Democrats, Tom Friedman, and Tony Blair.....

Ok, I said this blog would deal with West Virginia Politics, and inasmuch as Robert Byrd is part of the Democratic party in West Virginia, this is relevant in that regard.

One of the best columnists out there, in my opinion, is Tom Friedman of the NYTimes. Sure, you say the Times is the bastion of leftist commie propaganda. However, Friedman isn't your typical Maureen Dowd or Michele Malkin type columnist. He's not a party hack or blind political ideolouge on either side. Unlike most of the columnist hacks, collecting paychecks today, Friedman has earned his respect and has paid his dues through education (Masters from Oxford in Middle East Studies, and BA from Brandeis in Mediterranean studies), through work (he was Middle East bureau chief for the NYTimes in Jerusalem, and Beirut in the 80's) and through his writing (From Beirut to Jerusalem, is one of the best books I've ever read). He writes with substance AND flair, unlike most current hacks such as the two I mentioned above. Plus he stays within his area of expertise.


Friedman's newest column in the Times is excellent. He discusses Tony Blair's political situation in England and how the Democrats here in the US would do well to learn from Mr. Blair.

Indeed, I believe that history will rank Mr. Blair as one of the most important British prime ministers ever - both for what he has accomplished at home and for what he has dared to do abroad. There is much the U.S. Democratic Party could learn from Mr. Blair.

Friedman goes on how Blair stood up to basically everyone in England, mostly his own party and the public, who were none too supportive of his actions in Iraq.

First, you don't have to be a conservative to be a conviction politician. For years Mr. Blair was derided by the press as "Tony Blur" - a man of no fixed principles, all sizzle and no beef, who dressed up the Labor Party as "New Labor," like putting lipstick on a pig, but never really made the hard choices or changes. The reality is quite different.

In deciding to throw in Britain's lot with President Bush on the Iraq war, Mr. Blair not only defied the overwhelming antiwar sentiment of his own party, but public opinion in Britain generally. "Blair risked complete self-immolation on a principle," noted Will Marshall, president of the Progressive Policy Institute, a pro-Democratic U.S. think tank.

And Friedman examines Blair's economic policies at home.

The other very real thing Mr. Blair has done is to get the Labor Party in Britain to firmly embrace the free market and globalization - sometimes kicking and screaming. He has reconfigured Labor politics around a set of policies designed to get the most out of globalization and privatization for British workers, while cushioning the harshest side effects, rather than trying to hold onto bankrupt Socialist ideas or wallowing in the knee-jerk antiglobalism of the reactionary left.

And lastly he comes to the US Democrat angle and how they could learn from Blair...

In sum, Tony Blair has redefined British liberalism. He has made liberalism about embracing, managing and cushioning globalization, about embracing and expanding freedom - through muscular diplomacy where possible and force where necessary - and about embracing fiscal discipline.

A long the way, he has deftly eviscerated the Conservatives, leaving them with only their most fringe policies - another reason American Democrats could learn a lot from him. Their own ambivalence toward globalization and the new New Deal our country needs to make more Americans educated and employable in a world without walls, and their own ambivalence toward muscular diplomacy, cost Democrats just enough votes in the American center to allow a mistake-prone Bush team to squeak by in 2004. So if Mr. Blair does win in the U.K., I sure hope that Democrats in the U.S. are taking notes.

The Demcocrats in the US have an uphill climb from where they currently are. They need to quit trying to show how "anti-republican" they are, and move back to the middle. Often, it seems their "anti-republican" stance on a given issue, is done for the sole fact that it IS anti-Repbulican, ergo, in their mind it must be the correct stance. Making Howard Dean Chairman of the Party, and having Moveon.org raise funds for Byrd, doesn't show they are the least bit inclined to move back to the middle, at least at the current time. If they can make it so the repubs are only pro lifers and bible banging, anti-fun guys, it will be a slam dunk for the Dems next time. But whether they can do that has yet to be seen. The signs, at this point, aren't encouraging.

Mike Agnello, Rick Johnson, "Hobby," and judicial pay raises.

Ok, yesterday's entry about Johnson and Agnello was about half-serious. However, this entry is all serious. I said in my first entry ever on this blog, that the media in West Virginia has some serious problems with credibility. Talk radio shows, in my opinion, have a DUTY to at least be truthful about the information they disseminate to the listeners. Today, that credibility on 580WCHS 58 Live took a serious hit (I didn't know you could actually get any lower, but they outdid themselves today). In a perfect world, these types of shenanigans would get someone's ass fired from that show.

Mike Agnello and Rick Johnson began talking about the judicial pay raise bill. That bill gave raises to the judges, Supreme Court justices, and magistrates in West Virginia, some in the neighborhood of a 25%+ increase in pay. Currently, it's awaiting the Governor's signature. There is some talk that he may veto it. Hopefully, he will. In addition to raising all the above-mentioned parties' salaries, it would also give all retired judges (because their pension amount is directly tied to the CURRENT salary of sitting judges), an increase in their judicial pensions, to the tune of 75% of the increase in salary. Johnson, for once, was close to being correct; this bill is an insult to the average West Virginian. Johnson said an increase may be warranted, but not to the tune of 25%. Johnson said an increase of say 10% might be more appropriate.

There were two very interesting exchanges on today's show. First, in direct opposition to Johnson's position, was Agnello. For some reason, now Agnello has absolutely NO problem expending public money for these raises. And he bends over backward to try and justify his support of these raises. He rambles on to the effect that a 25% increase is not really that big of a deal, because the judges haven't had a raise in 7 years. And if you break it down, the actual increase would only be about 3.5% per year. He rationalizes it that if WE gave the judges just a small raise each year, then the 25% increase in this bill, wouldn't be such a "shock," because 7 times 3.5% is roughly 25%.

Now, this is the same guy, who complains AD NAUSEAM that public employees (but not judges, evidently) are paid too much, they are lazy, they get too many days off, they don't pay enough for their health insurance and on and on and on. He wouldn't support a public employee raise if the state coffers were overflowing. He'd argue that any kind of surplus like that should be given back to the taxpayers in the form of tax relief, not spent on public employee pay raises. Public employees sure as hell don't get a small 3% raise each year. And Agnello has never, and would never, support anything of sort, let alone with the vigor he supports this judicial pay raise bill.

If I remember correctly, public employees' last raise was about $1500. And that was spread out over a couple years, and that was a couple years ago (right after Wise took office, I think, was the last "bump"). I think the actual number that was kicked around was they got $750 a year for two years (or maybe it was three, and the total was a $2000 raise). If you get an extra 750 per year, that means you actually take home about 500 after taxes, and stretched over 24 paychecks, that’s an extra 20 spot per check. When your pay goes from $1000 per check, to $1020 per check, do you really notice any difference? That would be a two percent raise, for someone making $30,000 a year. A $750 raise per year, is a joke. And public employees sure as hell don't get one each year. It's as much an insult to an employee, as this judicial pay raise bill is to the taxpayers.

Yet, Agnello is adamant that judges deserve these 25% raises. Agnello argues that these judges work hard, and don't get paid much (though, they actually make 4x, or more, what the average West Virginian does), and they deserve a raise. And he harps on and on that West Virginia judicial pay is ranked 50th in the US. And he says you need to pay them well to keep attracting decent candidates for the jobs. This unabashed support for this judicial pay raise from someone who's taken the previous positions that Agnello has, can only lead to one conclusion. He has some sort of personal interest in seeing their pay increased. Someone he knows, or is close to, or is related to, has some sort of connection to the judicial system, and these pay raises would benefit them. It may even be as remote as his wife or neighbor or someone works as a secretary for a judge, and while it won't benefit her directly, it'll directly benefit her boss. But I'm betting Agnello has some sort of personal interest in seeing these raises pass. He doesn't take a stance clearly contrary to his stances on similar issues, unless he's got some angle. So, I'm saying Agnello has some sort of ulterior motive for supporting these pay raises. Bye bye credibility.

However, the second and more interesting exchange occurred around 5:30pm. A person called in (and I didn't hear the beginning of the call), and Johnson and Agnello referred to him as "Hobby" (as best as I could gather). I know the voice of this "Hobby" character. I know it instantly, because I've heard that voice in person many times. His name isn't "Hobby." They let "Hobby" talk for about 10 minutes, uninterrupted. Let me spell that out for you. U N I N T E R R U P T E D. "Hobby" went on and on about the virtues of this pay raise bill, and gave umpteen reasons why it's a good idea. He mentioned they are last in pay in the US (never mind the $80,000 they make can provide for a damn fine life in West Virginia - it's not like they have to live on Madison Avenue in New York City). He said that because attorneys give up the extra cash they can make in the private sector to be a judge, we have to pay them well. He also said "you don't want 28 year sitting judges." You want experienced attorneys to be judges, and therefore you are going to be shooting for an older demographic for judicial candidates. Therefore, you must offer the 75% retirement increase as an incentive for older attorneys to forgo making big bucks at the end of their career. Never mind, if you want experienced attorneys to be judges, just have the legislature pass a law requiring judicial candidates to have x years of experience as an attorney. There's no need to go through all the contortions of a pay raise to make that point. Just require experience as an attorney to be a judge.

Johnson and Agnello had mentioned a Supreme Court case about the retirement increase a couple of years ago, and "Hobby" quickly, and eloquently informed them that the case they were talking about dealt with the State Trooper's pension system, and not the judges, and he even quoted the holding of the case, as if he had some special, inside type knowledge of that case. After letting "Hobby" go on for ten minutes without Johnson or Agnello even making a peep, and letting "Hobby" give all his 500 reasons why judges in West Virginia need a pay raise, they both said "well, thanks, [strange little pause] Hobby." I could see Johnson and Agnello winking at each other as clearly as if I was right there in the studio with them. Because they both knew whom "Hobby" was all along. They knew as soon as he called the station, before he ever went on the air. They had been told off the air, that "Hobby" was none other than West Virginia Supreme Court Justice Larry Starcher [or Circuit Court Judge OC Spaulding]. And as a state politician, Johnson and Agnello gave him free reign for those 10 minutes. You'll find that they will allow politicians basically a blank check when it comes to airtime. Joe Blow everyday caller, however, gets about 1-2 minutes, tops, plus interruptions when Agnello feels he needs to run his mouth. But not with Hop, er, I mean, Larry [or OC]. He gets ten minutes to spew his bullshit, ANONYMOUSLY, without Agnello or Johnson making a peep.

I'm asserting that 58 Live put a Supreme Court Justice on the air, and knew exactly who he was, and let him expound on the merits of the judicial pay raise bill, under an assumed name. That way the listeners would think he's some sort of uninterested party, which just happens to support the pay raise bill. If the listeners knew the caller was an actual member of the judiciary, they might (gasp) think he was biased about the issue. So Agnello and Johnson hid that information from the public.

THAT is a breach of journalistic ethics. Just another reason Agnello and Johnson, are pathetic. Somebody there should get their FCC license yanked for this kind of crap.

It's no wonder West Virginians get stuck with idiots in political office. The media, who are supposed to INFORM them, are in bed with the politicians. Conflict of interests, and shady ethics are rampant. This place needs an enema. And it should start with 580WCHS.

EDIT: Subsquent to this post, I've had several emails from one individual concerning this matter. I won't dislcose the actual emails (as I'll keep all emails private), but I'll give a quick overview of their substance. We'll call the mystery emailer, Mr. L. Mr. L. asserts the caller wasn't Starcher, but another member of the judiciary (who would also personally benefit from the pay raise), sitting Putnam County Circuit Judge OC Spaulding. Mr. L states the radio station confirmed this over the phone when he inquired, subsequent to my original blog entry. My guess is the anonymous poster in the comment section is also Mr. L. I haven't independently verifed any of this, but that's what he claims.

Even if true, however, the point of post still stands. The radio station was purposefully and knowingly ambiguous in allowing a public official to make the comments he made, in the manner he made them, on an issue which would personally benefit said public official. WCHS was disingenuous at best, and outright dishonest at worst. In deference to Mr. L., I'll put his assertions into the above post. Even if what Mr. L asserts is true, the end of the post should read as such:

I'm asserting that 58 Live put a sitting Circuit Court Judge on the air, and knew exactly who he was, and let him expound on the merits of the judicial pay raise bill, under an assumed name. That way the listeners would think he's some sort of uninterested party, which just happens to support the pay raise bill. If the listeners knew the caller was an actual member of the judiciary, they might (gasp) think he was biased about the issue. So Agnello and Johnson hid that information from the public.

THAT is a breach of journalistic ethics. Just another reason Agnello and Johnson, are pathetic. Somebody there should get their FCC license yanked for this kind of crap.

It's no wonder West Virginians get stuck with idiots in political office. The media, who are supposed to INFORM them, are in bed with the politicians. Conflict of interests, and shady ethics are rampant. This place needs an enema. And it should start with 580WCHS.

Need more reasons to think Mike Agnello and Rick Johnson are idiots?

In keeping with the Fifth Column's characterization of my penchant for making fun of the guy with the goofy swinger 'stache from 58 Live (Agnello), I just have to add this latest bit of ammo.

I meant to post this yesterday, and this has absolutely nothing to do with politics, but it just is another example of how Agnello is out of step with everything. He (and Johnson too), don't like the HBO show Deadwood. First of all, on Monday's show, Johnson incorrectly stated that the new season of Deadwood began Sunday night. Newsflash, Johnson, Deadwood's new season started about a month ago. They are already on like episode 4 or 5 this year. Maybe even 6, I forget. So, Johnson gets a big fat zero for that misinformation. Second, they said they don't "get" it. Evidently, it's over their heads. Evidently the rich characters and subtle plot twists and constant backstabbing and scheming by the characters are too much for their tiny little brains. Lastly, they attributed the fact that they use a few too many "dirty words" in it, as another reason it's not any good. Oh my!! No, we can't have any dirty words on TV. Another newsflash boys, they can use all the dirty words they want. It's not TV. It's HBO.

Ethics? We don't need no stinkin' ethics.

Our state Ethics Commission needs a giant size dose of Viagra it's so impotent. I'm not knocking the Commission itself. I think Lew Brewer has done as good as job as he can do. The REAL problem (and anyone who follows West Virginia politics knows this) is that Lew and company can only do as much as the Legsilature allows them to do.

So, after a year when we had Bob Graham, Jerry Mezzatesta, and Mike Ross doing some pretty shady stuff (and, to Ross' credit, the Commission didn't find he did anything wrong - though I disagree, I can see their argument), the torches and pitchforks were getting ready to be utilized. And that's not even talking about the fine ethical tradition we have had in our government officials here in WV prior to last year (see, Arch Moore, Dan Tonkovich, Ed Rebrook, Randy Schoonover, and most of the Attorney Generals we had in the 70's and 80's).

Soooooooo, Papa Joe Cheerleader decides it's time for a serious ethics beatdown. He proposed a revamping of the ethics commission. During his first special session, he proposed new ethics legislation. It was watered down substantially in committee. Nobody in the legislature seems to know exactly who did the watering down, but it was in Jeffrey Kessler's Senate Judiciary Committee, so I'll just blame him - he's as culpable as anyone, if not more. He's even successfully evaded the question of specifically who did the altering several times in the media. He evaded it once on Hoppy's show, and if I remember correctly, another time or two on Agnello's 3 hour idiotfest. I could be wrong about this, and if anyone has any info to the contrary, by all means, shoot me an email, and if legit, I'll be more than happy to post the details and a correction.

Soooooooo, coming out of the special session, Papa Joe's Ethics Smackdown gets smacked down itself. Among other provisions that get jacked, is the Legislature institutes a gag order provision. Of course, this is a "sexy" issue, because it deals with something everyone understands, freedom of speech. So, there's a hue and cry that this is infringing on the 1st Amendment (and in ?Rhode Island? where the ethics bill is copied from, a similar gag order provision was indeed struck down as unconstitutional). The media gets all bent about this, as well they should.

However, they completely missed the point. The gag order is nothing but window dressing. The REAL coup on the Ethics bill is that the burden of proof is now raised to "beyond a reasonable doubt." Hell, the courts could fix the gag order provision if they want, so that is not the deal breaking problem that it's made out to be. The legislature didn't even need to deal with it during the regular session. They could just let the court fix it. The deal breaker is that the complaintant has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, that the public official has committed the offense. The burden of proof now is the same as in criminal case. Do you honestly think, that ANYONE will be smacked down by the ethics commission now? If they have to weigh these cases to the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard, nobody will ever get hammered. I mean, unless Joe Legislator puts down in some letter "I am making this vote because I have a pecuniary interest in the outcome of this legislation" or "I'm voting for this person because he gave me campaign money," there's not going to be enough evidence to ever find an ethical violation. And while we've got some seriously dumbass legislators, I can't quite see them being THAT dumb as to reduce their outright corruption to writing for all to see. I guess the "appearance of impropriety" just disappeared for good. Unless you have Abscam/Marion Barry type video tape of some guy taking a bribe, or admitting to shenanigans, save your time and don't even file a complaint because it won't be successful.

Sure, the Ethics Commission got a nice bump in funding. But that's a smokescreen by the legislature that the extra dollars are going to equate to more scrutiny. When in fact, it's become infintely harder to file a successful ethics complaint against our public officials. Sure, the Commission has more investigative powers now, but the fact remains they now require iron clad, slam dunk cases against the scumbags, to drop the hammer on them. And the very nature of the beast with the Ethics Commission (the Randy Schoonovers, and Arch Moores of this world not withstanding - though Arch still believes he didn't do anything wrong - so take that for what it's worth), dictates you aren't going to have slam dunk iron clad cases against these scumbags. Hell, even Jerry Mezzatesta didn't plead guilty, and he flat out forged letters to cover his ass (among other things). So, you'll have to excuse me if this new, better funded, Ethics Commission doesn't exactly inspire me with an overabundance of confidence it will actually change anything. In fact, I fully expect the number of successful ethics complaints to actually drop.

Be careful what you ask for. You just might get it.

This will not be WV politics related. But it caught my attention, and there's a certain amount of ironic justice at play.

While watching Sportscenter Sunday night (quite possibly, one of the greatest inventions of TV in its history), Jeremy Schapp did a story about Bobby Fischer (yeah, the chess guy). Schapp's father, Dick (an excellent sports reporter who died a couple years ago) had befriended Bobby when he was just a child chess prodigy in New York City. Schapp was sort of a father figure to him, because Bobby's dad had left when he was just a baby. Schapp took him to basketball games and stuff. He remarked that as long as Bobby was focused on a chess board, he was in his element. However, he was mentally unable to figure out how to ride the subway home.

Anyway, for those who are still reading (and more importantly, don't know the story), Fischer played a chess match against Boris Spassky in Reykjavik Iceland in the early 70's. This was a cold war sports story. US vs. USSR. All the big media was there. Fischer wins. US over the Soviets. Bobby's on the cover of Time, NYC has a "Bobby Fischer Day," etc. It's all a big deal. And Schapp is right there in the middle of it. He gets exclusive interviews first with Fischer, because of his relationship with him.

After a while, Fischer begins to withdraw from the world. He renounces his title as world chess champion. He begins living with a radical fundamentalist cult on the west coast. He starts making anti-semitic comments, and rails against the US for lots of percieved offenses. Schapp writes an article in 1984 and says he doesn't have a sane bone left in his body.

Fischer comes out of hiding in 1992 and plays Spassky in a 3 million dollar rematch in Sarajevo, against the UN sanctions against doing business in that country which was currently going through its civil war. Fischer wins again, but gets a nasty letter from the US saying "you are now subject to arrest for violating these sanctions." The IRS wants it's cut, too. So, Fischer becomes a vagabond, and simply travels the world, living in central Europe, and east asia, never returning to the US. He is eventually detained a year or so ago in Japan, trying to get on a plane to the Phillipines. They are going to extradite him to the us for tax violations stemming from his Sarajevo match under an extradition treaty with the US. Iceland, however, still regards Bobby as a hero (for, I guess, bringing the world media and probably millions of dollars to their rock in the ocean for the chess match 30+ years ago). They pass a law a couple weeks ago making Bobby an Icelandic citizen, and therefore, Japan can't extradite him to the US. Fischer rails against the US more, and says its all controlled by the Jews and other typical right wing nutjob rhetoric. They even play a clip of a radio interview he did right after 9/11, and he says stuff like "Good, the US got smacked. I hope it gets wiped off the face of the earth. Fuck the US. Fuckin' United States, they got what they deserved." Blah blah blah.

So, Japan lets him go to Iceland where they look at him as a God. Jeremy Schapp (who once met Fischer when he was only 3 years old, when Schapp's father held a party for Fischer) goes to Iceland to see Fischer and see what the deal is. Of course, there's like 200 other media types there also. The day after Fischer lands, he holds a press conference, and he keys right in on Jeremy Schapp. He remembers Schapp's dad. And says "That Jewish snake said some mean nasty things about me," (obviously, Schapp was jewish). He then goes on and on ranting about how the Jews control the US. Jeremy Schapp points out that Fischer himself is half jewish (his mother is) and Fischer essentially says he's denounced his jewishness. Fischer continues with his anti-US, anti-semitic, anti-Israel nonsense. He goes on and on with this stuff. Eventually Schapp has had enough, and just leaves.

So you ask, Bingmanch, where's this ironic justice you mentioned way back up at the top of the page? Fischer hates the US. He's a tax cheat, and an international scofflaw. The US wants to bring him to justice. Iceland sticks its nose in the issue, and puts a halt to that, doing Fischer a HUGE favor, giving him refuge from the mean, nasty, imperialistic US. Fischer ends up in Iceland and goes on his little anti-semitic rant. Now Iceland is looking at prosecuting him for his hate speech at that press conference right after he entered the country. Prosecuting him for stuff he probably could say with 100% freedom in the US thanks to our tradition of freedom of speech.

Like I said. Be careful what you ask for. You just may get it.