Speaking of strange bedfellows, the Star's business section is reporting today that a lawsuit has been filed alleging that Conseco rigged the sale of its Manhattan office tower, the General Motors Building, so billionaire George Soros could gain control of it. Conseco sold the 50-story building to Marlowe Properties for $1.4 billion, or $750 per square foot. Leslie Dick Worldwide claims it offered Conseco $1.5 billion for the building.
Soros is the money man behind Moveon.org, a left-leaning political organization that has spent tens of millions trying to defeat President Bush and other Republican candidates. Leslie Dick claims that Marlowe merely acted as a front man for Soros, who supplied $350 million to them to facilitate their acquisition. Leslie Dick wants $750 million in damages, plus a nullification of the sale. Conseco says the claim is without merit.
Wednesday, July 12, 2006
Fallout From Disclosure of Sheriff Anderson's $50,000 Salary Boost
Lots of news to report in the aftermath of the Star's disclosure that Sheriff Frank Anderson received a $50,000 pay raise after he earned more than $360,000 last year. Lawrence Township Assessor Paul Rickets, a member of the county's Administrative Board, got bounced from the Board the same day the Star reported that he would not have supported the sheriff's pay raise if he had understood the contract he and other Board members approved last December. City-County Council President Monroe Gray sent Rickets a letter telling him that his term had expired, and that his services would no longer be needed.
House Speaker Brian Bosma says it may be time to review the state law governing sheriff's pay, such as "a cap so it doesn't get out of line." Bosma tells the Star he was surprised at the numbers he read in the paper. Really? I recall a friend of mine in Illinois politics telling me about 20 years ago that the highest paid elected official in the country was the Marion Co. Sheriff who was then earning in excess of $200,000. Speaker Bosma is good friends with former Lawrence Mayor Tom Schneider, who badly wanted the office because of the lucrative pay. I have a hard time believing Bosma was surprised at all by the amount Anderson earns.
Sheriff Anderson's Republican opponent, Steve Davis, has finally found an issue. He's promising to cap his salary at $115,000 and return the sheriff's tax collection money to pay deputy's salaries. "He's getting free labor to collect those taxes," Davis tells the Star, "and he pockets the excess."
Meanwhile, the Star's editors take the position that there is no justification for Sheriff Anderson's outrageous salary. The Star writes:
And finally, Matt Tully has a strong view about Anderson's pay as well:
This is an issue which really resonates with voters. Anderson's opponent, Steve Davis, could defeat Anderson on this issue alone if he played his cards rights. But what do you want to bet that he won't? I'm betting he doesn't raise enough campaign funds to get on-the-air with a message.
House Speaker Brian Bosma says it may be time to review the state law governing sheriff's pay, such as "a cap so it doesn't get out of line." Bosma tells the Star he was surprised at the numbers he read in the paper. Really? I recall a friend of mine in Illinois politics telling me about 20 years ago that the highest paid elected official in the country was the Marion Co. Sheriff who was then earning in excess of $200,000. Speaker Bosma is good friends with former Lawrence Mayor Tom Schneider, who badly wanted the office because of the lucrative pay. I have a hard time believing Bosma was surprised at all by the amount Anderson earns.
Sheriff Anderson's Republican opponent, Steve Davis, has finally found an issue. He's promising to cap his salary at $115,000 and return the sheriff's tax collection money to pay deputy's salaries. "He's getting free labor to collect those taxes," Davis tells the Star, "and he pockets the excess."
Meanwhile, the Star's editors take the position that there is no justification for Sheriff Anderson's outrageous salary. The Star writes:
Crime is on the rise. Thousands of inmates are released early because of overcrowding at the jail. Too few deputies are patrolling the streets, but Marion County doesn't have enough money to add more officers.The Star attacks the Administrative Board for being "asleep while managing the taxpayers' checkbook." It dismisses Anderson's attorney's claim that he had been underpaid. "[T]there is no justification for paying the Marion County sheriff nearly the same compensation as the president of the United States," it writes. "Legislators need to wake up long enough to change the law that rewards sheriffs for collecting back taxes. The money belongs to the public, not its servants."
Yet, amid all of this, Sheriff Frank Anderson -- who made more than $360,000 last year -- was handed a $50,000 raise. At least one member of an administrative board that approved the pay hike now claims he didn't understand what he was doing.
Go ahead and scream if you're a Marion County taxpayer. You deserve it.
And finally, Matt Tully has a strong view about Anderson's pay as well:
As with so much in government, the more I thought and learned about Anderson's pay, the more annoyed I got.
This is a sheriff, after all, who complained for years about not having enough deputies on the street. But the system is rigged so that sheriffs -- not just Anderson -- make serious cash while too few police officers walk the beat.
And then there was the decision by a county board to grant Anderson a $50,000 base salary boost last year, amid talk that Anderson's tax commissions would drop this year.
For his part, Anderson says he works hard and points out that paycheck parameters are made at the Indiana Statehouse.
"I hope (residents) realize the compensation I got was put together by the representatives of the people -- the legislators," Anderson said.
He's right. This cash is legally and rightfully his.
But he is making one crucial mistake: He is defending his oversized pay.
He should be embarrassed. But he isn't.
"The people agreed and said that the compensation should be what it is," he said. "I haven't asked for any more than that."
But just how much is that?
Consider this: Anderson makes more than the mayor, the governor, the police chief and the average Hoosier family. Combined.
This is an issue which really resonates with voters. Anderson's opponent, Steve Davis, could defeat Anderson on this issue alone if he played his cards rights. But what do you want to bet that he won't? I'm betting he doesn't raise enough campaign funds to get on-the-air with a message.
Tuesday, July 11, 2006
Novak Tells All, Well Almost
Robert Novak is revealing two of his sources for his now infamous column outing the identity of Ambassador Joe Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, a CIA analyst on WMD. But his third and primary source for the leak still remains a mystery, although he says Fitzgerald already knew who his primary source for the leak was before he discussed his sources with the prosecutor. To no one's surprise, Karl Rove was one of his sources as was CIA public information officer Bill Harlow.
Novak reveals for the first time that he testified before the grand jury in February, 2004 but only after he learned that Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald already knew the identity of his sources, and the two who he testified about had waived their rights as confidential sources.
In the case of Bill Harlow, he told the Post that "he challenged aspects of Novak's account three days before the column was published and warned the columnist that if he did write about Wilson's Niger trip, Plame's name should not be revealed." Novak said he has a different recollection of the conversation according to the Post. Novak first learned of Plame's identity as Joe Wilson's wife from Wilson's entry on Who's Who In America.
"The primary source was not a political operative," Novak said, and [the source] mentioned Plame's role in the middle of a conversation about other subjects. "I don't believe it was part of a plan to discredit anybody." Novak later learned from a third party that his primary source inadvertently gave up Plame's identity to him.
Novak says he is speaking out now because Fitzgerald has told his attorneys that he is not going to be charged with a crime, and that he is free to discuss his testimony in the case. The speculation now begins to figure out who his primary source is. Several news commentators tonight expressed their view that it is Richard Armitage, a senior military advisor to the President. Personally, I've always wondered if former CIA Director George Tenet may not have been one of Novak's sources. It would help explain his sudden and unexpected departure from the administration in June of last year, just as Fitzgerald's investigation of the leak was beginning to heat up.
Novak reveals for the first time that he testified before the grand jury in February, 2004 but only after he learned that Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald already knew the identity of his sources, and the two who he testified about had waived their rights as confidential sources.
In the case of Bill Harlow, he told the Post that "he challenged aspects of Novak's account three days before the column was published and warned the columnist that if he did write about Wilson's Niger trip, Plame's name should not be revealed." Novak said he has a different recollection of the conversation according to the Post. Novak first learned of Plame's identity as Joe Wilson's wife from Wilson's entry on Who's Who In America.
"The primary source was not a political operative," Novak said, and [the source] mentioned Plame's role in the middle of a conversation about other subjects. "I don't believe it was part of a plan to discredit anybody." Novak later learned from a third party that his primary source inadvertently gave up Plame's identity to him.
Novak says he is speaking out now because Fitzgerald has told his attorneys that he is not going to be charged with a crime, and that he is free to discuss his testimony in the case. The speculation now begins to figure out who his primary source is. Several news commentators tonight expressed their view that it is Richard Armitage, a senior military advisor to the President. Personally, I've always wondered if former CIA Director George Tenet may not have been one of Novak's sources. It would help explain his sudden and unexpected departure from the administration in June of last year, just as Fitzgerald's investigation of the leak was beginning to heat up.
Fool Me Once Shame On Nestle, Fool Me Twice Shame On Me
The Star’s John Wall tells us that Nestle USA is providing a “rare treat” to the good people of Anderson by deciding to build a beverage-product factory there which will employ 300. And in exchange for that “rare treat” city taxpayers will fork over $46 million in tax breaks and incentives, and the state will kick in another $7.8 million in incentives. That amounts to almost $180,000 per job if you’re keeping count—one of the highest incentives ever paid to lure a manufacturer anywhere in the country.
Folks up in Anderson might have done well to consult with the folks up in Allen Co. before they decided to invest so heavily in Nestle. Fort Wayne Observed relates the story of a big distribution facility Allen Co. landed from the company back in 1990 with the help of incentives. The company closed the facility four years after it opened. Adding insult to injury, the company demanded and got a several hundred thousand dollar property tax break on the abandoned facility. Maybe Nestle will be sweeter to Anderson than it was to Allen Co.
Folks up in Anderson might have done well to consult with the folks up in Allen Co. before they decided to invest so heavily in Nestle. Fort Wayne Observed relates the story of a big distribution facility Allen Co. landed from the company back in 1990 with the help of incentives. The company closed the facility four years after it opened. Adding insult to injury, the company demanded and got a several hundred thousand dollar property tax break on the abandoned facility. Maybe Nestle will be sweeter to Anderson than it was to Allen Co.
Politicians and Budgets
Politicians, good and bad, are presumed by most people to be dishonest. When it comes to government budgets, the label of "dishonest" is well-earned by most politicians. Take for example President Bush’s reaction to the latest federal budget deficit numbers. The federal government is on track to run a $296 billion deficit this year, the fourth largest in history. Bush tells us that’s good news, however, because it is lower than expected. "This good news is no accident," Bush told taxpayers from the East Room of the White House. "It's the result of the hard work of the American people and sound policies in Washington, D.C."
Now keep in mind that President Bush inherited a budget surplus from his predecessor. Three of the largest deficits of all time have been recorded under President Bush, who ran on the promise of reducing wasteful federal spending. Of course, we’re expected to believe that 9/11 and the War on Terror are to blame for these record deficits. The Iraq War we were told by Bush’s first budget director, Mitch Daniels, would cost $50-$60 billion—similar to the cost for the first Persian Gulf War. Based on current congressional appropriations, the war has cost U.S. taxpayers $295 billion.
So understand my skepticism when Gov. Mitch Daniels announced that the State of Indiana ended the most recent fiscal year with a budget surplus of more than $370 million. But as today’s Star reports, “Indiana still owes schools, local governments and universities $700 million from delayed payments in 2002 that helped the state make ends meet.” Gov. Daniels is thinking about being nice though and paying a little bit of that money back sooner.
Let’s not forget all the extra help Gov. Daniels had in balancing the budget. There was a tax amnesty program, which accounts for more than $200 million, or over half of the budget surplus—a one-time boost in state revenues. There was all that extra money the state saved when FSSA Secretary Mitch Roob accidentally cut off benefits to more than 10,000 Medicaid recipients between January and May of this year. And then there was that small item in Jim Shella’s blog about the state holding up paying taxpayers their refunds until after the fiscal year. Surely that helped boost the surplus as well.
But if you think Gov. Daniels plays fast and loose with our budget numbers, take a look at Gov. Rod Blagoyevich (D) next door in Illinois. The Springfield State-Journal Register says that Gov. Blagoyevich’s claims that the state’s budget problems have been solved are simply not so. It turns out Gov. Blagoyevich simply delayed paying more than $2.9 billion the state owed to Medicaid providers, meaning the State really ran a budget deficit of more than $3 billion instead of the $500 million Blagoyevich bragged about. And he’s not alone. It turns out that every Illinois Governor over the past 16 years has done the same thing—balance the state’s budget on the backs of Medicaid providers by deferring payments from as little as $655 million a year to nearly $3 billion this year.
Former Illinois Senator Everitt Dirksen (R) once lamented about the casual attitude many in Congress took towards federal spending, “a billion here, a billion there, pretty soon you’re talking real money.” That’s a point that was lost on most of Sen. Dirksen’s colleagues in Congress during the 1960s and obviously not one taken seriously by many of our politicians today. So forgive me Gov. Daniels when I say I don’t believe a word of what you had to say today about the state ending the fiscal year with a surplus. The state of Indiana ran a deficit this past fiscal year just like it did year after year under prior administrations.
Now keep in mind that President Bush inherited a budget surplus from his predecessor. Three of the largest deficits of all time have been recorded under President Bush, who ran on the promise of reducing wasteful federal spending. Of course, we’re expected to believe that 9/11 and the War on Terror are to blame for these record deficits. The Iraq War we were told by Bush’s first budget director, Mitch Daniels, would cost $50-$60 billion—similar to the cost for the first Persian Gulf War. Based on current congressional appropriations, the war has cost U.S. taxpayers $295 billion.
So understand my skepticism when Gov. Mitch Daniels announced that the State of Indiana ended the most recent fiscal year with a budget surplus of more than $370 million. But as today’s Star reports, “Indiana still owes schools, local governments and universities $700 million from delayed payments in 2002 that helped the state make ends meet.” Gov. Daniels is thinking about being nice though and paying a little bit of that money back sooner.
Let’s not forget all the extra help Gov. Daniels had in balancing the budget. There was a tax amnesty program, which accounts for more than $200 million, or over half of the budget surplus—a one-time boost in state revenues. There was all that extra money the state saved when FSSA Secretary Mitch Roob accidentally cut off benefits to more than 10,000 Medicaid recipients between January and May of this year. And then there was that small item in Jim Shella’s blog about the state holding up paying taxpayers their refunds until after the fiscal year. Surely that helped boost the surplus as well.
But if you think Gov. Daniels plays fast and loose with our budget numbers, take a look at Gov. Rod Blagoyevich (D) next door in Illinois. The Springfield State-Journal Register says that Gov. Blagoyevich’s claims that the state’s budget problems have been solved are simply not so. It turns out Gov. Blagoyevich simply delayed paying more than $2.9 billion the state owed to Medicaid providers, meaning the State really ran a budget deficit of more than $3 billion instead of the $500 million Blagoyevich bragged about. And he’s not alone. It turns out that every Illinois Governor over the past 16 years has done the same thing—balance the state’s budget on the backs of Medicaid providers by deferring payments from as little as $655 million a year to nearly $3 billion this year.
Former Illinois Senator Everitt Dirksen (R) once lamented about the casual attitude many in Congress took towards federal spending, “a billion here, a billion there, pretty soon you’re talking real money.” That’s a point that was lost on most of Sen. Dirksen’s colleagues in Congress during the 1960s and obviously not one taken seriously by many of our politicians today. So forgive me Gov. Daniels when I say I don’t believe a word of what you had to say today about the state ending the fiscal year with a surplus. The state of Indiana ran a deficit this past fiscal year just like it did year after year under prior administrations.
Sheriff Anderson Gets $50,000 Boost In Pay As Police Cuts Are Made
ANDERSON PAID MORE THAN PRESIDENT BUSH
An obscure county committee made the decision months ago, but the public is just now learning as a result of a front-page feature in today's Indianapolis Star that Sheriff Frank Anderson, already one of the highest paid public officials in the country, got a $50,000 boost in pay this year on top of the more than $360,000 he earned last year. That places his salary above that of President Bush, who earns $400,000 annually. The Star's Brendan O'Shaughnessy explains:
It is always funny to watch politicians who like to take credit for everything good happening in their communities to suddenly head for the hills and plead ignorance when it comes to bad news. Both Mayor Peterson and Paul Rickets, a Republican member of the Administrative Board which approved Anderson's contract, claimed not to know anything about Anderson's salary adjustment. Their denials are simply not credible.
As the city has had to make cuts in law enforcement and seek ways to eke out additional savings through the merger of the police and sheriff departments, it is simply unconscionable to think anyone would believe Sheriff Anderson is entitled to any increase in pay, let alone a $50,000 raise. You know something isn't right when the first thing your county sheriff does after he is elected to office is to go out and purchase a million-dollar home on Geist Lake.
The problem lies in a ridicuolous state law which permits county sheriffs to pocket a percentage of the delinquent tax collections. Sheriffs negotiate with their respective counties their salaries upon assuming office, bargaining over just how much the county will pay them in salary in exchange for giving up a portion of the tax collection fees the law entitles them to receive. It's time to repeal this law.
An obscure county committee made the decision months ago, but the public is just now learning as a result of a front-page feature in today's Indianapolis Star that Sheriff Frank Anderson, already one of the highest paid public officials in the country, got a $50,000 boost in pay this year on top of the more than $360,000 he earned last year. That places his salary above that of President Bush, who earns $400,000 annually. The Star's Brendan O'Shaughnessy explains:
Marion County Sheriff Frank Anderson, who made more than $360,000 last year, was quietly handed a $50,000 boost to his salary this year.
Anderson holds the most lucrative public job in the state because Indiana laws let him keep some of the money his deputies collect in overdue taxes -- nearly $268,000 in 2005. That money comes on top of a salary that had been about
$100,000 a year.
That means Anderson made more than three times as much as Gov. Mitch Daniels and nearly as much as the official salary of the president of the United States.
Anderson's contract, which local officials must approve on an annual basis, was changed to add the $50,000 to his salary by a five-member panel that includes one elected official. In a 19-minute meeting the Friday before New Year's Eve, the sheriff's lawyers persuaded the three board members present to boost Anderson's salary by $50,000 to compensate him for the $50,000 in tax revenue fees he deposits annually into the county general fund, in accordance with state and county laws.
Anderson's attorney said converting the money to salary improves his tax situation and his pension. Pensions are based only on salary, not on outside income such as the tax fees. The change had such a low profile that one member of the board says he did not understand its implications when he voted for it.
Mayor Bart Peterson, who is spearheading the merger of the sheriff's department with the Indianapolis Police Department, said he was unaware of the salary boost until Thursday, when he learned about it from an Indianapolis Star reporter.
It is always funny to watch politicians who like to take credit for everything good happening in their communities to suddenly head for the hills and plead ignorance when it comes to bad news. Both Mayor Peterson and Paul Rickets, a Republican member of the Administrative Board which approved Anderson's contract, claimed not to know anything about Anderson's salary adjustment. Their denials are simply not credible.
As the city has had to make cuts in law enforcement and seek ways to eke out additional savings through the merger of the police and sheriff departments, it is simply unconscionable to think anyone would believe Sheriff Anderson is entitled to any increase in pay, let alone a $50,000 raise. You know something isn't right when the first thing your county sheriff does after he is elected to office is to go out and purchase a million-dollar home on Geist Lake.
The problem lies in a ridicuolous state law which permits county sheriffs to pocket a percentage of the delinquent tax collections. Sheriffs negotiate with their respective counties their salaries upon assuming office, bargaining over just how much the county will pay them in salary in exchange for giving up a portion of the tax collection fees the law entitles them to receive. It's time to repeal this law.
Catholic Church Lobbying Succeeds In Defeating South Bend Gay Rights Ordinance
MAYOR LUECKE PROMISES EXECUTIVE ORDER
After intense debate in front of a packed city council chamber that ran well into the early morning hours, South Bend's Common Council voted down a proposed gay rights ordinance for the second time in as many years on a 5-4 vote. In this heavily populated Catholic community, home to Notre Dame University, supporters of the proposal were outmatched by the lobbying efforts of the Catholic Church.
As the council took up the issue anew a couple of months ago, Bishop John D'Arcy drew an early line in the sand, taking the unusual step of putting out a public statement urging the defeat of the ordinance. He slammed the ordinance, which would have prohibited discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, saying it was "more about validating in law homosexual lifestyles and behaviors than it is about addressing unjust discrimination." He warned that passage of the ordinance would lead to wider efforts to promote homosexuality as it had in other communities which had past similar ordinances.
To make sure all Catholics in South Bend got the message, the church took the step of reprinting Bishop D'Arcy's statement opposing the ordinance in a church bulletin, along with contact information for Mayor Stephen Luecke and each of the 9 common council members. Ironically, the anti-discrimination ordinance exempted the Catholic Church and other religious organizations. The Catholic Church joined forces with the extremist, anti-gay bigoted organization No Special Rights, which spewed hate-filled messages about gays and lesbians over the past several months in South Bend. Interestingly, the Catholic arch diocese in Indianapolis stayed out of a similar debate in Indianapolis this past year as its city-county council narrowly approved an identical ordinance after a hard-fought battle by Indianapolis' GLBT community against the Christian right.
Tonight's loss is a major setback for Mayor Stephen Luecke, a Democrat, in his efforts to revitalize the struggling community, both economically and culturally. He was slapped down by his own party, which controls the council by an 8-1 margin. The council Democrat president, the Rev. Timothy Rouse, publicly announced his opposition to the ordinance in an opinion piece critical of the equal rights proposal in the South Bend Tribune. Rouse falsely claimed that Indiana law prohibited South Bend from enacting an ordinance which provided more extensive civil rights coverage than state law. He also attacked a poll commissioned on behalf of Indiana Equality, which showed 79% of Hoosiers favored equal rights for gays and lesbians, as biased.
The five council members who voted against the amendment were Derek Dieter, D-1st; David Varner, R-5th; Erv Kuspa, D-6th; Timothy Rouse, D-at large, and Karen White, D-at large. Voting in favor of the amendments were sponsor Charlotte Pfeifer, Roland Kelly, D-3rd; Ann Puzzello, D-4th; and Al "Buddy" Kirsits, D-at large.
South Bend Equality, which led local efforts to pass the ordinance on behalf of the GLBT community, should be lauded for its hard work and uplifting message over the past two years in the face of its opponents' message of intolerance and religion-based bigotry. Their efforts have not proved fruitless. Mayor Luecke has promised to issue an executive order adding sexual orientation and gender identity to the city's EEO policy, which will protect city workers from discrimination.
Catherine Pittman of South Bend Equality assures the South Bend Tribune she is undeterred by last night's vote. The Tribune's Jamie Loo wrote:
After intense debate in front of a packed city council chamber that ran well into the early morning hours, South Bend's Common Council voted down a proposed gay rights ordinance for the second time in as many years on a 5-4 vote. In this heavily populated Catholic community, home to Notre Dame University, supporters of the proposal were outmatched by the lobbying efforts of the Catholic Church.
As the council took up the issue anew a couple of months ago, Bishop John D'Arcy drew an early line in the sand, taking the unusual step of putting out a public statement urging the defeat of the ordinance. He slammed the ordinance, which would have prohibited discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, saying it was "more about validating in law homosexual lifestyles and behaviors than it is about addressing unjust discrimination." He warned that passage of the ordinance would lead to wider efforts to promote homosexuality as it had in other communities which had past similar ordinances.
To make sure all Catholics in South Bend got the message, the church took the step of reprinting Bishop D'Arcy's statement opposing the ordinance in a church bulletin, along with contact information for Mayor Stephen Luecke and each of the 9 common council members. Ironically, the anti-discrimination ordinance exempted the Catholic Church and other religious organizations. The Catholic Church joined forces with the extremist, anti-gay bigoted organization No Special Rights, which spewed hate-filled messages about gays and lesbians over the past several months in South Bend. Interestingly, the Catholic arch diocese in Indianapolis stayed out of a similar debate in Indianapolis this past year as its city-county council narrowly approved an identical ordinance after a hard-fought battle by Indianapolis' GLBT community against the Christian right.
Tonight's loss is a major setback for Mayor Stephen Luecke, a Democrat, in his efforts to revitalize the struggling community, both economically and culturally. He was slapped down by his own party, which controls the council by an 8-1 margin. The council Democrat president, the Rev. Timothy Rouse, publicly announced his opposition to the ordinance in an opinion piece critical of the equal rights proposal in the South Bend Tribune. Rouse falsely claimed that Indiana law prohibited South Bend from enacting an ordinance which provided more extensive civil rights coverage than state law. He also attacked a poll commissioned on behalf of Indiana Equality, which showed 79% of Hoosiers favored equal rights for gays and lesbians, as biased.
The five council members who voted against the amendment were Derek Dieter, D-1st; David Varner, R-5th; Erv Kuspa, D-6th; Timothy Rouse, D-at large, and Karen White, D-at large. Voting in favor of the amendments were sponsor Charlotte Pfeifer, Roland Kelly, D-3rd; Ann Puzzello, D-4th; and Al "Buddy" Kirsits, D-at large.
South Bend Equality, which led local efforts to pass the ordinance on behalf of the GLBT community, should be lauded for its hard work and uplifting message over the past two years in the face of its opponents' message of intolerance and religion-based bigotry. Their efforts have not proved fruitless. Mayor Luecke has promised to issue an executive order adding sexual orientation and gender identity to the city's EEO policy, which will protect city workers from discrimination.
Catherine Pittman of South Bend Equality assures the South Bend Tribune she is undeterred by last night's vote. The Tribune's Jamie Loo wrote:
Following the vote, Catherine Pittman, a member of South Bend Equality, which fought for the bill's passage, said the group was disappointed but undeterred. The council could've made the choice to pass the amendments to allow gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender persons to bring their concerns to the Human Rights Commission. The group will continue to fight for GLBT civil rights in this community, Pittman said.
"We're going to keep coming to Common Council," Pittman said. "There's no other place to go. We're going to continue to bring our concerns here."
Monday, July 10, 2006
Bush To Veto First Bill: Stem-Cell Research
Karl Rove tells the editorial board of the Denver Post that President Bush is prepared to issue his first veto of his administration. The bill the President will veto deals with expanded funding for embryonic stem-cell research. "The president is emphatic about this," Rove is quoted as saying. The legislation is sponsored by Rep. Mike Castle (R-RI).
Rep. Diana DeGette (D-CO), a co-sponsor of the legislation, told the Denver Post "I'm appalled that Bush would use the first veto of his presidency to veto a bill that could help 110 million people and their families." It is appalling that the president would side with a handful of extremists on an issue of federal research which offers so much hope for medical advancements. And of all issues to take a stand against Congress. It is remarkable that the President has not vetoed any of the wasteful spending bills Congress has sent to him since taking office loaded with earmarks, while he chooses to oppose a spending bill favored by the vast majority of Americans.
Rep. Diana DeGette (D-CO), a co-sponsor of the legislation, told the Denver Post "I'm appalled that Bush would use the first veto of his presidency to veto a bill that could help 110 million people and their families." It is appalling that the president would side with a handful of extremists on an issue of federal research which offers so much hope for medical advancements. And of all issues to take a stand against Congress. It is remarkable that the President has not vetoed any of the wasteful spending bills Congress has sent to him since taking office loaded with earmarks, while he chooses to oppose a spending bill favored by the vast majority of Americans.
Bluegrass Report Sues Kentucky Over Internet Policy
Bluegrass Report, a Democrat-leaning blog in Kentucky, is suing Kentucky Gov. Ernie Fletcher (R) over the state's new Internet policy, which blocks state employees access to certain websites, including blogger Mark Nickolas' Blue Grass Report. According to the Louisville Courier-Journal's Elisabeth Beardsley, the federal lawsuit alleges that the state policy violates the First Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause. Beardsley explains:
Nickolas may be pushing this issue a little too far. No one would question that the state, or any employer for that matter, has a right to regulate the Internet use of its employees. Clearly, Internet access is a privilege the state can take away from its employees altogether. If the state is limiting access to pure news and work-related sites only and excluding all blog sites, entertainment sites, online auctions and other totally non-related work sites, then the state's policy is probably reasonable. If it is, however, allowing access to blog sites it agrees with politically, while blocking those it doesn't agree with politically, then Nicholas would have a good argument. That doesn't appear to be the case here though.
Nicholas argues in his suit that he's really not a blog but a legitimate news organization. His reports are widely distributed to players in Kentucky government and politics. If I had to compare him to an organization in Indiana, it would be the Howey Political Report, which mixes news and opinion related to Indiana government and politics. The state defends its policy because it says the news sites are content-neutral, while the blogs are generally aligned with certain interest groups. Nickolas counters that some of the news sites have blogs within their sites which allow readers to post comments and maintain message boards which allow readers to post comments on news stories as they are updated during the day.
A weakness in the state's case in defending Nickolas' lawsuit is the rolling manner in which it adopted its Internet policy. When it was first implemented, it appeared only to target certain blogs like Bluegrass Report which had been critical of the Fletcher administration, while allowing access to other similar blog sites. After publicity questioning whether the state's policy was being applied in an evenhanded manner, the state appears now to be blocking all blogs. However, Nickolas' suit claims state employees can still access the Drudge Report and a site run by conservative columnist Ann Coulter. You can view Nickolas' lawsuit by clicking here.
The Fletcher administration attempted to prevent state workers from accessing blogs, online-auction and entertainment sites last month. Officials said a review found state employees were using their time to surf the Web while at work.
Nickolas, a frequent Fletcher critic, claims the administration targeted his Web site based on his political speech, said his lawyer Jennifer Moore.
He is also arguing that the administration illegally discriminates based on content, since state workers can still access newspaper and TV station Web sites.
Nickolas may be pushing this issue a little too far. No one would question that the state, or any employer for that matter, has a right to regulate the Internet use of its employees. Clearly, Internet access is a privilege the state can take away from its employees altogether. If the state is limiting access to pure news and work-related sites only and excluding all blog sites, entertainment sites, online auctions and other totally non-related work sites, then the state's policy is probably reasonable. If it is, however, allowing access to blog sites it agrees with politically, while blocking those it doesn't agree with politically, then Nicholas would have a good argument. That doesn't appear to be the case here though.
Nicholas argues in his suit that he's really not a blog but a legitimate news organization. His reports are widely distributed to players in Kentucky government and politics. If I had to compare him to an organization in Indiana, it would be the Howey Political Report, which mixes news and opinion related to Indiana government and politics. The state defends its policy because it says the news sites are content-neutral, while the blogs are generally aligned with certain interest groups. Nickolas counters that some of the news sites have blogs within their sites which allow readers to post comments and maintain message boards which allow readers to post comments on news stories as they are updated during the day.
A weakness in the state's case in defending Nickolas' lawsuit is the rolling manner in which it adopted its Internet policy. When it was first implemented, it appeared only to target certain blogs like Bluegrass Report which had been critical of the Fletcher administration, while allowing access to other similar blog sites. After publicity questioning whether the state's policy was being applied in an evenhanded manner, the state appears now to be blocking all blogs. However, Nickolas' suit claims state employees can still access the Drudge Report and a site run by conservative columnist Ann Coulter. You can view Nickolas' lawsuit by clicking here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)