Bluftooni

Thank you Upper Providence!

2011-11-14T19:33:00.000-05:00

I am honored and humbled by the faith that the voters of Upper Providence Township have placed in me. Over the course of the next six years, I promise I will work hard to be worthy of your trust. Thank you for your support.

In a tough campaign such as this one, there are many people deserving of recognition.

I’d like to thank George Faris for running a hard fought campaign.

My committee provided me with invaluable advice and support, both throughout the campaign and on Election Day. Thank you to each and every one of you for your unique contribution to the race. I could not have crossed the finish line without such a great team behind me.

There are experienced and trusted friends who gave me essential guidance, and, no matter how busy with their own obligations, always made time to talk through my concerns with me. Additionally, many friends and family members eagerly volunteered to work the polls on Election Day. I am deeply grateful to all of you for your enthusiastic support and friendship.

To my family: thank you for your patience, your love, and your support. I love you all.

To my husband Gene, the most indispensable person in my campaign: I simply could not have done it without you. Your unshakable belief in me is the bedrock of my life.

I ran for Township Supervisor because I have very deep roots in this community and I care about its future. I believe that the accountability arising from those deep roots results in good decisions for all of the residents. In spite of attempts to paint me otherwise, I come to this position with an open mind and an honest desire to serve Upper Providence Township. I hope that those members of the community who may have reservations about me will be good enough to give me the same benefit of the doubt that they gave my opponent.

I look forward to working with all of the residents of Upper Providence to improve our quality of life. Thank you again for your support.

The campaign kicks into high gear

2011-10-16T08:13:00.000-04:00

One of the most rewarding things about campaigning for Upper Providence Township Supervisor is meeting so many of my neighbors face to face. I am both pleased and honored to report that the response to my candidacy has been overwhelmingly positive.

If you would like to help out, or place a sign in your yard, please send me an email at lisamossie@yahoo.com, or follow this link to the Upper Providence Township Republican Committee's website and follow the link on the left to "Support Lisa Mossie."

9/11 was not a tragedy; it was a deliberate act of war

2011-09-11T09:47:00.001-04:00

The word "tragedy" implies that there was no intent behind the attacks. In the current parlance of our overeducated elites who seek to absolve blame from all perpetrators of the most heinous acts and spread it to society, or some nebulous segment thereof, it is no wonder our sense of unity on 9/11/01 has been lost in the decade hence.

Those who yearn for that lost sense of unity have forgotten the price by which that unity was bought. At least on that day ten years ago, there was no question in anyone's mind who our enemy was or what had happened. It was only a decade of propaganda from our mainstream media, a deluge of politically correct dogma, and the all-too-soon remembrance of the left's "stolen election" that has brought us back almost full circle to the state of mind our country was in up to the minute of the attacks: bitterness at the results of an election, distraction caused by yet another Washington scandal, and a preoccupation with entitlements.

Funny enough, in the ten years since 9/11, and in the seething white hot liberal rage against George W. Bush, his supposed "stealing of the election" and everything the Bush administration stood for then and in the decade hence, I have yet to hear anyone utter the words, "If only Al Gore had been President on 9/11."

I am sitting and watching the names being read at the memorial which has succeeded only in dressing up the holes in the ground rather than defiantly re-raising the towers, something many of us assumed would happen in the immediate aftermath. We are left with a memorial that only can "reflect on the absence," as if we are incapable of standing up again.

This speaks to the mindset of a certain segment of our society who is, and always has been, uncomfortable with the idea of American might. This is the same segment that now places entitlements above all; looks to the almighty Federal Government to keep us safe, provide for us, and above all, not to provoke certain elements into attacking us again, even if it is this very weakness that provokes those elements. This is the segment of our society that is comfortable with American decline and it is a vocal segment.

I cannot help but remember that on September 11, 2001, it was not FEMA nor the Federal Goverment that mobilzed immediately on that day, but the local first responders who did what they were trained to do. They rushed in when others rushed out. Yet there is no separate memorial for the Firefighters or Police at the holess at Ground Zero. After all of the debate and resulting controversy about the memorial, what it should be, what it should not be; you would think that at least that part of it---the part of it honoring the first responders---would be something that even we, as a deeply divided nation, could agree upon.

But apparently not.

Perhaps that is why "Reflecting Absense" is apt; for truly we have lost something as Americans if we cannot even find room to honor the true heroes of that day.

Some of the best columns I have read on the 9/11 anniversary:

Retired Firefighter's Values reinforced since 9/11 - An article about my cousin, Firefighter Michael Carlo

A Decade of Heroes by Rich Lowry

We'll Never Get Over it, Nor Should We by Peggy Noonan

Let's Roll Over by Mark Steyn

Myth and Reality After 9/11 by Victor Davis Hanson

NEVER FORGET.

U.S. 422: If a train is such a great idea....

2011-06-07T22:20:00.002-04:00

...then somebody needs to explain this slide to me:

This is from the Draft of the 422Plus slide show that was presented to Governor Tom Corbett's Transportation Funding Advisory Commission ("TFAC") yesterday. Full slide show can be viewed here.

I call your attention to total annual funds needed for Operations and Maintenance of $16.04M and the total annual fare revenue of $3.97M. If I'm reading this correctly, and someone please tell me if I'm not, a full 85% of the funding for the annual operating and maintenance of the Choo Choo is coming from the state. So much for a self-sustaining transportation alternative.

We can talk "alternate funding sources" all we like; at the end of the day it's academic. There is only ONE funding source: you and I, the tax payers. Eventually, no matter what it is that is taxed, it's you and I that pay for it, either directly or indirectly.

Some relevant quotes on taxation from the folks who support the additional tax burden to justify the ChooChoo train. Pottstown Mercury:

Hoeffel said the plan would be funded initially by a $1-billion bond issue, which would be repaid by the tolls, and open in 2015. Hoeffel emphasized the project should be under local management and revenue should remain in Berks, Chester and Montgomery counties.

“What we raise here should stay here,” Hoeffel said.

The 422 tolling plan could be a model for other roads in the state.

Hoeffel said the plan has not been presented to local governments or the General Assembly, which would need to enact enabling legislation for the plan and bond issue.

The governing bodies “need leadership. I guess the negative way of saying it is, ‘They need cover,’” Hoeffel said.

"What we raise here should stay here," sounds great in theory but what it means in practice is the creation of a local taxation authority ala the Pennsylvania Turpike Commission and Delaware River Port Authority, institutions famous for their political patronage job creating abilities.

If perhaps you've forgotten that the 202 corridor has just benefitted from a half a billion dollars in funding for road improvements, without imposing a toll, I direct your attention to this post.

My favorite quote, though, comes from Carol Rein of Bank of America Merrill Lynch, who is apparently an expert on road tolling mechanisms and claims that Texas and Florida have the best tolling and transportation funding programs around the country. Her quote is especially jarring:

“You have to pick taxes that are hard to evade, so you can predict their collectibility,”

US 422: For Whom the Road Tolls

2011-06-01T19:54:00.001-04:00

The proposal to toll US Route 422 has floated to the top of the news again. Sunday's Pottstown Mercury:

The executive commission examining transportation funding in Pennsylvania will hear a proposal June 6 that could hit the wallets of Route 422 commuters.

The 30-member commission, appointed by Gov. Tom Corbett, will see a presentation demonstrating how tolls on Route 422 in Montgomery, Chester and Berks counties could serve as a model for similar projects statewide. The commission is looking for a way to generate more than $2.5 billion in annual transportation funding in the post-stimulus environment of declining federal spending on infrastructure.

State Secretary of Transportation Barry Schoch, who also serves as chairman of the commission, said the Route 422 model would allow county or municipal authorities to form a “local taxation authority” and keep the revenue from tolls and local taxes dedicated for local highways.

That revenue would be “above and beyond” transportation spending at the state level, Schoch said.

Let's set aside the fact that state government exists primarily to fund the creation and maintenance of infrastructure and let's not ask where all of THAT money has gone (nor will we question the reliance on fiscal federalism that got us to the place where we need to fund a $2.5 billion shortfall at this time). However, the suggestion to form a "local taxation authority" in this article should send chills down the spine of any thinking Pennsylvanian who has the tiniest bit of working knowledge of the Pennsylvania Turnpike Authority and the Delaware River Port Authority, long havens of political patronage jobs and fund mismanagement. Rule number one is never ever give the government a new revenue stream. Rule number two is never create a new local taxation authority to manage that revenue stream.

But these are all issues that have been discussed before on this blog. Why I revisit the 422 tolling issue once more is because of a mailer I received today from Senator Andy Dinniman called "Moving Forward - A New Route 202." The mailer is not available online at the time of this post, however this press release from March 22, 2011 has the relevant passage that I was looking to excerpt:

"[T]he Route 29 slip ramp, the Turnpike Widening and the Route 202 Widening represent an investment of $523 million to our local economy, which is expected to spur at least an additional $1.5 billion in construction and the creation of up to 20,000 full-time jobs,” Dinniman said. “It will provide a significant boost to our region in challenging economic times.”

According to Senator Dinniman's press release, the Route 29 slip ramp and Turnpike widening is a $48 million project that is funded entirely by Turnpike tolls.

The US Route 202 widening project is described as such on the project's website:

Significant growth in the region has increased traffic on US Route 202 to levels well beyond those that the two-lane highway originally was designed to handle. In fact, 73,000 vehicles a day now travel on this section of Route 202, and the improvements we have planned will help the highway carry its present and future traffic more efficiently.

Under the overall Section 300 project, PennDOT will utilize significant federal and state transportation funding, most of which is collected at the fuel pump and through licensing fees, to

Reconstruct Route 202's four existing travel lanes
Add a third travel lane in each direction, utilizing the existing grass median
Rebuild seven overpasses to provide additional horizontal and vertical clearance
Construct a two-lane collector-distributor (C-D) roadway along northbound Route 202 at the Route 29/Great Valley Interchange to eliminate conflicts between ramp traffic and through traffic
Improve the Route 401/Frazer Interchange and install new traffic signals
Install Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) components, including highway cams and electronic message signs
Improve the expressway’s storm water management system, and
Erect sound walls at eligible locations

So my question is this:

Route 202 corridor has benefitted from millions of dollars of investment in infrastructure improvment and widening in recent years, this latest "Section 300" of the project is only the most recent. And all the while this 202 improvement has been going on, US 422 has been almost completely neglected except for a cursory resurfacing here and there and a half-assed widening of the Betzwood Bridge that caused more problems than it solved.

And now, in order to improve 422 to give it's commuters the same state-of-the-art highway that Route 202 communters enjoy, Harrisburg is trying to tell Route 422 commuters that the only way to fund their necessary infrastructure improvements is through tolls. If tolls are so critical to the funding of our infrastructure as we've been led to believe, why not toll Route 202 as well? Why should 202 commuters not have to pay for their own improvements?

Oh, wait. We're forgetting that most critical of all central planning expenditures:

In the case of Route 422, the tolls also could pay for a commuter rail line to take some of the pressure off the highway between Reading and the Pennsylvania Turnpike and Interstates 76 and 476

Oh yes. The TRAIN. Because trains are NOTORIOUSLY self-sustaining without subsidies (see: SEPTA), and effective at alleviating traffic (see: Route 202 and the Schuykill Expressway).

No one will ever be able to convince me that the impetus behind 422 tolling is to fund infrastructure to alleviate traffic. It sounds far more plausible that 422 tolls will be primarily used to fund another government run, public union-staffed, tax dollar subsidized public transportation sytem that will have absolutely no positive impact on the traffic that 422 commuters sit in every. Single. Day. Only 422 commuters will get the double insult and injury of having to pay for this indignity.

422 tolling is a bad idea that must never be implemented.

Thank you to the Voters of Upper Providence Township

2011-05-20T21:04:00.000-04:00

Dear Neighbors,

I am humbled by your overwhelming support for me this past Tuesday. Thank you so much for coming out on May 17 and taking the time to vote.

I believe that the ideals of good government and fiscal responsibility are principles that cross party lines and partisan ideology. Upper Providence has grown tremendously in the last decade and we are no longer a sleepy agricultural township, but a thriving suburb with vibrant retail and commercial sectors that share a common zip code with family farms that have been here for more than a century. A Township with diverse interests such as ours requires a clear vision for the future. In today’s climate of economic uncertainty, my financial background will be critical in sustaining Upper Providence Township’s high level of services without incurring a tax burden on the community. My goal of increasing transparency will enrich communication between the taxpayers and the Township.

In speaking with so many of you these past weeks, I know that you have concerns and ideas for how we can improve the place we call home. I know that one person does not have all the answers; only together can we move Upper Providence Township into the future, to grow responsibly while preserving our precious heritage. I have heard you and, if elected, I promise to continue to listen and communicate with you. I will never forget that I work for you.

I’d like to thank Bob Fieo for running a hard fought campaign and for his twelve years of dedicated service to our community.

I’d like to thank each member of the Upper Providence Republican Committee, for their support and long hours spent at the polls on Election Day. Thank you also to my family and friends for their advice and hard work. Your support was critical to my success on Tuesday.

And finally, my deepest thanks and undying love for my die hard campaigners: my daughter Dana who drove the “campaign car” every day and my husband Gene, who is my rock, my biggest cheerleader and the guy who kept me going when I was dead on my feet. Your love is my bedrock and your faith in me is my source of strength.

One of the greatest pleasures of running for office was meeting so many terrific people. As I make my way through your neighborhoods in the weeks and months ahead, I am looking forward to hearing your thoughts and ideas about how to move our Township forward. In the meantime, please email me with any concerns, questions or thoughts you may have at lisamossie@yahoo.com.

Thank you again for your support. Together we can move Upper Providence forward.

Very Truly Yours,

Lisa Mossie

Upper Providence Township: Mossie 514, Fieo 265

2011-05-18T06:01:00.004-04:00

Special thanks goes to my committee members, in particular Dianne Canney, Tom Krumenecker, Mary Saylor, Colin Smith, Chris Czop and municipal leader Don Madison, for their unwavering support and for standing out in the rain all day for me.

Special thanks to my critical support network, including my employer, my 1180 WFYL Live and Local co-host, Barry Papiernik, the great PaWatercooler contributors Bill Shaw (and Scraps!)and Janice Kearney, Jim Saring and Bo Donovan and the Oaks Neighboorhood Association.

Extra special thanks to my family: my girls Jodi Vermuth and Colleen Emmons, my son-in-law Brett Vermuth, our neighbor Alyssa Culver, my sister Chrissy Hindle, brother Tom Ferlick and friends Ned Dougherty, Gil Zimmerman, Anna Mie Czop, Anne Biddle, Chuck Lowry, Walt Fedak, Chuck Stoll and Ruth Wanamaker, who all stood in the rain yesterday.

And finally, my thanks and undying love for my die hard campaigners: my daughter Dana and especially my husband Gene, who is my rock, my biggest cheerleader and the guy who kept me going when I was dead on my feet.

With such a solid support network, I couldn't lose. Thank you one and all. On to November!

I'm a little busy right now....

2011-05-03T21:33:00.000-04:00

....but I will be back soon!

Vote May 17 in your local primary!

Desegregating Liberals

2011-04-07T21:09:00.002-04:00

Two brave letters from two different sources about the same controversial topic: The challenges liberals face in integrating conservatives into their lives. Overcoming the basic innate prejudices is just the first step. Taffy Brodesser-Akner submits this confession on Salon.com:

When you live, say, on a coast or in a very blue state, you grow accustomed to being surrounded by people who believe like you do. You get to thinking that the only people who would dare contradict you are ignoramuses. Meanwhile, I began directing all my anger toward the Republican Party at Janet. On the day that Congress voted to defund Planned Parenthood, I found myself furious at Janet, just Janet, as the face of all that was bad in the world. Feeling sad and deflated, I wandered over to her house, unable to look her in the eye, asking her why? How? To what end?

She told me she didn't believe government had any business funding it in the first place. That this isn't about abortion or hating women but ways the government doesn't need to be involved. She told me Planned Parenthood was well-funded and won't even miss the money. "Planned Parenthood will be better off without government funding and all the strings that are presumably attached," she said. "I sometimes wonder why liberals, who are so enamored of the freedom to do any damn thing they want, even take government money when it constricts their freedoms."

I closed my eyes and breathed through what she was saying. Janet isn't Glenn Beck or Sarah Palin. She believes what she's telling me, and she's studied the issues. That might be what is so difficult: She has the same education as I have, and yet she has made different decisions, decisions that are so counter to what I believe. Decisions I find abhorrent.

And yet, I think having a Republican friend is making me a better liberal. We need friends who differ from us. It's easy to watch Republican extremism and think, "Wow, they're crazy." But when someone is sitting face to face with us, when someone we admire and respect is telling us they believe differently, it is at this fine point that we find nuance, and we begin to understand exactly how we got to this point in history. We lose something critical when we surround ourselves with people who agree with us all the time. We lose out on the wisdom of seeing the other side.

Read all of Taffy's piece here.

There is an old adage that liberals think conservatives are evil; conservatives think liberals are stupid. Jay Nordlinger shares the following letter in his "Impromptus" column today from a liberal correspondent who begins by talking about Rush Limbaugh:

More recently, listening to bits of his radio show on road trips, I’ve been struck by his affection for his personal acquaintances, whatever their political leanings. He can be harsh about the Left as an abstraction, but seems disposed to like individual people, really.

In general terms, acknowledging that there are all sorts of exceptions, I’d call that a common strength of conservative people — when they find out you’re a liberal, they’ll look quizzically at you sometimes, but will not start withholding warmth or congeniality. That’s been my general experience as a liberal talking with conservatives, anyway.

I’m exasperated to admit that just the opposite behavior seems to be, in general, one of the great weaknesses of liberal people. I fell madly in love with a conservative man about two years ago, and we are now engaged. When some (not all, and not the best) of my liberal friends meet him and find out his political affiliation, you can almost feel the resulting “cooling off,” as if they suddenly fear they may be speaking to a Bad Person.

My fiancé confirms, matter-of-factly and without resentment, that he has noticed all this, and even goes so far as to say that he can sense which kinds of people would be most distressed by his politics. He withholds information about himself accordingly, to avoid social discomfort.

And he’s a fiscal conservative ONLY!! Doesn’t give a toss about the social/cultural concerns of the Right. In other words, he represents the sort of conservatism liberals claim to like.

It’s the kind of thing that makes me laugh to keep from crying, really. I feel like a genial (dare I say DEMOCRATIC?) interest in each person who crosses your path in life is completely consistent with what I call liberalism — and there was a time when I would have pegged conservatives as generally more judgmental, but in my dotage, I find that life is, as always, much more surprising than that. :-)

Jay Nordlinger does not share any of the mail he received in response to his column today, and to be fair, Mr. Nordlinger's column appears on National Review's website---not exactly a hotbed of liberal discourse.

However, the Salon piece by Taffy Brodesser-Akner had 185 comments posted as of this posting. And while there are a number of commenters who cautiously applaud or tepidly offer non-judgemental platitudes over crossing such rigidly ideological lines, many of the comments reflect not only an overwhelming prejudice against conservatives, but a general intolerance against any of their "own kind" mixing with conservatives.

I don't have any conclusions to draw from these letters (and the reactions to them) since they only serve to reinforce my own personal experiences. I think that this trend has been turned up in recent years, to the point where it has become common practice to dehumanize conservatives as evil which means that nothing---absolutely nothing--- is off limits when it comes to defeating them.

Letters like Taffy's and Nordlinger's reader's give me hope that someday, we can learn to engage in civilized debate and agree to disagree where necessary. That being said, I don't think that day is coming any time soon.

Four More Years!

2011-04-07T19:41:00.000-04:00

Sweet Dreams are made of this.....

2011-04-02T18:21:00.005-04:00

I have been known to throw together a special cake or two. So when my brother told me about the Sweet Dreams Cake Decorating Contest being held by the Souderton Area Educational Foundation, I could not resist the urge to compete.

Over 50 professional and/or amateur cake decorators will display cakes using an EDUCATION theme. Chefs, sugar artists, bakers, caterers, restaurants, grocery stores, bakeries, vo-tech schools, evening schools, hobbyists, clubs, and individuals will compete to win cash prizes! Cakes will be entirely edible and will serve a minimum of 30 people. Decorated cakes will be donated for use as auction items and will not be served at this event.

The cake designs must reflect an education theme but I am going with something slightly more creative than a schoolbus or a pile of text books. I can reveal that it will be a pound cake with vanilla buttercream icing, decorated with fondant and candy accents.

If you come to the event, I will be easy to find: I will be the most amateur of the amateur competitors.

YOU can vote for your favorite cake and help the decorator win!•Meet celebrity guests Chef Mauro Castano and his son, Buddy Jr., who are featured on the hit reality TV show on TLC about Carlo’s Bake Shop.

First and third prizes in both the professional and amateur divisions will be awarded by the panel of judges, (including "Cake Boss" Mauro Castano.)

However, Second Prize in both divisions is "Viewer's Choice" and you can help me win, even if you don't come to the event. Viewer's Choice will be determined by guest voting at the event AND by sponsors solicited before the event. If, through the sweetness of your own heart you wish to sponsor me in this event (in any amount, no matter how small or large) the sponsorship form is available HERE. Be sure to check on the box that says "Yes, please count my donation as votes towards the following cake decorator:" and fill in my name, Lisa Mossie.

Souderton Area Education Foundation

Sweet Dreams Cake Decorating Contest, Cake Auction

and

Education Showcase

Date: Saturday, April 16, 2011

Time: 10:00a.m. to 1:00p.m.

Location: Souderton Area High School

Tickets: $3 at the door OR donate a used cell phone

Lunch will be available for purchase in the cafeteria!

Ask your doctor about Obamacare!

2011-03-31T21:16:00.001-04:00

Springsteen: Working Class Hero or 90210 NIMBY?

2011-03-25T20:44:00.003-04:00

"Let's meet after the fund raiser for some arugula and white wine spritzers!"

Tough call, right? The LA Times reports on the tony town of Benedict Canyon, California, 90210, whose neighbors are uniting against a mystery developer:

Nobody in wealthy Benedict Canyon can say for sure what his name is or where he's from, but the owner of a pricey 5.2-acre property on Tower Lane is fast becoming persona non grata among an exclusive club of Los Angeles homeowners.

In a neighborhood whose residents include Bruce Springsteen, Jay Leno, Michael Ovitz and David Beckham, this mystery landowner is preparing to build an 85,000-square-foot family compound, fit for royalty.

The proposed complex is an eclectic mix of European architecture in the coveted 90210 ZIP Code. Although the area teems with mansions boasting swimming pools and tennis courts, residents say the scale of this "megamansion" pushes the bounds of common sense and decency.

If the owner gets his way, the real estate will host a 42,681-square-foot main house, a double-winged "son's villa" of more than 27,000 square feet, a 4,400-square-foot guest house, a 5,300-square-foot staff quarters and a 2,700-square-foot gatehouse. Those and other proposed structures would occupy a combined area larger than Griffith Observatory.

How very gauche. How nouveaux riche. It sounds like this guy simply isn't their kind, dahling.

Never fear, nothing unites a bunch of rich snobs than the shared purpose of excluding some grubby little new money social climber. When that happens, the working class hero shows he knows how to wield a clipboard with the best of the NIMBYs.

In an area known more for gated estates than block parties, the controversy has so far united more than 150 residents. Through e-mails, house gatherings and phone calls, opponents have built support for their cause. Next, they plan to mount a door-to-door campaign and launch a website.

Hey, remember this guy?

Yeah. Neither does he.

Everybody, sing it with me, one last time with feeling:

Workin' in the fields
till you get your back burned
Workin' 'neath the wheel
till you get your facts learned
Baby I got my facts
learned real good right now
You better get it straight darling
Poor man wanna be rich,
rich man wanna be king
And a king ain't satisfied
till he rules everything
I wanna go out tonight,
I wanna find out what I got
Well I believe in the love that you gave me

I believe in the love that you gave me
I believe in the faith that could save me
I believe in the hope
and I pray that some day
It may raise me above these

Badlands, you gotta live it everyday
Let the broken hearts stand
As the price you've gotta pay
We'll keep pushin' till it's understood
and these badlands start treating us good

If it's not a baby, then you are not pregnant

2011-03-23T20:37:00.002-04:00

I happened to see the bumper sticker on my way home yesterday that I used for the title of this post. It struck me as particularly appropriate after reading about the married idiot vet in Upper Gwynedd killing his pregnant girlfriend so his wife wouldn't find out about his affair. Inky:

A married Montgomery County veterinarian has been jailed without bail on charges that he shot and killed his pregnant girlfriend in Lehigh County last week.

David A. Rapoport, 30, of Upper Gwynedd Township, was arrested Tuesday, accused of fatally shooting veterinary technician Jennifer Snyder and killing the unborn child believed to be his.

State Police found the body of Snyder, 27, Friday in a nature preserve in North Whitehall Township. Authorities said the Lower Macungie woman had been shot twice by a gun placed inside her mouth and once in the lower back, then doused with bleach, wrapped in black plastic with duct tape, and left in the woods along Game Preserve Road.

According to court records, Snyder's roommate told police that Rapoport, who is married, had been dating Snyder. The two had formerly been coworkers at a veterinary hospital in Lower Macungie.

Rapoport had become "very angry" upon learning that Snyder was pregnant, said the roommate, Hilary Schiavone, but they had "made up" after not speaking to each other for several days.

Snyder had been scheduled for an ultrasound exam the day after she allegedly was killed. An autopsy showed she was about two months pregnant with a male fetus.

Let's forget for a moment the rather morally bankrupt behavior on the part of both parties that led to this unfortunate situation. What interests me this evening is that following the article are a series of comments trying to reconcile the "murder" of an unborn child and the rather mundane practice of abortion (Are you still wondering why Kermit Gosnell was surprised by the charges of murder that he faces?). Here's the jist of it:

I'm basically pro-choice, but am baffled by how he can be charged with murder of an unborn child. If the pregnnt woman had rolled out of bed this morning and decided she didn't want the child, she could end its life. She can, because science says at two months the fetus is not actually a "life". But, because she WANTS the child....it's now a life? — jabs69

getoveryourselves....Sorry about the double post. You don't know where I'm coming from, apprently. All I'm saying is I find it amazing that what truly determines whether that fetus inside her is a life or not, is what SHE says it is. We are told it's determined by science, but that is apprently not completely true. If it was, it would then be impossible to charge the man with the murder of the fetus. She's not a murdere, should she choose to terminate, that "non-life". You following this? — jabs69

Subsequent commenters can't decide whether jabs69 is trying to make a point or really trying to figure out the disconnect:

jabs, I get it wholeheartedly and wonder the same thing myself. Apparently it's a "baby" or a "human being" ONLY if it's wanted, otherwise it's just a "blob of tissue" or a "bunch of cells" that can be yanked out like a bad tooth.
This guy has to be one of the stupidest ever. Can't imagine what kind of "vet" he was. I shudder to think of any poor animals who were under his care. — catharine_christian_carpenter

Interesting logic jabs. You actually believe a woman has the power to determine if a human is actually a human? If she decides it's a a hamster, will it become a full-grown hamster some day? — Mr. Underhill

I have to agree with jabs. Since when did a 10-12 week old fetus become a murder victim? So if a woman miscarries then she should be charged as well, with that logic. I could possibly see the logic if it was viable outside the womb, but that's not the case. Though it is uniquely an American concept to revere the fetus and ignore them once they're born..... — SBL

oops! I probably am not in complete agreement, jabs! I'm referring more to the legal interpretation, rather than the personal. It's my understanding that the law is designed to protect it's "citizens". And I don't recall when embryos, zygotes, fetuses became part of that legal class. But, like I said, it's distinctly American. — SBL

The comments on this story pretty effectively encapsulate what the abortion debate has degenerated into on the left: dishonestly manipulating the language. Enough with the tortured parsing. Call it what it is: What was she 2 months pregnant with if it was not a baby?

100 years of exploiting young women

2011-03-22T20:58:00.002-04:00

Many news organizations are running a retrospective of the Triangle Shirtwaist factory tragedy on the 100th anniversary of the date that 146 women died in that sweatshop. Many of the young women who died that day were immigrants who were locked in the factory; when the fire broke out, they had no choice but to leap to their deaths.

The AP story (this one linked from the Times Herald) focuses the significance of this event as a turning point for organized labor and draws a parallel between those early day so of union organization and today's ~~riots~~ protests in Wisconsin:

The March 25, 1911, fire that killed 146 workers became a touchstone for the organized labor movement, spurred laws that required fire drills and shed light on the lives of young immigrant workers near the turn of the century.

The 100th anniversary comes as public workers in Wisconsin, Ohio and elsewhere protest efforts to limit collective bargaining rights in response to state budget woes. Labor leaders and others say one need only look to the Triangle fire to see why unions are crucial.

"This is a story that needs to be told and retold," said Cecilia Rubino, the writer-director of "From the Fire," an oratorio inspired by the Triangle fire. "We don't have that many moments in our history where you see so clearly the gears of history shift."

While the labor movement has in the past made great strides in improving working conditions, unions are no longer critical to enforcing fair labor practices; indeed, there is a vast body of law called "labor law" that prevents employers from exploiting workers. Workers no longer need to buy into the "protection" that orgainzed labor claims to offer. And while its worth noting that the labor movement had some noble origins, the movement itself is not quite so altruistic these days as they would have you believe. The so-called critical "right" of collective bargaining has more to do with keeping labor leaders and Democrats entrenched in the power to which they have become accustomed than it does with securing worker protections.

But this is the quote from the AP piece that really grabbed my attention:

Suzanne Pred Bass, a Manhattan psychotherapist and theater producer, is the great-niece of Katie Weiner, who survived the Triangle fire, and of Rose Weiner, who did not.

Bass ticked off the reasons why people remain fascinated by the Triangle fire after 100 years.

"It's the youth of these women," she said. "It's the tragedy, it's the changes it spawned and it's the immigrant experience."

Modern liberalism may have saved women from sweatshop conditions, but it has not eliminated the practice of exploiting women. Indeed, modern liberalism encourages and covers up the exploitation of young women, all in the name of "protecting their rights."

I speak, of course, of abortion. And the fact that the "Abortion Doctor" Kermit Gosnell operated with impunity in his West Philadelphia house of horrors for over thirty years while those in power turned away for fear of the mere consequences of being viewed as infringing on a "woman's right to choose." It says a lot indeed about woman's worth to the left. The Inquirer today has a brief article about the "complete regulatory collapse" that led to complaints about Gosnell going nowhere:

Gosnell had a long history of injuring his patients and had let his malpractice insurance lapse nearly a year earlier in violation of state law.

Lawyers at Pennsylvania's Department of State, charged with weeding out bad doctors, were told about the lapse and Barger's lawsuit - along with many others - but took no action. Barger's lawyer said he suspected that Gosnell had paid his client privately to walk away.

Barger's case provides a window into the state's system to discipline doctors, one that relies heavily on physician self-reporting and state investigators whose effectiveness has been questioned. It's a system that patient-safety advocates and a leading ethicist say is broken.

Gosnell "was able to go on despite complaints for a long time," said Arthur Caplan, director of the University of Pennsylvania's Center for Bioethics. "That is not acceptable."

Think about how much the right to an abortion outweighs the right to life in this country: "not acceptable" is the harshest possible term that Arthur Caplan can bring himself to use in describing this horrific situation.

I speak also of the recent Planned Parenthood exposes which further illumniated for the world the pro-choice agenda. Michelle Malkin:

In 2007, while an undergrad at UCLA, Live Action’s Lila Rose visited a local campus Planned Parenthood clinic posing as a 14-year-old minor seeking an abortion after being impregnated by a 23-year-old man. California’s mandatory reporting laws require abortion providers to report statutory rape involving girls under the age of 16. Rose secretly captured video of her visit in which the staff advised her to “figure out a birth-date that works,” to obtain the abortion and avoid getting the man in trouble with the law.

Instead of vowing to do more to protect girls from predators, Planned Parenthood threatened to sue Rose to shut her up.

That same year, a teenager came forward in Ohio to blow the whistle on how a Planned Parenthood abortion clinic in Cincinnati had ignored her cries for help after her father — who had been molesting her for three years from the age of 13 — forced her to have an abortion.

She told an abortion staffer, who was required by state law to report suspected abuse to police. But the women’s health provider so beloved by liberals on Capitol Hill did nothing.

Another Ohio teenage victim of sexual abuse filed suit against Planned Parenthood after the soccer coach who abused her at age 14 forced her to undergo an abortion.
“Although she used a junior-high school I.D. and the coach, 21, paid with a credit card and driver’s license,” the Coshocton (Ohio) Tribune reported, “Planned Parenthood failed to report the abuse.”

Thirteen-year-old Shantese Butler was left permanently injured and infertile after a botched Planned Parenthood abortion. Students for Life of America reported that Shantese was left with “severe abdominal bleeding, severe vaginal injury, severe injury to the cervix, significant uterine perforation and a small bowel tear.”
In addition, parts of the unborn child were found inside Shantese’s abdomen.

And don’t forget the Nebraska Planned Parenthood clinic that refused to disclose the terms of a settlement with another victim whose botched abortion resulted in a perforated uterus, massive blood loss, an emergency hysterectomy, permanent infertility, seizures and lifelong pain and suffering.

According to the suit obtained by Life News, the woman told the abortionist and his assistants to stop, but was told: “We can’t stop.”

The Planned Parenthood employees held her down to complete the procedure.

None of this is disclosed on Planned Parenthood’s informational Web site aimed at teenage girls, of course. Instead, the group aggressively advises pregnant girls under 18 on how to avoid telling their parents about visiting their abortion clinics through a process known as “judicial bypass.”

What other enterprise receives taxpayer support to entice children to hide their health decisions from their own mothers and fathers?

Planned Parenthood is a $1-plus billion business that rakes in one-third of its budget from government grants and contracts at both the state and federal levels.

Congress has interrogated banking, energy, health insurance, tobacco and oil execs — treating them like serial killers before the cameras. When will they finally de-fund a corrupt industry that has real blood on its hands?

On the 100th anniversary of the Triangle Factory tragedy, instead of celebrating the victory of the now irrelevant and antiquated institution of organized labor, perhaps we should be asking ourselves why the exploitation of young women seems to consistently be a secondary consideration in some of the most notable of the triumphs of the left.

Attention Montgomery County: We interrupt this programming to ratchet up the hysteria over nuclear power

2011-03-16T18:51:00.004-04:00

As Rahm Emmanuel famously said, let us not let a good crisis go to waste.

It's time for the No Nukes crowd to exploit the ongoing situation at the Japanese Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant to advance the anti-nuclear power agenda, especially since Obama seemed about ready to tentatively embrace it(as an aside, I realize that "tentatively embrace" statement is a bit redundant when writing about Obama--the man never makes a decision that isn't "tentative"). From the "Spotlight" section of the Pottstown Mercury (but also picked up by the Journal Register sister papers Norristown Times Herald and Lansdale Reporter in their respective "Spotlight" sections. I'm crediting the Merc with this because it's under Evan Brandt's byline) comes this panic inducing headline:

Report: Limerick nuke plant is third most at-risk in U.S. of being damaged by earthquake

Holy Crap! Let's make a run on iodine pills!

The Journal Register was apparently in such a rush to get this story up on the internet that the updated version of the original story I read around 4 pm now carries this disclaimer:

Reporting note: The Mecury's first post on this story incorrectly indicated the ranking was put together by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. In fact, the rankings were created by MSNBC using data in the NRC report. The link to the MSNBC spreadsheet can be accessed by clicking the link in the second paragraph

So here, in this vastly unstable area of Southeastern PA, sit the twin towers of Limerick Generating plant, a structure I can almost, but not quite, see from my house. The Merc informs us:

Data in a Nuclear Regulatory Commission study released less than a year ago has led an MSNBC investigation to conclude that Exelon Nuclear's Limerick Generating Station is No. 3 out of all nuclear power plants in the nation at highest risk of being damaged by an earthquake.

The ranking takes on new significance as the world watches Japan grapple with a cascading nuclear disaster caused by a pacific Ocean earthquake and subsequent tsunami on March 12.

The NRC study came about as a result of the U.S. Geologic Survey's 2008 updating of earthquake risks around the country, which used better data and more sophisticated measurements and modeling than were used in the 1996 and 2002 efforts.

As a result of the new seismic data, the NRC study looked at all 104 nuclear plants in the country and has increased the risk of an earthquake damaging nuclear plants at many of them.

Why does Limerick rate so high on this list? From the MSNBC article cited:

The odds take into consideration two main factors: the chance of a serious quake, and the strength of design of the plant.

Nuclear power plants built in the areas usually thought of as earthquake zones, such as the California coastline, have a surprisingly low risk of damage from those earthquakes. Why? They built anticipating a major quake.

Other plants in the East, South and Midwest, where the design standards may have been lower because the earthquake risk was thought to be minimal, now find themselves at the top of the NRC's danger list.

So Limerick isn't earthquake proof because the area isn't prone to earthquakes. This is true of most of the plants on the list.

Stop the presses.

No literally.

Stop them.

This is not news. This is a shameless attempt to exploit a horrific tragedy to advance an agenda, specifically, an anti-nuclear agenda.

For a palate cleanser from all of this media sensationalism, of which the Mercury is only the latest and most local participant, here is Dr. Robert Zubrin writing on NR's The Corner yesterday. Dr. Zubrin is the president of Pioneer Astronautics and the author of Energy Victory: Winning the War on Terror by Breaking Free of Oil. He holds a Ph.D. in nuclear engineering. I quote the post in it's entirety:

Anti-Nuclear Press Puts Japanese Lives at Risk

Japan currently faces a real emergency. As a result of the earthquake and the ensuing tsunami, thousands of people are dead, and tens of thousands more are missing and may be trapped under rubble, severely injured, and in danger of death by thirst or suffocation. There are over 500,000 people without shelter, with a blizzard on the way, and even the as-yet unscathed could soon face death from epidemics caused by thousands of unburied corpses.

At such a time, nothing could be more scandalous than the current campaign by much of the international press to spread panic over trivial emissions of radiological material from several disabled nuclear power stations.

Let us be clear. Compared to the real disaster at hand, the hypothetical threat from the nuclear stations is zero. The reactors in question were all shut down four days ago. The control rods have been inserted, and the cores have been salted with boron. It is physically impossible for them to sustain a fission reaction of any kind at this point, let alone cause another Chernobyl. Only the fission-byproduct decay heat remains, and it is fading fast as the short half-life material (which accounts for most of the radioactivity) performs its decay reactions and ceases to exist. At this point, the total heating power in the reactors is only about 0.3 percent of what it was when the reactors were operating. That means that a system previously capable of generating 1,300 megawatts of heat would now yield 4 megawatts thermal — about the same as that emitted by a dozen 100-horsepower automobile engines. The Japanese engineers can certainly deal with that with water cooling. And even if they were to stop, there just isn’t enough heating power in the system anymore to generate a dangerous plume of radioactive materials, which is doubly impossible at this point since all the more active short half-life stuff is already gone.

No, the threat does not come from the power plant, but from panic spread by press misinformation. After Three Mile Island, the press spread hysteria as well, but at least there conditions in the rest of society were normal, and so the only victim of the press campaign was the nuclear industry.

But there is a real emergency in Japan right now, of epic proportions, which has to be dealt with as effectively as possible. That emergency is not nuclear radiation, but the need to rescue the trapped and the injured, shield the homeless from the elements, and to prevent an epidemic. In this case, panic induced by press misinformation could cause the deaths of multitudes of people, both by inducing them to take unwise actions, as well by scaring away those who might otherwise try to rescue them.

By diverting people from the real emergency at hand, this radiation scare could kill thousands.

Read and heed.

Battle: Los Angeles Review

2011-03-13T20:08:00.001-04:00

You know, I'd pay real money to see a quality, well made, science fiction movie. I think the last one I saw was J. J. Abrams' Star Trek.

Always up for a good alien invasion movie, I had high hopes for Battle: Los Angeles. And Battle: Los Angeles has the feel of being a very good, if not great, alien invasion movie, that is, until some Hollywood executive put his two cents into it.

Caution: Spoilers Ahead

For instance, why does every Hollywood mogul feel like there has to be some kind of Maverick-Top-Gun-esque sub plot where the hero must wrestle with some inner demons while the fate of the world hangs in the balance? In Battle: Los Angeles, Aaron Eckhardt is Staff Sargent Nantz, who has just handed in his resignation. On his last mission, you see, he lost all of his men and now has been called up in the crisis for the cliched "one last mission." On his squad, coincidentally, is the brother of one of the men killed on the last mission, who, of course, blames Nantz for that death. So there's the set up for the big emotional conflict that will be resolved, literally, in the midst of the entire world burning with some of the cheesiest dialog ever written.

Also, the mission itself is beyond credibility. The world's largest cities are under heavy assault by an alien invasion force and mission command discovers that there are five civilians trapped behind enemy lines that must be rescued by Nantz's small group of marines. They have three hours to accomplish their mission, after which, the air force will bomb the Los Angeles area to stop the alien advance. At this point, it has pretty much been established that the invading force is here to colonize the Earth to use our resources, so it's hard to believe that an operation this consequential will be delayed to save five citizens who weren't smart enough to get while the getting was good.

Oh, and the movie is filmed almost entirely in shaky cam. So bring your Excedrin if you go.

The sad part is that the makings of a good movie are all here. Why must our hero always have inner demons to wrestle in order for us as an audience to care about him? Have the moguls in Hollywood so much contempt for the audience that they cannot fathom that the audience can emotionally invest and connect in the characters just based on them being honorable soldiers fighting to preserve our planet and our way of life? Must we throw a personal conflict and a couple of kids in to the mix for appeal?

Furthermore, if we absolutely MUST throw kids into the mix, it would have been much more believable if the mission had been for Nantz's group to find and/or take out the mother ship/communication center and then stumble upon the civilians instead of stumbling upon the mother ship while performing the primary mission of rescuing the five civilians. It seems to me that a better use of an elite squad of marines would be in a mission that had some sort of strategic importance. Finally, if we have learned nothing at all in the last decade, we have learned that there will be far more stragglers and looky-lous left behind enemy lines contrary to the advice of the Feds than a mere five, so the fact that there are only five civilians that must be rescued further strains the credibility of the main plot.

Message to Hollywood: If you are going to create a science fiction movie, can you at least give the audience some credit for intelligence when you are writing the script? As far as alien invasion movies go, Battle: Los Angeles depicted the actual invasion and how it could actually take place in a reasonably believable manner. It was the story afterward--not the shaky cam filmed fighting and the battle scenes, but the insertion of the contrived melodrama---that really ruined the narrative.

Big fat capitalist pig preaches about the morality of redistributing everybody's wealth but his

2011-03-02T21:17:00.005-05:00

I speak, of course, of Michael Moore:

Let's forget for a moment that this fat capitalist pig recently sued the Weinstein brothers for $2.7 million he claims they owed him from the propaganda sop Fahrenheit 911--after he already had made some $19 million off of the film. And while we're at it, let's also forget that nobody is asking what this fat capitalist pig has done with his millions, except for the $20,000 he was happy to brag about posting for the Wikileaks creep Julian Assange. Let's also forget for the moment that short sighted liberals like Moore always assume that the size of the economic pie is finite and it is the size of the slices that must be adjusted---liberals like Moore do not believe that wealth can be created in any other way than stealing it from someone else. They do not believe that the size of the pie can be increased.

Try to forget, for just a moment, what this says about a fat capitalist pig like Moore who is very generous is redistributing everyone else's money, but doesn't want you to touch his.

Nevermind. It's impossible. All you have to do is look at this gluttonous mass of human being and you know: if resources are as limited as he says they are, he's certainly not concerned about making sure the "little guys" get their fair share before he gets all he can for himself.

Hypocrisy, thy name is Michael Moore.

Who's afraid of entitlement reform?

2011-02-14T22:01:00.000-05:00

Well, the same people who are afraid of senior citizens, and that's just about everyone, apparently. After voting "present" with his 2011 budget, President Obama has made it clear that he's unwilling to seriously address the fiscal insolvency staring the country in the face. And Democrats have so successfully demogogued this issue for years that even addressing entitlement reform has every senoir citizen screaming about taking away their social security. Have things really progressed to a point in this nation where politics trumps the very survival of this country? I think we all know the answer to that; when it comes to entitlement reform, we're playing a game of hot potato. The goal is not to get caught holding it when the music stops.

Allahpundit:

I’m preaching to the choir but let’s make sure we all understand the magnitude of what we’re seeing here: On the seminal issue of his time, the long-term fiscal sustainability of the United States, this guy has completely abdicated. In fact, I’m tempted to say that this, not ObamaCare, will be the cornerstone of his legacy, but that’s really a false choice. They’re two sides of the same coin: He has a policy agenda but we don’t have the money to pay for it, and so one or the other must yield. Guess which one he thinks it should be. Remember too that O once famously said he’d rather be a good one-term president than a mediocre two-termer. Today’s budget exposes that canard for the total fraud that it is. He could have dealt with Social Security and Medicare here but seniors won’t stand for that, and, well, there’s an election coming up and we all know how high turnout is among seniors…

Allah links two great posts on the issue. This one, from Daniel Foster on the Corner:

The bottom line is this. If the Republicans can do the $100 billion cuts and make meaningful statement on entitlements in their own 2012 budget, I’ll eat my hat. I think doing the discretionary cuts, which every two-bit Democratic alderman is already calling “draconian,” is 90 percent as hard as dealing with entitlements, and 10 percent as substantive. In short, spending political capital on this fight could be a colossal folly that drains the House GOP of the will, and the way, to bring this country back from the fiscal brink. That so many “tea partiers” and “conservatives” are willing to blithely do it suggests they don’t understand the politics, or that they are just as contented with cosmetic victories as the old guard they seek to replace.

Foster links to an NYT graphic representation of the budget in mandatory (read: entitlement) vs. discretionary spending. Here's the whole budget:

And here's the budget with the mandatory spending "hidden":

The second, more surprising link goes to Andrew Sullivan who has a post entitled, "Obama to the next generation: screw you, suckers,"

To all those under 30 who worked so hard to get this man elected, know this: he just screwed you over. He thinks you're fools. Either the US will go into default because of Obama's cowardice, or you will be paying far far more for far far less because this president has no courage when it counts. He let you down. On the critical issue of America's fiscal crisis, he represents no hope and no change. Just the same old Washington politics he once promised to end.

Judge to Gosnell: No preliminary hearing for you

2011-02-09T20:28:00.003-05:00

After crying about being broke and unable to afford an attorney, baby butcher Kermit Gosnell made a court appearnce today with his high-profile lawyer. NBC10:

Philly abortion doctor Kermit Gosnell, who is charged with killing a patient and seven babies born alive, was denied a preliminary evidence hearing Wednesday.

Gosnell made an appearance in court Wednesday along with his new high-profile center city attorney Jack McMahon.

Gosnell hired McMahon a week after the abortion doctor told Judge Renee Cardwell Hughes that he was broke. Considering grand jury reports that Gosnell made about $1.8 million a year, Hughes denied Gosnell a public defender last week, told him to hire a lawyer and set today’s court date.

Gosnell’s wife Pearl and eight employees were also in court Wednesday. Gosnell and four others are charged with murder and the rest with lesser counts.

Prosecutors said the 10 people charged do not have the right to a probable-cause hearing because the grand jury authorized the murder, conspiracy and other charges in a lengthy report. A judge agreed and denied the hearing request.

In what possibly qualifies Gosnell as one of the most unselfaware people ever to walk the face of the earth, Valley News Live reports on Gosnell's Friday court appearance:

Gosnell, in his 30-minute court appearance Friday, waved at a news reporter in the courtroom, prompting Judge Renee Cardwell Hughes to warn that the hearing was not a social event.

"You need to focus," she said.

Prosecutors say the Gosnells own 17 properties in four states, along with a boat, but the couple described themselves as nearly destitute.

"I asked for a public defender, but I'm not eligible because I have assets?" Kermit Gosnell asked.

The couple acknowledged owning a half-dozen of the properties, but Kermit Gosnell said he didn't want to sell them because he still has to support his youngest child.

The judge noted some of his adult children could care for the youngster.

"Your first priority is to get a lawyer," she told him.

Gosnell said his children "have all done very well," but he said one is in Switzerland.

Yes, all of his children have done very well. Just surviving the birthing process when your father is Kermit Gosnell is already quite an accomplishment. That there are six of them still drawing breath is nothing short of amazing.

Wing Bowl XIX

2011-02-04T18:27:00.000-05:00

When a picture truly is worth a thousand words:

Really NBC10? REALLY?

I find your lack of faith disturbing

2011-02-03T20:43:00.000-05:00

I think I know that kid.....

H/T Wyatt at SYLG

Safe, Legal and Rare: A Trifecta of Fail

2011-02-02T20:49:00.002-05:00

This video is going viral across the internet. There are those that have claimed that much of this has been taken out of context (to those, I suggest watching the unedited video here). What you cannot get away from is the fact that this Planned Parenthood Office Manager thinks she is helping. She is helping because she has been bred to think that exploitation, health and legality are secondary to preserving the spirit of Roe v. Wade: the right to privacy. This is the true value of today's American woman.

I think what angers me most about the pro-choice movement is that it is built on a campaign of lies, sanitized euphemisms and language control. As someone who was, once upon a time, a vocal proponent of "choice," I think that I could accept legalized abortion if it was, in fact, safe legal and rare, and if the people promoting this line actually stood behind those words.

They don't. Safe legal and rare is a lie.

Entire generations of this country's girls and women have been misled into believing that abortion is no different than a PAP smear or a regular OB-GYN exam. Most women don't like to think about abortion, except in terms of "keeping their options open" in case the unthinkable happens. They fall into the category of "I'd never have one myself, but I think everyone should have that right."

Coming of age in the 80's, I was part of the generation that embraced the feminist slogan "You can have it all!" Meaning that the girls of my generation would no longer have to choose between motherhood and career; they could have both without sacrificing a thing. (The idiotic concept of "quality time" was introduced in this decade.) Feminists completely discounted the emotional component of motherhood, reducing it to a mere biological function of the female body. By dismissing the guilt and separation anxiety mothers felt in not staying at home and raising their children in favor of pursuing a career, an entire generation of women became horribly conflicted: the movement supposedly all about choice was only about making the right choice, the feminist choice. Stay at home to raise your child at cost of sacrificing your career was considered selfish, weak and hopelessly old-fashioned, resulting in guilt in letting the "sisterhood" down by remaining subservient to men. The alternative was the guilt one felt by pursuing that career and abandoning your children. This was guilt that feminists claimed you were not supposed to have, which somehow made it worse.

Women could never stand toe to toe with men as equals unless the emotional and physical facts of childbearing could be overcome. Children get in the way of equality.

So along with the "you can have it all" lie that attempted to minimize the importance of child rearing in a woman's life, in the 1980's pro-abortion feminists were still also clinging to the idea that life did not begin at conception; a notion that technology was quickly wresting away from them. This was perhaps the "golden age" of the pro-choice movement: abortion had been the law of the land for about a decade, technology had not yet proven absolutely when life begins, and women were "roaring" into the work place. Marriage and child rearing were no longer the presumed life paths for women. We were no longer slaves to our bodies. Abortion had freed us. It was a safety net against living with the ramifications of a life changing mistake.

As technology advanced and it became ever more apparent that life begins at conception, the pro-abortion side, sensing they were losing the high ground, dug in on their only remaining weapon: controlling the language. Despite mountains of evidence to the contrary, to this day many proponents of abortion still insist on labelling nascent life in a way to minimize it's importance. "Fetus" instead of baby; "clump of cells" instead of "fetus;" "intraunterine matter" instead of "clump of cells." "Pro-choice" instead of "pro-abortion." "Anti-choice" instead of "Pro-life."

Simultaneoulsy, and perhaps most insidiously, the term "women's rights" was co-opted by the movement and became synonymous with "abortion rights." For all intents and purposes, feminists abandoned all other issues related to the advancement of women's rights in favor of preserving Roe v. Wade.

The effect of these two iniatives was to create a very dedicated culture of death while simultaneously sacrificing the very real concerns of the physical and mental well being of women. Claims that abortion hurt women have been dismissed with the callous efficiency of the concerns of those conflicted working mothers of the 1980's.

When the right to abort one's baby becomes the defining right of an entire gender, ubiquity follows. And ubiquity breeds acceptance and the cycle perpetuates itself.

You see, to the people pushing the pro-abortion agenda, the baby charnel house of Kermit Gosnell doesn't matter. The women who have been maimed, injured, infected and damaged by abortionists like Gosnell don't matter. The girls who may be being victimized as sex slaves do not matter. The abuse, the exploitation, the moral bankruptcy and emotional damage of vast swathes of American girls DO NOT MATTER. All that matters is that abortion remain legal and Roe remains the law of the land.

When a culture values the right to kill more than the right to live, it should come as no surprise that the actual life of the woman is really of no concern to anyone.

Perhaps if Kermit Gosnell had been a bully.....

2011-02-02T07:38:00.000-05:00

...maybe then the press would pay some much needed attention to the apparent failure on all three counts of "safe, legal and rare" in Pennsylvania abortion mills.

While Chris Hansen wastes his considerable talents chasing down common scam artists and the local and national media gasp in horror about a bullying episode in Upper Darby, the carnage of the baby charnel house has been neatly swept under the rug by all but conservative talkers.

The Anchoress notes:

The story of Kermit Gosnell, the Philadelphia abortionist who ran what a Grand Jury report referred to as “a baby charnel house,” where viable babies—“big enough to walk around with me or walk me to the bus,” as Gosnell joked—were delivered and then outright killed with a “snip” to the spinal cord, their feet sometimes severed for souvenirs, is one the press quickly consigned to the memory hole. It is not being talked about by the “strong feminist” voices on daytime TV, or on night time cable news. There are no headlines, no feature articles in leading magazines.

The mainstream media, confronted with a house of horrors that was gestated and born of a single-minded mania for “protecting choice for women” had no choice but to report on Gosnell being charged for the murder of one woman who died while under his dubious “care” (another woman’s death had been “settled” for a financial consideration), and they mush-mouthed their way through his killing of at least seven living, viable babies, but they did not like this story.

They did not want to discuss that authorities had repeatedly received reports of Gosnell’s mayhem and had chosen to look the other way. They did not want to have to mention that Gosnell’s disgusting, “third-world” abortion mill—a place where women were abused, manhandled, disrespected, over-sedated, punctured, infected, sterilized, interiorly ripped, and otherwise treated like pieces of meat—would still be running, unimpeded, were it not for an investigation into illegal drug trafficking.

Indeed, it is important to remember that Gosnell's House of Horrors was only exposed because he was engaged in illegal prescription drug trafficking.

The Weekly Standard's Joseph Bottum has this to say:

Pennsylvania may not be a third-world country, but its abortion mills—like those in most other states—really are reminiscent of one: free and independent entities, uniquely exempt from supervision and regulation, carved out from the rest of medicine. Every other kind of doctor is weighed down by record-keeping and inspection requirements. Abortionists alone are free. “Pennsylvania’s Department of Health has deliberately chosen not to enforce laws that should afford patients at abortion clinics the same safeguards and assurances of quality health care as patients of other medical service providers,” the Gosnell grand jury explained. “Even nail salons in Pennsylvania are monitored more closely for client safety.”

The reason, of course, is what such medical practices involve. Ever since the Supreme Court issued its Roe v. Wade decision in 1973, ending states’ power to outlaw abortion and making it instead an individual right, abortion has distorted American law and snarled American politics. Why should it be any surprise that it has soiled American medicine as well? People like Dr. Gosnell are allowed to exist by the pro-abortion lobbying groups that insist ordinary medical supervision will lead to a curtailing of access to abortion in this country.

As it happens, they’re right. Partly that’s because laws concerning medical licensing genuinely do offer a chance for pro-life state legislatures to hurt the abortion business by burdening its practitioners with extensive paperwork and expensive equipment. The activists at NARAL and Planned Parenthood are not exactly wrong to worry about what they call TRAP laws (Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers). And yet, there’s a more serious reason that medical supervision threatens the abortion license in this country. It’s what ordinary medical regulation and supervision would reveal: the fact that the abortion business is the gutter of American medicine.

Make no mistake: Abortion genuinely is a business in the United States, and a big one. The grand jury estimated that Gosnell was bringing in nearly $1.8 million a year, mostly in cash, by performing ordinary (or “just a little illegal”) first- and second-trimester abortions with his untrained staff every Monday, Tuesday, and Thursday night. No one knows how much more he made from the operations he apparently performed most Sundays: the abortions so late in the third trimester that he allowed only his wife to help with them. Add what he made by writing prescriptions for narcotics—he was one of the top three Oxycontin prescribers in the state—and the man was running his own little mint on the streets of Philadelphia.

Where are the hidden camera exposes? Where is the crusading press? Where is the outrage from feminist groups who have insisted for years that abortion is not only safe and legitimate, but is one of the most important rights a woman can claim?

Move along. Nothing to see here.

Monday with Mossie on Live and Local with Barry Papiernik WFYL 1180 AM

2011-01-31T07:36:00.002-05:00

On today's show, Barry and I discuss my recent interview with Ambassador John Bolton, cover some Montgomery County business and make a BIG ANNOUNCEMENT. Tune in from 10AM to 11AM today.

Live streaming here.

PAWatercooler talks to Ambassador John Bolton, part 2

2011-01-31T07:33:00.002-05:00

On Thursday, January 27, I had the great privilege of interviewing Ambassador John R. Bolton on the occasion of the Philadelphia Freedom Center honoring him with the Patrick Henry Award. (For part 1 of the interview, please click here). As events in Egypt continue to unfold, PAWatercooler was fortuitous in obtaining firsthand the Ambassador’s insights on precarious situation.

No doubt that the unrest in Egypt has the potential to leave the Middle East, and possibly the world, forever altered. And while it is tempting to view the unrest with optimism considering that it has been inspired by desires for liberty and democracy, Bolton cautions us that it is important to consider that the people protesting in the streets are not necessarily capable of creating or establishing the type of Jeffersonian democracy with which we in the United States are most familiar. Indeed, with the entre of the Muslim Brotherhood into the mix on Friday, all bets are off on what the future holds for Egypt.

With that in mind, I asked Ambassador Bolton about a recent fatwa issued by Imad Mustafa at Egypt’s al-Azhar University. As NR’s Andrew C. McCarthy reports the fatwa has expressly endorsed a doctrine of “offensive jihad” that is acceptable in the following circumstances:

o (a) “to secure Islam’s border”;
o (b) “to extend God’s religion to people in cases where the governments do not allow it”; and
o (c) “to remove every religion but Islam from the Arabian peninsula.”

McCarthy concludes that the second prong of the fatwa “would also approve campaigns of aggression against countries that bar any aspect of Islamic belief or practice that Muslim scholars deem “necessary” to the full implementation of Islamic law.” Ambassador Bolton believes that the ramifications from this pronouncement have yet to be revealed, but we in the West should be cognizant of the fact that most Middle Eastern universities are radicalized.

Looking towards Israel and the Palestinians, I asked Ambassador Bolton about the story of Al-Jazeera’s version of “wiki-leaks.” Starting last week, Al-Jazeera has been releasing documents covering a decade of Mideast talks between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. The Arab television station alleges that the documents show that Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and his aides, specifically one Saeb Erekat, have been making concessions to Israel and coordinating closely with Israel’s military. Erekat claims that Al-Jazeera is engaging in a smear campaign, that some of the documents are faked and that the TV station has taken many of the quotes out of context in an effort to convict him in the public square. Ambassador Bolton’s sense of this story is that the documents are probably legitimate. This could have positive ramifications for Hamas, the party opposing the Abbas leadership.

I asked Ambassador Bolton about the many threats facing our nation from a dangerous world. But first and foremost, Bolton believes that a nuclear Iran is the threat with cause for most concern. He believes that the U.S. policy towards Iran of sanctions and talks have been largely ineffective and it is a critical mistake for the U.S. to think that it can contain a nuclear Iran in much the same way as, say a nuclear U.S.S.R. was contained.

There are also more stealthy threats facing our nations. These are more accurately defined as threats to our sovereignty in the form of the imposition of global policies on the U.S. We have seen such threats in the form of global warming, gun control and abortion. These threats are made more pressing by President Obama, whom Bolton defines as our first “post-American President,” in that Obama sees himself as transcending American interests and demonstrates a distaste for speaking up for American ideals
interests and American ideals.

In contrast, it’s worth restating why the Philadelphia Freedom Center honored Ambassador Bolton last week:

As U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton made sure that the “Kick Me” sign was taken off the back of the American Presence there. He argued passionately not only for U.S. interests but for the aspiring democracies across the world. He did so with tact and eloquence, but also with a sense of purpose so seldom present in that morally ambiguous organization. During the Bolton years at the UN, America drew a clear line in the sand as Patrick Henry did in his famous “Give me liberty or give me death” speech. It is only fitting, therefore, that John Bolton should be the first recipient of the Philadelphia Freedom Center Patrick Henry Award.

PAWatercooler talks to Ambassador John Bolton

2011-01-28T07:38:00.000-05:00

PAWatercooler had the great honor of speaking with Ambassador John R. Bolton on the occasion of his being awarded the Patrick Henry Award from the Philadelphia Freedom Center.

The Philadelphia Freedom Center was established two years ago to expose local ties to international extremism and terrorism, and defend America’s Free Society through educating the public to preserve traditional constitutional values of individual freedom, rule of law, private property and limited government. The Center has traditionally hosted acclaimed individuals, sponsored prestigious events in and around the Philadelphia area since last fall. The Center’s director is Craig Snider.

The Philadelphia Freedom Center bestowed its inaugural Patrick Henry Award on Ambassador John Bolton for his dedication to defend and protect individual liberties. Like Patrick Henry, Bolton refuses to remain silent as socialist ideals and oppressive policies are imposed on the American people.

Ambassador Bolton is remarkably refreshing in his candor. Unapologetic in his defense of American interests, his clear-eyed analysis of foreign affairs looks unflinchingly at the people and situations with which the United States has to work, not the people and situations we only wish were at our disposal. He strongly believes that the Obama Administration has little or no interest in foreign policy, a policy that has made the world more dangerous.

In this first part of the interview, I asked Ambassador Bolton about the events unfolding in Egypt and if, as Anwar Ibrahim wrote in the Wall Street Journal earlier this week, Tunisia was the “first domino” of countries in the Middle East.

Ambassador Bolton believes that while the inspiration for the demonstrations may be Tunisia, the underlying causes of the unrest in Tunisia, Yemen and Egypt are different. Today (Friday) is particularly critical as it is anticipated that many protesters will take to the streets after Friday religious services. Up until today, the participants in the protests have largely been young people, mostly secular. The concern is that the Muslim Brotherhood will now get involved.

Bolton remarks that is important to remember that while many of the “twitter revolutions” begin with young people wanting greater freedoms from their oppressive regimes, the reality is that there is no guaranty that the high minded ideals driving the unrest will translate into what we in the West recognize as democracy and liberty.

I asked Ambassador Bolton about the Obama Administration’s response to the uprising in Egypt.

“They have been caught by surprise by this,” Bolton said. But then so has the rest of the world. It is hard for the Administration to comment or insert the U.S. into this situation because there is no clear certainty about what will eventually happen. “It’s not clear that they would listen to us anyway,” Bolton said. “The French are far more involved in Tunisian affairs than the U.S. is involved with Egypt,” and they had virtually no input into the events that transpired there earlier this month.

Has the U.S. missed an opportunity on the occurrence of the unrest in the Arab world?

Ambassador Bolton does not believe so, in the cases of the events in Tunisia, Egypt and Yemen, simply because of the great uncertainty surrounding these areas.

What about Iran’s Green Revolution? Did the U.S. miss an opportunity there?

“Absolutely,” Bolton believes. Bolton has made no secret of his belief that regime change in Iran should be U.S. policy. A nuclear Iran is a grave threat to the whole world and is the beginning of nuclear proliferation throughout the Middle East.

Check back later for more on PAWatercooler’s conversation with John Bolton.

Liberal Media Summarized

2011-01-25T22:33:00.001-05:00

H/T to AlexC

Monday with Mossie on Live and Local with Barry Papiernik WFYL 1180AM

2011-01-24T09:19:00.000-05:00

On today's show, Barry and I will be discussing Kermit Gosnell and the West Philly baby charnel house as well as the changes at MSNBC.

Live streaming here.

Marking the anniversary of Roe v. Wade in the age of the baby charnel house

2011-01-23T17:47:00.002-05:00

Obama issued the following statement on the anniversary of Roe v. Wade and the eve of the March for life:

Today marks the 38th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court decision that protects women's health and reproductive freedom, and affirms a fundamental principle: that government should not intrude on private family matters.

I am committed to protecting this constitutional right. I also remain committed to policies, initiatives, and programs that help prevent unintended pregnancies, support pregnant women and mothers, encourage healthy relationships, and promote adoption.

And on this anniversary, I hope that we will recommit ourselves more broadly to ensuring that our daughters have the same rights, the same freedoms, and the same opportunities as our sons to fulfill their dreams.

That bit about protecting women's health is laughable when viewed through the lens of the West Philly Baby Charnel House of Dr. Kermit Gosnell. It's funny that our president has time to congratulate Jeffrey Lurie about the new green Eagles stadium and Michael Vick, but can still use such sanitized and false language about abortion. If the horrific discoveries in West Philly teach us anything, it's that, at least in some cases, terminating nascent life is more--much more--important than "women's health."

Furthermore, it seems the only bit of private life and health that the government is unwilling to regulate is this heinous practice.

As far as ensuring that our daughters have the same rights and freedoms as our sons, Kermit Gosnell had this to say about that:

“I tried to give my patients the care I expect my daughter to receive.”

Our president chose his words especially poorly.

Governor Tom Corbett, meanwhile, has vowed to get to the bottom of this:

Gov. Tom Corbett said Friday that he gave the Health Department and the secretary of State a one-week deadline to report to him on what happened in the bungled oversight of a squalid abortion clinic that a Philadelphia prosecutor described as a "house of horrors," where babies born alive were killed with scissors.

Corbett told the Tribune-Review that he asked for a "detailed report" about how to prevent such a tragedy.

Yes yes yes. Detailed reports are all well and good, Governor, but how do we know how deep this rabbit hole goes? Finding and assigning blame for this incident does nothing to assuage the fears of many who feel that this may not be the only baby charnel house in operation out there.

Inky:

Physician Kermit Barron Gosnell had an unusual reaction to the death of Karnamaya Mongar in November 2009. The next day, he applied to join the National Abortion Federation, whose membership is often seen as a badge of quality.

To prepare for a site visit, Gosnell and his wife, Pearl, frantically cleaned the facility, replacing bloody recliners and temporarily hiring a professional the clinic had long lacked: a nurse.

His failed effort to bluff his way through the application appalled prosecutors. But worse, they said, "he made no effort to address the grave deficiencies in his practice that had caused Karnamaya Mongar's death."

That NAF official came in, toured the facility and remarked that she had never seen such deploarble conditions. And while she did not give Gosnell's facility the NAF seal of approval, neither did she report her findings to any authority for follow up.

So, please Governor Cobett, forgive us when we say we're not quite convinced when pro-abortion organizations tell us that places like Gosnell's are the exception and not the rule. We need an army of state auditors descending on these places like locusts.

This. Is. Abortion.

2011-01-20T07:34:00.001-05:00

Philly.com:

IN HIS SQUALID West Philadelphia abortion clinic, Kermit Gosnell had a surefire way of dealing with the unwelcome complication of a live birth: He'd allegedly plunge scissors into the squirming newborn's neck, killing it by severing the spinal cord.

Sometimes, the elderly physician didn't do this right away. Often, he allegedly gave the chore to his unlicensed office staff. One premature infant wiggled around on a counter for 20 minutes before an untrained worker slit his neck - after first playing with him.

Those allegations were among countless bombshells in a 261-page grand-jury report that District Attorney Seth Williams released yesterday.

Gosnell killed "hundreds" of babies and at least two women during abortions from 1979 to last year at his Women's Medical Society at 38th Street and Lancaster Avenue, according to the grand jury. Further, he and his unlicensed, unskilled staff overdosed patients with drugs, perforated their wombs and bowels, and spread venereal disease by using unsterilized equipment, the report said.

So now I'm confused: Why is Gosner being charged with the deaths of 7 infants?

Isn't that what he was getting paid to do?

These women have a right not to be slaves to their biology by being "punished" with a baby; Isn't Kermit Gosner a "hero" for providing the valuable service of late term abortions? Isn't that how late term abortionist George Tiller was characterized when Scott Roeder gunned him down? Isn't the practice of severing the spines of infants born alive after botched abortions something that the "Born Alive Infant Protection Act" would have made illegal? An act our pro-abortion President voted against?

And why are we horrified that the members of his staff stored their lunches in the same refrigerator with fetal remains? Aren't these just meaningless clumps of cells? Aren't those so-called infants whose spines were unceremoniously cut with scissors also just clumps of cells? Doesn't the mother have the ultimate determination over whether or not these clumps of cells are human when she decides whether or not to carry her pregnancy to term?

I'm at a loss as to why people are so horrified by this story. This is a natural result of the devaluing of human life. Whenever someone goes nuts with a gun, we immediately have to have a national conversation on common sense gun control. In the wake of the Arizona shootings we also had to have a national conversation about the "tone" of political debate. Yet in the wake of this ghoulish story from West Philadelphia, we hear nothing. No calls for more regulation, no calls for toning down the rhetoric of the screeching feminist left who holds the "right" of abortion above all others. When our President talks about not wanting his daughters "punished" with a baby, when candidates like Joe Hoeffel run for governor and pick a woman who has dedicated her life to promoting abortion and characterizing her as "standing with all women," it is no wonder that people like Kermit Gosner store severed fetus feet next to the bologna.

This is the devaluation of human life.

This. Is. Abortion.

Two big milestones for this blog

2011-01-19T21:54:00.000-05:00

3 Years.

50,000 hits.

Yay me.

It's funny because it's true!

2011-01-19T21:22:00.003-05:00

The always awesome, must-read-everyday James Taranto has a fabulous column today about the left's Palin derangement syndrone, specifically the Palin derangement of the feminist left. Much of what he discusses in his column today touches on themes I have visited in the past regarding the reasons behind the particular vindictiveness of liberal women towards Palin. The unhinged over-the-top hatred fairly compells me to jump in to defend her, even if I don't necessarily think the sun rises and sets on her.

But this bit about the Palin-phobic men qualifies as a cut above the Quote of the Day:

What about male Palin-hatred? It seems to us that it is of decidedly secondary importance. Liberal men put down Palin as a cheap way to score points with the women in their lives, or they use her as an outlet for more-general misogynistic impulses that would otherwise be socially unacceptable to express.

This quote calls to mind the comic stylings of Dutch Laroo, aka PA State Senator Daylin Leach, whose every utterance is followed by an implied rim shot. The following was posted on Facebook between 6pm and 7pm eastern time Saturday, January 8, 2011, mere hours after Jared Loughner massacred 6 people in an Arizona shopping center.
Click the image to enlarge.

For more insight into this mindset, read all of Taranto here.

Don't read this post

2011-01-18T07:50:00.001-05:00

If you are a Montgomery County Committee person please don't read this post. You may be influenced by my agenda.

MCRC Committee members recently received a letter from MCRC Chairman Bob Kerns advising members to be aware of "agendas" driving the narrative surrounding the Montgomery County Commissioners' race and the subsequent all important committee endorsement coming up on February 9. Mr. Kerns advised all of the MCRC committee members to "look past" what they may be reading in the newspapers or the blogs when deciding on whom the committee should endorse.

So, if you are a good little MCRC drone, I advise you to stop reading this post now.

So how does a Montgomery County Committee member decide on which candidate to endorse? If I am to infer the meaning behind Mr. Kerns' letter, a loyal MCRC committee person would not simply discount "agendas" that may be driving news stories or blog postings, but would instead wholeheartedly and unquestioningly embrace the agenda of Bob Kerns and the party leadership.

In some vocal GOP corners around the county, Bruce Castor has been suddenly vilified for his supposed lack of leadership and his "out of control ego." This vilification has coincided with Mr. Castor's reluctance to wholeheartedly and unquestioningly embrace the agenda of the MCRC leadership, which is to annoint Jenny Brown as Castor's running mate.

Now the "ego" in this case might mean that Bruce Castor would like to have some say into who his running mate will be, instead of having another party insider shoehorned into office with him, a party created situation in 2007 which led directly to the "lack of leadership" those same GOP people are now whining about. Since none of the candidates have the kind of county-wide name recognition or reputation as Castor, whoever gets the nomination will need the votes that Bruce Castor will bring to get them into office. Jim Matthews certainly did.

Which brings us to another point: why should Bruce Castor devote another four years of his life as commissioner if his ideas for fixing the county are not going to be implemented because he is being thwarted, once again, by the running mate he dragged across the finish line? Shouldn't the candidate that gets the endorsement be someone that Bruce Castor is able to work with instead of against?

Ponder these questions if you dare, but good little committee members will look past this post and do as the party leadership tells them.

Monday with Mossie on Live and Local with Barry Papiernik WFYL 1180 AM

2011-01-17T09:02:00.001-05:00

On today's show, Barry and I will be discussing Obamacare, the fallout from the Arizona shootings and taking your phonecalls.

Live streaming here.

The Arizona Tragedy and it's aftermath

2011-01-12T19:32:00.000-05:00

What follows, in no particular order, is a series of quotes that I think lend definition to this horrible event.

Dick Armey:

In the final analysis, when we get the final answer [to] why did this fellow do this, the answer will come from psychology, not from sociology or political science.

Victor Davis Hanson:

If crazed gunmen are sadly a periodic characteristic of American culture, so are political vultures who scavenge political capital as they pick through the horrific violence.

Glenn Reynolds:

Those who try to connect Sarah Palin and other political figures with whom they disagree to the shootings in Arizona use attacks on 'rhetoric' and a 'climate of hate' to obscure their own dishonesty in trying to imply responsibility where none exists. But the dishonesty remains. ... [T]hose who purport to care about the health of our political community demonstrate precious little actual concern for America's political well-being when they seize on any pretext, however flimsy, to call their political opponents accomplices to murder.

Kevin Williamson:

There have been some shameful performances during this episode, from those who have attempted to profit by it, either politically or financially (a subject I plan to revisit in a bit). What is most troubling about those distasteful performances is not the momentary and transient gains that these malefactors may enjoy in their electoral standing, television ratings, or website traffic, but that these cheap and dishonorable attempts to gain from this horror inevitably corrode the underlying bonds that make this country such a remarkable place. And that makes me more fearful for my country than do the bloody deeds of a lone lunatic.

Sarah Palin:

Yes, our debates are full of passion, but we settle our political differences respectfully at the ballot box – as we did just two months ago, and as our Republic enables us to do again in the next election, and the next. That’s who we are as Americans and how we were meant to be. Public discourse and debate isn’t a sign of crisis, but of our enduring strength. It is part of why America is exceptional. No one should be deterred from speaking up and speaking out in peaceful dissent, and we certainly must not be deterred by those who embrace evil and call it good. And we will not be stopped from celebrating the greatness of our country and our foundational freedoms by those who mock its greatness by being intolerant of differing opinion and seeking to muzzle dissent with shrill cries of imagined insults.

Dr. E. Fuller Torrey:

These tragedies are the inevitable outcome of five decades of failed mental-health policies. During the 1960s, we began to empty the state mental hospitals but failed to put in place programs to ensure that the released patients received treatment after they left. By the 1980s, the results were evident—increasing numbers of seriously mentally ill persons among the homeless population and in the nation's jails and prisons.

Holman Jenkins:

A cry goes up at such times for stricter gun laws. A gun law that met the test of political passability and also kept a gun out of the hands of a Loughner would be welcome. Then again, a more astute reaction by Pima County might have ensured Loughner was dogged by a record that would have prevented him from buying a gun under existing law. Indeed, Pima officials are likely to be haunted by the findings of the panel investigating the Virginia Tech massacre. That investigation found school and state officials had booted ample opportunity under the law to corral a dangerous person. They failed even to provide the simply accurate record that would have disqualified him from purchasing a gun.

Wall Street Journal

After days of saturation coverage and some very good shoe-leather reporting, much of this has become clear to the public and national media. Yet supposedly elite voices—the New York Times and the most prominent liberal pundits in the U.S., among others—continue to pretend that Mr. Loughner's murders are the fault of politics and their political opponents instead of the danse macabre of abnormal psychology. The reality is that violence bred of illness is far more serious, and harder for democratic societies to stop.

Jonathan Alter, Newsweek:

Conservatives like to argue that these are isolated incidents carried out by lunatics and therefore carry no big lessons (unless the perpetrator is Muslim, in which case it's terrorism); liberals view them as opportunities to address various social ills. Obama is in the latter category and should act accordingly. "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste," Rahm Emanuel famously said in 2008. The same goes for a shooting spree that gravely wounds a beloved congresswoman.

Jonathan Alter, Newsweek:

Sad to say, if Giffords had died, she would have been mourned and soon the conversation would have moved on. But Giffords lives, thank God, which offers other possibilities. We won't know for weeks or months whether she can function in public. If she can, she will prove a powerful referee of the boundaries of public discourse--more influential, perhaps, than the president himself.

James Taranto:

[For the New York Times] to describe the Tucson massacre as an act of "political violence" is, quite simply, a lie. It is as if, two days after the Columbine massacre, a conservative newspaper of the Times's stature had described that atrocious crime as an act of "educational violence" and used it as an occasion to denounce teachers unions. Such an editorial would be shameful and indecent even if the arguments it made were meritorious. The New York Times has seized on a madman's act of wanton violence as an excuse to instigate a witch hunt against those it regards as its domestic foes.

Paul Krugman, published 3:22 PM Saturday, January 8, 2011:

We don't have proof yet that this was political, but the odds are that it was. She's been the target of violence before. And for those wondering why a Blue Dog Democrat, the kind Republicans might be able to work with, might be a target, the answer is that she's a Democrat who survived what was otherwise a GOP sweep in Arizona, precisely because the Republicans nominated a Tea Party activist.

David Harsanyi:

We can cobble together stupid remarks by radio talk show hosts or union activists or congresspeople and smear half the country. We can play tit-for-tat with Tea Party banners and anti-war bumper stickers and dig up some figurative rhetoric that sounds over the top retroactively and blow it out of proportion. But this impending conversation about civility and our climate of hate is not only a useless one, it also is meant to discourage dissent. It is a rigged talk, because not only do we — by any standard and context available — reside in a highly civil and peaceful political system, violence is almost non-existent. The Tea Party didn't pick up pitchforks and storm the White House; they knocked off Republicans in primaries.

The disingenuous "Overheated Rhetoric" debate

2011-01-11T20:23:00.000-05:00

My first reaction to the Tuscon shootings this weekend was horror and shock. My second reaction was to wonder whether Gabrielle Giffords was a Democrat or a Republican, because I knew if a Democrat had been shot that ALL Republicans would be blamed and we'd spend the next several weeks on the defense for no reason whatsoever, while the actual victims would be casualties of the national debate for a second time.

Sadly, it appears I was right about that. Which is why I am not going to use this post to point out the hypocrisy of the left or defend Republicans or the Tea Party; that has been done ad infinitum elsewhere and effectively. And furthermore, I find nothing to be defensive about: the actions of a severely mentally disturbed individual were in no way politically motivated, at least not by any recognizable sane political dogma. I refuse to be further drawn into a debate that had no right to be born.

From some of what I have seen and heard in reaction to this horrendous and unspeakable tragedy, it is obvious to me that much of the commentary from the left blaming the right for the actions of the mentally disturbed Jared Loughner is sincere. That is not to say that I don't think it's reprehensisble and disgusting; it is. But I believe the majority of it is motivated by fear. A great majority of the left lives in deathly fear of the right and what our ideas represent.

The left believes in the evil of the right, because to believe otherwise--to acknowledge that there are elements of chaos beyond the reach of legislation, court rulings, laws, regulations and government authority, is to acknowledge that all of their attempts to use government to regulate our lives into order and remove us from the innate responsibilities of our lives so that we may be "free" and "equal" are now, and always have been, futile. There is no way to remove the unexpected from life.

Hypocrisy does not apply, because in the self-righteous minds of the left, anything that is said to or about the right is not only deserved, but is unquestionably and undeniably correct. There is no reason for debate because they truly believe that holding ideas contrary to liberal thought is not only stupid, but evil. The acrimony of the left towards the right is not only deserved, but earned. Their anger is a righteous anger. The much publicized anger of the right, born of the same type of government overreach that inspired the founding fathers during the birth of this country, is, in their minds illegitimate since to them, our ideals are illegitimate. But expressing those ideas gets in the way of establishing that liberal utopia that always, usually for lack of funding, seems just out of reach

The only enemies that the left sees are ideological, which is why they are against all wars at all times and generally characterize Islamic extremism as the fault of America. Narratives surrounding cataclysmic events (such as the assassination of JFK) must be re-written to fit the worldview of the sacrosanct left and the demonized right. Ideas such as global warming being caused by man are a perfect example of this, because at all times in the liberal worldview there must be blame for a problem and a method for man to control it, usually and preferably through legislation. You say perhaps sun spots may cause temperature fluctuations, or that global warming does not exist? Impossible! We can't control that! Don't you know the debate is over and the science has been settled?

Free speech in the form of Conservative dissent is the most dangerous weapon to their worldview because with each contrary viewpoint disseminated, the possibility that one more person could abandon the idea of a liberal utopia weakens the most effective tool of the left: the iron clad hold of group think. Therefore dissent must be quashed, by any and all means necessary.

In the coming days and weeks, in an effort to further control the chaotic world we live in, we will hear a lot about toning down the rhetoric, we will hear a lot of bad legislation proposed, but in the end, it will all boil down to meaningless proposals that will do nothing more than curtail the freedoms of law abiding citizens so that a few people will think that "something has been done" to "prevent this tragedy from ever happening again."

But what we will not hear about is any meaningful reform for treating mental illness. We will not hear about the many opportunities that existing laws failed us this past Saturday. We will only hear false debate, acrimony and accusations, which will only have the effect of dividing us further.

And that only deepens what is already a very great tragedy.

Another Montco Commissioner suffers damage to property

2011-01-11T07:47:00.002-05:00

I posted yesterday on the strange coincidence of two former Montgomery County Commissioners suffering from two separate house fires within a week. Today, I am informed that current Commissioner Bruce Castor's car was vandalized in his driveway approximately three weeks ago. The windshield and driver's side windows were smashed and the tires were slashed. The car was unlocked and nothing was taken. No other acts of vandalism were reported in the neighborhood.

Keep in mind that this act of vandalism occured in Castor's well-lit and alarmed driveway at his off-the-beaten-path home.

Are all of these incidents coincidence or is someone targeting the Commissioners of Montgomery County?

Two former Montco Commissioners are victims of separate house fires within a week

2011-01-10T21:22:00.000-05:00

Just weird.

Inky, January 4, 2011:

A fire of unknown origin damaged the $1.8 million Fort Washington home of former Montgomery County Commissioner Mario V. Mele Sr., a fire official said Monday.
The blaze at 1250 Pinetown Rd. was reported to officials at noon Monday, Fire Chief Eric Clauson said. The call came from Mele's wife, Carolyn, who was in the house but escaped injury, a neighbor said.

The flames, which roared through the basement, first and second floors, took 45 minutes to extinguish, according to Clauson.

Seventy-five firefighters from Fort Washington Fire Company No. 1 and neighboring departments fought the blaze. The large contingent was needed because "it's a big house," Clauson said.

TH, January 10, 2011:

SKIPPACK - An early-morning fire at former Montgomery County district attorney and county commissioner Michael D. Marino’s home took five local fire companies two hours to put out.

The fire at 1093 Anders Road was reported by Marino to authorities at 3:30 a.m., Monday, said Skippack Fire Co. Fire Chief Haydn Marriott.

The fire apparently started in a crawl space in the two-story, wood frame house, Marriott said.

"It took a long time to find the fire, get to it, and put it out," Marriott said.

RE: Montco Money Men

2011-01-10T20:18:00.003-05:00

Mr. Guzzardi responds to yesterday's post in seemingly every place but here. From my inbox (quoting verbatim, but I took the liberty to clean up the links):

I am pleased to see that PaWaterCooler and Lisa Mossie are attacking me and fronting for Bruce Castor. (LINK)

The reasons for Rep. Harper's announcement as a candidate for MontCo Commissioner 2011, probably, have more to do with internal dynamics of endorsement than with a real interest in giving up her job as State Representative. Kate Harper is backed by getting rich from bad government lobbyists Bob Asher/Ken Davis and Marie Cavanaugh is backed by the feckless Bruce "It's All About Me" Castor.

Kate Harper’s candidacy in 2007 drew 23 committee endorsement votes, blocking Bruce Castor’s choice Melissa Murphy-Weber as running mate. Asher/Davis are, again, using Rep. Harper to block Marie “I’ll do whatever Bruce tells me to do” Cavanaugh who is Bruce Castor’s choice for running mate in 2011. Policy positions are irrelevant as far as I can tell.

Rep. Harper has held her job for 10 years and her generous defined benefit pension increases every day. She also receives car allowance, platinum health insurance and per diems. I would think that if Rep. Harper were elected, she would have to give up her municipal solicitorships. (LINK) It would not seem to Rep. Harper’s interest to give up a secure job, that she likes and is good at, and to which she was recently elected, for County Commissioner. (LINK)
Marie Cavanaugh is a very nice Republican lady who has been avidly, loyally devoted to the Montgomery County Republican Party for more than 20 years without complaint or criticism.

Other than exposing his political rivals, it is not clear what positive contribution Bruce Castor brings to electorate or to Montgomery County Republican Party.

It's always so awesome to be reminded of the perks our State Reps get, especially when Pennsylvania is facing a $4 billion budget shortfall. And while the characterization of Kate ~~Matthews~~ Harper selflessly giving up all of her glorious Harrisburg goodies is inspired, please remember that the pension is hers regardless of whether she decides to honor her commitment as State Rep or abandon her constituency for the “greener pastures” of Norristown. I'd be more inclined to believe that Kate Harper was entering the Commissioners race as an act of noble public service to the good citizens of Montgomery County if she were to resign from her State Rep seat NOW instead of hedging her bets. Because like Joe Hoeffel in his ill-advised run for governor, if Kate Harper comes in dead last at the MCRC convention (again) she can still go back to Harrisburg --- and all of the tasty perks Mr. Guzzardi helpfully outlined above--- without skipping a beat.

Tell me, Mr. Guzzardi, has anyone from the Harper campaign called you yet to ask you to stop “helping?”

I find it hard to believe that Mr. Guzzardi is completely clueless as to why Kate ~~Matthews~~ Harper is running for County Commissioner, given that his beautifully crafted post making the case for that formidable Brown- Harper ticket appeared on the very same morning (8:00am!) that her surprise candidacy was announced in the print edition of Times Herald. Whatever her reasons, my sources tell me that Kate Harper, while a capable State Rep, appears to have a very strong allergy to attending MCRC functions and fundraisers, an apparently unforgivable shortcoming for which I seem to recall Mr. Guzzardi recently slapping Bruce Castor around.

All I want to know is: when did Bruce Castor become the enemy? And is it just coincidence that the sudden intense vitriol from members of his own party occurred only when Castor refused to quietly acquiesce to the will of the masters of the MCRC?

PAWatercooler readers are smart enough to figure this one out on their own.

"Monday with Mossie" on Barry Papiernik Live and Local WFYL 1180 AM

2011-01-10T07:25:00.000-05:00

On today's program, Barry and I discuss the horrific shooting in Arizona and some of the disturbing first reactions from around the area. And as always, we talk a little Montco politics: the GOP dine-and-dash and the upcoming Commissioners' race. Tune in from 10 AM to 11 AM WFYL 1180 AM.

Live streaming here.

Are Montco GOP money men drawing the lines for an MCRC civil war?

2011-01-09T19:28:00.001-05:00

Fresh off of her win for a fifth term as a Pennsylvania State Representative, Kate Harper has suddenly and surprisingly decided to throw her hat into the already crowded ring for Montgomery County Commissioner. Again. TH:

State Rep. Kate Harper, R-61st District, announced Saturday that she will seek the Republican endorsement in the upcoming race for Montgomery County Commissioner.

“I am announcing today that I am seeking the post of Montgomery County Commissioner,” Harper said in a release. “These are challenging times and we need to search for creative solutions as we meet the challenges Montgomery County is facing in the coming years. I believe that as state representative I have demonstrated that I can build a consensus for even the thorniest issues and move forward - and I will bring that experience with me to the courthouse and work as team with whomever the taxpayers pick to manage Montgomery County.”

As reported previously by your humble blogress (here, here and here), the most prominent of the GOP money men, Vahan Gureghian, has already thrown considerable support behind his preferred candidate, Jenny Brown. Ergo and apparently, so has the rest of the official Montco GOP apparatus.

Notably absent from this selection process has been Bruce Castor, whose opinion, it seems, is being completely disregarded by the MCRC, just as it was in 2007.

Bob Kerns' comments in the Jeremy Roebuck and Karen Heller pieces in the Inquirer last week hinted that Kerns is trying to place the blame for poor fiscal management, unpaid Montco GOP bills and fund raising failures on the infighting on the Montco Board of Commissioners between Bruce Castor and the candidate they forced upon him in 2007, Jim Matthews.

Conicidentally, or perhaps not, on the very same day that Kate Harper announces her surprise entrance into the Montco Commissioner's race, Bob Guzzardi, another Montco GOP money man, posts "State Rep. Kate Harper to Run for Montgomery County Commissioner" on his blog at the Save Ardmore Coalition. Mr. Guzzardi states his case for a Brown-Harper ticket this fall:

The Montgomery County Endorsement Meeting for approximately 800 committee people is scheduled for February 9. A Brown-Harper ticket would be formidable in November 2011. Township Commissioner Jenny Brown and State Rep. Kate Harper have different and complementing backgrounds, experiences and perspectives which will, in my opinion, bring a synergistic dynamic to creatively engage the problems of the County finances and governance. A Brown-Harper ticket would be particularly formidable against the two likely Democratic tickets: Hoeffel-generic female Democrat ticket or State Rep. Josh Shapiro and generic female Democrat. In my opinion, Democratic Commissioner Hoeffel has been irremediably[sic]damaged by Sunshine Act violations detailed by Times Herald’s Jenny DeHuff and Keith Phucas so that a Shapiro-generic female Democrat is more likely Democratic ticket. Rep. Shapiro has been a state representative since 2005 and has voted for everyone of Democratic Governor and Democratic House Big Government, Big Spending Bankrupting Budgets and has not offered any realistic pension reform.

A few points here: not a lot of people in Montgomery County know who Jenny Brown is. In fairness to Ms. Brown, she may be entirely capable, but beyond Lower Merion Township, she virtually unknown. About Kate Harper, however, we have a little more information. Kate Harper ran for County Commissioner back in 2007 and after receiving only 23 out of the 800 votes of the Committee at the convention, threw her support to Jim Matthews, effectively shutting down any chance of a Castor/Murphy-Weber ticket. Thanks to in part to Kate Harper's actions in 2007, we'll never know what the last three years in Montgomery County could have been like without Jim Matthews.

Needless to say, "formidable" is not a word I would choose to describe a Brown-Harper ticket.

Additionally, I wouldn't count out the perpetual candidate for any available office, Joe Hoeffel, just yet. Hoeffel has made no secret of the fact that he has every intention of running for re-election and corruption charges don't seem to stick as fast to Democrats as they do to Republicans. (Why do you suppose that is?) Additionally, Mr. Hoeffel has a lot of grassroots support. It's entirely conceivable that Marcel Groen and/or the Montco Dems could pooh-pooh the Sunshine Law kerfuffle and pin the more serious pay-to-play allegations solely on Matthews, which could lead to a Hoeffel-Shapiro ticket. Needless to say, "formidable" is a word I would use to describe a Hoeffel-Shapiro ticket. (as opposed to either Hoeffel or Shapiro running with the misogynistcally described "generic Democratic female" candidate Mr. Guzzardi describes in his post) In any event, it would be a mistake for the GOP to rely on a Democratic short circuit and not put the best possible ticket forward.

Mr. Guzzardi also takes a shot at Castor's "Good Montco Republican" credentials:

Surprisingly, given his high profile in Montgomery County, Bruce Castor’s Campaign Finances shows him to be a weak fundraiser whose main contributors are himself and his mother. As of November 2010, Friends of Bruce Castor has Cash on Hand of $15, 839.68 and $72,000 of unpaid debts.

(...)

The debts are loans to the campaign by Bruce Castor and Diane Castor totally $72,000. Bruce Castor is a poor fundraiser and has not been a contributor to Montgomery County Republican organization or to County candidates, or anyone else.

Yes, that $72,000 is from Castor's 2004 Attorney General campaign and is being carried by his parents. Anyone who is even remotely involved in Montco GOP politics knows that Castor has been more than generous with his time to the MCRC.

Mr. Guzzardi continues:

In my opinion, the highly qualified State Rep. Harper would be a better Commissioner than Bruce Castor who has no legislative experience and who has demonstrated no more than a shallow grasp of County finances. Rep. Harper has voted on the $66 Billion dollar state budget and is respected in Harrisburg where her Harrisburg contacts and her Harrisburg insights will be beneficial to the County. As a municipal solicitor, she brings insights and experience from the municipal level. Rep. Harper brings a sophisticated and experienced perspective of breadth and depth to the position of County Commissioner that Bruce Castor cannot. Personally, Rep. Harper is far more pleasant, likeable, and down to earth than Bruce Castor. Rep. Harper is low key and is not a "drama queen". Rep Harper is far more open and accessible than the egocentric Bruce "It's All About Me" Castor. Who isn’t?

Really? Kate Harper is the better candidate because she's "low key" and "not a drama queen"? That doesn't sound very "formidable" to me.

In a post on the same blog dated 12/29/10, Mr. Guzzardi makes no secret of his contempt for anyone other than the sainted Jenny Brown:

The clueless Larry Kane references only Republican Marie "I will do and say whatever Bruce instructs" Cavanaugh. In fact. the highly qualified Lower Merion Republican Township Commissioner Jenny Brown, the Forgotten Taxpayer's Friend, will be seeking the Republican committee endorsement on Feb. 9th. Lower Merion's Jill Govberg's whose qualifications to manage a $404 BILLION dollar county budget are thin is seeking the endorsement also.

Just speculating, but perhaps Kate Harper is a better candidate because she will do and say whatever Bob Guzzardi instructs.

This "Forgotten Taxpayer" is a straw man who makes another appearance in Mr. Guzzardi's post today:

Bruce Castor has high name recognition because of his successful tenure as DA and because he receives attention of reporters. A closer look shows his service has been shallow and mediocre and more razzle dazzle than substance. When one thinks about it, what does Bruce Castor bring to the County, to The Forgotten Taxpayer or to the Republican Party.

During his time as Montgomery County Commissioner, Bruce Castor has not shown himself to have any real insight or understanding of budgets and county management. Bruce Castors’ service has been characterized by soap box drama, petty, public disputes and “sandbox” politics in his interactions with both Commissioners Hoeffel and Commissioner Matthews. The drama is “all about Bruce” and, while mildly entertaining, throwing drama does not have any benefit to the County’s Forgotten Taxpayer.

Bruce Castor has not proposed any positive initiatives nor originated any policies nor advocated for more open government Bruce Castor’s tenure has been noted for criticizing the other two Commissioners for doing what had been the practices, in many cases, what the majority Republicans had done. Bruce Castor was elected largely on his reputation as MontCo DA, where he did a very good job. Unfortunately, it does not appear he has been able to rise to the challenges facing the County budget. His tenure has been mediocre and marred by useless personality conflicts rather than substantive analysis and discussion.

Besides being patently false, (the bit about Castor not advocating for more open government is especially rich) this is quite a bit of acrimony directed towards the man who turned over the rock of the unseemly inner workings of the business-as-usual County politics and exposed it to the light of day, isn't it? During his tenure as Commissioner, Bruce Castor has been nothing if not a stalwart champion of good government. How, then, has he neglected the so-called "Forgotten Taxpayer?" Given the intolerable situation created by the power-sharing deal, (a situation Bruce Castor predicted would happen if Jim Matthews was forced upon him as a running mate) what exactly was Castor empowered to do that he did not do? What budget challenges has he not risen to where his one vote against two would have made a meaningful difference? Had it not been for Castor, would there have ever been any attention paid to fiscal irresponsibility, record debt and deficit spending, the endangered AAA bond rating, layoffs, or unionization?

I sincerely doubt it.

Unlike the hapless Ruth Damsker, whose only course of action was to cry every time Jim Matthews and Tom Ellis left her out of the decision making process, Bruce Castor has been a powerful and important force for exposing corruption at the County level.

Which about brings us full circle, doesn't it? Castor's relentless exposure of Matthews' corruption has had the effect of rendering Matthews politically toxic; the fortuitous timing of the Breakfastgate sting has all but dashed the hopes of a Jim Matthews' appointment to the Corbett Administration, and consequently, dashed the hopes of anyone who may have a vested interest in seeing someone special appointed to the Matthews seat in his place. As a result of this series of events, there will be no unelected Republican appointee to gain a powerful advantage of running as an incumbent on the Republican ticket.

It's important for MCRC Committee people to ask themselves: Who is it that has forgotten the Montgomery County Taxpayer? The man who exposed the gross mishandling of taxpayer funds and abuses of government power, or the men who would shut that man out?

Who needs "Leach Vent" to post inappropriate comments?

2011-01-09T14:53:00.002-05:00

Especially when Facebook will serve just as well.

State Senators who have problems filtering their inappropriate views for general public consumption should typically avoid outlets like blogging. Daylin Leach, who famously shut down his blog, "Leach Vent" in September of 2005 because he figured out that comedy and politics only mixes if you are a comedian and not an unfunny politician who only aspires to be a comedian instead:

State Rep. Daylin Leach permanently shut down his Web site after his humor columns were criticized by some readers as insensitive and racy.

In a brief letter posted Friday on his Web site, the Montgomery County Democrat apologized to anyone he may have offended and said the site was being pulled.

“This has been a learning experience for me – I have a much better understanding that, while I believe comedy is for all people, not all comedy is for every person,” the posting stated.

In the posting, Leach offered a “sincere apology” and added that “the last thing I want, as a person and as a representative, is to cause offense.”

Some of Daylin’s writings on the site – http://www.leachvent.com – veered into musings colored by references to pornography or sex. Others included comments about Palestinians and a “third world type” who cleans hotel rooms.

The writings, often signed Dutch Larooo, attracted the ire of Arab and anti-discrimination groups. The Anti-Defamation League in Philadelphia called some of Leach’s writings offensive and complained that they reinforced negative stereotypes.

The Web site began from a series of humor columns Daylin e-mailed to friends and acquaintances.

Well, for those of you pining for the comedic stylings of "Dutch Laroo," fear not; seems the erstwhile Senator Leach is using Facebook for his inappropriate comments these days. Within hours of the horrific shooting of U.S. Rep Gabrielle Giffords at an Arizona Safeway center that left 6 dead and 12 injured, State Senator Daylin Leach posted the following to his Facebook status:

After today's shooting Sarah Palin has removed her admonition to conservatives to "...don't retreat, reload". This woman is truly an abomination.

What, you may be asking, did that "abominable" woman, Sarah Palin, say about the shooting?

My sincere condolences are offered to the family of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and the other victims of today’s tragic shooting in Arizona.

On behalf of Todd and my family, we all pray for the victims and their families, and for peace and justice.

Oh.

Of course, we expect such overheated reaction from the MSM and liberal opinion meisters, who have a vested interest in trying to control the narrative to the benefit of their political interests: shut down the first amendment by classifying all differing opinions as "hate speech" and shut down the second amendment by calling for more gun control in the wake of an isolated incident. The blog Hillbuzz has done a terrific job of meticulously documenting the left's reaction, particularly the scrubbed Daily Kos post from "BoyBlue" entitled, "My CongressWOMAN voted against Nancy Pelosi! And is now DEAD to me!" that was posted a mere two days prior to the shooting.

But elected officials should be exhibiting leadership at a time like this, not ratcheting up the rhetoric.

I am saddened, but unsurprised, to observe that the first reaction of far too many people is to politicize a tragedy such as this, however, such is the state of our political discourse today. While recognizing this trend, it is also disheartening to compare and contrast this reaction to that of the Fort Hood shootings, in which we were admonished repeatedly not to jump to conclusions about the role religion played in the motivation of Major Nidal Hasan in that incident. Senator Leach's Facebook post is despicable, immature, inappropriate and, unfortunately, totally unsurprising.

My thoughts and prayers go out not only to the dead and injured and their families, but to our wounded Country as well: that she will ultimately address this tragedy with appropriate wisdom and grace.

UPDATE: A reader informs me that the captioned post, like the BoyBlue post on DailyKos mentioned above, has also mysteriously disappeared down the memory hole. Fear not, gentle readers. The offending post, and all of the hideous comments it inspired, has been eternally memorialized in hard copy. I will .pdf it for you all tomorrow.

If the Montco GOP is not united, wherin does that fault really lie?

2011-01-05T21:34:00.000-05:00

Karen Heller uses her Inky column today to rehash the Jeremy Roebuck piece from two days ago. So, given this opportunity, I'm going to use this post to use her column to rehash and further examine the pertinent points of the original Roebuck piece.

We rejoin our story, already in progress, with "convivial optimist" Bob Kerns downplaying the Montco GOP's $90,000 in unpaid bills:

"We've raised over $1.5 million in two years and used that to fund campaigns," Kerns says. "My job is to get people elected. I've tried to do that. It's just that simple. I'll always have debt." As for the creditors, "they will get paid. Every one of those bills will get paid."

Try telling that to Presidential Catering's Gus Mandracchia, owner of the East Norriton banquet hall that was the long-standing venue for the committee's biannual receptions. He's still owed $6,250 from 2008.

"In 45 years of business, I can't remember this happening," Mandracchia says. "I never had a situation where I did not get paid." He says, "I've gotten lots of promises from the committee," the last dated July 1, 2009. The check still hasn't arrived.

In fairness to Kerns, I don't know if his quote in today's Heller column was recorded as part of or in response to the Roebuck piece. Regardless, Kerns was clearly being asked to comment on the old unpaid bills of the GOP and it's a remarkable snapshot of a callous disregard for the very many people who make up the Montgomery County Republican Party. Imagine that your debtor has just bragged up bringing in $1.5 million, meanwhile, you've been holding the bag on a mere six grand for two years that he simply can't be bothered to pay.

This attitude is but a piece of the larger picture.

But first, a trip down Memory Lane.

Montco Republicans may remember how, in 2007, the Ken Davis-led party arranged a marriage of inconvenience on two candidates who clearly did not like each other: Bruce Castor would have preferred to run with Melissa Murphy-Weber; Jim Matthews would have preferred to run with Tom Ellis. And yet somehow Ken Davis was able to convince Castor, the far more popular candidate, to take on Jim Matthews for the good of the Montgomery County Republican Party. So in spite Castor's concerns about being tainted by the lobbying contract that Matthews and Ellis gave to a firm associated with Montgomery County GOP Chairman Ken Davis, Castor took one for the party. Murphy-Weber stepped down and "Matthews - Castor '07" was born.

During the course of the campaign, Castor grew uneasy with the Jim Matthews-Ken Davis-Bob Asher triangle. Castor refused to take money from Asher even though Matthews continued to do so, to the point where a separate account for Asher money was set up. The Pennsylvania Progressive has a nice round up of this part of the story here.

It's also worth remembering that Bruce Castor has never been shy about stating his opinions and, during his tenure as Commissioner, he has been both vocal and precient in his opinions about the ethically challenged Matthews and the consequences of fiscal irresponsibility.

And he has been right every time.

Which brings us to today: a power-sharing deal, CBIZ, 24/7 political animal campaigning in the famous Ford Taurus, Breakfastgate and many hundreds of thousands of economic development projects later, primary elections a bare five months away and Committee endorsements just around the corner.

And Bob Kerns in the Philadelphia Inquirer blaming his organization's fiscal woes entirely on the lack of unity in the Montgomery County Republican Party caused primarily by the Jim Matthews / Bruce Castor feud.

I think not.

First of all, I'm not sure how Bob Kerns thinks that Bruce Castor should have handled being saddled with Jim Matthews. Should he have been quietly complicit? Should he have been quietly non-complicit? Should he not have called attention to the ethically challenged Matthews and swept the transgressions under the rug in the name of "party unity?" I'm not sure Bob Kerns is in touch with the majority of the members of his organization if he thinks that it was Castor's handling of this very bad hand he was dealt by the Party itself in any way soured true Montgomery County Republicans on the Montco GOP.

And perhaps therein lies the problem. Perhaps Bob Kerns is really only "in touch" with one member of the Party. The member with the deepest pockets.

Karen Heller again:

In the past, the county Republican organization attracted large and small business folks championing fiscal conservatism. "Everybody was a Republican," says lawyer Stephen Britt, a veteran member of the since-disbanded Chairman's Club, which met every first Friday at the Blue Bell Tavern to quaff and chat.

"It was like Tammany Hall, but clean. Meritorious people would apply for positions and dutifully wait their turn. It was a well-oiled machine," says Britt, who worries about the committee's current condition. "They were the only game in town, and the thought that they wouldn't pay their bills - holy moley!"

Historically, Montgomery County Republicans had a sizable edge, but registration gradually shifted to Democrats and independents. Democratic candidates claimed the county in the last three presidential elections and in November's governor and U.S. Senate races.

The county remains rich in potential donors, though many chose to give directly to candidates, not the local organization.

So under Bob Kerns, donors' access to candidates and office holders has been significantly curtailed, the comraderie has been seriously damaged and the Party faithful have now been embarassed with the dine-and-dash allegations. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that people are going to stop donating to an organization like this, particularly if that organization is going to use that money to promote only one of it's member's interests.

Or, as Jim Matthews said,

"People start to think, 'The committee doesn't need my money.' That's a bad situation."

The buzz around town is that Jenny Brown, the candidate Vahan Gureghian calls his "girl," is being promoted within the Party for endorsement by the Committee to the exclusion of all other candidates. Further buzz suggests that Kerns is holding out hope that, despite his being very publicly passed over for the Banking post in the Corbett Administration, Jim Matthews may yet get that desk in Harrisburg on which to prop up his feet.

Bob Asher and Vahan Gureghian were top donors to the Corbett campaign.

A Matthews appointment to the Corbett Administration would whisk our Jimbo away to Harrisburg, clearing the way for an appointment into Matthews' Commissioner seat. This would fundamentally change the very nature of the Commissioners' race by having not one, but TWO incumbents on the ticket for GOP Commissioner. One guess as to which Commisioner Candidate's name is being bandied about for this hypothetical spot.

Hint: It's not Jill Govberg, Marie Cavanaugh or Nick Salamone.

If conservatives want the GOP (particularly the Montco GOP) to be the Party of fiscal responsibility and integrity, if the Montco GOP wants to earn the trust of the constituency, then the Montco GOP has to BE that Party and not just talk the talk. This lesson has been graphically demonstrated over the last two years at the national and state levels and still, incredibly, it seems like there are people out there who do not get it: the days of politics as usual are over.

The definition of insanity is to continue to do the same thing but expect a different result. And it's starting to look an awful lot like 2007 around here.

Will "dine-and-dash" lead to new Montco GOP Leadership?

2011-01-04T22:08:00.002-05:00

In yesterday's post regarding the Montco GOP's money men, I excerpted at length a rather eye-opening article by the Inky's Jeremy Roebuck. And even then, I skipped an entire section of the article, because that part of the story addresses an entirely separate issue, even if both are tied to funding. Mr. Roebuck, again:

The fact that a local political party finds itself in debt is not particularly unusual, strategists on both sides of the aisle say. County-level Republican and Democratic committees across the state routinely wrack up thousands in financial obligations during election season.

What makes the Montgomery County Republican Committee's situation unusual is that its debts have been mounting since early 2009. And while $90,000 may not sound like much to a group that routinely brings in more than $600,000 in contributions each year, the fact that those liabilities have sat on the books for so long is a troubling sign, said veteran Republican strategist Aaron Cohen, who has worked on campaigns within Montgomery County.

And it has started to affect how the party operates. For years under previous chairmen, the party relied on the same caterers, the same event halls, the same print shops for many of its functions and operations. Over the last three years - since Kerns was first elected chairman by the party's committee members - the organization has bounced from one vendor to another.

After performing the equivalent of a dine-and-dash on many of the businesses that have been loyal to the organization for years, the party can't go back.

Gus Mandracchia - owner of the East Norriton-based Presidential Catering - got stuck holding a $3,000 bill in 2008 after years of putting food on the table at party functions. Since then, he's seen his regular business from the committee dry up.

"I would have been the first to say just pay me what you can, but to not pay at all and then just go somewhere else - that's wrong," he said.

Even the party's own candidates are feeling the hurt. Pete Kohut, a longtime Bridgeport councilman who made an unsuccessful run for the state House this year, said the party promised to cover $2,000 for his campaign mailings. He's still waiting for a check.

And as other bills have piled up, lawyers have gotten involved, lawsuits have been threatened and the party's small staff has voluntarily deferred drawing a paycheck.

"I just don't know how you run an operation like that," Kohut said. "You certainly don't like to take advantage of those who are working on behalf of your party."

So how did the local Republican committee in the heart of Pennsylvania's political fund-raising capital get to this point? Local conservatives have continued to give in big numbers to GOP candidates and statewide causes.

The economic downturn has certainly taken its toll on fund-raising efforts in Montgomery County, Kerns said. But he places most of the blame on the epic public feud played out during the past three years between the two Republicans on Montgomery County's Board of Commissioners - Castor and his estranged colleague, James R. Matthews.

Ok, I call B.S.

When Kerns first took over the leadership of the Montco GOP, he took the bold and unusual step of separating Jim Matthews from the Party in a very public and unmistakable manner. I think it's pretty safe to say that no one in Montgomery County has thought that Jim Matthews has had Party backing ever since those heady days of December 2007, when the infamous power sharing deal with the unmistakeably liberal Joe Hoeffel was struck and Matthews was censured by the Party. Kerns made the exact right call at the exact right time.

But to now blame Jim Matthews for the Montco GOP walking out on bills and leaving vendors and caterers hanging with never a backward glance? I find that difficult to swallow. Especially since many of these vendors would have been happy to work with the Party to work out payment arrangements. Kerns continues:

"People like to give money in a situation where they see stability - where they're going to believe that you're the winning candidate," Kerns said. "When you have a situation where you have infighting between two Republican commissioners that sure doesn't lead to stability."

Stability is the problem? Hey, as long as we know the Party is not going to shoehorn some handpicked political patronage crony onto the ballot to ride very large coat-tails of the GOP's strongest candidate (again), that's all the stability we are looking for. That situation, you may recall, arose directly from the outsized influence of one particularly large Montco GOP donor.

To be absolutely clear: This is not to say that Vahan Gureghian looks for the same qualities in a candidate as Bob Asher, and it's certainly not to say that Jenny Brown is another Jim Matthews, however, when Bob Kerns pooh-poohs concerns about one donor having too much influence in the party....

"If you took Mr. Gureghian's money out, we'd still survive, we'd still operate and we'd still run the party effectively," he said. "I don't have to rely on one man to make this party run."

It IS to say that perhaps THIS, and not the infighting on the County Board of Commissioners, is the situation that is causing the instability, since apparently, even that one large donor is not large enough to pay the GOP's bills, some of which are aged some two years. Mr. Kerns' cavalier attitude about taking Mr. Gureghian's money out of the equation would carry a little more weight if Gus Mandracchia and Pete Kohut got paid.

There is plenty of political angst to lay at the feet of Jim Matthews, however, it's unfair of Mr. Kerns to try to schlupp the Party's fiscal woes off on him too.

Because, as you can see, Jim Matthews (or, perhaps more properly, the Friends of Jim Matthews) at least always pays the tab.

When the review is better than the film

2011-01-03T07:32:00.001-05:00

Ladies and gentlmen, at long last, I give you Red Letter Media's Plinkett review of Star Wars Episode II the Revenge of the Sith. The most heinous and offensive of the three Star Wars prequels, Plinkett gives the film the treatment it deserves.

WARNING: Language definintely not safe for work or kids.

"Mondays with Mossie" on WFYL 1180 AM's Live and Local with Barry Papiernik

2011-01-03T07:17:00.001-05:00

On today's edition of Mondays with Mossie, Barry and I discuss the intriguing case of the David Manilla hunting accident. Tune in between 10 am and 11 am to 1180 AM WFYL.

Live streaming HERE.

From Asher to Gureghian: Is this really progress in the Montco GOP?

2011-01-02T21:03:00.001-05:00

When Bob Kerns came in to head up the Montco GOP in 2007, it signalled that perpetual money man Bob Asher's influence was neutered. But has the outsize influence of one GOP moneyman been simply replaced by another? Jeremy Roebuck reports on philly.com:

GOP stalwarts look back fondly on the Montgomery County Republican Committee's fund-raisers of old.

Two times a year, party luminaries would gather at area country clubs to discuss political intrigues, strategize for forthcoming elections and celebrate their reputation as the local party in the state that could not be beat at the ballot box.

Hors d'oeuvres were served, cocktails were consumed and, most importantly, wealthy local donors were convinced to empty their wallets to the tune of tens of thousands of dollars.

Those days have past.

Facing a tough fund-raising climate and a dysfunctional three years at the helm of the county's government, the organization once viewed by Republicans statewide as the party's pocketbook has fallen on hard times.

The committee owes more than $90,000 in debts - some as old as two years - to printers, caterers, political consultants and other vendors.

And it has become increasingly dependent upon the benevolence of a single man - Gladwyne lawyer, educator and billboard company owner, Vahan Gureghian, who operates the state's largest charter school.

His $93,000 contributions make up more than a quarter of all the money the Montgomery County GOP has brought in this year, according to its latest financial filings with the Pennsylvania Department of State.

That combination of mounting financial obligation and the outsize importance of one donor could spell trouble in Montgomery County's 2011 local government elections and the overall future health of the party, some members fear.

(...)

Since 2008, he and his wife, Danielle, have donated more than $250,000 to the county Republican committee, while also emerging as a major GOP benefactor across the state. His gifts of more than $334,000 helped push Republican Governor-elect Tom Corbett to victory in November's elections.

"I have worked very diligently to ensure that the party's operations are adequately funded, as they certainly are today," Gureghian said in an e-mailed statement. "I will continue to do so, to the best of my ability."

Yet some with the Montgomery County party say its leaders have become too reliant on Gureghian's money to the exclusion of seeking donations from other sources.

"When you see someone giving $339,000, people start to think, 'The committee doesn't need my money,'" said Matthews. "That's a bad situation."

And it's an unusual position for Kerns to find himself in, considering the cause that helped sweep him into the committee's chairmanship in 2008.

That year, with party members still reeling from what they saw as Matthew's betrayal, many blamed the man whose influence helped put him on the 2007 Republican ticket, GOP power broker and candy-maker Robert B. Asher.

A frequent and generous donor to the Montgomery County Republican Committee both personally and through his fund-raising arm, the Pennsylvania Future Fund, Asher had garnered too much influence over local party decisions, Kerns and his allies said.

Kerns' election as party chair was meant to signal the committee moving out from under Asher's thumb. (Asher has since gained new prominence as a major donor to Corbett's gubernatorial campaign. And while he continues to donate generously to specific candidates in Montgomery County, he has not contributed to the local party since 2007.)

"Now, Vahan wants to be the next Bob Asher, and the leadership is letting him," said Matthews. "He saw the vacuum here in Montgomery County and threw his saddle on the party."

Mixed metaphor aside, Jim Matthews has an important point. It is never a good thing to let one person have too much influence over party decisions. A point that Jim Matthews now appreciates and puts him in the extremely rare position of sharing the same view as Bruce Castor. Bob Kerns does not see a problem with Gureghian's monetary influence:

"If you took Mr. Gureghian's money out, we'd still survive, we'd still operate and we'd still run the party effectively," he said. "I don't have to rely on one man to make this party run."

Which a quite a cavalier attitude to have when your organization has over $90,000 in payables, some of which are over two years old. And as the race for County Commissioner heats up, the one candidate who has publicly announced is also Gureghian's choice:

A $10,000 check [Gureghian] cut to Lower Merion Commissioner Jenny Brown last month is the single largest donation of the campaign so far and makes up more than 80 percent of her fund-raising total, according to her latest campaign finance report.

This puts the war chest of this newcomer to county level politics at more than two times that of Joseph M. Hoeffel III, a former U.S. Representative and the incumbent Democratic commissioner who is running for reelection next year.

While Castor has not yet made up his mind about Brown as a potential 2011 runningmate, he bristles at the idea that Gureghian's support has caused some to already make up their minds.

"I keep wondering why some people are pushing her to the exclusion of other candidates without even asking my view," he said. "I think that the party's candidate selection must be done by merit, and not done by who controls the purse strings."

Because we all know how well that worked out the last time.

Vereb: Sunshine act violations are more serious than a speeding ticket

2010-12-31T07:29:00.000-05:00

State Rep Mike Vereb plans to introduce legislation to strengthen Sunshine Act violations, upping the penalties to include jail time for violations. The Times Herald's 007 Jenny DeHuff has the story:

News in recent weeks has revealed a troubling reality for some lawmakers — that the act has no teeth, giving way to disregard and even abuse by politicians.

Vereb admitted the now-public breakfast meetings between Montgomery County commissioners Jim Matthews and Joe Hoeffel were not the first revelation to bring this matter to his attention.

“I frankly think that when crooks steal, they go to jail,” said Vereb. “If politicians violate the Sunshine law and knowingly deceive the public with some type of a vote based on an illegal meeting, then I think they should be incarcerated. Guess what? The people keep fighting for it, and you better start listening and not just get a $100 fine.”

No word if Vereb's proposed legislation will increase or decrease penalties if violations of the Sunshine Act include printed agendas.

Year end wrap up on "Live and Local with Barry Papiernik" WFYL 1180 AM

2010-12-31T07:18:00.000-05:00

Jack Posobiec and I join Barry Papiernik this moring to talk about the big stories of the year, both local and national. Tune in to WFYL 1180 AM from 10AM to 11AM this morning to recap 2010 with us.

And a very Happy New Year to all!

Live streaming HERE.

Supplemental coverage of the Manilla hunting accident

2010-12-30T20:09:00.002-05:00

It seems the closer one resides to Norristown, the less one hears about the David Manilla case, the case of the tragic hunting death of Barry Groh that happened just over the Montco border in Bucks County. Other than the victim, the story is almost entirely populated by well-known Norristown lawyers and is presumably of interest to the Norristown community. Not that there hasn't been news coverage; oh heavens no. It's just that the coverage has been somewhat...thin.

For readers who may have understandably missed this story, the Journal Register News Service, which is the only coverage available in the local Journal Register newspapers, sums up the story so far thusly:

The preliminary hearing for David Manilla, the Worcester attorney charged with killing a Quakertown hunter on the opening day of deer season last month, is scheduled for Jan. 31.

Manilla was relased on Dec. 23, when his mother paid 10 percent of his $2 million bail, according to court reports.

Manilla, 49, was charged with involuntary manslaughter in the Nov. 29 shooting death of hunter Barry Groh. He also faces multiple weapons and hunting violations.

Manilla allegedly shot Groh with an illegal high-powered rifle; he told authorities he thought he was shooting at a deer.

Manilla’s uncle, former Montgomery County District Attorney Michael Marino, was hunting with his nephew when Groh was shot, according to court records.

Marino faces no criminal charges.

On Dec. 17, at a press conference after Manilla’s arraignment, Bucks County District Attorney David Heckler said that Manilla committed “a reckless act” when he shot and killed 52-year-old Groh.

Heckler said that after the shooting Manilla “engaged in a cowardly effort to evade and escape responsibility for his criminal acts.”

According to court records, Manilla fired the fatal shot from about 88 yards away.

While this is is quite a good summary of the local coverage so far, you can invest another ten minutes to read the comprehensive local coverage here, here, here and here.

Now one thing we would certainly never do here at Bluftooni is engage in conjecture or innuendo, however, a simple Google search reveals some facts that have been missing from the local newspapers available to those of us who live in close proximity to the Montgomery County Seat.

For instance, missing from the local coverage is this rather material story from the December 23 Allentown Morning Call:

According to online court records, Manilla earlier this month sold four properties in Montgomery and Bucks counties. Two of the Montgomery County properties were sold to his mother, Vivian Manilla, for $1.

A third Montgomery County property was sold for $1 to Honor Manilla. Her relationship to David Manilla is unclear. According to public records, Honor Manilla is a podiatrist whose practice shares the same address as David Manilla's home at 2060 Valley Forge Road, Worcester.

On Dec. 8, Manilla sold his Richland property to PPL, according to a company spokesman. The 88-acre property at 1155 California Road is where Groh was shot and killed.

Manilla had been in negotiations since June to sell the property for a power line route, said Paul Wirth, PPL senior manager of communications.

Wirth declined to comment on how much the sale was for, but said published reports of a $1.45 million sale "were not incorrect." A representative with the Bucks County Recorder of Deeds office could not be reached for comment Thursday.

Channel 69 WFMZ News adds:

All transactions happened after Groh's death but before Manilla's December 17th arrest.

"[There's] nothing illegal about selling property, especially if planned a long time ago," says Allentown lawyer Stephen Zamborsky.

PPL tells 69 News its deal had been in the works since June.

Zamborsky says if someone is shown to be liable either in a criminal case or civil case and the courts could freeze any assets, including those recently sold and put them into a trust at their assessed value.

"If it can be shown they started to engage in course of conduct and that happened immediately after the incident occurred. Then the selling of that property is not going to pass the smell test," Zamborsky states.

He says it doesn't matter who the properties were sold too. If fraud is suspected the courts can take control.

Bucks County Prosecutors released an affadavit to lehighvalleylive.com on December 17. Among the facts in the affadavit that have not been reported in the local coverage:

When Manilla turned over the rifle in question, the barrel had been "plugged" with dirt. The rest of the rifle, especially the outside of the barrel where the "dirt plug" was observed, was otherwise clean.

The rifle in question had a broken scope on it; Manilla maintains he did not drop his rifle during hunting and "expressed surprise when asked how the scope of the rifle had been broken."

"According to Manilla, no one else had possession of the rifle between Monday and the time he turned it over to detectives on December 1, 2010. Manilla did not offer any explanation as to how the plug of dirt had gotten into the barrel of his .30-06 rifle."

Prior to calling 911, Manilla fired a shot from his shotgun into the ground, presumably because he knew that it was illegal to hunt with the rifle in Bucks County. Manilla told investigators “if the game warden had asked what was fired, I was going to show them the shotgun.”

[Firearms examiner, Montgomery County] Detective [John] Finor stated that in his training and experience when a rifle is utilized properly the “shooter’ must aim at their selected target by looking down the top of the weapon through the rear sight blade and lining up the front sight (at the tip of the barrel) in the center of the rear sight blade. The sights are then lined up on the target. Detective Finor stated that in his expert opinion this particular weapon, in the condition it was in at the time of his examination, could not be aimed properly or fired accurately utilizing the iron sights as David Manilla had previously described in his statement to Affiant Potts, since the rear sight blade was missing from the gun.

On Friday December 10, 2010, detectives interviewed Barbara Fletcher at her attorney’s office. According to David Manilla, Barbara Fletcher is his longtime girlfriend. Following the interview, Barbara Fletcher turned over to detectives, a Remington bolt action rifle, serial number T6254490, with a black synthetic sling, a black rifle case, and a box of ammunition. Fletcher advised that at the request of David Manilla, she retrieved the rifle and ammunition from the Manilla farm at 1155 California Road on Sunday December 5, 2010. After the shooting at the farm, Manilla told Fletcher to go to the farm to collect the rifle, and told her where she could find the rifle in one of the outbuildings. This rifle was not the weapon used by Manilla on November 29, 2010. Fletcher advised that the gun was hers, and that she was not aware that it was being kept at the Manilla Farm. Detectives also inspected a cache of 68 weapons (rifles and shotguns) that were stored in the attic of Fletcher’s residence. Fletcher was unable to identify eighteen of these rifles as belonging to her, advising that they were Manilla’s.

You can read the complete affadavit here.

In the interests of keeping the public informed about this developing story, your intrepid bloggress, without the benefit of a reporter in the Bucks County Courhouse, will continue to utilize the vast resources of the internet and her trusty laptop to continue to bring updates to the good people of Norristown and it's surrounds. If you spot a story that you think needs to be highlighted, please feel free to contact me at lisamossie@yahoo.com.

Circle of idiocy: Obama, Carlson, and Vick

2010-12-30T07:50:00.001-05:00

Barack Obama has a habit of weighing in on exactly the wrong social issues in exactly the wrong way. Last week, the President placed a call to Iggles owner Jeffrey Lurie to congratulate him on the environmental upgrades he's making to the Linc(yes, more needs to be said here about this greenie weenie idiocy, but we'll save that for another day). In the course of that conversation, Obama also congratulated Lurie for giving a second chance to a convicted felon, Michael Vick, who, apparently did not "act stupidly" when killing and torturing dogs. From the Inky's contribution to the media uproar:

Peter King, a reporter for Sports Illustrated and NBC Sports, posted on Monday night: "Yes, Obama called Eagles owner Jeffrey Lurie to praise the Eagles for giving Vick a chance. Said too many prisoners never get fair 2d chance."

It's unclear exactly when Obama called (Lurie has not said, and neither the Eagles nor Vick had further comments as of Wednesday), or what his main subject was. King's tweet suggests it was Vick-related praise; White House spokesman Bill Burton, seeking to plug the dike, said talk also concerned plans for windmills, solar panels, and other green-energy measures at Lincoln Financial Field.

Burton also said Obama "of course condemns the crimes that Michael Vick was convicted of, but, as he's said previously, he does think that individuals who have paid for their crimes should have an opportunity to contribute to society again."

Enter a has-been conservative, a man whose career has arguably had more second chances than Michael Vick, to notch up the hyperboyle. Tucker Carlson, filling in for Sean Hannity during one of the slowest news weeks of the year, took this opportunity to regain relevancy:

Fox News spent much of Tuesday on Vick/Obama, and on Tuesday night, the big blast came. Commentator Tucker Carlson, filling in for Sean Hannity, said: "I'm a Christian, I've made mistakes myself, I believe fervently in second chances. But Michael Vick killed dogs, and he did in a heartless and cruel way. I think, personally, he should have been executed for that."

When Michael Vick came to Philly, I wrote a blog post in support of him. My feelings then and now are that the man did his time and paid for his crime. This, coupled with my beliefs that our society has a tendency to elevate the value animals and chilllldruuuun as morally and socially superior to any given adult and the that our society also has a tendency to place a bit too much value on professional athletes, both in compensation and social relevance as role models, my basic stance was that the noise over Vick was another instance of overblown hyperventilation. This led to a heated exchange between myself and another conservative blogger for whom I have the greatest respect. Needless to say, neither of us changed the other's mind and all that was accomplished was generation of needless animosity, which for my part, I regret.

Two years hence, Micheal Vick seems, to me, the casual observer, a humble and properly rehabilitated felon who is tremendously talented and has led the Eagles to a remarkable season. I'm sure there are those who disagree with that assessment. However, in a town like Philly, it should be noted that much will be forgiven if Vick can bring home a Super Bowl ring (there are, after all, actually Eagles Jerseys for dogs with Vick's name and number on the back.)

It needs to be said that a good bit of animosity towards Vick still remains, as is evidenced by the latest circle of idiocy. Liberal animal lovers find themselves in conflict with their Messiah, who endorsed the dog torturer, and in horrified agreement with Faux News righty tool Tucker Carlson, who called for Vick's execution. Some conservatives find themselves distancing themselves from righty tool Tucker Carlson and in agreement with the bane of their existence, Barack Obama.

Only for conservative animal lovers, like my friend Steve, is all right with the world.

It's civil war for Montco Dems

2010-12-29T07:33:00.000-05:00

When working to find the elusive serial killer in Silence of the Lambs, Hannibal Lecter famously challenged Clarice Starling:

First principles, Clarice. Simplicity. Read Marcus Aurelius. Of each particular thing ask: what is it in itself? What is its nature? What does he do, this man you seek?

The first principle of Joe Hoeffel is that Joe Hoeffel runs for office. Always and for any available office. Asking Joe NOT to run for office would be like asking him not to breathe. CBS3 reports of a brewing civil war within the Montgomery County Democratic Party:

Usually, you expect Republican wars in Montgomery County, but this is a different time. The county’s Democratic Chief Marcel Groen has urged Democratic Commissioner Joe Hoeffel (pictured) not to run next year.

Hoeffel told us late yesterday that he has every intention to run and to unite the party, indicating that Groen just wants more control on the commission.

Reports have also surfaced that fast-rising State Representative Josh Shapiro would run in Hoeffel’s place, but Shapiro says there is no way he would run if Hoeffel is on the ballot. If Hoeffel backs away from running, Shapiro would get in.

Interesting that Marcel Groen does not seem to think that there is enough room on the two-candidate Montco Commissioner ticket for both Shapiro and Hoeffel. And after pushing through all of that critical economic development, too.

The great wimp out of 2010

2010-12-27T18:37:00.002-05:00

Rendell Eagles Rant Makes National News: MyFoxPHILLY.com

Ed Rendell called this the continuing "wussification" of America and lamented the fact that Americans can't think for themselves anymore. This from a leader in the Wussification of America Movement AKA the Democratic Party.

The DN's reliably liberal Will Bunch had this to say:

Ultimately, life is all about risk management, and the reward of football in the snow - so often a beautiful thing - means that thousands of fans, not to mention the players and coaches who seem disappointed and befuddled by this decision, were willing to take a few risks to see it. You know, a term that gets used a lot in the great political debate - overused, in my opinion - is whether America has become "a nanny state." Usually I'm on the other side (like when it comes to health care, in which . . . oh, never mind), but in this case I think here it's perfectly OK to channel your Inner Rush Limbaugh and say that "the nanny state" killed this football game.

If we're not "a nanny state," then we've become a nation of overcautious risk managers, also known as wimps. They don't play American football in China, but I believe that if they did, not only would they have played this game, but 300,000 fans would have marched barefoot through the drifts for 15 miles to get to the stadium, drilling each other with advanced calculus problems as they walked.

In a few years, they'll come here and conquer what's left of America while we huddle on our TV-room couches to keep safe and warm, watching "A Christmas Story" on TBS for the ninth time after a forecast of flurries has canceled the entire NFL schedule.

Funny how liberals usually regard remarks to "man up" as the height of knuckle dragging insensitivity uttered by Neanderthal conservatives. Until it comes to watching the Iggles in a heated club box seat or from the comfort of one's living room with fridge full of Bud Light. Then we are a nation of wussies.

"Mondays with Mossie" on Barry Papiernik Live and Local WFYL 1180 AM

2010-12-27T07:26:00.000-05:00

On this Morning's edition of "Mondays with Mossie", Barry and I are joined by political activist extraordinaire Jack Posobiec. We talk about Arlen Specter's rather ungracious farewell and why this perpetual political stalwart has finally outlived his usefulness in 2010. As usual, we also kick around a little Montco business.

Tune in between 10 AM and 11 AM on WFYL 1180 AM. If you miss a day, you miss a lot.

Live streaming HERE.

Montco budget passage a win-win for Hoeffel?

2010-12-23T20:31:00.000-05:00

Has anyone seen my career?

Occasionally, the straightforward, damn-the-torpedoes-full-speed-ahead style of Jim Matthews is a refreshing change from the relentless tap dancing of Joe Hoeffel. At least you don't get burned giving Jim Matthews the benefit of the doubt because you pretty much always know where he stands. Joe Hoeffel is a bit more subtle.

Readers may recall Hoeffel’s noble display of integrity in recusing himself from the budget hearing for the District Attorney’s office. Risa Ferman sought not only a waiver from the 5% budget cut, but an increase in her budget for 2011. Times Herald:

During the hearing, Ferman said reducing her 2010 budget of $13.1 million by five percent would make it nearly impossible to run her office given her budget had already been exhausted. The DA’s proposed 2011 budget is $14.2 million.

“The budget that was approved last year, I think it’s important that you know, it did not cover the necessary expenses of the office,” she said. “We have reached November, and we have run out of money.”

In 2011, the DA wants to hire three additional detectives, three forensic investigators and an assistant DA to handle firearms cases, and offered to reduce the detectives’ overtime spending from $1 million to $600,000 to cover the cost. Hiring for those positions would likely wait until mid-year to minimize impact on the budget.

Forensic evidence processing costs have risen, too, because a lot more collected at crime scenes is sent to the National Medical Services lab for analysis, and the DA attributed that to the popular TV show “CSI” whose episodes typically revolve around cases solved by forensic evidence.

“It’s not just the volume, it’s the public’s expectation,” she said. “Mr. Castor (former DA) knows well the ‘CSI Effect,’ the idea that if there’s some evidence out there, the juries and judges expect us to have looked for it.”

Citing the ongoing investigation into Sunshine Laws, Joe Hoeffel begged off voting on Ferman’s budget request.

Before the hearing got underway Tuesday, Hoeffel read from a prepared statement citing a conflict of interest as the reason he would not be voting.

“Judge (Paul) Tressler has put into place a gag order to prevent discussions or leaks involving the activities of the grand jury. I certainly will obey the judge’s order,” he said. “But I must speak out about the conflict created for me by the budget waivers sought by the district attorney and the courts while an investigation is being conducted.”

The hearings he said created an irreconcilable situation for participating, where he would be “damned if I do and damned if I don’t.”

Poor Joe. Trapped in a moral dilemma.

Today, moral dilemma solved! In a slick bit of maneuvering, Hoeffel, along with power sharing pal Jim Matthews, accomplished some political payback in approving the budget while completely catabolizing the DA’s office and perhaps winning back some much needed political capital from his party in the process.

[C]ommissioners staffers juggled the budget figures and came up with what Hoeffel called “a substitute budget” that would cut 1 percent of departments that had received waivers. Other departments had voluntarily agreed to reduce their operating budgets by 5 percent.

When the District Attorney and Court Administration held budget waiver hearings recently, Hoeffel recused himself because he is being investigated by the DA’s office. When Hoeffel prepared to vote for the DA’s and court’s revised budgets, Castor reminded his colleague about the recusal.

“I’m voting on an entire budget with uniform cuts of 1 percent I just talked about,” Hoeffel said. “I think that’s appropriate and doesn’t cause me any problem.”

Ferman’s 2010 budget of $13.1 million has already been exhausted. Not only did she not get her needed budget increase, but the district attorney’s office 2011 budget has now actually been cut by 1%. The budget waiver that was approved by Jim Matthews and Bruce Castor (with Hoeffel abstaining) last week was $14.2 million. The Matthews-Hoeffel budget Ferman now has to work with is $12.4 million.

But don’t worry about that $1.8 million Matthews and Hoeffel are stripping from county law enforcement. That $11.0 million earmarked for the corporate welfare economic development projects of which Joe Hoeffel is so fond will move forward.

Readers will recall that Joe Hoeffel, a Montgomery County Democratic Party stalwart for about three decades, no longer has the backing of his party in his (always inevitable) re-election bid. According to Hoeffel, the reason his party is ditching him is because it is

an idea spurred on by some disgruntled Democrats who are bummed that Hoeffel did not throw more patronage plums their way since he enjoys such unprecedented power in this current administration.

Hmmm. Political payback and critical patronage accomplished in one fell swoop? Out here, we call that a win-win.

Montco budget approved, but not without controversy

2010-12-23T07:43:00.001-05:00

In a stunning (ok, maybe not stunning. Maybe predictable is a better word) reversal of yesterday's posturing, Montgomery County Commissioners voted 2-1 on a $404 Million budget that, thankfully, avoids a tax increase. Joe Hoeffel, who has been consistent in his inconsistency, voted with Jim Matthews to keep his pet economic development projects alive and continue to fund the paychecks of cronies with tax dollars. Since these were the two conditions to which Mr. Castor objected, he voted against the budget.

Interestingly, Hoeffel, who made such a big "to do" about recusing himself from voting on the D.A.'s budget waiver request last week, citing a conflict of interest due to the fact that he is being investigated by the very same D.A., saw no problem in voting on cutting all departments back by 1%. As usual, the TH's Keith Phucas is on the scene:

When the District Attorney and Court Administration held budget waiver hearings recently, Hoeffel recused himself because he is being investigated by the DA’s office. When Hoeffel prepared to vote for the DA’s and court’s revised budgets, Castor reminded his colleague about the recusal.

“I’m voting on an entire budget with uniform cuts of 1 percent I just talked about,” Hoeffel said. “I think that’s appropriate and doesn’t cause me any problem.”

Castor didn’t agree, given Hoeffel sat out the two departments’ earlier hearings.

“I’m not immediately seeing that. It seems to me the same situation is in place, but obviously the recusal decision is yours,” Castor said. “But the effect of the change that we did in the past few minutes was the District Attorney had its money, a large part of its money taken away, and the courts and the drug court had their money put back in. And now Commissioner Hoeffel feels that it’s all right to vote on that.”

Hoeffel defended his right to vote on a final budget.

“Mr. Castor, it would be a lot more helpful if you’d focus on budgetary proposals rather than your political posturing. You started out by berating me for not being for a tax increase. If you’d like to propose a tax increase, propose it,” he said. “Challenging me on whether or not I’ve honored my decision to recuse myself is not particularly helpful to trying to pass a budget. That’s what we’re here for.”

Castor persisted in pressing his fellow commissioner about the matter.

“When a public official recuses him of herself from making a decision of importance, they are saying that for reasons of their own, they feel cannot be fair in making the decision,” Castor said. “What in fact has happened is, Mr. Hoeffel, you took that principled stance, and I think it was a laudable one to take, and now by another method you will in fact be voting for those very same pieces, putting that money back in in order to pass the budget. That seems like an inconsistent position to me.”

Jim Matthews, who, it should be remembered, has appointed his campaign treasurer to the position of County Solicitor, does not know what the term "conflict of interest" means.

Its worth noting here that the County budget is being balanced by dipping into the fund reserve, the balance of which now stands at $24.5 Million, down from the high of $96 Million a few years ago. This is what has led to the bond rating agency Moody's to issue a warning that the County's Aaa bond rating may be downgraded if the fund continues to dwindle. All of which begs the question: why are we funding non-essential economic development projects (not to mention the paychecks of political cronies) at a time when we are asking the row officers to cut their budgets across the board? Chairman Jim Matthews sees no problem with dipping into principal:

“But all of that having been done to accumulate this surplus ($96 million), we’ve had to catabolize that little by little to support fundamental increases in the cost of government,” he said.

Hmmm. I wonder what that word "catabolize" means? It's not listed in Websters, but my best guess, using my limited knowledge of Latin word origins, would be that the definition includes the most lethal parts of the definitions of the words "cannibalize" and "mestasticize."

How appropriate that this new word was coined by Mr. Matthews to describe exactly what he has done to Montgomery County Government.

Obama is not about to let a little thing like the Constitution get in the way of his agenda

2010-12-22T20:10:00.001-05:00

Back in April, I posted this nifty little graph from Americans for Prosperity. How is that executive power grab project going for Obama? Surprisingly well, it turns out. Net Neutrality, a new FCC regulation that was neither wanted or needed, passed yesterday on a partisan vote.

The WSJ's John Fund has an excellent, eye-opening article identifying the people behind net neutrality.

There's little evidence the public is demanding these rules, which purport to stop the non-problem of phone and cable companies blocking access to websites and interfering with Internet traffic. Over 300 House and Senate members have signed a letter opposing FCC Internet regulation, and there will undoubtedly be even less support in the next Congress.

Yet President Obama, long an ardent backer of net neutrality, is ignoring both Congress and adverse court rulings, especially by a federal appeals court in April that the agency doesn't have the power to enforce net neutrality. He is seeking to impose his will on the Internet through the executive branch. FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski, a former law school friend of Mr. Obama, has worked closely with the White House on the issue. Official visitor logs show he's had at least 11 personal meetings with the president.

The net neutrality vision for government regulation of the Internet began with the work of Robert McChesney, a University of Illinois communications professor who founded the liberal lobby Free Press in 2002. Mr. McChesney's agenda? "At the moment, the battle over network neutrality is not to completely eliminate the telephone and cable companies," he told the website SocialistProject in 2009. "But the ultimate goal is to get rid of the media capitalists in the phone and cable companies and to divest them from control."

A year earlier, Mr. McChesney wrote in the Marxist journal Monthly Review that "any serious effort to reform the media system would have to necessarily be part of a revolutionary program to overthrow the capitalist system itself." Mr. McChesney told me in an interview that some of his comments have been "taken out of context." He acknowledged that he is a socialist and said he was "hesitant to say I'm not a Marxist."

Fund connects the dots between the far left and socialist organizations behind the movement (the whole article is a must read). His conclusion:

So the "media reform" movement paid for research that backed its views, paid activists to promote the research, saw its allies installed in the FCC and other key agencies, and paid for the FCC research that evaluated the research they had already paid for. Now they have their policy. That's quite a coup.

The Denver Post's David Harsanyi is equally disturbed and makes a compelling argument:

Because there exists no area of human activity that couldn't benefit from more paternalistic attention . . . Ladies and gentlemen, please welcome the Federal Communications Commission to your Web browser.

Congressional Democrats could not find the votes to pass "net neutrality." No problem. Three un-elected officials will impose rules on hundreds of millions of satisfied online consumers. A federal appeals court stops the FCC from employing authority over the Internet. Again, not a problem. Three out of five FCC commissioners can carve out some temporary wiggle room, because as any crusading technocrat knows, the most important thing is getting in the door.

It's not that we don't need the FCC's meddling, it's that we don't need the FCC at all. Rather than expanding the powers — which always seem to grow — of this outdated bureaucracy, Congress should be finding ways to eliminate it.

Why would we want a prehistoric bureaucracy overseeing one of the century's great innovations? As a bottom-up, unregulated and under- taxed market in which technological innovation, free speech and competition thrive — at affordable prices, no less — the Internet poses a crisis of ideology, not commerce, for the FCC. It's about control and relevance. What else can explain the proactive rescue of the Web from capitalistic abuses that reside exclusively in the imagination of a handful of progressive ideologues?

Read all of Harsanyi here.

If this power grab were not egregious enough, the EPA is now poised for a little over-regulation of their own. Politico:

The Obama administration is expected to roll out a major greenhouse gas policy for power plants and refineries as soon as Wednesday, signaling it won’t back off its push to fight climate change in the face of mounting opposition on Capitol Hill.

The Environmental Protection Agency has agreed to a schedule for setting greenhouse gas emission limits, known as “performance standards,” for the nation’s two biggest carbon-emitting industries, POLITICO has learned

.

Can't get cap'n trade passed through congress? Go around congress.

Read it all.

Epic budget battle in Montco.

2010-12-22T07:44:00.000-05:00

The embattled Commissioners of Montgomery County are preparing to take up the annual budget process. Jim Matthews, whose most recent claim to fame is that of the man who will NOT be Tom Corbett's Secretary of Banking, is determined to raise taxes to make up for the $16.5 million budget shortfall. This is unsurprising; Matthews is a man who has no political capital left to lose. Why not place the burden of your cronies' paychecks and poor fiscal management right back on those people you propose to rule? The Times Herald's Keith Phucas is on the case:

In fact, Matthews is prepared to take the budget battle into January if necessary, he said Tuesday at the commissioners agenda meeting.

“I’m absolutely prepared to go into 2011 without an approved budget. I am. And I hope we don’t have to do that,” he said.

By law, the commissioners have until Dec. 31 to adopt a budget. Beyond that, officials might try to employ a temporary stop-gap measure to fund the government.

At the end of the meeting, Solicitor Barry Miller said if a budget isn’t passed by the end of the month, the county wouldn’t be able to pay employees.

“If the budget is not passed (by Dec. 31), no money for payroll has been appropriated for 2011,” he said. “We wouldn’t be able to pay any salaries.”

Should a shutdown of county government occur, it is unclear whether Mr. Miller himself will continue to draw his salary from the County or whether his other employer, The Friends of Jim Matthews, will step in and pick up the slack.

Interestingly, Joe Hoeffel is siding with Bruce Castor on this, refusing to vote for a tax increase. Is this the picture of a man trying to salvage what is left of a long career in politics? Beacuse I sense a new distance between the "power sharing" couple.

Underlying the budget debate is the concern that the county's Aaa bond rating has recently earned a "negative outlook" from Moody's after Matthews and Hoeffel voted in favor of raising the county's debt to a new all time high of $435 million. $11 million of the new $60 million bond issue will fund more ~~corporate welfare for cronies~~ economic development spending.

Castor said he would consider a tax increase only if the county’s economic development programs were eliminated, as well as commissioners staff jobs held by James Maza, Jeffrey Albert, Kenneth Klothen and other “crony” hires he opposed.

Given the ailing economy and the county’s mounting debt, Castor said, officials should only fund core government functions, which don’t include economic development spending.

Oh my. You mean that there are still places where the budget can be cut? This is shaping up to be epic. Stay tuned.

A very interesting pick for Corbett's Secretary of Banking

2010-12-21T19:24:00.001-05:00

Leaders of the five SEPA counties--the Metro Caucus--met with Governor-elect Tom Corbett today. This Metro Caucus consists of the leadership from Philadelphia, Delaware, Chester, Bucks and Montgomery Counties.

My sources tell me that Corbett took this opportunity to name his Secretary of Banking. Regular readers of this space may recall that the most prominent name that has been bandied about for this position is none other than Montco's own 24/7 political animal Jim Matthews.

All of which makes this all the more surprising when Corbett announced that his pick was a county leader who wasn't even at today's meeeting....Berks County's Glenn Moyer.

For relevant sound effect, click below:

Sad Trombonegreat free widgetsWidgetboxMore info

The good news for Jim Matthews is that the position of Secretary of Dewars has not yet been filled.

Montgomery County Quarter Midget Racing on Barry Papiernik today

2010-12-21T07:42:00.000-05:00

Tune in to Barry Papiernik's Live and Local on WFYL 1180 AM between 10 am and 11 am this morning. I'll be "co-hosting" a segment or two with the Montgomery County Quarter Midget Racing Club. MCQMRC is the oldest and largest club of it's kind and it introduces kids to racing on dirt tracks in "quarter midget" cars. The Club is currently in danger of losing their track because the property they lease from the Moose Lodge is undergoing foreclosure. The Mercury has the full story:

Steve Senn, club member, said that since there initially was no foreclosure process, the lease with the racing club was still valid. Now, however, the bank has decided to foreclose on the land in order to break the lease and sell the property.

"The club was informed that it must vacate the premises within two weeks, which means breaking down the track and moving everything," Senn said. "We've been told that they want to sell the property by the beginning of next year. It is going to sheriff's sale in February. We have a lease and for it to sell, they have to foreclose. Our lease is good for two years with the Moose."

According to Senn, the club has no property to move to since a proposal to build in Upper Providence was shot down earlier this year.

If it does not find a new location and build a track, which Senn said would cost between $600,000 and $700,000, before April, it could lose its charter as a Quarter Midgets of America club.

Quarter Midget Racing is a great sport and truly a family affair. It teaches the kids sportsmanship, competition and the rewards of dedication. Even if you don't know a driver, spending a Wednesday night down at the track watching the kids drive fast and turn left is a great way to spend a spring evening.

You can listen to what the Club means to these kids firsthand on Barry's show this morning.

Live streaming here.

"Mondays with Mossie" on the Barry Papiernik Show WFYL 1180AM

2010-12-20T07:27:00.000-05:00

On the show this morning, Barry and I talk about the lame-ass Lame Duck Session of congress, bullying in schools and what to do (and NOT to do) about it, and the curious manslaughter case of Norristown Lawyer David Manilla.

Tune in this morning from 10 am to 11 am to WFYL 1180 AM.

Live streaming here.

Heard outside the Jem

2010-12-19T14:51:00.002-05:00

Who knew John Kerry was a song and dance man?

2010-12-16T22:03:00.003-05:00

Too much!

The Label is "No Label"

2010-12-15T21:47:00.001-05:00

Having first heard of this "No Labels" movement as a vehicle to run Micheal Bloomberg for President, I immediately became intrigued. Is there really that much interest in running the New York Nanny for the most powerful office in the world that there would need to be a whole new movement created that specifically does NOT tell you what they stand for?

In the course of my observation and research, however, I discovered it's a little more than that. From "No Labels" website:

We are not labels – we are people.

We care deeply about our country.

We are frustrated and concerned about the tone of politics.

We are passionate about addressing America’s challenges.

We are Democrats, Republicans and Independents.

Most importantly, we are Americans.

We believe hyper-partisanship is destroying our politics and paralyzing our ability to govern.

We may disagree on issues, but we do so with civility and mutual respect.

We believe in the vital civil center — a place where ideas are judged on their merits.

We believe that together we can make the future better and brighter — and give us what we all deserve — a government and a political system that works — one driven by shared purpose and common sense.

We believe our politics can change, so that government will

All right, all right, that's enough. You get it. Basically the idea is that it's the labels in our national dialog causing the acrimony in our debate. And the No Labels crowd is above this because their label is No Label. Get it?

So a few reputably smart conservative columnists have seen through this charade and called this movement out for what it is: moderate to liberal liberals and failed Obamacons desperate to remain politically relevant. Jonah Goldberg:

I think Stan Kurtz had it right. No Labels claims it wants to make it easier to talk about politics by making it more difficult for people it dislikes to talk about politics. It’s political correctness by a different name (and we all know how there are no labels in political correctness!).

I’ve been tuning in and out of the livecast of the NoLabelpalooza and it is so transparently obvious that this is a Trojan horse for a bunch of defeated liberal and moderate politicians to find some new rationale for their continued political relevance.

Is there “extreme” rhetoric on the Right and Left? Sure. But, there’s extremist rhetoric in the center, too. Centrists routinely demonize the people they think are extreme. Like everyone else, sometimes they make fair points, sometimes they don’t. But what the avowed centrists want to do is declare themselves the sole arbiters of reasonableness.

One of the myriad problems with this project is the idea that somehow the “center” is a more reasonable location than the Right or the Left, when all the center is—most of the time—is an average of the Left and Right’s positions. If you think the extreme Right is crazy and the extreme Left is crazy, why should it follow that splitting difference between the two is wise? It may be on some issues, but it just as easily may not be.

Oh, and the political spectrum is not binary. Libertarians reject statism in all its forms (or at least the good libertarians do!). Sometimes the Left agrees with the libertarians, sometimes the Right does. That’s why some libertarians have been trying to create a “libertarian center” with little success. You can get a glimpse into why that effort doesn’t work by simply contemplating the fact that the libertarian center and the David Gergen center look nothing alike.

Indeed, the irony is that what has passed for the center in one generation often seems extremist in the next. Official but “polite” racism was the mainstream centrist position not too long ago. Forced sterilizations, slavery, population control, Japanese internment, male-only suffrage, censorship, corporal punishment in schools, severe divorce laws, anti-sodomy laws, etc.—all of these things were for a time centrist but are now considered extreme or even unthinkable.

I can think of any number of things that are today considered extreme which I hope will one day be centrist and any number of things that are now centrist that I hope will one day be considered extreme. I am sure that pretty much every person who thinks seriously about politics and morality can do likewise, even if our lists may be different. What the No Labels crowd seeks to do is lock-in their definitions of reasonableness, to reify the bundle of establishment assumptions about the status quo into an inherently superior and moral worldview. To which we should all respond, Feh.

The aforementioned Stanley Kurtz:

The stated aim of No Labels is to combat the “hyper-polarization” of American political debate by “calling out” politicians, media personalities, and opinion leaders who “recklessly demonize” opponents. Unfortunately, their announcement gives us reason to fear that No Labels will only increase the level of political acrimony by attempting to constrain debate, thereby exacerbating the very polarization the group claims it seeks to combat.

No Labels aims to “expand the space” of public debate in America by reducing the fear of “social or political retribution.” But this expansion is, by the two men’s own account, really a contraction. That is, Galston and Frum intend to moderate public debate by “establishing lines that no one should cross,” as they put it. Specifically, they seek to police the use of labels like “racist” and “socialist,” which they believe are used recklessly in a way that undermines democratic discussion of “legitimate policy differences.”

What this represents, in part, is an attempt to delegitimize and silence the substantial number of Americans who believe, with good reason, that President Obama’s policies are socialist in both effect and intent. Far from reducing the fear of “social and political retribution” in public debate, Galston and Frum mean to engineer an increase in such retribution, and to direct it to their own ends. In a democracy, we ought to be at pains to avoid preemptively drawing bright lines against any substantive point of view. Arguments instead ought to be tested and winnowed in the marketplace of ideas, with citizens judging political advocates on how well they support their own assertions and how effectively (and how fairly) they address counter-arguments.

Byron York lists seven signs that the movement leans left. Besides the fact that all of the Republicans featured at the launch have been voted out of office and that the group neglected to play the National Anthem and that the launch was held in what York called "one of the bluest parts of America:" an Ivy League college campus in Manhattan, among the most compelling of his reasons:

At No Labels, there were stacks of box lunches on tables outside the auditorium. Politico's Ben Smith noted that, "The vegetarian and chicken sandwiches were rapidly devoured at lunch time, leaving only a giant pile of roast beef." That's a sure sign: If there had been more Republicans there, there would have been fewer leftover roast beef sandwiches.

And here is the eighth sign for local readers: Michael Smerconish, local Obamacon looking for a rationale for his continued political relevance:

It's taken me 48 years, but tomorrow I am attending my first political protest.
I'm getting off easy. I'll be indoors at Columbia University, so I won't have to brave the winter elements. I intend to carry a Kindle instead of a painted sign. And I don't anticipate getting locked up unless my car gets booted by the NYPD.

But that doesn't mean I'm leaving my passion at home. I'm going because I want to lend support to a movement that proclaims, "Ideological extremism and political litmus tests are toxic and destructive to creating a space where the best ideas can be found and enacted."

The group is called No Labels. And although its goal of instilling civility in politics may sound naive, it is an organization created by experienced political hands: Mark McKinnon, a Republican who has counseled George W. Bush, and Nancy Jacobson, a Democratic fund-raiser who has labored for the likes of U.S. Sen. Evan Bayh.

Smerconish's piece in Sunday's Inky is entitled, Head Strong: A crusade for civil, more productive politics. Which is rather ironic since the crusades were not actually known for their civility, were they? If I recall, the crusades were actually a little better known for using violence to enforce their belief on non-believers. So maybe the title of his column is apt.

The whole movement reminds me of an old episode of Law and Order: Special Victims Unit wherein Robin Williams stars as Merrit Rook, the radical non-conformist rebel who stages a big flash mob in downtown New York where all of his followers can demonstrate their non-conformity by doing exactly what he tells them to do. (The exquisite irony of this scene, by the way, is completely lost even on the lefty writers of SVU: Detective Munch, resident radical of the squadroom, conforms with the non-conformity event and gleefully participates in the flash mob)

The movement pretends it is above the fray, but it is only adding to the fray in a different way. And I have nothing against adding to the fray, only the disingenuous way they are going about it. To be sure, the folks at No Labels have a point of view, but to suggest that by somehow forgoing a label (or rather, by adopting the label, "No Label") that they are somehow just as passionate but more reasonable is bunk.

I have always maintained that those who take the middle of the road get run over. There is nothing wrong with being passionate about your beliefs. Perhaps the need for No Labels arose because those political wanna bees who built ther careers under one Label no longer find themselves welcomed under that umbrella. So in order to regain relevance, they need to create rules of engagement disguised as civility but in reality are constraints on freedom of expression. My bet is that the number one tool of the No Labels movement will be to attempt to silence their opposition by using labels.

Michael Moore posting bail for Julian Assange

2010-12-14T22:07:00.000-05:00

From Michael Moore's website:

Yesterday, in the Westminster Magistrates Court in London, the lawyers for WikiLeaks co-founder Julian Assange presented to the judge a document from me stating that I have put up $20,000 of my own money to help bail Mr. Assange out of jail.

Furthermore, I am publicly offering the assistance of my website, my servers, my domain names and anything else I can do to keep WikiLeaks alive and thriving as it continues its work to expose the crimes that were concocted in secret and carried out in our name and with our tax dollars.

We were taken to war in Iraq on a lie. Hundreds of thousands are now dead. Just imagine if the men who planned this war crime back in 2002 had had a WikiLeaks to deal with. They might not have been able to pull it off. The only reason they thought they could get away with it was because they had a guaranteed cloak of secrecy. That guarantee has now been ripped from them, and I hope they are never able to operate in secret again.

Indeed, Mr. Moore brings up an excellent point here: when I imagine what the world would be like now had the "courageous" WikiLeaks been in existence in 2002, my mind leads me to inevitably wonder
WHY IN THE WORLD THERE IS A NEED FOR WIKILEAKS IN THE BRAVE NEW AGE OF OBAMA???????

You can read the rest of Moore's weak-ass, self righteous argument if you want to---it's basically more of the same Bush-is-evil crap he's been spoon feeding to soft-minded liberals for the last decade. But the fact remains, there is no way-back machine, there is no undoing the already done. Whether you agree or not with the Bush Administration's foreign policy, two important facts are undeniable:

1. Wikileaks is not embarassing the Bush Administration as Mr. Moore fantasizes here; Wikileaks is embarassing the United States and the Obama Administration. Respected people on both sides of the aisle have said that Assange's organization has been damaging to national security and has put innocent lives in danger.

2. Wikileaks is releasing "secrets" from the most open and transparent government in the world. It is the nature of Democracies to leak. If we are not 100% transparent, we are far more transparent than the rest of the world, and immensely more transparent than truly dangerous countries like China, Russia, Iran, or North Korea, to name a few. Let's see Julian Assange produce some Wikileaks from some of those countries. Oh yes, that's right: those countries will hunt you down and kill you if you leak their secrets. The United States, on the other hand, actually has citizen idiots who will pay the bail of this fake hero and think they are speaking truth to power in doing so.

It takes no courage to "leak" American secrets. One of the most cherished ideals of both the American left and right is that of free speech, so Julian Assange is no brave radical in exposing American secrets and Michael Moore risks absolutely nothing in America by offering to bail him out.

Now that his trademark Bush bashing is growing boring even to his one-note audience, it is not only unsurprising, but incredibly appropriate, that a cowardly attention whore like Michael Moore would would attempt to hitch his wagon to a slimeball like Julian Assange.

More subpoenas issued in Breakfastgate

2010-12-13T07:44:00.000-05:00

This time the Grand Jury has asked for Jim Matthews' calendar. TH:

Montgomery County Commissioner Chairman James R. Matthews, who stands accused of violating the Sunshine Act by improperly discussing county business with Commissioner Joseph M. Hoeffel, recently made light of the allegations and offered to pay $100 for the summary offense.

The breakfasts, however, could prove considerably more costly, given he and Hoeffel have admitted to dozens of these meal meetings over the past two years.

If convicted of Sunshine Act violations, the two officials could also be on the hook for “thousands” of dollars in prosecution costs given a grand jury is investigating them, according to an informed source. And money the commissioners pay to private attorneys could be pricey too, considering the grand jury is a specialty niche “very few lawyers understand,” according to a source.

Keith Phucas' articvle today is a nice summation of our story so far as well as a recap of the "Campaign Car" saga and a reminder of what exactly might be at stake in this investigation besides Sunshine Law violations:

As well, pay-to-play allegations have plagued Matthews in 2010 after it was discovered by The Times Herald that he received about $24,000 in campaign contributions from executives of business consultant CBIZ. The firm reportedly earns about $250,000 a year performing a host of services for the county.

Jim Matthews likes to boast that he's never taken a public dime for the expense of his "Campaign Car" that also advertises his mortgage business (with coverage alll the way to Rhode Island!). If these allegations prove valid, it would have been cheaper for Montgomery County if he just would have submitted his expenses for reimbursement.

"Mondays with Mossie" on The Barry Papiernik Show WFYL1180 AM

2010-12-13T07:24:00.002-05:00

Tune in to Barry Papiernik this morning to WFYL 1180 AM at 10 am for another edition of "Mondays with Mossie."

On today's program, Barry and I will be discussing the bi-partisan tax deal and the resulting Democratic meltdown, Friday's bizzare joint press conference of Barack Obama and Bill Clinton (and then just Bill Clinton), PA Legislators returning the COLA (and one local pol who didn't), Rendell's record pardons (and the ones that should surprise everybody), and the very latest on Montco's Breakfastgate.

Live streaming here.

When good bipartisanship goes bad

2010-12-09T20:09:00.001-05:00

It's always so sad when dreams go sour. For months we have heard nothing from the left so much as how the Republicans---the "party of no"---had blocked Obama at every turn and ruined all of his grandiose plans. I guess the idea was that Republicans forced the Democrats to create a 2,700 page monstrous health care bill, a $787 billion Spendulus package, and somehow, using their awesome power of "no" somehow forced the country to begin turning on the Democrats and Obama. "Oh, If only we could stop fighting and work together to govern!" I'd hear them lament.

So now we get a true bipartisan (read: "something nobody really likes") deal and what is happening? Not only is the President himself melting down, but all of the Dems are. It's like the end of the world as we know it. What ever happened to hope and change? Unicorns and rainbows? Jim Geraghty has the breakdown on the breakdown:

Watching Barack Obama in a press conference discussing the tax deal, it feels like we’re watching his presidency lose all coherence.

In his opening statement, Obama talked about how much he wanted to fight on this issue, but then he says he’s going to sign it because it’s the best possible option under the circumstances. One moment he’s insisting that the country can’t afford to extend the high-end tax cuts, the next he’s dismissing continued opposition on the part of Democrats as “fighting a political fight.” He’s trying to assure Democrats that he didn’t sell them out and opposes tax cuts for the wealthy as much as they do, and at the same time, persuade them to vote for a deal that he just said he opposes so much.

“My first job is to make sure the economy is rolling and that people are creating jobs out there,” Obama says, days after unemployment went up from 9.6 percent to 9.8 percent. Later he said that there is no danger of a double-dip recession, a statement that seems less certain after the most recent jump.

Then he referred to the GOP as “hostage takers” and said, “In this case, the hostage was the American people.”

“We were not operating from a position of political weakness,” he insists. But a moment later, discussing Republicans, Obama says, “They would have a stronger position next year than they do currently.” If time is not on your side, are you really operating from a position of political strength?

Then he cited “what everybody in this room was writing” during the health-care debate, before emphasizing that he didn’t pay attention to the day-to-day conventional wisdom of the White House press corps. You probably think I’m kidding. I’m not.

“We’ve had two years of emergency. Two years of emergency economic action.”

House Dems melt down:

The frustration with President Barack Obama over his tax cut compromise was palpable and even profane at Thursday’s House Democratic Caucus meeting.

One unidentified lawmaker went so far as to mutter “f— the president” while Rep. Shelley Berkley was defending the package the president negotiated with Republicans. Berkley confirmed the incident, although she declined to name the specific lawmaker.

“It wasn’t loud,” the Nevada Democrat said. “It was just expressing frustration from a very frustrated Member.”

Rep. Jerrold Nadler (N.Y.) was also overheard saying that “we can’t trust him” not to cave to Republicans and extend the tax cuts again in two years, according to a Democratic source.

The anger aimed at the bill was widespread. As Democrats moved to block the bill from coming up on the floor, chants of “Just say no!” could be heard by reporters outside the room.

Oh my! Remember all that fuss over "You lie!"? This seems a tad....harsher.

Oh no. Et tu, Keith?

Perhaps Jonah Goldberg sums it up best via his newsletter (subscribers only):

Also, the fact that this was pretty much the angriest we've ever seen the man is part of it. When the Norks tested a missile in the face of Obama's hopey-changiness, we got cool. After various attempted and successful terrorist attacks on American soil, we not only got cool, we got cool condescension, whereby the president immediately suggested that it was silly or rash to assume that a guy shouting "Allahu Akbar!" as he murdered American soldiers had anything to do with Islamic terrorism. When Julian Assange vomited classified information, we got a strongly worded letter from Harold Koh and some tepid verbiage from Obama.

But when the press corps suggests that the likes of Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, Andrew Sullivan, Katrina vanden Heuvel, Markos Moulitsas, Sleepy, Dopey, and Bashful et al. might have reason to be disappointed in him, we finally see Obama the Pissed.

All this over a little bipartisanship? I guess liberals only want bipartisansanship when they need Republicans to vote for their horrible policies as political cover.

Huh. Who knew?

Breaking: Jim Matthews will NOT be handing out agendas at next Tuesday's breakfast meeting

2010-12-09T07:52:00.001-05:00

Because the breakfast has been cancelled (click here for relevant sound effect) Joe Hoeffel doesn't feel comfortable now that a little "sunshine" and a subpeona has fallen on the secret cabal.

Bonus: Video below features a cameo appearance by the one and only Ford Taurus.

The tragic bromance of Hoeffel and Matthews

2010-12-08T07:35:00.002-05:00

"Breakfastgate? Humuna humuna humuna...."

The Inky's Karen Heller has a nice summary of Montgomery County politics in her column today. Like ABC's Lost season 5 "Lost in 8 minutes and 10 seconds" summaries, Heller offers a nice encapsulation of the juiciest saga around for those who haven't kept up from the begining. While there's nothing really new here, and the heads of both parties reiterate their unwillingness to support their respective members for relection, Montco Democratic Chairman Marcel Groen had this to say:

"It is embarrassing and time for a fresh start," said county Democratic chairman Marcel Groen. "Joe Hoeffel's had a long career. I have great respect for him. But people are tired of this. You don't elect a child to run your government. He certainly acts very childish."

Oh my.

Montco Commisioners Race: Govberg, Brown or Cavanaugh?

2010-12-07T22:29:00.001-05:00

Some of the buzz around town about that possible Corbett appointment for 24/7 political animal Jim Matthews has to do with who would theoretically get the appointment to fill out his term.

(And Memo to Tom Corbett regarding that appointment: In addition to that desk on which to prop up his feet and the guaranty that the $519 lease expense on the Ford Taurus won’t ever have to be financed out of his personal funds, Jim Matthews will be requiring an equally meaningless but face-saving title for Barry Miller as well. Desk, however, is optional.)

It has been suggested that Gladwyne’s Jenny Brown has the inside track for that appointment, should it become necessary. And it’s important to keep in mind that a premature Matthews departure would potentially change the whole face of this race before it has even begun, considering whoever gets the fill-in appointment for the rest of his term has the distinct advantage of running as the incumbent.

However, all things being equal, as it stands now, we have three potential running mates for Bruce Castor. The question is, which one will get the Republican endorsement?

As a point of full disclosure, I must say that I have never personally met Jenny Brown, a current Lower Merion Commissioner, or Montgomery County Jury Commissioner Marie Cavanaugh and know little about their respective records in public service. I have, on the other hand, met Jill Govberg and, as I hinted last night, I like what I see.

I first met Jill when she hosted an Ambler screening of the film, The Art of the Steal. (For my review of the film, and an overview of the Barnes Foundation saga, please click here.)

Jill Govberg is no stranger to taking on the powers that be if she feels it’s necessary. Aside from a record of fiscal restraint and responsible government in the nine years she served on the Lower Merion School Board (one as President), Govberg is a champion of private property and is an associate producer of the Barnes Foundation documentary, the aforementioned The Art of the Steal. This film fearlessly takes on such well known local power-brokers as Lenfest, Pew and Ed Rendell in the fight to prevent the Barnes collection from being absorbed into the Philadelphia Art Museum and remain in its rightful home in Merion, displayed as Dr. Barnes directed in his trust. It is no small matter stand up to interests such as these to tell the story of the Barnes Foundation and it is a testament to Govberg’s integrity that she has been a part of a film that has done it so effectively and in such a public manner.

Jill has been swimming upstream in the contentious political climate that is Lower Merion Narberth Republican Committee politics for quite some time and has kept her head and her dignity while doing it. She made headlines over the summer because she was sued by her own party for allegedly improperly obtaining a mailing list that belonged to the Lower Merion Narberth Republican Committee. The fact that the lawsuit was dropped when Govberg voluntarily returned the list smells to this writer like a political stunt designed solely to damage a potential candidate for office. Is it possible that Govberg was targeted in order to “pave the way” for the LMNRC’s preferred candidate?

Hey, this is Montgomery County Republican Politics. Do I even need to answer that?

A interesting response on my blog to my post last evening points out that:

[Jill Govberg] was asked to take on something for the Corbett campaign - a task which would have given her visibility, access to a network (which she could have tapped for fundraising) and put her in the 'owe' column with Corbett's office - but she declined because she was allegedly "too busy". Perhaps she will not be viewed as a serious contender as a result since it would appear that she doesn't know how to play the games of political advancement or political effectiveness.

To which I will respond that knowing how to play the favor game in politics is exactly what got Montgomery County into the predicament in which we now find ourselves.

It is demonstrated leadership, fiscal responsibility and integrity that our beloved county needs to reverse the reckless unbridled spending and crony job creation priorities Montgomery County has been pursuing since the unholy Matthews-Hoeffel alliance was forged. Govberg’s priorities for the County are health and safety, fixing the county’s decaying infrastructure and addressing the pension deficit. Her determination, character and sheer guts to stand up for what’s right in the face of adversity would truly be a breath of fresh air for Montgomery County and, IMHO, a perfect complement to Mr. Castor.

Montco politics is the cure for post mid-term election blues

2010-12-06T22:24:00.000-05:00

In what has surely been the most interesting week in Montgomery County Republican politics in recent memory, the Intelligencer's Margaret Gibbons is in top form with the kind of juicy Montco insider column we remember from her days in Norristown. Here's some much needed news from the other side of the aisle:

State Rep. Josh Shapiro, an Abington Democrat who was just re-elected to the state House, is seriously considering running for Montgomery County commissioner.

Initially, you might want to ring this up under wishful thinking by county Democrats who believe that Democratic incumbent Commissioner Joseph M. Hoeffel III is too damaged by all the ongoing fighting in the current administration to lead them to majority control of the board of commissioners.

Or, as Hoeffel spins it, an idea spurred on by some disgruntled Democrats who are bummed that Hoeffel did not throw more patronage plums their way since he enjoys such unprecedented power in this current administration.

We interrupt this block quote with an observation that Hoeffel's spin here is especially rich. Are we to believe that Hoeffel, that paragon of ethical responsibility, is claiming that the Montco Dems are ditching him not because he wasted untold sums of money on an ill-advised run for Governor, not because his alliance with Jim Matthews has turned him into political poison, but because he didn't do enough favors for his Dem cronies during his tenure as Commissioner? Are we really to believe that the Montgomery County Democratic Party demands even MORE patronage than he has delivered thus far?

That doesn't quite...seem....possible....

Could Shapiro and Hoeffel run together as a team?

Unlikely. Both are politically ambitious and both would want to be chairman if the Democrats for the first time took control of the board of commissioners.

Let's not get ahead of ourselves, here. "Chairman?" Hopefully, Hoeffel's term represents as close as the Dems will get to a Chairmanship of Montgomery County Commissioners as we will see for a long time. And we don't even know who the endorsed running mate will be. While we know it WON'T be Hoeffel, right now there is only speculation. The only other name I've heard bandied about is Whitemarsh's Leslie Richards.

However, it probably would not reach the same level of disaster that occurred when Republicans paired Castor with Commissioner Chairman James R. Matthews almost four years ago.

Could there be a primary battle between Hoeffel and Shapiro, Hoeffel's former chief of staff when Hoeffel was in Congress? Hoeffel, who can be as stubborn as they come, has already said that he plans to win one of his party's two commissioner endorsements but, if he doesn't, will take his re-election bid to voters in the primary election.

Meanwhile, back on the right side of the aisle, we have the following two gems. First, regarding that Corbett Administration appointment for the 24/7 political animal:

Matthews at best could end up with some secondary payback post that gives him a desk on which to prop up his feet and an empty title that gives him an opportunity to schmooze with the muckety-mucks. Still, even such a token position will enable Matthews to save face because his chances of getting re-elected next year are nonexistent.

Does that secondary payback position come with guaranteed Taurus lease payments?

Second, we have this bit about Commissioner number three:

After all, Republican Commissioner Bruce L. Castor Jr. is serving his apprenticeship for a similar future gubernatorial bid by doing time as a county commissioner.

Perhaps he does have his eye on the governor's mansion, but at least Mr. Castor actually serves in the office to which he's elected, unlike some perpetual candidates for any available office that I could name. So who will be Bruce's endorsed running mate, since again, we know who it will NOT be?

My vote is for bachelorette number 1, Bruce.

Another Shameless Media Plug

2010-12-05T19:08:00.000-05:00

Once again, Barry Papiernik has been good enough to invite me on to his daily radio program, which airs weekday mornings on WFYL 1180 AM from 10 to 11 AM. We are contemplating making this a semi-regular feature.

On Monday's program, we will be talking about unemployment, tax cuts for the "rich," Philly's Christmas Village and a little thing you may have heard of called "Breakfastgate."

Live streaming at the link here.

DA Ferman investigating, Tom Corbett paying attention?

2010-12-03T07:30:00.000-05:00

There is a rumor floating about Montgomery County that Jim Matthews was/is being considered for a post as Secretary of ~~Dewars~~ Revenue in the Corbett Administration. And while it would be nice for Montgomery County if someone with integrity could finish out Matthews' term, it seems somehow wrong that Matthews should be rewarded with a promotion to Harrisburg for essentially putting power before principle. It's important to remember that in Harrisburg, Jim Matthews can conceivably make the whole State miserable instead of having his reach necessarily limited to the borders of our beloved County.

Regardless of whether or not Sunshine Laws were broken (and FWIW, Matthews was called on the carpet by Ruth Damsker for this kind of behavior during his last stint in office), for Corbett to consider hiring someone who so readily betrayed the will of the people who put him into office seems to me to be a poor way to begin to lead Pennsylvania out of the Rendell dark ages. Perhaps this investigation will be enough to give Corbett pause.

Hoeffel says no laws broken. DA Ferman not so sure.

2010-12-02T22:00:00.000-05:00

Protesting what he sees as nothing more than a bit of "gotcha" journalism, Joe Hoeffel, the former perpetual candidate for any available office, but now a man without a party, says no laws were broken. Times Herald:

Hoeffel met with reporters in his office Thursday to say he had not violated the state’s Sunshine Act.

"I just think the (Times Herald) story misses the facts and frankly is a bit of gotcha journalism, that I think is unfortunate," he said.

Hoeffel claimed that Solicitor Barry Miller and Chief Operating Officer James Maza did most of the talking at the Jem meetings, and that he listens and reacts to the conversation.

My goodness. Did those reporters bring Laurence Olivier in with his dental tools to get Hoeffel to roll right over on the Breakfast Club?

DA Risa Ferman has just confirmed that she is investigating Hoeffel and Matthews. Which should be easy, since as you know, there has never been a more open and transparent administration than this one.

Matthews: "There's never been a more open, transparent administration than this one."

2010-12-02T07:33:00.001-05:00

It has been acknowledged in the press before, you know.

Oh. Wait....

The key thing to remember here is that Barry Miller, the County Solicitor, and Jim Maza are always on hand to make sure that Hoeffel and Matthews are keeping their conversations limited to the Phillies, Eagles and which sweater vest Matthews should wear to the Commissioner's meeting that evening to convey the best sense of power and authority. Jim Maza is the highly overpaid part time employee of the County and Friend of Jim Matthews. Barry Miller also just happens to be 24/7 politcal animal Jim Matthews' campaign treasurer and the person for whom Matthews allegedly ~~sold his soul~~ cut the "power sharing" deal with Joe Hoeffel.

The Times Herald has the details from Jem Restaurant courtesy of "007:"

During the Nov. 9 meeting, Matthews and Hoeffel were overheard discussing the following:

• Being unable to put money into the operating budget, and a $22 million-deal needed.

“The $22 million was to be realized by the sale of the Human Services Center,” Castor confirmed.

“They are talking about whether they can include that in the county budget or not. When they say they can’t, it’s because they need to use the money to pay off bonds. That very day, we discussed a proposal to sell the Human Services Center.”

• Matters of Norristown school taxes.

“The school district and the municipality are anxious for the sale of the Human Services building to go through because that would add the building back to the tax rolls,” Castor explained.

“They are trying to figure a way to remove the line item from the budget and at the same time find money for Norristown. That’s about as big county business as you can get.”

• Matters of confidentiality reports in reference to the Human Services building.

That very morning, Castor said, they discussed taking that provision out of the deal.

“The reason I know we discussed that is because I objected to it being confidential,” said Castor.

“I thought, if it was known we were negotiating for a better sale of the building, then other potential buyers would learn of it and we might be able to get a better price.”

• Central figures in terms of rent.

“They are calculating whether the county will have to pay rent to keep our departments in the (Human Services) building, and how much that rent will be,” said Castor.

“The rent will affect the negotiation of the sale of the building.”

• Negotiations disclosures.

“They are trying to decide whether or not we should hire a consultant to represent us in the negotiations of the sale of the building. That’s about as governmental as it gets,” said Castor.

• An Oct. 26 meeting commissioners had with CBIZ, a controversial health insurance consultant.

“CBIZ executives have given tens of thousands of dollars to Jim Matthews’ and Joe Hoeffel’s campaigns, in exchange for secret, no-bid contracts for the county’s health administration. It paid for a free car for Matthews to drive around in, tax-free,” said Castor.

• The commissioners selling back the land of Norristown Farm Park, auctioning off the herd and selling farm park supplies along with it.

“A program we were considering was to sell assets and try to raise money for the budget,” Castor confirmed.

CBIZ?!!?

They talked about CBIZ? I can accept anything but CBIZ. That deal was always so transparent from the start.

The politicization of Dancing with the Stars

2010-11-29T19:20:00.000-05:00

Memo to ABC: What are Grant Goodeve, Tina Yothers and Marilu Henner doing? Sitting by the phone and waiting for your call. There are so many Bradys, Partridges, Sweathogs, crew members of the Pacific Princess, sports personalities and reality TV stars that have not yet been tapped for DWTS that it is completely unnecessary to have another political lightning rod on the cast for at least ten years.

Even though in the end, the best dancer won (natch: don't you know that NOBODY puts Baby in the corner?) Bristol lasted about five or six weeks longer than she should have. I forget which week Audrina went home, but that week should have marked Bristol's last dance.

For a purist such as myself, (and I know I am not alone in this) I tune in to DWTS not for the politics, but to get away from the politics. So much in our lives is politicized, can't we please keep political contentiousness out of Dancing?

That all being said, there are many political analysts out there examining the Bristol Palin dancing-for-longer-than-she-should-have phenomenom far too seriously and seeing larger political trends. Neal Gabler writes on Politico today:

“Dancing With the Stars,” which finished its 11th season last week, is not exactly the first place you would go for political prognostication. Yet this season provided a veritable model of how our political system operates.

This wasn’t just because Bristol Palin, a daughter of GOP tea party spitfire Sarah Palin, was a contestant and millions of viewers, presumably Sarah Palin supporters, kept voting for the young woman week after week — in spite of her obvious grace deficits and dancing inferiority compared with many of her celebrity competitors.

It was because the dynamics of that vote on America’s most popular TV show are so like the dynamics of contemporary politics.

The first thing to note about the Bristol Palin vote is the persistence of her supporters. Liberals and establishment conservatives who think Sarah Palin is the beneficiary of a relatively small cadre who will ultimately be overwhelmed by a more moderate majority come election time overlook the fact that size in politics, unlike in sex, really does not matter. Enthusiasm does.

Gabler goes on to theorize what Palin's success means in the overall political picture. He posits that it proves that "hardened majorities" may in fact exist, or perhaps that Bristol gained votes not only in spite of her ineptitude on the dance floor, but precisely because of it: people felt sorry for her. Another theory Gabler explores is that conservatives voted en mass for Bristol to take revenge--revenge against the elites by someone who is clearly not their better.

What Gabler fails to consider, however, is the most obvious factor: that conservatives took particular glee in how absolutely out-of-all-reasonable-proportion insane it was driving liberals that week after week, this 20-year-old kid who can't dance her way out of a paper bag was advancing all the way to the finals. Just because her last name is Palin.

Oh, and then there is this delectable gem, from the beginning of Gabler's article:

Whatever the reason, these folks voted for Bristol Palin (over singer Brandy on one show!), and whether it was politically inspired or not, Palin’s fans would not be stopped. Week after week, even in the face of her inadequacy, they turned out for her — their passion carrying her.

This isn’t unique. It’s entirely consistent with U.S. political history, in which the spoils, perhaps more often than we like to think, go not to the majority (remember Al Gore?) but to the most fervent minority.

"Remember Al Gore?" I don't have to go back much farther than the 2008 election, Mr. Gabler, to see the spoils rewarded to an inadequate because a dedicated and vocal minority were determined to present and convince a large portion of the electorate that their icon was a "moderate" (or the opposition was racist).

But since Gabler is currently working on a biography of Ted Kennedy, I'm sure by now he is an expert on how inadequates obtain power without relying on their own capabilities.

Shameless media appearance plug

2010-11-28T19:45:00.001-05:00

Check out WFYL 1180 AM Monday morning between 10 AM and 11 AM where I will be a guest on Barry Papiernak's show.

If you are not a Montco local, check out live streaming here.

Behold Kanye West: when enormous ego meets exquisitely developed victim mentality

2010-11-26T07:40:00.000-05:00

Warning: Video is definitely not safe for work or young children.

It's all about Kanye. All of it. If he was in Philly they'd have been booing him by 2 minutes into this rant.

Ok all you armchair psychologists. Have at it.

H/T Mediaite

Writer of "American Skin (41 Shots)" decries the use of extreme language against Obama

2010-11-23T20:47:00.000-05:00

Oh boo freakin' hoo.

The man who never walked a police beat in his life but used the public stage to single-handedly try and convict the New York Police for the accidental shooting of Amadou Diallo is upset at the "harsh" rhetoric being employed against Barack Obama. If there was ever a more blatant admission that the working class hero crap on which Springsteen has based his entire livelihood on is just an act, here it is.

Telegraph, UK:

"There's a widespread political consciousness that's perhaps deeper in Europe than it is in the States,” he told the Sunday Times magazine.

“The climate [in America] is very, very ugly for getting things done. The moderate reforms President Obama fought to make are called Marxist, socialist.

“I mean, the most extreme language is put into play to describe the most modest reforms that would move the economy back towards serving a majority of its citizens.”

Yes, healthcare reform, a government takeover of about one sixth of our economy, that's pretty moderate. Taking over GM is pretty moderate. Spending a billion dollars on targeted liberal wishlist of stimulus, that's pretty moderate. As an example of "not extreme" language, here is a demonstration by Springsteen himself, talking to the Telegraph last January about George W. Bush:

The Born to Run singer said that the US was now "suffering the consequences" of eight years of rule by a "very radical group of people" who had attempted to undermine the country's democratic values.

Describing President Bush's period in power as a "nightmare" for most Americans, the songwriter said: "We had a historically blind administration who didn't take consideration of the past; thousands of thousands of people died, lives were ruined and terrible, terrible things occurred because there was no sense of real history, no sense that the past is living and real."

Do liberals have have any sense of self evaluation? Any at all?

There is nothing more pathetic than witnessing a washed-up has-been of a rock star desperately try to remain relevant by embracing liberal politics because he still thinks it's the sixties and that makes him edgy. Memo to Springsteen: Liberals are now The Establishment you are claiming to fight against.

You are out of touch. Shut up and ~~sing~~ warble.

WPHT becomes WSMERC

2010-11-19T07:36:00.000-05:00

Philly.com:

Beck and his fellow right-wing gabber Sean Hannity were dumped yesterday by the city's top-ranked talk-radio outlet, WPHT, The Big Talker (1210-AM), in a shakeup aimed at keepin' it local.

While Hannity and Beck - nationally the No. 2 and No. 3 most-listened-to talk hosts behind Rush Limbaugh - are scrambling to find a new home in America's fourth-biggest media market, the shuffle means a more prominent role for locally based Michael Smerconish.

The station announced that Smerconish would return to the afternoon drive-time slot, with a local hour at 3 p.m. and then his nationally syndicated show from 4 to 7 p.m. Another longtime local host, Dom Giordano, takes over for Beck from 9 a.m. to 12, while a new hire - Kansas City conservative yakker Chris Stigall - will do the morning-drive slot. The changes are slated to take effect in mid-January.

I truly doubt that Hannity and Beck are "scrambling" for a Philadelphia radio home; I'm sure they will land somewhere within Philly radioland.

Hannity and Beck aside, this is quite a risk for PHT to put all of it's eggs in the Smerc basket. I can't imagine that there is enough demand for Smerconish's brand of faux conservatism that PHT can sustain listeners with this most overexposed of all local celebrities.

422 Tolling: Elites who run our lives think it is the messaging and not the message

2010-11-18T07:42:00.000-05:00

The pipe dream of the Delaware Valley Regional Rail Line running from Reading to King of Prussia and points east is breathing one last gasp with a marketing campaign aimed at convincing 422 motorists that, yes, indeedy, they really DO want to add insult to injury and pay a tax to sit in insufferable traffic twice a day. The misdirection involved here is that tolling 422 will fund the supposedly critical rail line which in turn will alleviate traffic on the road by getting people out of their cars and into the train.

Make no mistake, the focus here is on getting the rail line built, not alleviating traffic. Mercury:

Given that those examining this idea freely acknowledge they can find no viable alternative for funding the long-delayed rail line; or other improvements to the road which now carries some 45,000 vehicles through Pottstown daily and reaches 110,000 a day by the time the road crosses the Schuylkill River at Valley Forge, it should come as little surprise that those videos show people who support the idea of implementing a toll.

So if this is the success supporters of the toll are hoping for, then the funding will eventually dry up as people opt to commute via rail instead of via auto.

Right?

Ok, everybody knows that that isn't going to happen. People love their cars. So what this is going to do is actually give more people access to the 422 corridor who wouldn't ordinarily have it. This is not a bad thing, but it's important to point out that this is not what this marketing campaign is promoting; it is promoting tolls as a means to alleviate traffic.

The other focal point of this campaign is that the money will be used to fund improvements to the road.

Alan Piper, transportation planner the Berks County Planning Commission, pointed out that the road is not truly free.

Drivers have "always paid for that road in terms of their gas taxes, in their vehicle registration and in their license fees," he noted, adding "and what they're buying is a road that is crowded and in terrible condition. And we can't make improvements based on the revenue stream that's coming in now."

I'm glad you bring that up, Alan. Whatever happened to those funding streams? Where is THAT money and why isn't it enought? And specifically, what are the "improvements" planned? Seeing as how we have been tortured for the last year with the ~~Obama Union Jobs Program~~ American Recovery and Reinvestment never-ending stimulus-funded paving project, what improvements are we talking about? Another two lanes? Wouldn't that make the paving project a big waste?

Whatever happened to truth in advertising?

Given the vocal response to the mere suggestion of 422 tolling, if public opinion carries any weight at all, this is something that is not going to happen, especially in the current atmosphere of public mistrust of government. After all, we residents of the outer suburbs are not completely oblivious to the fact that there just so happens to be a regional rail line leading from the inner suburbs into Philadelphia and yet there still seems to be an inordinate amount of traffic on the Schuykill Expressway. Furthermore, SEPTA is heavily subsidized by state tax dollars. Do we really want to create another unsustainable and marginally accountable government run entity (see: Turnpike Commission, DVPA) with an infrastructure staffed by overpaid unionized transportation workers?

I think not. No tolls on 422.

A post election introduction

2010-11-16T21:49:00.002-05:00

Oh, hello there.

You look familiar, but I don’t think we’ve been properly introduced, what with all the ruckus of the last two years. We’re your neighbors. Your friends. Your family. We sit next to you at our kids’ soccer games and shop with you at the mall. We were in that traffic jam with you the other day and tailgated next to you at the Eagle’s Game a few weeks back. We go to the same doctors and use the same mechanic to fix our cars. We’re approximately half of the population.

And we voted Republican a couple of weeks ago.

We know this may come as a surprise to you. We know you’ve been told that we are all crazy nuts or racist homophobes or drooling rubes or xenophobic Nazis. But we’re not. And we‘re not brainwashed by those mysterious Koch brothers any more than you are brainwashed by the magnificent George Soros. We’re definitely not all angry rich white males.

In fact we look an awful lot like you.

It’s not surprising you didn’t notice. You haven’t really done a whole lot of noticing of us for the last two years. We understand that in the wake of the heady promise of hope and change, it has, instead, been much easier to paint us with a broad brush in the most simplistic and yes, we have to say, derogatory manner possible. That has made it really easy for you to dismiss our concerns, since as people, to you we only looked like the worst sort of racist bigot homophobic crazy Nazis. Just for the record, we don’t enjoy being defined by our fringe elements any more than you do.

However, now that we have your attention, there are a few things that need to be cleared up.

We understand the comfort inherent in the belief that that a class of elites knows how to run our lives better than we do, and the freedom that ensues from absolving us of all responsibility for our own success and happiness, but quite frankly, we think that notion is a bunch of bunk. We do not feel that the virtue of having earned an Ivy League degree or two automatically qualifies a person to be better able to spend the money we have earned, much less make decisions about our healthcare or diets. So while there may indeed be people who are smarter than we are, we are certainly smart enough to fend for ourselves and would prefer to succeed or fail on our own without interference from these elites, no matter how well intentioned they may be.

We also know that while the Constitution is not a perfect document, it’s a pretty damn good one. Therefore, when we say we would like to return to the principles that the founders originally intended, we are speaking of the principles of a small, divided government based on a system of checks and balances, free markets and federalism. We are not advocating for the return of slavery simply because the founders did not address that issue in the Constitution, a fact of which we suspect you are well aware, but you nonetheless continue to bring up instead of arguing why you think large Euro-socialism government is so superior to the founders’ ideals.

In fact, we have noticed an alarming trend that instead of engaging in debate on the merits of any of our arguments, you have taken to using character smears and the questioning of motives as your primary political tools. Our ideas don’t fit neatly on bumper stickers and are not championed by hipsters like Bill Maher and Jon Stewart. Because liberal arguments are far more ubiquitous and reflected in not only the mainstream news, but throughout popular culture in general, please rest assured that we have weighed the arguments from both sides. Believe me, it would be far easier, cooler, fashionable and pleasing to the in-crowd if we just went along with the liberal mantra being spoon-fed to us through the pop culture media machine. So please do us the very kind favor of giving us the benefit of the doubt of having considered your side of the argument since it has practically been force fed to us. Most of us have put at least as much, if not more, thought into our political beliefs as you have. Do not assume we are motivated by greed, hatred or stupidity and we will give you the same courtesy. In fact, it’s best if you simply refrain from questioning our motives at all since you cannot possibly know for certain what they are, any more than we can know what motivates you to lobby for the expansion of a government nanny state. Racism and bigotry are not arguments, they are smears carelessly wielded about a group of people about whom your only concern up until recently has been to shut them up.

I’m not sure where big government proponents and small government proponents can find common ground, because even if we compromise, you win. So fair warning: we are not going to compromise. And we are bracing ourselves for the smears and howls and outrageous charges to get ratcheted up even further in the coming days.

However, if you are one of those people who has carelessly wielded an insult or a smear in the stead of a well reasoned argument, perhaps half the population won’t seem as “crazy” or “extremist” if you'll just shut up for a minute and listen to what we’re saying. And won’t that make the world as much of a better place for you as it will for us?

WARNING: The Government is really worried about your smoking habit

2010-11-11T21:50:00.002-05:00

In a bit of Obama-era, it's-not-the-message-but-our-messaging nanny state over-reach, the FDA apparently feels that if Americans just understood that smoking is dangerous to their health, they would quit the habit.

Other than the absolute contempt on display in the new proposed cigarette label warning labels, it's worth considering that the Federal Government's sudden urgency in getting out that old "cigarettes can kill you" message, is the undeniable fact that the Federal Government has just passed a law agreeing to cover the health care expenses of everyone, including people who smoke. And presumably this coverage will include care for cancer, heart and lung disease, low birth weight babies, etc.

Unless, of course, they plan NOT to provide this coverage, in which case these labels only an idiot can't understand are just another way of saying, "Don't say we didn't warn you to quit, smokers."

Just a little food for thought, in case you were wondering why the Federal Government is actively lobbying against a legal product.

It makes me almost want to take up the habit again. More labels here.

Kanye West: Smallest man in America

2010-11-11T10:03:00.002-05:00

It is not often that I will applaud Matt Lauer's journalistic skills, but in this case, I find that Lauer was more than fair to Kanye West. Lauer asked him to respond to Bush calling Kayne's labeling of Bush as a racist as the "most disgusting moment of his presidency."

At about 3:04, it becomes obvious that this is the very first time that West a.) considered George W. Bush an actual person and b.) was caught completely by surprise that he, Kanye was actually on the Today Show not to bring glory to himself for his "heroism" but actually defend his remarks. Watch his outrage when Lauer rolls tape of Bush's face--with no audio---as Bush describes the Kanye West moment as the "most disgusting" of his presidency. West actually thinks he is being treated unfairly here.

That he is unnerved is obvious, berating Lauer and then the stage crew for "making noise" but it is also very telling. Here is a man who has made outrageous accusations and he is actually insulted that anyone dares to question him. Furthermore, he can't even bring himself to muster a proper apology to Bush. Note to Kanye: Nobody cares that you've "grown as a person." It is obvious from this interview that you haven't. And your assertion that "your motivation comes from a good place," is laughable considering calling a racist is probably one of the most heinous smears you can call someone; it is a stinging, reprehensible smear that it is almost impossible to defend yourself from once it is made, and the fact that he admits that he didn't "have enough information" to make that asertion only underscores the heinousness of this action.

You can see precisely how much Kanye has "grown as a person" at about 6:05 when Lauer asks him about the Taylor Swift incident and rolls tape behind him. Kayne's outrage at being called on the carpet for his own words and actions, both during the interview, and afterwards with his outraged tweets, speaks volumes about how much he has "grown."

After all of that supposed growth, Kanye West is still the smallest man in America.

"We have to pass the bill to find out what's in it!"

2010-11-09T21:38:00.000-05:00

The unintended consequences of Obamacare as by http://www.investorsinsight.com/blogs/john_mauldins_outside_the_box/archive/2010/11/08/the-effects-of-obamacare.aspx

A taste below, but read it all. Your life, very literally, depends on it.

Here are some of the outcomes of legislation that was passed without having been read:

Employers may decide it is cheaper to drop health care plans altogether and instead pay the $2,000 penalty per employee. Large employers typically pay in excess of $9800 per employee for health plan coverage today.[16] After the new requirements for health-care reform are added to the already large costs, they may decide to split the cost savings with the employee and reinvest the difference in their businesses, whether in the US or in other countries where perhaps a higher return on investment can be achieved. Employers may decide to limit the number of full-time employees, favoring part-time employees instead. Employer penalties only apply to full-time employees working more than 30 hours a week. Would you try to move employees to less than 30 hours a week to save taxes?

Remember, employers today provide 59% of all Americans with their health insurance. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that today over 150 million Americans have their health insurance with their private employer. If employers decide to get out of the health insurance game, then the majority of Americans will have to look to the government health exchanges to purchase their health insurance.

When 2014 arrives, every employer with a health-care plan will need to make the same calculation: Determine the per-employee cost implications of providing a health-care plan and compare them to the benefit of dropping the plan, paying the penalty, and reimbursing the employee for his employee-mandate fee. The employer might also decide to share the cost savings with the employee to help reimburse the employee for his premium cost to purchase government-exchange health insurance.

Aside from the hard-dollar cost savings, the employer will also need to analyze whether providing a health-care plan can help the employer attract and retain highly prized employees. The logical conclusion is that employers who hire positions in great demand will be more likely to keep employer health-care plans, while employers who hire less unique skills will more likely terminate their health-care plans, pay the penalties, and redeploy the savings where there is a higher return on investment.

Healthy people will pay more for insurance coverage. Instead of individuals being able to choose the coverage they need, they will be required to purchase only government-approved benefit choices. Younger individuals will be required to subsidize older individuals, who will be required to have preventive-care screenings, with an expected increase of 17% in premiums, or up to $500.[17]

Health-care cost curve bends in the wrong direction by increasing overall health spending by $222 billion between now and 2019.

Neglects Medicare funding, which is already due to become insolvent in 2016

Retirees in Medicare Advantage plans may lose their coverage due to decreased government funding. Starting in 2011, the government reimbursement will be frozen at 2010 levels.

Health providers will be reimbursed less for Medicare patients, causing providers to reduce the number of Medicare patients they treat. This is an outcome of the reconciliation act that followed the passage of ObamaCare, migrating funding away from Medicare providers to pay for part of the ObamaCare provisions.

Consolidation of health markets: from small community hospitals, to doctors, regional hospitals, and insurance companies[19]. The consolidation of health-care providers will lead to increased costs for hospitals and doctors, simply because there is a reduced supply of providers.

If uninsured individuals choose to pay the tax instead of signing up for insurance through a government exchange, the government-exchange premiums will become so expensive, individuals won’t be able to afford to buy insurance. Just look at the outcome of the Massachusetts mandated health-care coverage for an idea of how this will turn out.

Child-only policies will stop being issued due to the required annual benefit levels being increased along with the new requirements that at least 85% of all insurance premiums be used on health-care providers. This means that higher-cost child-only coverage plans will fail to meet the limits and must be discontinued. This will cause the children to lose their own cheap coverage and instead either have to move to their parents’ employer plans or access care through the government exchanges.

Employer-sponsored retiree medical plans may be dropped due to repeal of the Medicare part D pharmacy subsidy. Although the subsidy isn’t cancelled until 2013, the SEC requires accounting recognition of any changes as soon as they are known. This provision is what triggered the earnings impact announcements by Caterpillar, Deere, and AT&T within a week of ObamaCare being signed into law. Over 43% of employers with retiree plans indicated they would likely eliminate retiree medical programs due to the additional requirements under ObamaCare.

H/T to the 911Doc over at M.D.O.D.

On some days, Mom seems closer than on others

2010-11-06T10:41:00.001-04:00

Today is one of those days.

Keynes vs. Hayek

2010-11-04T19:53:00.001-04:00

Economic theory in a few short minutes. Brought to you by Jonah Goldberg.

And the awesome rematch:

Breaking News brought to you by the Today Show: Ricky Martin is gay

2010-11-03T22:49:00.000-04:00

I know the behavior over at the sister station MSNBC was far more shameful, but that has been covered elsewhere. And I've got nothing against Ricky Martin or his sexuality; I'm just wondering why, after enduring countless "Today Show" hours on the First Lady's exquisite fashion sense, the selection and assimilation of the First Dog, and the breathless excitment that accompanied "The One" into office, on the morning after the most significant power shift in the House of Representatives in the history of the country, by 8:12 this morning they had run out of material to talk about, so they ~~dug up~~ aired an exclusive interview with Ricky Martin.

This looks like a job for....A TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY!

2010-11-01T22:05:00.001-04:00

With all the hype and excitement this election day eve, it's easy to gloss over the activities of the Montgomery County Commissioners, a group whom we, sadly, will have to wait an entire year before we can vote two of them out.

It will come as no surprise to regular readers that two of the the three Montgomery County Commissioners voted to create another appointed board with broad authority. The lone nay vote against the new Transportation Authority, Bruce Castor, explains his vote in today's Times Herald:

Though Castor agreed that the county should have eminent domain powers to move ahead with projects to relieve traffic congestion and help economic development, he saw the resolution’s language as overly broad.

"I agree with the goals that we have stated for (the purpose of) revitalization and improving transportation,” he said. “I don’t immediately see the connection between forming an authority and the accomplishment of those goals.”

According to the resolution, the transportation authority would be organized to “own, operate and maintain” transportation improvements other than mass transit, which would include roads, bridges, tunnels, highways, parkways, traffic distribution centers and even parking spaces.

“That sounds like an awfully broad mandate of authority when the reason why we are needing to go in this direction is to simply recover the power of eminent domain,” he said.

Castor believes the county could achieve the authority’s goals “in house and ourselves without creating this board.”

The Transportation Authority was created to "help streamline property condemnation for current and future transportation projects." Now, I don't know about you, but making it easier for government to seize and condemn private property using eminent domain is not something we should be "streamlining," but rather something I think should be made as difficult and complicated as possible.

Then there is this thought, that commenter yellowdogdemocrat points out:

People should view this with suspicion. The record of appointed "commissions", "authorities" & "boards" in this area is not great. As examples, SEPTA, DRPA, Philadelphia Housing Authority, the Turnpike Commission etc. Do we want expanded powers of eminent domain resting with a "Commission" that will inevitably become another patronage nest?

So when citizen Ruth Miller expressed concerns about the newly formed board's power of eminent domain, a power that has seen court supported notorious abuse in recent years (see Kelo v. New London), she was pooh-poohed by the poster child for Montgomery County patronage jobs:

Solicitor Barry Miller said the planned authority would give the county the power to condemn property, which it once had, but that state law doesn’t currently allow.

The authority would not have the power to raise its own funds, and Matthews said the cost to taxpayers would be “zero.”

“That’s why we’re having a committee of nine citizens, not one person, not some czar who’s going to come in and make all the final rules against the sensitivities of people like yourself,” he told the East Norriton woman.

That's right: these nine appointed czars will also have the power to police themselves when it comes to seizing your property. Sleep well, citizens of Montgomery County.

The Democrats' idea of "job creation"

2010-11-01T07:37:00.000-04:00

...is creating new government bureaucracies and or more government union jobs and therefore more taxes from you, to support their newly employed constituencies. Most of these politicians have never worked in private industry, much less run a business. Many of them believe that government is the solution to all problems; remember that when you hear politicians promising "job creation."

Remember that tomorrow when you are in the voting booth.

Cue hysteria: Judge OKs deer hunt in Valley Forge Park

2010-10-27T20:04:00.002-04:00

AP:

A federal judge has approved plans to use sharpshooters to cull the bulging deer population at Valley Forge National Historical Park.

Wednesday's decision rejects a lawsuit filed by several animal-rights groups.

The National Park Service plans to begin the nighttime hunt next month.

U.S. District Judge Mitchell Goldberg says it's clear the park is overrun with white-tail deer, causing damage to the park's vegetation and habitat.

Goldberg says there's no evidence the park service decision was capricious or arbitrary.

Animal-rights activists say the park should be maintained by natural means.

The "natural means" the animal rights activists want? Coyotes.

Now, animal-rights advocates are arguing that the number of coyotes in Valley Forge should be encouraged to grow, as a way to provide a predatory check on the deer and eliminate any cause for gunfire.

"It would serve as a natural form of population control," said Matthew McLaughlin, director of the Pennsylvania chapter of Friends of Animals.

(...)

the Pennsylvania chapter of Friends of Animals has begun a campaign called the Coyote Coexistence Initiative, an outgrowth of a lawsuit the group filed last year to try to stop the deer shoots. That suit, still active, helped delay the first kill for a year.

One of the Friends' arguments is that park officials did not fully consider the role of natural predators - specifically coyotes - in maintaining a stable deer population. The initiative seeks to promote respect for coyotes as important players in the environment and to reduce what has been a dramatic increase in the number of coyotes killed in Pennsylvania.

Friends leaders say the park does not exist in isolation - it must be evaluated as part of the larger biosystem. If coyotes were allowed to increase statewide, the animals would likely also increase inside the park, helping to limit the deer, they said.

"We can't look at the coyotes in a five-mile park as in a vacuum," said Lee Hall, vice president of legal affairs for the Friends.

This sounds like an awesome idea. Really:

No seriously: this sounds like a great idea. I'm sure the coyote will know instinctively that they are a.) to remain inside the Park boundaries and b.) leave the neighborhood pet population alone:

Park officials say it wouldn't work - certainly not fast enough to help a forest that's being devoured by deer. Next month, park managers intend to proceed with a plan to eliminate 86 percent of the deer during the next four years.

Even though the animal rights activists don't think beyond the rights of Bambi, it is a well-known fact that the white-tailed deer is on of the most destructive animals in Pennsylvania when it comes to hindrances of forest regeneration. If the trees as not allowed to grow for the sake of an overlarge deer population, the forests and other various fauna of Valley Forge will not be allowed to regenerate; the deer will starve, and what deer survive will leave the park in search of better feeding grounds: crossing the turnpike and 422 to get to peoples' gardens.

Do animal rights activists ever consider the deers' impact on the ecosystem? Or is this a one way street?

Obama to Latinos: "Punish your enemies by voting Democrat"

2010-10-26T07:31:00.001-04:00

Via Kathryn Jean Lopez on the Corner yesterday, the great uniter was out on the stump trying to drum up support for Democrats, and by extension, his agenda of massive government expansion (emphasis mine):

Latino voters, the president said, would have an opportunity to send a message to Republicans, who Obama accused of “politicizing” immigration reform and the border security debate. Obama said “pressure has to be put on the Republican Party” if immigration reform is to become a reality.

“And if Latinos sit out the election instead of saying, we’re gonna punish our enemies and we’re gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us, if they don’t see that kind of upsurge in voting in this election, then I think it’s gonna be harder — and that’s why I think it’s so important that people focus on voting on November 2,” he said.

Turning Americans against Americans? Labeling some Americans as "enemies" because they favor enforcing immigration laws?

Do words matter, Mr. President?

The President is absolutely correct about one thing: If you want to punish Americans, vote Democrat.

Juan Williams: the victim of a "chill wind"

2010-10-21T22:05:00.002-04:00

Let's begin with a relevant quote apropos of the video clip below:

A chill wind is blowing in this nation. A message is being sent through the White House and its allies in talk radio and Clear Channel and Cooperstown. 'If you oppose this Administration there can and will be ramifications.' Every day the airwaves are filled with warnings, veiled and unveiled threats, spewed invective and hatred directed at any voice of dissent.

Ready for a little context to that quote above? It's attributed to the actor Tim Robbins in 2003. The following is exerpted from a 2004 column by Ralph Nader:

One year ago, following Major League Baseball's opening week and the second week of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, Tim Robbins and Susan Sarandon were denied an appearance at the National Baseball Hall of Fame in Cooperstown, New York.

Robbins and Sarandon, amongst many others, were planning to attend the Hall's fifteenth anniversary celebration of the classic baseball film "Bull Durham," in which they both starred and at the filming of which the couple first met. But the celebration was canceled by the Baseball Hall of Fame President, Dale Petroskey, because Robbins and Sarandon used their social consciences and their sense of activism to question the reasons for our country going to war.

Petroskey, a former assistant press secretary to Ronald Reagan, wrote a public letter to Robbins announcing his decision to call off the event, explaining: "The National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum - and many players and executives in Baseball's family - has honored the United States and those who defend our freedoms. ... We believe your very public criticism of President Bush at this important - and sensitive - time in our nation's history helps undermine the U.S. position, which ultimately could put our troops in even more danger. As an institution, we stand behind our President and our troops in this conflict."

Robbins wrote in his response to Petroskey's actions: "I had been unaware that baseball was a Republican sport. I was looking forward to a weekend away from politics and war to celebrate the fifteenth anniversary of 'Bull Durham.' I am sorry that you have chosen to use baseball and your position at the Hall of Fame to make a political statement. ... As an American who believes that vigorous debate is necessary for the survival of a democracy, I reject your suggestion that one must be silent in a time of war."

To be sure, Robbins is absolutely correct in his assesment here. However, the difference here is the cancelling of a one-time baseball Hall of Fame event because known anti-war activists were going to show up at said event and firing a man from his livlihood--a livlihood, which, by the way, was expressing political opinion.

What happened as a result of Petrovsky using the Baseball Hall of Fame to "punish" Robbins and Sarandon for their political views? Nader tells us:

In a moment of almost unanimous solidarity, baseball fans, sportswriters, political columnists and citizens from across the country, both for and against the war, expressed their anger with calls, letters, emails and columns of protest directed at the Baseball Hall of Fame president.

Will that moment of universal solidarity happen for Juan Williams? It is too soon to tell, but one can only hope so. The conservative blogs I read are buzzing with this story and all of them support Mr. Williams (who, by the way, has landed neatly on his feet with a $2 million contract with Fox News).

As a fan of Brett Baier's "panel" on Fox News, I'm very familiar with Juan Williams' viewpoint, and while I rarely find myself in agreement with him, his opinions are usually well presented in a calm and rational manner, which is becoming all to rare on the left these days. It is a tragedy for all Americans when a citizen's livlihood can be arbitrarily curtailed, not so much because he expresses an offensive position, but because he expresses a true position.

Sanctimonious politically correct cowards of all types must make a pointed show of their supposed moral enlightenment by putting as much distance between the truth teller and themselves. Witness Whoopi Goldberg and Joy Behar stomping off the set because Bill O'Reilly dared to say that Muslims were responsible for murdering 3,000 American citizens on 9/11.

In other words: Don't target me, Jihadis! I hightailed it out of there as soon as I saw that bastard was going to speak against Shari'a law!

And while refusing to watch The View is an adequate weapon of the free market that we can utilize to send a message to these hags, we have better tools at our disposal when it comes to NPR. John Boehner tells NRO:

“We need to face facts — our government is broke,” Boehner tells us. “Washington is borrowing 37 cents of every dollar it spends from our kids and grandkids. Given that, I think it’s reasonable to ask why Congress is spending taxpayers’ money to support a left-wing radio network — and in the wake of Juan Williams’ firing, it’s clearer than ever that’s what NPR is.”

Sounds good to me.

Democrats to seniors: Be afraid. Be very afraid so you won't think clearly and vote for us.

2010-10-21T07:41:00.001-04:00

I'm not sure I understand the schizophrenic nature of the Democrat strategy this election. On the one hand, there's a lot of lying about the economy, a lot of demagoguery about (cue scary music) privatizing social security and ending Medicare, and a lot of huffing and puffing about witches and Nazis defining any Tea Party candidate. Over at the Times Herald, poor Tom Lees and Gordon Glantz are so frightened, they are rallying the villagers with torches and pitchforks.

I get the Alinsky tactics of picking the target, personalizing it, then polarizing. That's the strategy behind the witch and Nazi hysteria. But this blantant terrorization senior citizens implying that Republicans want to take away their social security and Medicare seems to be a bit of a half-baked strategy, at best. Since seniors are the ones who are angriest at the Democrats, I get that the Democrats think they need and deserve a good scare. But what I don't understand is that when your party adopts a wholesale slash and burn campaign dedicated to frightening people into voting, why then would the President come out and speak with open contempt of the fear they are creating?

"Part of the reason that our politics seems so tough right now, and facts and science and argument do not seem to be winning the day all the time, is because we're hard-wired not to always think clearly when we're scared," Obama told the assembled Democrats, who paid $15,200 a person to attend. "And the country is scared."

To "break through the fear and the frustration that people are feeling right now," Obama told the crowd, will require high-end donors not just to "write checks" but also to "lift up people's spirits and make sure that they're not reacting just to fear."

Let's just set aside the absolute laughability of the lament that "facts and science and argument do not seem to be winning the day." What the Democrats are doing is basically attempting to create a state of terror among seniors citizens....thereby causing them not to think clearly....and vote Democrat?

Yes, that seems to be the strategy. Oh, that and the $250 "find your way to the polls" social security bonus check that is due to distributed conveniently right before the election.

If I was a senior citizen involved in the Tea Party, which is exactly who these sentiments are aimed at, I'd be insulted at any Democratic implication that I was stupid enough fall for the "Bush did it" explanation of the current economy and that I would believe anyone would take away my social security or Medicare.