Palin comments on crosshairs and Giffords shooting

Sarah Palin has put up a video on her Facebook page giving a 7 minute statement partly defending her use of cross hairs of a gun on Gabrielle Giffords Congressional district as one where people should "reload" on the healthcare debate.

Several stories in major news outlets are detailing the statement and going more in-depth.

The Washington Post story had some relevant links, including the video, to previous stories if you want to follow the evolution of the coverage on this, which appears to be growing, and in my opinion, in a negative way for Palin. Her polls must be showing as much as there is great risk to her political future the more she responds to this.

Typically, p.r. types will tell public officials to stay away from a controversy and avoid being implicated by involvement in the discussion, but if the polls start showing its very negative, the strategy has to be to try to combat that.

Cross hair map below. At one point, an aid to Palin said they were not intending it be cross hairs at all, but that seemed to be refuted by Palin who earlier described the markers as "bull's-eyes"

There were apparently 10,000 comments on her Facebook page, not all of them positive.

Most interesting is the risk former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty took in implicitly criticizing the Palin cross hair map, which he says wouldn't be his "style," and he wouldn't have done it. His statement is here in the New York Times political blog.

His statement to them "“It’s not a device I would have chosen to do. Everybody has got their own style or different approaches,” Mr. Pawlenty said. “But I don’t want to have anyone infer that there’s evidence in this case that it caused or was a contributing factor. We don’t know that.”

In the most Minnesota nice way possible, he took a chance at gaining some ground on Palin politically. He could have defended her to the max, and he did defend here, but in a sort of damning with faint praise sort of way.

In the end, it doesn't really matter if there is a connection or not, if there is, it's even worse for Palin, but the fact that she has been part of the debate, no matter how much she tries to distance herself will be part of the narrative that develops.

And as much as the mainstream media has been very responsible and clear in not connecting her to the killer, people will think what they want to think, and they won't always listen to the mainstream media.

Please, don't make me "read the bill"

The old "read the bill" catchphrase seems to be rearing its head again.

There is a movement afoot to put full copies of Congressional bills online three days before they are acted upon.

The ideas will seemingly help average citizens see what their representative are voting on. It evolved from a lot of anger aimed at the passage of the health care reform bill, that was 2,000 or 3,000 pages long, and news reports, that members of Congress hadn't read the bill.

Putting full text of a bill online might be helpful for lawyers and lobbyists who will know important phrases and subparagraphs to pay attention to, but it will not help average citizens trying to understand what their members are voting on.

I know. I've tried to read legislative bills. They're a mess of complication and confusion. You'll find yourself looking up words,and their legal meaning.

You'll find yourself going back and forth through hundreds of pages trying to find "subdivision c" of Section 4351, subsection (d) as it relates to Section 4352, subsection (f), paragraph (i).

Trust me. You don't want to read the bills these guys put together. In fact, in my view, putting the full bills on line before they are voted on, gives the lobbyists the advantage over regular people.

What Congress should require is a clear summary, written in plain English, to be posted before the bill is finalized.

That actually is available in most cases, if you go to the Library of Congress website http://thomas.loc.gov. You can search by bill number of common title or key word, and find the status and usually a nice summary written by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service.

Actually, the Thomas website already has full text of bills, and earlier versions and later versions, online already. A separate website would in my mind be duplicative.

It takes tons of time and expertise to get anything out of the legalese in these bills. We "hire" members of Congress and their staff to understand this stuff for us and communicate it in a way we understand.

That's there job. Not mine.

And if I'm in the dark, they'll hear about it.

But please, don't make me read the bill.

Arizona shooting: Adding to our violent history

The politics of blame converged with the politics of hate as Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords fought for her life in an Arizona hospital bed Monday.

She surviving being shot in the head by a gunman who pretty much walked right up to her at an event quaintly described as "Congress on the Corner." The bullet passed through her brain. It's a miracle she's alive.

The gunman appears mentally ill by all accounts.

The politics of blame came calling through the thousand voices connecting the gunman's inspiration to the right wing, Sarah Palin and others who they say use violent metaphors and foment and idea that government is the enemy. The issues were raised, the connections made, maybe implicitly, as these newspeople reported, over and over again, there was no evidence the gunman even knew who Sarah Palin was.

But others, the Tuscon sheriff included, described the incident as almost an "inevitable" product of our politics of hate.

Many weighed in on that.

The New York Times conceded that there was no causal link between the politics of hate, Sarah Palin and the gunman, but described the incident as a product of an environment, possibly created by Palin and others.

The Times wrote of the gunman:  "But he is very much a part of a widespread squall of fear, anger and intolerance that has produced violent threats against scores of politicians and infected the political mainstream with violent imagery. With easy and legal access to semiautomatic weapons like the one used in the parking lot, those already teetering on the edge of sanity can turn a threat into a nightmare"

The Washington Post seemed more reluctant to offer a cause and affect, but had interesting points nonetheless.

From the Post: "The temptation will be, as Arizona and the nation mourn the dead and hope for the recovery of the wounded, to infuse the terrible attack with broader political meaning - to blame the actions of the alleged 22-year-old gunman, Jared Lee Loughner, on a vitriolic political culture laced with violent metaphors and ugly attacks on opponents."

"Maybe. But metaphors don't kill people - guns kill people"

The Post went on to call for reinstating the assault weapons ban that expired under President George W. Bush that would have outlawed the weapon and clip used. Gunman still could have used a smaller clip, which the Post reasons, may have at least "reduced the carnage."



It's troubling to me that we have been reduced to seeing the bright side of an incident as "reducing the carnage."

A column by law professor Glenn Reynolds in The Wall Street Journal blasts the media for making, it seems, any reference whatsoever to Palin, and such implicit blame continues the politics of "blood libel" that the left is decrying.

Says Reynolds "When Democrats use language like this—or even harsher language like Mr. Obama's famous remark, in Philadelphia during the 2008 campaign, "If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun"—it's just evidence of high spirits, apparently. But if Republicans do it, it somehow creates a climate of hate."

When I was a freshman in college, I was required to read a book called "Violence in America" that detailed the many violent episodes in American history, and put forth the thesis that violence is essentially part of our history and has a lot to do with how we govern ourselves today.

It seems we write another chapter in that book with every Oklahoma City bombing, every Virginia Tech shooting and every Arizona assassination attempt.

I'm not sure there's any one person or group to blame, if not all of us, in a way.

Will political leaders think twice about how they describe their opponents or their opposition to the government after the near murder of one of their own?. I hope so.

But it's too bad these tragedies have to be the cause of that kind of reflection.

Cut tax "earmark" deal in Minnesota

A preview of Sunday's editorial takes a common sense approach to cutting the special tax breaks for businesses out of the Minnesota budget for savings of $2.1 billion.

Some preview excerpts. (there's a reward at the end if you take your spinach and read through this stuff!)

Over the years, Minnesota’s tax code has exploded with special deals

These so called “tax expenditures” represent unfair tax breaks for one business over its competitors. If your business is dog grooming, you pay a sales tax. If your business is grooming one’s legal issues as a lawyer, you pay no sales tax. If you sell someone a computer, you pay sales tax. If you provide computer “services” you pay none.

These kind of inequities go on and on when one considers the latest “tax expenditure” budget report from the state of Minnesota. In just the area of business services purchased by businesses alone, there are $2.1 billion of these tax deals, about a third of the current deficit.

Add another $400 million to state coffers if these tax deals were removed for consumer purchases of business services.

From day one of the sales tax in Minnesota, it's been unfair.

Some services were taxed with the establishment of the Minnesota sales tax in 1967, including gas and electric service and local telephone service, and preparing and serving meals. The sales tax was expanded in 1987 to include parking services and laundry service and building cleaning services.

Yet, apparently those businesses with good lobbyists kept their tax exemptions.

It’s a system that started out as unfair and remains today as unfair as ever. Removing these exemptions cannot be described as raising taxes. It’s more like collecting debts owed from taxes that should have been paid years ago.

Officials say these deals are “for public policy goals, such as funding or encouraging specified activities or providing financial assistance to persons, businesses, or groups in particular situations.”

Sounds like government intrusion into the marketplace to us.

Send lawyers, guns and money (OK, that's not in there, but I couldn't resist).Here's a great youtube version of the song by Hank Williams.

Have a good weekend.

Sorry Mr. Boehner, you can't have it both ways

New House Speaker John Boehner, R, Ohio, has rejected estimates from the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office that his plan to kill the affordable health care act would increase the deficit $230 billion in the next nine years.(CBO summary report)

He told the Washington Post in a comprehensive and very fair story "Well, I do not believe that repealing the job-killing health-care law will increase the deficit," he replied. "CBO is entitled to their opinion, but they're locked within constraints of the 1974 Budget Act."

For years, Boehner has used CBO estimates (as does every else because they're legitimate) for his own arguments on the affordable health care bill's initial costs. When CBO reported those costs as too high or raising the deficit, the Obama administration went back and changed things about the law, after which CBO changed its costs estimates.

Everyone, including Boehner, seemed to accept those estimates.

In addition, Boehner and the Republican leadership appear to be doing the same things they decried in the crafting of the affordable health care bill. They are not going to allow any hearings or allow any amendments to their bill to repeal the act. They're basically going to cut off discussion, a curious thing to do in a body of Congress.

That's just hard to defend. Here's what Boehner told the Post. "I promised a more open process. I didn't promise that every single bill was going to be an open bill."

Yikes. That's pretty damning.

I'm not sure I would advise Mr. Boehner to do many of the things he criticized when he was out of power. And if we're going to pick and choose when we believe the CBO, we may as well guess at the numbers.

If the federal government were a bank, it would be shut down

I came across a press release from the Government Accountability Office (GAO) and was quite stunned by its  veracity.

Here's the lead sentence.

"The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) cannot render an opinion on the 2010 consolidated financial statements of the federal government, because of widespread material internal control weaknesses, significant uncertainties, and other limitations."


It basically says the federal government doesn't have enough internal and external financial controls for an auditing agency like the GAO to even given an opinion (much less a good or bad opinion) about the accuracy of its financial statements.

In other words, if the federal government were a bank, it would likely be shut down. There's not an accounting way to tell if the financial statements are accurate or tell us anything.

Here's the statement.

 Read and be amazed. Or scared. Eikes!

Cal Thomas misleads on "death panels"

The Cal Thomas column in today's (Tues. Jan. 4) Free Press in unfortunately misleading and should be considered warily by readers as an opinion based on facts.

Thomas fails to mention one or two key facts about the new provision in Medicare rules that allows Medicare to pay for end of life counseling between a physician and patient.

Here's the column in the Washington Examiner.

He doesn't mention anywhere that this discussion is totally voluntary, and the government does not mandate this discussion, though Thomas' column would have you believe so.

In my opinion, Cal Thomas is intellectually dishonest in this argument. I have no problem with him arguing this policy will evolve into his so called "death panel" ( a very inaccurate term for the policy), but to leave out pertinent facts to help readers decide if your opinion is sound is pretty much unconscionable as a columnist.

So, as editor, why do I allow his misleading and unconscionable column to be printed?

Well, I guess that's just my belief that most people will be able to tell misleading when they read it and give him less credibility in the free marketplace of ideas.

I do reserve the right however, at some point, to stop paying for his misleading columns should they become too numerous. Fortunately, he doesn't always act this way. I have even been known to agree with him at times.

So we'll cut him some slack for now.