are the supermen who, with their finely attuned, market-sensitive, invisibly guided wise hands are the ones must be allowed to keep their billions and billions of dollars, so that they remain incentivized to create more wealth. Taxing the wealthy hurts us all, they claim, because the wealthy will no longer feel the incentive to work, and we will all suffer in their absence.

The timing could not have been better, either. With Obama's election, rightwingers were beginning to darkly (inappropriate pun intended) mutter about the "John Galt Option" or "Going John Galt
", in a reference to a character in a very bad novel who withdraws his productive force from the economy when the unproductive "looters" seek to tax his fortune. Rightwingers were threatening to slow down their productivity in the prospect of having to pay for the war they supported.

Dr. Helen, in a pre-Madoff meditation on the possiblity of an Obama administration, sets out the thought process that motivates those who would imitate John Galt:

Perhaps the partisian politics we are dealing with now is really just a struggle between those of us who believe in productivity, personal responsibility, and keeping government interference to a minimum, and those who believe in the socialistic policies of taking from others, using the government as a watchdog, and rewarding those who overspend, underwork, or are just plain unproductive.

Obama talks about taking from those who are productive and redistributing to those who are not -- or who are not as successful. If success and productivity is to be punished, why bother? Perhaps it is time for those of us who make the money and pay the taxes to take it easy, live on less and let the looters of the world find their own way.

If Republican incentive-based economic theory is valid, then Bernie Madoff was the right man at the right time to boldly create incentive in an economy that was going to hibernate until a new administration of deregulation, no watchdogs and deficit spending could reverse Obama's plans. Instead, thanks to the heroic Bernie Madoff, the John Galts of this world are waking up to find themselves in a $50 billion hole in an economy that needs more of their "wise" investments. They now have the incentive to rejoin the economy.

Republican Compassion

I try to read broadly, to stretch my mind, test my ideas, and gain a few chuckles along the way. In a recent review of the right-wing blogosphere, I happened upon a brilliant example of Compassionate Conservatism at The Source - a rightwing blog that generates more litigation than logic. The particular article was entitled "The Christmas Rifle", and it is an unintentionally hilarious masterpiece.

It centers on the story of a kid whose father spent money on saving a widow and her family instead of buying a rifle for his son for Christmas. Set in 1881, the story is told from the point of view of the son, who comes to realize that the family's faces filled with gratitude for saving them from literal starvation were more important than his hoped-for Christmas rifle.

To really appreciate the story, it's worth noting that it's pure fiction. The author, Rian B. Anderson (the Source has the author's name wrong), wasn't born in 1881, but wisely chose to set his story in an imagined age of pre-New Deal rugged individualism he's never experienced.

The story starts off with a ritual denunciation of the demons of right-wing thought - "Pa never had much compassion for the lazy or those who squandered their means and then never had enough for the necessities." Just making sure you know that Widow Jenkins wasn't a welfare queen, because, if she were judged "lazy" by Pa, it would have been okay to let her little ragamuffins starve to death, right? One wonders what would have happened if Pa had seen Widow Jenkins refuse a lucrative career in prostitution, or why she hadn't been out chopping wood herself . . .

It's also humorous how taciturn Pa is - he undertakes the entire experience without explaining to his son where they're going or why. Strictly a need-to-know basis - Pa shares Dick Cheney's fetish for secrecy, it seems. Authority, to be really impressive, must assert itself without explanation.

But the funniest thing about the story is that, at the end, the kid feels all gooey and wonderful about the wonderful stroke of non-governmental largesse he has brought to a starving family, but all he really did is follow orders and he shares nothing of his own. Like so many of today's conservatives who are born on third base believing that he hit a triple, the boy in the story is blessed to be living in comfort, and perfectly untroubled with the fact that less fortunate children might have starved to death on Christmas Day if his Pa hadn't noticed "little Jakey out scratching in the woodpile with his feet wrapped in those gunnysack rags".

It takes a peculiar mindset to view near-starvation on Christmas as particularly heart-warming, but that is the intent of the post. In the world of "The Source", any act of near-compassion by a welfare-hating authority figure is worthy of celebration, even if it happened a century and a quarter ago. And even if it's fiction.

Right Wingers are Kind of Funny Sometimes

Sometimes, when right-wingers try to predict how progressives would react to hypotheticals, they are so oddly mistaken that it makes me wonder if they have any understanding at all of non-reptilian thought-processes.

The latest example comes from one of the more reasonable right-wingers, my blog-friend Rhymes with Right. "Could You Imagine The Outrage…", he headlines before carrying on with, "If a GOP president-elect selected one of Sirhan Sirhan’s lawyers for an important role on his White House? I think we all know that there would have been a serious shit-storm over such a choice."

This reaction was inspired because Obama has chosen Gregory Craig as White House counsel, and Mr. Craig has done some excellent legal work in some controversial cases. Read the post if you want to enjoy the outrage of someone who apparently does not understand the fact that good lawyers take on tough cases and unpopular clients.

His imagined reaction is quite funny, really. It would never occur to me to be upset if Harriet Meiers had successfully represented Sirhan Sirhan - in fact, if the Bush administration had done a better job of choosing people for competence rather than for rigid doctrinal purity, our country would be in a far better place than it is today. Competence is a good thing in our world, and so is the ability to work in a world of some complexity.

But a portion of the right-wing will never get that. They assume that we are just as shallow and knee-jerk as they are, which only bolsters their black and white world view. It's sad, really.

(Note - lest I be accused of painting with too broad a brush, I realize that not all Republicans are so simplistic in their understanding. This is representative of only one of the patches in the quilt that is the Republican party.)

John McCain is Not Too Rich to be President

It's fun to make fun of John McCain right now.

He doesn't know how many houses he owns.

He spends more than a quarter million a year on servants.

He thinks you have to earn $5 million to be rich.

He wears $500 loafers.

Etc.

But, I ask my fellow Democrats - are those reasons to vote against him? Do those facts make Obama the superior candidate?

John F. Kennedy had some serious coin. John Kerry and John Edwards don't worry about the price of milk.

When we indulge in our childish mocking, we buy into the same silly non-issues that typify our discourse. We take our eyes off the reasons that John McCain is the wrong choice (Iraq, Iran, Supreme Court, Tax Breaks for the Wealthy, Environmental Degradation, Spying on Americans, Pro-Torture, etc.). At the same time, we legitimize the attention which will come to whatever non-issue the Right Wing Noise Machine generates about Obama. I don't want this election to turn on what brand of sunglasses Obama prefers, or the fabric of his socks.

On the other hand, this sort of nonsense sways votes. As has been demonstrated in past elections (in a spirit of bipartisanship, I won't name which), a significant portion of voters cast their ballots on "feelings" or factors other than a rigorous analysis of which candidate holds positions they share. If the Democrats limit their debate to the high ground of policy discussion, the Republicans will run the table with all their friends in low places.

It's a sad fact of democracy that elections don't always get decided on the issues I would choose. So, I regretfully acknowledge the importance of non-issues, and hope that those who focus on them for the Democrats sway at least as many foolish people as those who focus on them for the Republicans.

Irony, thy Name is Brownback

Senator Sam Brownback has complained that the Chinese Government is spying on the internet usage of Americans in China for the Olympics.

He proudly voted in favor of the American Government doing the same thing, and voted in favor of immunizing private companies that helped out.

Incredible.

Koster Won't Use the "D word"

Have you noticed anything funny about Chris Koster's yard signs?

They don't use the word "Democrat".

I would put up a photo of one, but it appears most of the people who had Koster signs took them down in disgust when they heard about his ethical problems with money laundering in fundraising. If I find one in the yard of someone who has a strong enough stomach for Koster's behavior, I'll try to get a snapshot and post it.

Jeff Harris and Margaret Donnelly both proudly claim to be Democrats on their yard sings. Perhaps Koster's Republican donors would not pay for signs with the "D word".

All This for a Chauffeur?

I'm embarrassed for our country. Truly embarrassed.

The time has come to put the cards on the table, and display for all to see the fine work we have done in counter-terrorism. The reason we have set up secret prisons, lied to the Red Cross, copied torture techniques from the Chinese, emulated Stalin's web of secret prisons, become the sort of people that true Americans - real, red-blooded Americans - loved to hate during the Cold War, indeed, even changed our self-reference from "America" to the vaguely teutonic "Homeland" - all our post-9/11 transformations may be looked at and weighed against the big evil terrorist we have brought to justice.

And he's a chauffeur.

We're demonstrating that we can put a driver on trial. The most damning piece of evidence? He may have overheard where the fourth plane was headed.

When in the course of history has such a great nation transformed itself for such a small fish? When did America, land of the free and home of the brave, crawl through Stalinist slime to nail a chauffeur?

If this is the new America, I want to see Ken Lay's admin dragged into court and prosecuted because he or she typed his memos and placed his calls. I want to see Tom Delay's maid prosecuted, because she was in his "inner circle". I want every taxi driver who overheard a conversation between John Sununu and his phonegate conspirators to do time.

On second thought, I don't really want those things. I want my country to recapture its dignity and sense of itself. I don't want to ever again see it stoop to putting on show trials for bit players. I want a new administration and a new direction. I want change. I want America back.

If You're Voting in the Missouri Republican Primary in Johnson or Cass Counties

Vote for Karl Timmerman.

I realize that the endorsement of a Jackson County liberal may not hold much water for a Republican voting in Johnson or Cass County, but I really encourage you to check out his page and talk to lawyers who have known him. In 2007, Karl was selected by the Missouri Lawyers Weekly as the Lawyer of the Year, and has the respect of his peers.

I've known Karl for years, both in person and through his weekly "Friday Night Ramblings" that he sends out to lawyers throughout the state. I frequently disagree with him, and we have had some intense exchanges, but he is honest, respectful, and completely bound to his principles.

I don't expect a lot of Republicans in the 17th Circuit to vote for Karl Timmerman because I say so. But I do expect that a lot of them will like what they see if they read his page or talk to him. He's a good man, and would be a fine judge.