Building a better blog

I’ve been delighted that County Board of Commissioners Chairman Mike Callton decided to get into the blogging game with the “Barry Home Companion” blog in order to add another voice to serious cyberspace political and social commentary about Barry County and West Michigan. Dr. Callton, with a nod to Goldilocks and maybe Fox News, has billed his forum as “not too liberal, not too conservative, but just right,” but the Barry Home Companion has fallen victim, as many other blogs have, including this one at times, to the scourge of anonymity and its use as a way to hurl mud at political opponents, particularly the use of sexual innuendo to slime a public official. There’s absolutely nothing anonymous in the featured postings clearly identified as to who their authors are: Callton himself, State Rep. Brian Calley, Commissioner Jeff VanNortwick and Chuck Reid, a County Commission watchdog, all have written opinion pieces, giving the blog variety, a different approach than my lone wolf style and one that I enjoy reading.

However, comments in reaction to postings sometimes have gotten out of hand, just like they did too often on West Michigan Politics a while back. Buoyed by their anonymity, some people have made outrageous, questionable and personal attacks on public figures. I suppose this too often is a big risk when setting up and running a blog that invites everyone to the table to speak their minds.

Because of the nefarious nature of certain anonymous claims on this blog in bygone days, I changed my policy by not allowing anyone to post simply as “anonymous.” My compromise was that comment contributors must consistently use a handle in order to be able to post. And since I'm limited by the tools Blogspot and Google offer for free, I felt this was the best decision. Granted, those sending comments still don’t have to identify themselves by their real names, but with a particular handle, it becomes a lot easier to have back and forth debate and some people eventually give themselves away under their pseudonyms of choice. It's also easier for people to gauge how they line up with an author's point of view through repeated exposure to their signed blog posts and it works as a check against people saying things they might otherwise say if they were one of a number of comments listed as "anonymous."

I hereby ask Dr. Callton, customarily a reasonable man, to eliminate all anonymous commentary on his blog, to use his authority to block scurrilous charges and suggestions from these secret snipers who don’t have the guts to join the cyber discussion with at least a nom de plume of some kind so that others may judge their record of posts and encourage a responsible and civil discussion. I think automatically turning away anonymous commentary will cut down on the more outrageous tabloid-style attacks we have to endure in our laudable never-ending efforts for political discourse outside the usual channels. It won't end it, but those now more rare out of bounds comments can be deleted by the moderator. I have even cut out an offending comment and re-pasted the rest of the author's post when I felt they'd crossed a line but the rest of the comment was worthy of discussion.

I also believe Commission Callton should set a higher standard simply because he's a public official. He already got in some hot water for having the blog linked to an official government web site which he has since rectified. But by having his name on the blog and because of his status as a public official, his opponents or those trying to damage his reputation or the power of his blog can use these gutter tactics against him by attaching him to the attacks. I think it's in his own best interest to clamp down a bit but not so much as to completely stifle discussion and dissent. Some will cry censorship but that rare minority is likely to be the one most willing to use anonymous attacks for character assassination.

When I started my blog, it was my intention to have debate, discourse and discussion about political issues crucial to people who live in Barry County and West Michigan, issues that might not be seriously discussed in traditional media formats because of fear of reprisal. I developed West Michigan Politics as a haven for that discussion. It may not be the perfect forum but I've done my best to live up to my own high standards. I admit to being a flawed person, an amateur political commentator who has made mistakes in my judgment and my grammar and not always lived up to my own intent and potential. My intention is not to promote the sleazy, slimy and salacious, it is, rather to promote a truly open, honest and illuminating discussion that the traditional media dare not offer. It is with humility and respect that I beseech Dr. Callton to do the same.

Tim's tantrum: Is Walberg worried?

Poor Congressman Tim Walberg (R-Tipton) is starting to show the strains of being a radical right winger whose record of over-heated rhetoric and crass campaigning is catching up with him. It seems the Battle Creek Enquirer's Assistant Local Editor Susan Demas has offended poor Timmy by actually reporting the truth, that former Congressman Joe Schwarz is hanging around Battle Creek and leaving open the possibility for a rematch against Walberg, who defeated Schwarz in the last primary election mostly with slash and burn attack ads against "liberal" Joe Schwarz paid for with dough from anti-tax zealots but then narrowly beat out a weak Democratic candidate with zero money and little or no support from the party. Timmy's response to the horrible truth was to cut the reporter from their media spam list...

"I took you off the (media) list," his spokesman, Matt Lahr, informed me this month, "because the congressman has decided he will no longer talk to you."

Demas' response is both devastating and hilarious:

It's not personal. It's just a bad public relations move, typical of a staff composed of 20-something "Jesus Camp" counselors who almost managed to lose the general election to Sharon Renier, a chicken farmer with $1.03 in the bank.

They're not ready for primetime.

Walberg is the Congressional equivalent to those Pat Robertson Law School grads stinking it up in the Justice Department courtesy of soon-to-be outgoing Attorney General Alberto "What did I know and when did I know it" Gonzalez.

DARE to think different

"If you build it, they will come."

That over-quoted line from “Field of Dreams” accurately predicts what virtually always happens when we build new jails and new prisons. Yes, we’ve got a lot of everything in this wonderful country, and a lot of places to put ’em in. All you have to do is look at the statistics that show the United States, ironically known as the land of the free, has more people per capita behind bars than in any other industrialized nation in the world. More than Russia, more than South Africa, more than all those countries with dictatorships we love to trash as hating freedom.

We should keep this in mind when we look at the notion that Barry County needs a new jail, which I don’t doubt since the old one isn't worth repairing for the price it would take. I just find it sad we’re among the many in this country that must build bigger and more spacious lock-up facilities out of fear of overcrowding. If we build it, they will come and fill it up. For the record, I support somehow finding a way to construct a new Barry County Jail in a new and more appropriate location. It doesn’t make a lot of economic or social sense to have the sheriff’s department and jail smack dab on one of the best commercial locations in Barry County, on Hastings' West State Street across from McDonald’s and virtually next door to Pennock Hospital and a senior citizens’ complex.

I’d like to see the county find a way to sell that parcel to a commercial buyer for top dollar and move to a better location. A lot of people are mentioning the soon to be vacant First Presbyterian Church, within walking distance for deputies and prisoners to appear in court, thereby saving money in the energy department. There could be other locations, but this does seem to have some good arguments in its favor.

Then I’d propose the Barry County Board of Commissioners cut the excessive emergency 911 millage, which will come up for renewal next year, from one mill to one-half to six-tenths of a mill and use the difference to help fund a jail over, say about 20 years. If that isn't enough money to do the job by itself, then ask for a small amount from the people in the form of a millage to make up that difference.

The current 911 millage is a good example of one program getting more money than it needs or deserves while others are starving. Officials at 911 have crowed loudly and proudly often they’ve not used all of that one mill and they bought state of the art equipment that arguably is more than a bit over the top for a sparsely populated and poor, rural county. In other words, director Charlie Nystrom and his legions are pleased they have bought a brand new Mercedes-Benz with all the options when a slightly used, bare bones Ford or a Chevy would do perfectly well. So let’s take some of that taxpayer money back, maybe four-tenths of a mill, put it to work with the profits from the sale of the current location's real estate, and maybe try to add the money the county gets from the delinquent tax fund every year to fund a needed (unfortunately) new jail in a more sensible location.

Then I’d like to challenge all judges and cops in this county to think long and hard about just who we want sitting in these jails and prisons and use some common sense, which has been sorely lacking in these United States of America for too long and has made us the world’s crime capital. Taking things a little further, I think (and polls show Americans agree) it’s past time for legislators to summon a little courage and repeal many of the stupid drug and victimless crime laws that have put too many people behind bars who are not threats to society, but mostly to themselves and maybe their livers. Jails and especially prisons are tailor-made for people whose behavior threatens the safety and well being of society, not for people who smoke marijuana or hire the services of a woman practicing the world’s oldest profession. We tried a long time ago to outlaw alcohol but it only helped create more criminals, so why don't we get the same message when it comes to fighting other behavior where the war against it causes more damage and wrecks more lives than the thing being fought?

Crime fighting has become big business, with a lot of drug warriors, homeland security personnel and the prison industrial complex sucking furiously on the public teat and making a living by exploiting our irrational fears, fueled by sensationalist television news and entertainment programs. Yes, lawmakers and police are raking in big bucks and shiny medals for their war on drugs over the last quarter of a century. In the meantime, their war seems to be going about as well as the one in Iraq. Civil rights are violated, property stolen, people killed, and for what? So cops can get a shiny D.A.R.E. car with a cool paint job so they can play superhero? Guess who pays for it? You, and our society.

Our jails are filled with people who could be useful and productive members of society, instead they become a drag on the economy. We take away their right to vote and ability to find good work then wonder why we can't put them back out into the public successfully all or even most of the time. We fail to take this problem seriously at our peril. We need more than "the way we've always done it." We need to think different: Imagine what our society might be like if we would bother putting one half of the money we spend to imprison people towards treatment or other investments to improve their chances of working within society and not against it. Quit letting fear rule the debate. We need a new jail, but new means more than the physical material to build it. That will take some guts and some imagination.

Breaking: Falling prices land on house, kill 5

“Those who ignore history are condemned to repeat it.”
— Georges Santayana

The news broke last month that Wal-Mart plans to build a supercenter near the corner of Green Street and Cook Road, just outside the City of Hastings. Never mind that Wal-Mart already has a huge store in Rutland Township that hasn't been around very long, but I guess it’s not enough for the board of directors at Wal-Mart, they’ve got to have a store that will offer people everything in the world of goods and services, from groceries to haircuts, to lawn implements to lamp shades and all or most of it made in China. It feels like nothing is ever enough for these guys, they want to rule the world. And I hope we’re not dumb enough to do our part to let ’em do it. Wal-Mart made a pitch last month for rezoning to the Rutland Township Planning Commission and was rebuffed by a unanimous vote in a packed house full of people mostly opposed to the project. But those who opposed the project only won Round One, and this 800-pound gorilla will be back with a bigger team of lawyers and more threats Wednesday night when the Rutland Township Board will take up the issue in the spacious digs at The Barry Expo Center.

Meanwhile, the debate is raging, with most people opposed explaining that Green Street is mostly residential and too narrow to handle the traffic especially considering it's already a congested road at peak times of day and is the only route for ambulances to take to Pennock Hospital where any delay because of traffic can lead to death. Some people are arguing a bigger Wal-Mart would be bad for local business but that doesn't sway the ones who would rather pay a little less for a product without regard to the steeper social and economic costs to society which we have seen before in periods of American history where corporations began taking too much power and squashing their competition. Some of us are arguing that we need to remind ourselves of the lessons from those mistakes in history and see that unabated corporate greed has a way of coming back to hurt the people who never profited from its success in the first place.

For those who have forgotten about what happened in the United States 100 years ago, the Progressive Era was born at the beginning of the 20th century in response to the excesses of the Gilded Age, the Industrial Revolution, laden with “robber barons” such as J.P. Morgan, Cornelius Vanderbilt, Andrew Carnegie and John D. Rockefeller, who made millions of dollars by screwing the poor masses glad to have jobs with meager pay and lousy hours.

The progressives included “muckrakers” like Upton Sinclair, whose book “The Jungle” exposed the awful things that were allowed to go into our food; Ida Tarbell, who a critical history of Standard Oil, and even politicians such as Robert LaFollette of Wisconsin, who came up with a lot of the political reform ideas later captured by Franklin D. Roosevelt as part of the New Deal which helped fuel the period in history that made America the champion of liberty, prosperity and generosity around the world.

These reformers had their greatest champion in arguably one of our greatest presidents, Theodore Roosevelt, a Republican, who did a lot more than just talk about doing something to stop the abuses of the super wealthy and hyper capitalism. It was T.R. who stopped the merger mania that had been occurring so frequently in early 1900s with his trust-busting activity and
he halted Big Oil’s march toward monopoly. The most important thing Teddy did was call out and defeat the likes of Standard Oil, which had designs on monopoly and status more powerful than the federal government through cut-throat tactics, simply because they could.

Under the still highly touted principles of an unregulated free market system, Standard Oil, because it had become so rich and powerful, could afford to sell petroleum products at ridiculously low prices that eventually could eliminate all competition. When the mission had been accomplished, Standard would be the only company left standing and it could set prices for as much as it pleased.

When you use cut-throat tactics to sell your goods and services for less, when you treat your employees like indentured servants, when you collect all the goods you sell from foreign countries that exploit their workers and pay them a fraction of what the U.S. used to pay ours, when you put a tremendous tax burden on the citizens where you locate because they must pick up the tab for roads, sewer, water and traffic lights that your presence requires, when you deliberately locate just outside city limits to avoid paying higher tax rates than neighboring citizens must pay, when you create schemes in which your employees must seek health care paid for by the public in order to shirk the cost of doing business in a fair society, you are just like the robber barons Theodore Roosevelt fought against so long ago. Citizens have a right to stand up and ask their government to be a fair referee. It's long past time we reminded government of it's duty and it's purpose.

There are plenty of shallow and uncomplicated people, too many of them, who only look closely at the low prices offered at Wal-Mart. They don’t understand they’re selling their souls to the devil, and they don’t want to be told about it. They’ll tell you they shop at Wal-Mart simply because the prices are cheaper and in these hard times, you’ve got to save money. But they don’t want to be presented with the big picture, the inconvenient truth such as I have only scratched the surface of here. I only wish these people, too many of them, would revisit history from 100 years ago and then look long and hard at the real price they pay for lower prices at Wal-Mart. There's a price to be paid for ignoring history and it's one that our children and grandchildren will likely pay. But that's just my 2¢...

The fingerprints of Vern Ehlers?

Ever since the scandal broke regarding the firing of eight U.S. Attorneys and the fact was revealed that one of those eight was Margaret Chiara, the U.S. Attorney for the Grand Rapids district for the last five years. I've been wondering what her role was in all of this. There hasn't been a lot of chatter regarding why she was fired and Chiara was, on the surface, someone you'd think the Bush team would have had no problem keeping in her post. From the Kalamazoo Gazette:

Chiara was appointed to the post by President George W. Bush in 2001, filling the role as the government's chief law enforcer for the Western District of Michigan, which spans 49 counties, from the Indiana border to the Upper Peninsula. The former policy director at the Michigan Supreme Court, Chiara has led a varied career that had her studying to be a Catholic nun, a teacher on two continents and then a private practice attorney and county prosecutor in Cass County.

So, given that Bush appointed her, she had a solid resume and she had even studied to be a nun, I think it's safe to say we certainly know that Chiara wasn't exactly a liberal extremist. She also seems to have been damn good as a U.S. Attorney. More from the Gazette:

U.S. District Judge Robert Holmes Bell:

"I was shocked to learn that her resignation had been requested. She's clearly part of a larger pattern.''

In previous Justice Department firings, officials cited poor performance among the U.S. attorneys. However, most had positive job reviews and had run into political trouble over such issues as the death penalty and immigration, according to a recent Washington Post report.

Bell said Chiara is one of the best U.S. attorneys he has observed during 20 years on the federal bench. He said Chiara did nothing that should have prompted her firing.

Typically, most Republican stalwarts have followed the AM right wing radio command that this is nothing but a Democratic Party witch hunt. As usual it gets chalked up to "criminalizing politics" which is really a nice cover for widescale corruption and a political patronage system that rivals anything cooked up by the mafia. We can always expect the Republican Party to entrench in a scandal and protect its own even when felonies have obviously been committed. G. Gordon Liddy and Oliver North can be forgiven for jeopardizing the sanctity of our democracy (when Liddy and others broke in to Democratic Party headquarters on behalf of President Richard Nixon) or even our national security (when North was a player in giving U.S. arms to IRAN, cutting deals with the terrorist organization Hezbollah and illegally funding right wing militias in Nicaragua).

However, even some prominent Republicans have slowly been peeling away from the party line spin and have called for Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez to step down for his role in the firings and his impotent and mangled response when the story broke which included lying the Congress. Gonzalez is expected to testify next week and the talk has been that many expect Gonzalez to quit before then (since he's liable to only make things worse by lying under oath yet again). Just today U.S. Congressman Vern Ehlers (R-Grand Rapids) has called for the Attorney General to resign:

Republican Congressman Vern Ehlers of Grand Rapids says he thinks U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales should step down.

[snip]

Gonzales is under fire from the Democratically-controlled Congress for the recent firing of eight U.S. attorneys, including one from West Michigan.

Ehlers won't comment on the merits of the firings but says he disapproves of the way Gonzales carried them out.

Ehlers is quoted here:

"Since he's such a close, personal friend, he's hurt the President by what he's doing, he should have the politeness to offer his resignation. I don't know if he has or not and the President is still holding it, who knows. But I think he's damaged himself and the President through his actions."

So, either Ehlers knows how much this scandal is eroding whatever scant support his party now holds or he knows something else.

I'm guessing the Republicans in Grand Rapids--like Ehlers--have a much better idea than we do what the politics were behind Chiara's firing.

But it's also worth mentioning that, at least according to Rove's PowerPoint presentation, Vern Ehlers is thinking of retiring in 08. Not something that was generally known here in MI. But there you have it. Retiring GOP Rep getting fed up with the GOP shenanigans?

Or is it that Vern knows his fingerprints are all over Chiara's firing? Chances are decent that Ehlers was doing some leg work on behalf of Pete Secchia or some other West Michigan Mafioso player and made some calls to quash an investigation, which is the underlying reason in every case of a fired U.S. Attorney so far. We already know Senator Pete Domenici and Representative Heather Wilson were guilty of the same thing. Chiara's been one of the last remaining mysteries but given Ehler's recent willingness to throw his party's Attorney General overboard, I think we should be asking ourselves why such a consistent party line Republican has found to will to buck the system. Is it because he's finding independence in his pending retirement, is he merely playing to the hometown crowd and backing a fellow Grand Rapids Republican to win some votes for his next run or is trying to stop an investigation before it finds his fingerprints on the knife in Margaret Chiara's back?

The irony would be, that if this turns out to be true, that Ehlers was just named to chair the U.S. House Administration Committee, a nondescript name for something which used to be called the House Oversight Committee which tried to make sure that ethics violations committed by members of Congress were dealt with, something the Republicans in the Congress haven't wanted to do given that Ehlers was named to the position when the current chair, Republican Bob Ney of Ohio, was the third Republican to step down for taking bribes in the Jack Abramoff scandal.

Surely, Ehlers is smart enough to know that whether or not he does plan on retiring, any whiff of scandal could put this seat in play for the Democrats and that perhaps the best thing to do is to try to throw the Attorney General overboard and hope that ends the willingness of the media to dig any deeper into this. I think somebody needs to do some digging and I also think it's time to dust for fingerprints...