Granny D on 'The View'

According to an email I received earlier this week [yeah, I'm just getting to about 200 emails I have to read], Granny D and the director of the documentary about her, "Run Granny Run," will be on "The View" tomorrow morning at 11 a.m.

Where are the lawyers of America?

Guest Perspective/Ralph Nader

The rogue regime of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney—so widely condemned for its unconstitutional, criminal Iraq war, its spying on Americans illegally, its repeated illegal torture practices, its arrests and imprisonment of thousands in this country without charges and its pathological secrecy and corporate corruption—still has not felt the heat of the 800,000 practicing lawyers and their many bar organizations.

Lawyer jokes aside, the first defense outside of government against the rejection of due process, probable cause and habeas corpus should come from the officers of the courts—the attorneys of America. With few exceptions, they have flunked, asleep at the switch or loaded with excuses.

The exceptions are a number of law professors such as David Cole (Georgetown University) and Jonathan Turley (George Washington University) and the magnificent one-year presidency of Michael Greco at the conservative American Bar Association.

Mr. Greco, appalled at the outlaw nature of the Bush White House, now wallowing in the pits of the public opinion polls, organized former counsel to the CIA, the National Security Agency and the FBI, among others, to produce detailed reports and resolutions assailing the Bush government for repeatedly violating the constitution in numerous ways. (http://www.abanet.org/)

Reports were sent to Mr. Bush personally. He did not even bother to acknowledge receipt. The ABA has over 400,000 members and is the largest bar association in the world. Not even a courtesy reply from George Bush, the American Caesar.

Unfortunately, the courage of Greco and his colleagues has not been contagious with hundreds of thousands of lawyers throughout America or the 50 state bar associations who might have taken some action or position to stand after the ABA stood tall in 2005-2006.

Mind you, the climate for lawyers defending the rule of law is quite enabling. Seventy percent of the American people want out of Iraq and nearly as many would like to see this Presidency end. A poll of soldiers in Iraq back in January 2006 registered 72% of them wanting the U.S. out of Iraq within six to twelve months.

In addition, scores of former Generals and high military officers, retired intelligence officials and diplomats have openly criticized the intransigence, incompetence and harm to the U.S. national security. These leaders include the national security advisers to Bush’s father, Brent Snowcroft, the anti-terrorism advisor to George W. Bush, Richard Clark, and many others who served in high government office.

With all this in mind, I have been asking lawyers why they do not become directly active in challenging what they themselves believe is a reckless above-the-law Presidency and its enormous concentration of unlawful power. Here are some examples of their replies.

--real estate attorney with a sterling civil liberties background says “I am just too busy.”

--numerous retired lawyers of considerable accomplishment simply say they are retired.

--mid-career business attorneys say they have too many clients who might object (too much wheeling and dealing to uphold the rule of law in Washington, D.C.).

--public interest lawyers say it is not within their declared mission—eg. environmental, consumer, poverty or law reform work.

--“Too controversial,” and “I’m not up to it,” announced a prominent trial lawyer.

--“I wouldn’t know where to start and I just need my leisure time,” replied a highly specialized estate and trusts attorney.

And so it goes. Too preoccupied, too many deals in the works, too controversial, too retired…

The Democratic leadership in the Congress has given Bush/Cheney a giant nod by taking a pass on holding them accountable through impeachment, through conditions in budget bills, through making them answer subpoenas by playing hardball on Bush’s nominees, such as his new choice for Attorney General.

It is up to the lawyers to rally for the Republic. This is deep patriotism, for without upholding our constitution, and the laws of the land, what will become of our country?

What will our children and their grandchildren inherit—a bankrupt government that contracts out more and more of its core functions to staggeringly expensive giant corporations seeking limitless profits, while they finance and corrupt politicians to turn their back on the peoples’ needs?

Lawyers are supposed to know how to apply law to raw power. They know how to use the courts, lobby (there are hundreds or thousands of attorneys in each of most Congressional Districts). They can cut through the arcane camouflage of legalese. They know when the laws are being violated and what the remedies are for the violators. They know how to draft legislation. They have contacts and money and are not supposed to be frightened of conflict. The super-lawyers invariably get their calls returned.

Where are the lawyers of America?

Two major terrorist strikes, with a messianic, compulsively-obsessed President, can do to America what 9 months of nightly bombing by the Nazis could not do to England—move us much closer to a police state.

Where are the stand-up lawyers of America?

Red River Theatres!

Red River Theatres, the indie cinema recently constructed in downtown Concord, is slated to open next week. The 2008 Leadership Greater Concord class took a tour of the facility earlier today [I was the facilitator for the class this month]. So, I took some pictures. Enjoy. It will be open next week:

Welcome! Here is the lobby of Concord's new indie theatre.


Here is the 48-seat theatre which will host local films, events, and meetings.


During the tour, projectionists were testing the projectors in the 106-seat theatre.


Here is the large 165-seat theatre.

Well, my car brakes work ...

Late last night, on my way home, I took the more residential ride home from the highway and almost struck a deer. It was fairly large with no antlers so it was probably female. However, it was pretty big, at least three-plus feet high.
I saw it out of the corner of my eye and thought I wasn't seeing what I was seeing until it was right in front of my windshield looking at me. Deer in the headlines is a literal term, BTW. I hit the brakes, everything in the car went flying around, but the sound scared the deer enough to move to the side where I just missed her by inches. Thankfully, I was only going about 5 miles an hour above the speed limit and was wearing my safety belt. Otherwise, my brand new Honda Civic would probably be junk scrap and I'd be in the hospital.
Hilariously, my first instinct was to reach for my digital camera to get a picture of the deer but it was tucked away in my computer bag which was lodged beneath the passenger seat. Ah, always the reporter.
Since I know what it is like being in a car which has hit a deer before - my father-in-law and I hit one in upstate New York in September 2005 - you can imagine that I was a bit freaked out. It shook me up, you know, life flashing before your eyes stuff. But I was glad to get in the house, a little less than a half a mile later, to sit down for a few minutes. That was a close one.
So, a warning to everyone in New Hampshire, the deer are out there, especially at night. Be a bit more cautious in your driving and you won't hit them ... and hopefully, they won't hit you either.

Barlett & Steele Awards

I received this email earlier today about these awards. Barlett & Steele are two of the best investigative journalists in the country. Check out their new piece in Vanity Fair about the $12 billion in Iraq which just vanished.

INAUGURAL BARLETT & STEELE AWARDS FOR INVESTIGATIVE BUSINESS JOURNALISM ANNOUNCED

TEMPE, Ariz. -- Reporters at The New York Times and The Sun in Baltimore have been awarded the inaugural Barlett & Steele Awards for Investigative Business Journalism, the Donald W. Reynolds National Center for Business Journalism announced today.

“A Toxic Pipeline” by Walt Bogdanich and Jake Hooker of The Times received the first-place $5,000 award. Their stories documented China’s role in supplying a counterfeit drug ingredient that killed at least 100 people in Panama and is suspected of killing thousands of others around the world.

Their use of first-person interviews and public records to spotlight the issue of Chinese exports of drugs and food has had dramatic international impact, the judges said.

“On Shaky Ground” by Fred Schulte and June Arney of The Sun received the second-place $2,000 award. Their series in December 2006 tracked how Baltimore’s arcane system of property fees initiated in colonial times had evolved into a system of greed and lax oversight that preyed on the poor and elderly.

They assembled a customized electronic database to track hundreds of lawsuits, cases and files. An original, well-presented series focused on the paper’s own back yard and made a difference, said judges.

Receiving honorable mention (listed alphabetically) were:

--Bloomberg Markets, “The Secret World of Modern Slavery” by Michael Smith and David Voreacos.

--The Charlotte Observer, “Sold a Nightmare” by Binyamin Appelbaum, Lisa Hammersley Munn and Ted Mellnik.

--The Toledo Blade, “Business as Usual” by Joshua Boak and Jim Tankersley.

“Response to the inaugural Barlett & Steele Awards was dramatic, with the quality and number of entries a tribute to the dedication of U.S. journalists and publications during a difficult time for the media,” said Andrew Leckey, Director of the Donald W. Reynolds National Center for Business Journalism at the Walter Cronkite School of Journalism and Mass Communication at Arizona State University. “Our panel of respected judges commended the entries and said the selection process required extremely hard choices.”
Biographies of judges and links to the articles are on the BusinessJournalism.org website.
The awards to encourage investigative business journalism are named for the team of Don Barlett and Jim Steele, who won two Pulitzers with The Philadelphia Inquirer and two National Magazine Awards at Time. They have worked together more than three decades and are currently contributing editors to Vanity Fair.
"Don Barlett and I are deeply honored that the Reynolds Center has established this award in our name," said Steele. "But, more importantly, we are gratified that it is providing leadership to recognize and encourage in-depth reporting of business." The Reynolds Center is funded by the Donald W. Reynolds Foundation, a national philanthropic organization founded in 1954 by the late media entrepreneur for whom it is named. Headquartered in Las Vegas, Nevada, it is one of the largest private foundations in the United States. The Walter Cronkite School of Journalism and Mass Communication, named in honor of the longtime CBS news anchor, is a leading professional journalism school with 1,700 undergraduate and master's students.

NH Primary Day should be set for Saturday, Dec. 28, 2007

With all the talk about shifting primary dates, I urge Secretary of State Bill Gardner to make two bold moves: Set the date in 2007 and make Election Day a Saturday. There really are not many options. So, let's go with this one: Saturday, Dec. 28, 2007. This way, the voters can think about things right after the holiday and the campaigns can crash all the great holiday parties. What a way to celebrate. Also, most folks have Saturdays off. So it will be a great opportunity to build community and increase turnout. While we don't want to upset Iowa, the choice is clear. If they want to be before us, let them have their caucus before Christmas, either on Dec. 15 or 22.

Interesting update on toll increase or D*mn them, Part 2

Tom Fahey's column in the New Hampshire Union Leader this morning revealed an interesting part of the new tax increase: The change buckets are going to go. And, guess what will replace them? Yup, 200 new part-time tolltakers. So, let's say, on average that the part-timers make $15,000 per year. That would be another $3 million in expenses. This doesn't include workman's comp expenses or anything else. So, it is safe to estimate that more than 1/5th of the new revenue from the $14 million toll increase will go to new employees, not road repair. What a joke.

It looks like Howie means business

It looks like Howie Carr means business: ["Howie Carr 969"]

Another bumpersticker

So, was Nader right or wrong?

An interesting little give and take is going on over at the National Association of Manufacturers' blog, ShopFloor.org, which I think it worthy of reposting here, since I'm involved in it.
Earlier this week, Ralph Nader sent me his latest column about an advertising supplement for the NAM published in the WSJ. Since I read the WSJ, I noticed it too, and posted Nader's column happily.
However, over at the NAM, they weren't too happy about the column and they posted this note on their blog: ["How Embarrassing: To Get Basic Facts Wrong"].
Nader's mistakes? It was a four page supplement, not two. And, the NAM claims they didn't "buy" the ad, "It was paid for by ads." There was barely a mention about Nader's main points of the column or the fact that alleged free trade is clobbering the American economy.
I didn't see the blog's post until five days later, after they posted this, upset that I published the Nader column: ["Before Truth Can Get Out of Bed in the Morning"]. Thankfully, a reader from overseas posted a comment taking me to this blog entry. I would not have even noticed it otherwise.
Since my blog was noted on their blog, I responded with some questions of my own:

Hi Carter,

Thanks for the plug about the blog. A few quick questions:

1) "... the NAM did not buy it. It was paid for by the ads" can you clarify please? Did the WSJ invite you to put together a four page supplement in which they would get ads for it, or did you reserve the space and then sell ads for it? If it is the latter, than Ralph would technically be correct: You reserved [bought] the space and then got some other entities to help you pay for it. If it is something else, please explain. Thanks.

2) As we all know, "freedom isn't free" and when it comes to alleged free trade and alleged free markets, there is years and years with of statistical evidence showing that it has been a costly, harmful and expensive for the United States to have as policy. I could go into a bunch of the data, but you already know it.

3) I would contend having been a watcher of the WSJ editorial pages for a bit of time that while they may think their philosophy is "free people, free markets" it is more like "freedom for certain people and certain markets if you can afford it."

The response from Carter was even more enlightening in its curt, short response:

Our advertising practices are the business of the association and its members. Which does not mean free rein to make stuff up about them.

Hmm. Well, OK, he's correct. But he doesn't answer the question. So, I wrote this:

Hi Carter,

Not to be argumentative, but you didn't really answer the question. Of course it is your business but that doesn't mean Mr. Nader made anything up or was inaccurate, as you claim. In fact, knowing a bit about marketing and having worked in media in some way, shape or form now for almost two decades, I would bet that his conclusions were quite accurate and you're just a tad defensive because he called your org on it. Since you won't answer my question - for obvious, understandable reasons - you can't really back up what your saying. At the same time, simply answering the question would really enlighten people to how such supplements come together. Personally, whether I agree with the information or not, they are a great marketing tool for getting your company's [or association's] points across.

I think in the future, before you tarnish someone like Ralph Nader, a hero to many and, frankly, a champion of American manufacturing and workers, with accusations on your blog, maybe you should either be prepared to back them up, or just let it go.

Thanks for the convo and I look forward to continuing to read your blog ... since I too care about American manufacturing and workers.

They haven't cleared the post yet for publication but I will be interested to see what the response is.
The NAM blog is actually a pretty interesting read, with all kinds of details about American manufacturing. So, I'm glad to have discovered it even if it was this way. But it would be nice to see the NAM start to worry about some of their political positions and how they are harming American manufacturing and American workers. The two, as well as the health of the overall country, are tied hand in hand.

Browns have been arrested

WCVB-TV is reporting that Ed and Elaine Brown have been taken into custody without incident.

Ron Paul: The $5M Man

Updated
GOP Texas Rep. Ron Paul is the story tonight. In third quarter fund-raising, he raised more than $5 million - double what he did last quarter and more than the more "serious" candidates. Paul is getting a lot of respectful press today. But there is still some of the disrespect directed at him, despite the fact that he is raising pretty big money: ["Too many talkers"].

Here are some fund-raising numbers:

Dems
Clinton: $22 million
Obama: $19 million
Edwards: $7 million
Richardson: $5.2 million
Biden: $2 million
Dodd: $1.5 million
Kucinich:
Gravel:

GOP
Giuliani: $11 million
Romney: $10 million [est.]
Thompson: $9.3 million
McCain: $6 million
Paul: $5.1 million
Huckabee: $1 million
Tancredo:
Hunter:
Brownback:
Keyes:
Cox:

Romney also kicked another $8.5 million in personal funds into his coffers. He now has $9 million on hand, which means he is blowing through almost as much money as he is raising.

The Best Editorials Money Can Buy

Guest Perspective/Ralph Nader

On September 26, 2007, the powerful National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) bought two pages in the Wall Street Journal to tout a prosperous, expanding group of member-companies producing products.

It occurred to me as I began the copy, that the NAM rarely bought expensive space like this in the Journal. Then after going through NAM’s introductory message, I realized why they purchased the ad. Month after month in hundreds of loyal editorials, the Journal’s editorial writers already have been conveying the cravings and demands of this trade association.

The parallels between this revenue-producing two page spread and the Journal’s opinion scribes, in contrast to its often sterling news pages, are the stuff of the corporate state.

The editorials argue for more “clean” coal and nuclear power and emphasize expanding production of U.S. oil and natural gas with a token tip to renewables (with plenty of taxpayer subsidies).

So does the NAM.

NAM wants more so-called “free trade” agreements without recognizing, at the very least, that there can be no “free trade” with dictatorships like China. Dictatorial, oligarchic regimes determine wages, prevent free trade unions, and otherwise through grease and no-rule-of-law or access to justice, obstruct market-based costs and pricing.

So do the Journal’s editorial writers.

In scores of frenzied editorials, the Journal assails tort law, tort attorneys and “unreasonable awards.” Having read just about all these advertiser-friendly diatribes, I have yet to discern any data to back up their flood of declamations about “frivolous” litigation and “wild” awards.

Neither did the NAM produce any evidence about “lawsuit abuse” because the evidence points to declining product defect and malpractice suits, notwithstanding that 90% of these injured people suffer without any legal claims filed on their behalf. (See: http://www.centerjd.org/ and http://www.citizen.org/)

The Journal’s rigid ideologues demand less regulation (read less law and order for corporations) and the weakening of the Sarbanes-Oxley law enacted to modestly deal with part of the corporate crime wave of the past decade.

So does the NAM.

The NAM wants further reduction of the already reduced corporate tax rate and more taxpayer pay-out to corporations, including super-profitable ones like Intel, GE, Cisco and Pfizer. These latter windfalls are called research and development tax credits. How many Americans know that they are paying these and other super-profitable companies more money to make still more profits? Cisco does not even pay dividends.

So also demands the big business echo chamber on the Journal’s editorial pages.

The Journal has been campaigning for years to end the estate tax which is so diluted that less than 2 percent of all estates have to pay anything to Uncle Sam. Conservative Republican wordsmith, Frank Luntz, in a moment of abandon, called lobbying an effort to end “the billionaires tax.”

The NAM wants an end to the estate tax, even though none of its corporate-members ever has to pay an estate tax. For good measure, NAM wants to keep the maximum tax rates on investment income and capital gains at a level half of a worker’s maximum tax rate. Far lower taxes on capital than on labor suits the NAM three-piece-suits just fine.

The Journal is for brain-draining the Third World. Drain those critical doctors, nurses, scientists, engineers, innovators and entrepreneurs from Asia, Africa and South America. Give them permanent visas and then wonder why those countries are having trouble fielding the skilled leaders needed to develop their own economies. It is easier than training talented minority youths in our country.

The NAM ad calls for “reform of the visa system to attract and retain global talent.”

And so it goes. Such a symbiotic relationship! Big business members of NAM pour millions of dollars in ads daily into the Wall Street Journal. In return, the dutiful and gleeful editorial writers deliver the screeds that caress the brows and deepen the pockets of the CEOs.

There is another recurrent message in the insistent materials of NAM and its comrade-in-greed, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Enough is never enough.

For over a quarter century, there has been more and more de-regulation (electricity, motor vehicles, coal, drugs, nuclear, occupational safety, pollution, aviation, rail, truck antitrust and more) with detriment to the health, safety and economic well-being of the American people. Still not enough, they say!

In the same period, you the taxpayer have been forced to have your tax dollars pour out of Washington and into the coffers of Big Business in a myriad of ways. Hundreds of billions of your dollars. Not enough, they say! They roar for more coddling.

You want chapter and verse, evidence and data? Get ready to read Free Lunch, a riveting new book by the Pulitzer-prize winning tax reporter for The New York Times, David Cay Johnston. It will be out in about two months. Just in time for your gift-giving season.

D*mn them!

The New Hampshire Union Leader is reporting that the tolls are going to be raised on state turnpikes. Pathetic.
Update: Deb Pignatelli, D-Nashua, was the only EC member to vote against the toll hikes.

Yeah, but I had it first!!

The Web was all abuzz yesterday and today about Duncan Hunter's Web site being hacked. Apparently, the hacker is a big deal in Turkey, since I've seen a burst of traffic from that country during the past 24 hours. As I previously reported, I had it on the Web first so hah, hah. :-) Some bloggers got it around 10 a.m. and ABC News had something up at 11 a.m. Yeah, I know. I just happened to be up at that hour looking at sites. But still - I got the news on the Web first. Yeah baby!

EXCLUSIVE: Duncan Hunter Web site hacked?!

While perusing presidential campaign Web sites this morning, looking for end of third quarter financing statements, I came upon Rep. Duncan Hunter's Web site and it looks like it has been hacked. The following came up on the screen, below the site's masthead:

"HACKED BY ADANALI f0r TurkStorm[dot]Org" and then below that it stated "No WAR!" Below that, there pictures of two Middle Eastern children with what looked like war wounds, stating "Savasa Hayr! no war!"

I tried to figure out how to save the page but I couldn't make it work. I will have to teach myself how to do this in the future. It is doubtful that this was approved of by the Hunter campaign considering his gung-ho support for the alleged War on Terror.

Update: I'm putting "EXCLUSIVE" in the headline because it looks like I'm the only one who has spotted this, according to a number of searches I've attempted.