NEWSOBSERVER.COM

Charles Krauthammer, Washington Post Writers Group

WASHINGTON - Convicted felon Tony Rezko. Unrepentant terrorist Bill Ayers. And the race-baiting Rev. Jeremiah Wright. It is hard to think of any presidential candidate before Barack Obama sporting associations with three more execrable characters. Yet let the McCain campaign raise the issue, and the mainstream media begin fulminating about dirty campaigning tinged with racism and McCarthyite guilt by association.

It seems when I bring this and other similar issues up about Barack Obama it is some kind of evil and bad thing. Well I have called the Democratic leadership in the North Carolina general Assembly corrupt for their good ol’ boy politics. Read the following quote and think hard before you decide to vote for Barack Obama.

This was patently absurd. Racism is treating people differently and invidiously on the basis of race. Had any white presidential candidate had a close 20-year association with a white preacher overtly spreading race hatred from the pulpit, that candidate would have been not just universally denounced and deemed unfit for office but written out of polite society entirely.

Obama’s political career was launched with Ayers giving him a fundraiser in his living room. If a Republican candidate had launched his political career at the home of an abortion-clinic bomber he would not have been able to run for dogcatcher in Podunk. And Ayers shows no remorse. His only regret is that he “didn’t do enough.”

Obama is not the first politician to rise through a corrupt political machine. But he is one of the rare few to then have the audacity to present himself as a transcendent healer, hovering above and bringing redemption to the “old politics” — of the kind he had enthusiastically embraced in the service of his own ambition.

Image by Getty Images via Daylife

While Wall Street melts down around us,  John McCain and Sarah Palin continue their "Enraged Talk Express" campaign. It what surely will go down in history as the meanest, dirtiest campaign ever.

McCain is ensuring his legacy as a hate monger.

Using the nastiest tactics they can dream up, McCain, Palin, and a host of angry, bitter surrogates are running around the country lying, exaggerating and mis-stating the facts in order to fool and misdirect you from the truth that we are in one heck of a mess of their making.

Everywhere McCain or Palin go now, it is all about sowing fear and mistrust of Barack Obama using lies, innuendos and yes, race baiting their desperate crowds. Crowds of shocked and desperate people who are appalled that the Republican party has now found itself in such a god awful mess.

These crowds are so stirred up by McCain and his pals with viscious verbal attacks that cause some ignorant people to scream "liar", "kill him", "off with his head" or racial epithets directed at nearby African American television camera men. See CNN story here: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/10/mccain.crowd/index.html

It's appalling.

Said Obama in response to the Republican Rage Rallies - "anger and division are not what we need right now."  he went to say that it's "easy to rile up a crowd by stoking anger and division. I think that folks are looking for something different," he said. "But that's not what we need right now in the United States. The times are too serious."

These people are mad as hell and don't seem to understand why Obama has been climbing in the polls.

Could it be that there are more people that disagree with the Republicans then there are that disagree with the democrats? Do the republicans think they there are the exclusive owners of patriots and that everyone else is a terrorist or a socialist?

Maybe the majority who is being reflected in the polls are sick and tired of the same old republican policies and tactics, except for one distinct difference. They aren't revving up crowds with hate mongering and anger therapy.

These crowds sound like they came out of time transporter straight from the racially charged 1960's where rampant racism abounded.

One gentlemen who has been shown on several news broadcasts expressing his anger suggested Obama, Pelosi and a few others were taking the country towards socialism.

Let me understand this. We are in the process of Nationalizing our banks through the bailout McCain and Republicans as well as Democrats also support and that's not socialistic? Obama didn't create this mess nor is he the one making economic policy.

Regardless of who is right or wrong, the hate mongering, race baiting and terrorist labeling is coming from the top of the republican ticket and it must end with direction from the top of the Republican ticket - that's Senator McCain and Sarah Palin.

Stop the hate rallies Senator McCain! - Tell your supporters to stop because they are appearing like lunatic extremists of society screaming for peoples heads and screaming "terrorist"!

Focus on the issues that matter to us. We don't need an angry, bitter, ticked off man, we need a calm leader with ideas. We've got problems, but you've got issues (personal ones)!

You are inciting hatred and appear to be the opposite image of what America stands for.

Senator McCain - show some leadership NOW and stop the hate mongering before you go down in history with others who practiced such evil, vile and despicable behaviors.

If you fail to do so you will be potentially responsible for instigating violence.

Related articles:

• Death threat against Obama probed after McCain rally
• GOP Anger Unleashed At McCain Rallies
• Barack Obama called 'terrorist' at Republican rallies as US election campaign turns nasty

At 7:00 p.m. in Braden Auditorium at Illinois State University, Mr. O'Brien will address the community with "An Evening with Tim O'Brien."  A book signing will follow the event.
 
All events are free and open to the public.

Mr. O'Brien is a Vietnam veteran and calls upon that experience for many of his works.  He attended Harvard University and once worked for the Washington Post.

His books include:
If I Die in a Combat Zone, Box Me Up and Ship Me Home (1973)
Northern Lights (1975)
Going After Cacciato (1978)
The Nuclear Age (1985)
The Things They Carried (1990)
In the Lake of the Woods (1994)
Tomcat in Love (1998)
July, July (2002)

For additional information contact Toni Tucker ttucker@ilstu.edu or (309) 438-7402.

Then there are truly brainwashed who sit there and tell those of us who don't like living in a surveillance ridden society that if we had nothing to hide we shouldn't be concerned.

Well, I have nothing to hide; BUT I am concerned. I'm a private person, I like my privacy. If I meet someone interesting and wanted to engage in a little phone or cyber erotica (hey, we all like a little dirty talk once in a while) with them, I want to feel that our exchange IS private. If I am angry about something the government has done (as with this bailout) and want to vent that anger verbally either on the phone to a friend or even right here on my own blog, and I want to feel safe that I'm not about to be labeled a "terrorist" for the "angry thoughts" I am spouting.

I just read in the Washington Post this morning about an anti-death penalty/anti-war group in Maryland that was spied on by some agencies and labeled "terrorists" for doing nothing wrong and for lawfully and peacefully wanting to exercise their First Amendment rights.

Spying Gone Awry

A covert surveillance operation in Maryland tramples on civil liberties.

Friday, October 10, 2008; Page A18

THOMAS E. HUTCHINS, the former Maryland state police superintendent, spoke about a covert operation that spied on harmless activists for the first time at a legislative hearing this week. Mr. Hutchins, who authorized the operation, didn't provide new information about the spying program. But his spirited defense of the surveillance and his refusal to acknowledge serious missteps offers insight into the flawed mind-set that led to the operation's creation.

Mr. Hutchins's testimony followed the release of a report that depicts the spying operation in vivid detail. The surveillance started as an attempt to gather information about those protesting the death penalty. Spurred by the post-Sept. 11 frenzy to detect terrorist plots, it morphed into 14 months of spying, during which the state mistakenly labeled 53 nonviolent activists as terrorists. The 93-page report, compiled by former Maryland attorney general Stephen H. Sachs, concluded that the secret monitoring, which occurred from March 2005 to May 2006, "significantly overreached." That's a considerable understatement.

The monitoring started when a police commander requested information about whether the upcoming executions of two death row inmates would lead to unruly protests. Mr. Hutchins claimed that his men were not spying but monitoring "open public meetings." He arrogantly asserted, "I don't believe the First Amendment is any guarantee to those who wish to disrupt the government." His story was incomplete, to say the least. In fact troopers used aliases to infiltrate organizational meetings, rallies and group e-mail lists, even though an early assessment of the "threat" posed by the death penalty protesters "did not identify any specific threat to public safety."

© 2008 The Washington Post Company

Read the FULL STORY here, and be sure to read the report too.

I would suggest that Mr. Hutchins re-read the Declaration of Independence, which states that the people not only have the right BUT a duty to question their government.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Granted, we cannot, nor should we, go to this extreme over any/every little thing. Although I must admit to wondering why we haven't over the past 7 years under this current administration that shows nothing but disdain for our Constitution and the Republic our founders bled and died to create.

The First Amendment also protects our right to question government.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

So exactly what part of these two documents, that are the very basis and foundation of our country, does this Mr. Hutchins NOT understand?

This is just the beginning. The FBI now has new guidelines that basically allow exactly the same kind of thing that Mr. Hutchins did in Maryland.

Published on Saturday, October 4, 2008 by Agence France Presse

New, Controversial FBI Guidelines Go Into Effect

WASHINGTON - US Attorney General Michael Mukasey has signed new guidelines for FBI operations he said are designed to better protect the country from terrorist attacks, but that raise concern of some lawmakers and civil rights groups.

US Attorney General Michael Mukasey, seen here in July 2008, has signed new guidelines for FBI operations he said are designed to better protect the country from terrorist attacks, but that raise concern of some lawmakers and civil rights group (AFP/Getty Images/File/Chip Somodevilla)

"These guidelines provide more uniform, clearer and simpler rules for the FBI operations ... are designed to allow the FBI to become, among other things, a more flexible and adept collector of intelligence," Mukasey and FBI director Robert Mueller said in a statement Friday."Since the 9/11 attacks, the FBI and the Department of Justice more broadly have set priorities for and reorganized their activities to prevent future terrorist acts against the American people," the statement said.

The new, revised regulations -- the original version met strong criticism from congressional committees last month, comprise 50 pages dealing with five areas of FBI investigation, including criminal, national security and foreign intelligence.

Mukasey said most of the new, streamlined rules "will be available to the public ... As a result, the general public will have access in a single document to the basic body of operating rules for the FBI's activities."

But despite Mukasey's assurances that the new regulations "reflect consultation with Congress as well as privacy and civil liberties groups," not all concerns over their effect on privacy rights were dispelled.

Senate Judiciary Committee chairman, Democrat Patrick Leahy said the new guidelines expand the FBI's powers of surveillance.

"It appears that with these guidelines, the attorney general is once again giving the FBI broad new powers to conduct surveillance and use other intrusive investigative techniques on Americans without requiring any indication of wrongdoing or any approval even from FBI supervisors," Leahy said in a statement.

Read the FULL STORY here.

When you read about the new methods that the FBI will be allowed to use, you have to wonder if they fashioned it after the Maryland operation as they are similar.

The ACLU is all over this also.

As I said earlier, I have nothing to hide, but I want to retain my God-Given Right to express my opinions, thoughts, and yes anger in peaceful ways without worrying about the government labeling me as a terrorist.

You have to wonder what this administration is so worried about that they seem to have no problem shredding our Constitutional guarantees.

This is NOT the America I was born into, and I don't like where I see this new Amerika (yes I deliberately misspelled it) going.

Everyone poses for a group picture outside.  Jonathan Newton with the Washington Post gives his thumbs up.

Phew! What a week I've had. From September 29 - Oct 5 I was volunteering my time at Western Kentucky's Mountain Workshops in Mayfield, Ky., responsible for editing well over 8,000 pictures for the website.  In addition, I shot a few behind the scenes pictures for the BACKSTAGE link (at top right corner of site).  There was never shortage of something fun going on all week!! 

The workshop has been in operation since 1974.  I've attended workshops 2000-2003 2007, 2008 and each year it amazes me how many beautiful pictures come back from the participants.  In the past two years the workshops have grown with the addition of the multimedia workshops.  Participants in multimedia employ the same basic journalistic principles to tell captivating stories, except with the additional use of video and audio.  

All around it was a great experience hanging out and talking photography with some of the industry's most talented photographers and editors.  It was like a big, happy, yet often tired, family of people from USA TODAY, New York Times, LA Times, Washington Post National Geographic, Dallas Morning News, MSNBC to name a few. Very cool people indeed.

I am honored to have been part of this event, especially because WKU is my alma mater. Go big Red!!

To learn more just click on the site: www.mountainworkshops.org

Milbank’s lone racist at the rally soon became a group or a mob of people shouting racial epithets. A New York Times editorial Tuesday “The Politics of Attack” misquoted Milbank’s Post column, claiming that one person shouted “Kill him” and “others shouted epithets at an African-American member of a TV crew.” Many blogs followed suit: “Crowd at Palin Rally Hurled Racial Epithets at African American on News Crew,” read the headline at Pensito Review. This was too much for Bob Somerby, the left-leaning blogger at the Daily Howler. Calling Milbank “a highly unreliable chronicler,” Somerby taunted the Times for multiplying racists at the rally: “It’s the power of pluralization...One example becomes much more powerful when we stick an ‘s’ on the end. In this case, one epithet-shouter turns into a group. How many people were shouting those epithets? The editors let you imagine.”

via The Power of One by John Leo, City Journal 9 October 2008

The Bush administration has become famous for its divisiveness, unlawfulness, and lack of transparency. It should come as no surprise that this week the Washington Post covered a news story about non-violent Maryland activists and protesters (a.k.a. opponents of the death penalty and the Iraq war) who have been put on a terrorist watch list.

"Police Superintendent Terrence B. Sheridan revealed at a legislative hearing that the surveillance operation, which targeted opponents of the death penalty and the Iraq war, was far more extensive than was known when its existence was disclosed in July."

"The surveillance took place over 14 months in 2005 and 2006, under the administration of former governor Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. (R). The former state police superintendent who authorized the operation, Thomas E. Hutchins, defended the program in testimony yesterday. Hutchins said the program was a bulwark against potential violence and called the activists 'fringe people.' "

"Stunned senators pressed Sheridan to apologize to the activists for the spying, assailed in an independent review last week as 'overreaching' by law enforcement officials who were oblivious to their violation of the activists' rights of free expression and association. The letter, obtained by The Washington Post, does not apologize but admits that the state police have 'no evidence whatsoever of any involvement in violent crime' by those classified as terrorists."

The series of articles is best read in this order:

Maryland State Police Put Activists' Names On Terror Lists

Activists Mislisted as Terrorists Are Blocked From Keeping Copies of Intelligence Files

Spying Gone Awry: A covert surveillance operation in Maryland tramples on civil liberties.

The real surprise is that some people are surprised by this. Isn't this par for the Bush administration course? Really - how big of a jump is it to go from suspending habeus corpus to listing "protesters" as terrorists?

Sure, sure, President Bush didn't personally do this - it was the Maryland State Police. Well, here comes a politically charged comparison: Hitler didn't personally kill millions of Jews, but he did instruct others, to instruct others, to instruct others to do it. It's called leadership - and it has a direct hand in local government by both actively supporting some initiatives and by neglecting to disallow other initiatives.

When the real owners of the home he was making himself at home in came home (how's that for three homes in one phrase?), they found him in the bed and called the police.  Pretty quickly it was apparent that he was not any threat, and he prepared to leave.

But not before the grace-filled homeowners 1) refused to press any charges and 2) filled up a bag with homemade food for him.

The explanation was "Sicilian hospitality."  

Wow!  Grace.

Check it out: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/08/AR2008100803762.html?nav=hcmoduletmv

What Kind of Executive are You?

Queensboro’s new executive jacket is the stylish and sensible choice of outerwear for today’s executive.  It’s affordable, comfortable, and looks much more expensive than it actually is.  That is appropriate, because today’s executives need to take a different approach than executives of yesteryear—or even yesterweek.

According to the Washington Post, Richard S. Fuld Jr., former CEO of Lehman Brothers netted over $40 million last year, which included over $4 million in bonuses. On Monday, he sat in a congressional hearing investigating the collapse of his company.  Remember L. Dennis Kozlowski?  He’s the former Tyco CEO, the infamous executive who spent company money to buy a $16,000 umbrella stand.  From what we’ve been hearing, none of our executive customers can do that right now.

Entrepreneur or Executive?  Or Both?

You’re the owner of a new business.  You and your husband or wife operate out of your house, providing goods or services.  You’ve found your niche.  You need to grow.  You need local PR coverage, credit, and customers.  You need to spend time networking.  As the owner/operator of your business, you do everything from packaging goods for shipment to meeting with loan officers.  You need to look sharp without spending a bunch of money.  Tough times mean that you have to work harder and look more professional than ever to inspire confidence in your customers and your investors.  Lucky for you, Queensboro has been serving the needs of small to medium sized business owners and executives for over 25 years.  In addition to the new Sueded Microfiber Executive Jacket, Queensboro offers tons of professional, affordable apparel ready for customization with your company logo.  (Despite our low prices, we are definitely not a racket!)

Friendly to Small Businesses

Queensboro is lucky to have a lot of interesting small businesses as our customers.  We’ve profiled a few of them here on the blog (Flying J Fainters Fainting Goats, Roth Electric Sound and Al Melvin, a Keller Williams agent), and will continue to highlight more. Many of our small business customers send us emails expressing their delight at being able to order affordable, quality logo apparel in small quantities so that they can compete, image-wise, on the same playing field with much larger companies.  We love to hear from our customers.  If you have any suggestions for us to help you and your business grow, be sure to email us!

Obama's political career was launched with Ayers giving him a fundraiser in his living room. If a Republican candidate had launched his political career at the home of an abortion-clinic bomber -- even a repentant one -- he would not have been able to run for dogcatcher in Podunk. And Ayers shows no remorse. His only regret is that he "didn't do enough."

Why are these associations important? Do I think Obama is as corrupt as Rezko? Or shares Wright's angry racism or Ayers's unreconstructed 1960s radicalism?

No. But that does not make these associations irrelevant. They tell us two important things about Obama.

First, his cynicism and ruthlessness. He found these men useful, and use them he did. Would you attend a church whose pastor was spreading racial animosity from the pulpit? Would you even shake hands with -- let alone serve on two boards with -- an unrepentant terrorist, whether he bombed U.S. military installations or abortion clinics?

Most Americans would not, on the grounds of sheer indecency. Yet Obama did, if not out of conviction then out of expediency. He was a young man on the make, an unknown outsider working his way into Chicago politics. He played the game with everyone, without qualms and with obvious success.

Obama is not the first politician to rise through a corrupt political machine. But he is one of the rare few to then have the audacity to present himself as a transcendent healer, hovering above and bringing redemption to the "old politics" -- of the kind he had enthusiastically embraced in Chicago in the service of his own ambition.

Second, and even more disturbing than the cynicism, is the window these associations give on Obama's core beliefs. He doesn't share the Rev. Wright's poisonous views of race nor Ayers's views, past and present, about the evil that is American society. But Obama clearly did not consider these views beyond the pale. For many years he swam easily and without protest in that fetid pond.

Until now. Today, on the threshold of the presidency, Obama concedes the odiousness of these associations, which is why he has severed them. But for the years in which he sat in Wright's pews and shared common purpose on boards with Ayers, Obama considered them a legitimate, indeed unremarkable, part of social discourse.

Do you? Obama is a man of first-class intellect and first-class temperament. But his character remains highly suspect. There is a difference between temperament and character. Equanimity is a virtue. Tolerance of the obscene is not.

Read it all.

Dans un article sur un voyage récent en Allemagne, McIntyre mentionnait un repas de Rieslingbraten, un boeuf braisé d'abord mariné longuement (de trois à six jours!) dans le riesling. J'étais pour le moins intrigué, alors j'ai cherché sur Internet, pour ne finalement trouver qu'une seule recette - en allemand. Un coup de traduction Google et un peu de recherche sur des dictionnaires en ligne m'ont permis de tout déchiffrer.

Je vous en donne les grandes lignes, avec un tout petit brin d'adaptation. Vous allez voir, c'est pas compliqué.

Vous prenez une pièce de boeuf à braiser (palette, épaule, etc. - disons 2 kilos). Vous versez une bouteille de riesling dans un bol assez grand pour accueillir la pièce de boeuf (et idéalement, pour qu'elle soit couverte par le riesling). Vous mettez dans le riesling deux feuilles de laurier, un clou de girofle, quelques baies de genièvre, quelques grains de poivre noir, des grains de moutarde ou de la moutarde sèche en poudre, un peu de romarin, de piment (genre Espelette), d'estragon, de cerfeuil, de persil. Vous brassez un peu et vous placez la viande dans le plat.

Si ça couvre entièrement, vous laissez au frigo trois jours ou plus et vous ressortez au moment de cuire. Si ça ne couvre pas entièrement, retournez la pièce soir et matin pour que le tout marine également.

Au moment de cuire, vous sortez la viande de la marinade. Vous mettez un peu d'huile à chauffer dans une casserole allant au four et vous faites brunir vivement la viande de tous les côtés. Vous réservez la viande et vous faites revenir, toujours à feu vif, des oignons hachés dans la casserole. Quand les oignons ont caramélisé un brin, vous versez une bonne demi-tasse de bouillon ou de fond de veau et vous laissez le tout bouillir une minute.

Ajoutez un peu de farine pour épaissir la sauce, placez le boeuf dedans et mettez le plat couvert au four préchauffé à 350 °F (180 ° C). Comptez une bonne heure par kilo de viande pour la cuisson. Vérifiez de temps en temps l'état du liquide, retournez la pièce de boeuf et ajoutez au besoin un peu d'eau ou de marinade. On pourrait même cuire un peu plus longtemps et un peu plus lentement (à 300-325 °F - 160°C) pour une cuisson plus délicate.

Quand le boeuf est cuit, on le met en réserve dans un plat, sous un papier d'aluminium. On en profite pour préparer la sauce: on fait réduire le tout quelques minutes, on ferme le feu et on ajoute de la crème. Si on veut, on peut passer la sauce au chinois (ou à la passoire de nylon) pour enlever les oignons caramélisés. Mais les oignons, comme ça, c'est si bon...

On tranche la viande, on nappe de sauce, et on accompagne le tout de légumes racines, de pommes de terre poêlées ou encore de spätzle ou de nouilles aux oeufs.

Et avec ça, on boit, bien sûr, un riesling. Cette semaine, j'ai bu le tout avec un Riesling Spätlese de la Moselle, le Studert-Prüm Graacher Domprobst 2001. Beaux arômes d'abricot, robe paille claire, rond, juste assez enveloppant, l'acidité bien présente mais adoucie gentiment par le temps. Un délice.

J'aurais peut-être essayé le tout avec un riesling plus jeune, pour que l'acidité un peu plus vive vienne rafraîchir un peu plus le tout. Mais ce qui était clair - limpide, même - c'est qu'il fallait du blanc. J'avais sous la main un excellent vin de syrah de Californie (Peay Vineyards La Bruma 2005, une importation personnelle), à la hauteur d'un Côte-Rôtie. Délicieux, le vin venait toutefois casser le goût de la viande. Le mariage des deux était tout ce qu'il y a de plus terne.

Le blanc, au contraire, vient éclairer la viande, rendue très aromatisée par la marinade et même un brin acidulée. Ça change de l'ordinaire, c'est le moins qu'on puisse dire. Et les parfums sont carrément envoûtants. Le lendemain matin, ça embaumait encore partout dans la cuisine.

À moins que la viande ait été cuite dans le vin rouge, le vin blanc est d'ailleurs à considérer pour les plats de boeuf braisé ou bouilli. Sans le sang et le caramélisé de la grillade ou de la rôtisserie, la saveur plus délicate du braisé s'accommode très bien d'un blanc ayant une bonne substance. Un chardonnay bien mûr et ayant pris du beurré après quelques années de vieillissement, avec un bouilli traditionnel, c'est un mariage aussi réussi que surprenant.

Sorry, but what does this have to do with the price of tea in China?  Perhaps he hasn't won anything at the tables.  When you sit down at a craps table, you are guaranteed to lose more than you win.  Anyone who's gambled playing any game knows this.  Is it now a requirement that we have to put a big stamp on our tax returns that says "I DIDN'T WIN ANYTHING PLAYING CRAPS THIS YEAR?"

I have two words for this stupid, useless information:  Who cares?  This has absolutely nothing to do with McCain's electibility, and nothing to do with real issues.  This story is a piece of crap, that's it.  A completely irrelevant piece of steaming horse crap.  No one with a brain and a good amount of intact brain cells cares about this stuff, really.  Do they?

For the full story, go here:  A Gambling Man, But No Winnings

When you interview for a job, here is a hint: make sure you know what the job is. Joe Biden failed that test last Thursday. He couldn’t even get right what a vice president does, but the media didn’t notice.

The media is all over itself about how smart and experienced Biden is. Political analyst Charlie Cook is quoted in the Washington Post on Saturday as saying “Biden is clearly so much more knowledgeable, by a factor of about a million.” Saturday Night Live does a skit about Biden being smart, if slimy. Meanwhile, Governor Sarah Palin is treated as being nothing more than a simpleton.

Yet, take Biden’s statement from the debate on the role of the vice president:

Vice President Cheney has been the most dangerous vice president we've had probably in American history. The idea he doesn't realize that Article I of the Constitution defines the role of the vice president of the United States, that's the Executive Branch. He works in the Executive Branch. He should understand that. Everyone should understand that.

Source: what a vice president does

Do you really want a VP that does not know what the job is all about?

Earlier this year alot of hype was generated by a SONIC drive-in opening shop in Southgate. Here's the difference: SONIC makes good commercial and (in my opinion) average food where 5 Guys Burgers and Fries has done barely any advertising here in Michigan but makes award winning burgers. 5GBF was started by Jerry and Janie Murell and their four sons and sells nothing but burgers (and hot dogs), fries and cola, hence the name. Jerry and his sons left poor Janie out of the name, i'm guessing for purposes of iambic pentameter then two years after the Murells opened their burger chain they had a 5th son who replaced Jerry in the family business as the "fifth guy".

5 Guys Burger and Fries has been voted best burger or fries by numerous publications out east including: Delaware Today Magazine,  Charlotte City Magazine, Richmond Magazine, Philadelphia Magazine, The Liberty Champion wherever that is, and has been featured in the Washington Post.

Five guys is scheduled to open franchises across the Metro Detroit area in early 2009.  In the mean time check out these other Local burger joints.

  Little Brother's Burgers

201 W 4th Steet Royal Oak MI

248-414-4541

Travis Hamburgers

23500 Greater Mac Ave St. Clair Shores MI

586-778-0101   

 -OR-

30100 Gratiot Roseville MI

586-775-3400

Abby Lane Gourmet Burgers

16890 15 Mile Road Fraiser MI

586-415-2229

Telway Hamburger System

27000 John R Rd Madison Heights MI

248-545-7962 

-OR-

6820 Michigan Ave. Dearborn MI 

313-843-2146

Bray's Hamburgers

22941 Dequindre Rd. Hazel Park MI

248-542-8878

Hunter House Hamburgers

35075 Woodward Ave. Birmingham MI

248-646-7121

For more information on Five Guys Burgers and Fries visit www.fiveguys.com

*Thanks to Mark Parus for the heads up.

It really is sad though, that people think the media is "in the tank" for Obama.  Consider this: Candidate A claims that 1+1=2.  Meanwhile, Candidate B says that 1+1=Muslim.  The mainstream media reports that Candidate B is incorrect (except for Fox News, of course), and is immediately decried as "elitist" or "liberal", simply because they called Candidate B out on his inaccuracy.  This is essentially what is happening now, and it's even getting bad enough that Palin supporters are turning on reporters attending her events.

Newsflash.  McCain and Palin are throwing baseless smears at Obama, inciting their supporters to shout things like "kill him", and the MSM is calling them out on it.  That's their job.  The fault is not on them, but on McCain-Palin for running one of the most dishonorable campaigns in history.

A federal judge has ruled that the Redskins must continue to run captioned play-by-play and start showing the lyrics of songs played in the stadium so that the deaf and hard of hearing can have "full game experience."

This ruling affects all stadiums and I'm guessing this includes all sports venues?  Does it also include NASCAR and MMA, I had pondered.

The ruling is tied to ADA.  And because of that, it would make sense why the federal judge would rule the way he did (that is, if you are familiar with the American Disabilities Act.)

The public appears to not be in favor of this ruling, since the Polls [In the beginning] showed almost half had opposed it, whereas the other half (give or take) supports it.

I do have mixed feelings about this ruling.  There are several factors that comes into mind, with regards to this.  And, I'll get to that in a little bit.

Shane Feldman, a 30 year old deaf fan said " "The Redskins needed to understand that they had to provide captioning so that we could really the enjoy the game."  Key word here is "Game."  I'll get to that in a little bit too.

Apparently since 2006, the Redskin's FedEx Field have been captioning play-by-play and even captioning the "Star Spangled Banner" and "Hail to the Redskins."  The deaf and Hard of Hearing wanted a full stadium experience that includes public address announcements, advertisements, music and other information.

Another stadium in Washington D.C., Nationals Ballpark captions everything that is said on the ballpark's public address system.  Everything except the lyrics to the song that the Cheerleaders are performing to.  They are currently looking at the ruling to see if they need to make any adjustment to what they are already doing.

Over at one of the deaf blog aggregator site, there were a number of bloggers that wrote about this latest ruling. Most admonished the public for their ignorance.

A blogger known as "Deaf Mom" explains why deaf and hard of hearing people would need lyrics to be captioned at a live football game.  Deaf Mom feels that the deaf/HOH should have access to the same information as everyone in the stadium when stuffs is being broadcasted over a microphone.  And as she puts it:

"People with normal hearing have the ability to access what goes on in a stadium.  Even if a person couldn't understand what was said on the loudspeaker, they have the choice to get up and go closer to a speaker or find a quieter place near the food stand to grasp what is said."

For one blogger, the judge's ruling wasn't enough. One would think once a ruling is in place, law is law.  Who cares what people think, right?  Well, for this blogger, it was imperative that people go to the Washington Post Poll and vote to make it right.

Another blogger also blogged about the Poll numbers at Washington Post as well.  Encouraging people to vote in favor of at the Polls, and pretty much saying that the more the numbers change (in the poll)  in their favor, that it would somehow turn the public's opinion on this matter.

And this is what this blogger had to say about the ruling:

"Wanna bet how quickly they will change their mind if they lose their hearing? Funny because a lot of hearing people do benefit from the closed captioning, like if there are loud cheerings or jeers."

I clicked on the poll last night and voted "no opinion" and the results showed 64% yes, 33% no, and 1% no opinion (That's me!)  The poll is located on the same website as the article in Washington Post.  Simply put, it is not a valid poll anymore.

So, the Poll has, in effect, became unreliable due to manipulation.  Think about it, if the other side was afforded the same manipulation, you'll see the polls tilting the other way too.  Not a reliable poll, for one.  And, how is the poll going to change people's opinion?  I have considered starting a poll that asks whether one would let a Poll result influence their opinion on a matter.  Polls do not necessarily reflect the true numbers of the total population's view.

Here are some interesting comments from that deaf blogger's site:

"I'm a hard core football [fan] and I don't care about CC"

"I strongly feel that is pretty frivolous of Shane Feldman and the legal parties insist on the captioning of lyrics (songs)"

"It isn't a sports thing, friends. It's a DEAF thing."

"I prefer watch play games and read score board. Caption on the screen is a distraction!"

"I look forward to the day that all deaf and hard of hearing people can access the same things as people who can hear. "

Over at Sports Law Blog, here are what some of the commentors are saying in regards to the latest ruling on captions in a stadium.

"There has got to be some sort of personal responsibility here--this is clearly an attempt to extort money from the team."

"if this gentleman does not have to listen to the nonsense being blared at the crowd over the PA system in FedEx Field, he is very fortunate indeed."

"I think the deaf should have mandatory NFL referee penalty signal training as a prerequisite to attend. "

Now, that's an Idea!   :)

Seriously, I have misgivings. First off, apparently the Redskins have been captioning their games.  They have been captioning the two significant songs being played.  They have provided what was needed for a deaf and hard of hearing person to be able to enjoy the GAME.

But, in reality, we don't need captions to follow the game.  Now consider what one commenter in the Sports Law Blog stated:

"Someone has a chip on his shoulder.  What about an NFL game, seen live, needs captioning?

Penalties?  No, that's what the refs signals are for.  I've known the refs signals since I was about 5 years old.

Replays?  There's no play-by-play in the stadium anyway.

Scores?  Duh."

Who's going to have time to follow the captions when your eye would more likely focus on the ball and the player's moves on the field.  One wouldn't even have time to keep his eyes on the captions in the screen, you would agree, No?  I'm going to bet that these deaf hard-core sports fans will agree with this statement, in the majority.  Captions are a distraction in sports venues, usually.

To be able to experience and enjoy the game, we don't need to know the lyrics to a song that Cheerleaders dances to. I mean, if someone could just show the name of the artist and the song being played, one could look up the lyrics later and buy the song to listen to.   Let's be real here, most deaf (except those that are Hard of Hearing) do not bother to listen to music.  I'm hard of hearing, I listen to music all the time.  I would not expect them to caption the lyrics.  Sure, it'll be nice, but, if I like a song so much, I will buy the song and look up on the lyrics myself.

It's not like the Redskins were refusing to caption anything, they HAVE been captioning the important part of the 'game experience'.

Right now the focus is on "captioning the lyrics," more so than anything else.

Consider this,  if we were to start captioning every music video and post it in Deaf Read, the number of hits are going to be so low which defies the whole purpose of demanding captioning of  lyrics.

And speaking of LIVE game, it cost money!  Used to be cheap to get in to watch LIVE sports game, but, these days are gone.

Now with some frivolous demand to caption song lyrics that the Cheerleaders are dancing to, is only going to increase the cost of admissions to these LIVE games.

The game experience is gonna get pretty expensive, all just for a song.

I watch many sports on TV and captioning is always in the way, I don't bother to watch the captioning at all.   You're gonna find out that many people don't care for these public announcements or some sportscaster's opinion about the game.  And as most hearing people will say, you should consider yourself fortunate not to have to listen to all the crap.

That aside, ADA does say we should have the right to equal access.  But, how far is too far and what constitutes a reasonable solution?

Here's a subtitled music video of Linkin Park - "Leave out all the rest" by Jadisha over at YouTube.

While other news publications like the Times and the Washington Post took a more traditional route to the debate 2nd presidential debate New York Magazine, by far my most FAVORITE magazine (although I have many "favorites") took a completely different stance on Tuesday night's events. I wish I would have seen this article sooner... perhaps I wouldn't have tuned in.

by Naomi Wolf

Is it possible to fall out of love with your own country? For two years, I, like many Americans, have been focused intently on documenting, exposing, and alerting the nation to the Bush administration’s criminality and its assault on the Constitution and the rule of law – a story often marginalized at home. I was certain that when Americans knew what was being done in their name, they would react with horror and outrage.

Three months ago, the Bush administration still clung to its devil’s sound bite, “We don’t torture.” Now, Physicians for Human Rights has issued its report documenting American-held detainees’ traumas, and even lie detector tests confirm they have been tortured. The Red Cross report has leaked: torture and war crimes. Jane Mayer’s impeccably researched exposé The Dark Side just hit the stores: torture, crafted and directed from the top. The Washington Post gave readers actual video footage of the abusive interrogation of a Canadian minor, Omar Khadr, who was seen showing his still-bleeding abdominal wounds, weeping and pleading with his captors.

So the truth is out and freely available. And America is still napping, worrying about its weight, and hanging out at the mall.

I had thought that after so much exposure, thousands of Americans would be holding vigils on Capitol Hill, that religious leaders would be asking God’s forgiveness, and that a popular groundswell of revulsion, similar to the nineteenth-century anti-slavery movement, would emerge. To paraphrase Abraham Lincoln, if torture is not wrong, nothing is wrong.

And yet no such thing has occurred. There is no crisis in America’s churches and synagogues, no Christian and Jewish leaders crying out for justice in the name of Jesus, a tortured political prisoner, or of Yahweh, who demands righteousness. I asked a contact in the interfaith world why. He replied, “The mainstream churches don’t care, because they are Republican. And the synagogues don’t care, because the prisoners are Arabs.”

It was then that I realized that I could not be in love with my country right now. How can I care about the fate of people like that? If this is what Americans are feeling, if that is who we are, we don’t deserve our Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Even America’s vaunted judicial system has failed to constrain obvious abuses. A Federal court has ruled that the military tribunals system – Star Chambers where evidence derived from torture is used against the accused – can proceed. Another recently ruled that the president may call anyone anywhere an “enemy combatant” and detain him or her indefinitely.

So Americans are colluding with a criminal regime. We have become an outlaw nation – a clear and present danger to international law and global stability – among civilized countries that have been our allies. We are – rightly – on Canada’s list of rogue nations that torture.

Europe is still high from Barack Obama’s recent visit. Many Americans, too, hope that an Obama victory in November will roll back this nightmare. But this is no time to yield to delusions. Even if Obama wins, he may well be a radically weakened president. The Bush administration has created a transnational apparatus of lawlessness that he alone, without global intervention, can neither roll back nor control.

Private security firms – for example, Blackwater – will still be operating, accountable neither to him nor to Congress, and not bound, they have argued, by international treaties. Weapons manufacturers and the telecommunications industry, with billions at stake in maintaining a hyped “war on terror” and their new global surveillance market, will deploy a lavishly financed army of lobbyists to defend their interests.

Moreover, if elected, Obama will be constrained by his own Democratic Party. America’s political parties bear little resemblance to the disciplined organizations familiar in parliamentary democracies in Europe and elsewhere. And Democrats in Congress will be even more divided after November if, as many expect, conservative members defeat Republican incumbents damaged by their association with Bush.

To be sure, some Democrats have recently launched Congressional hearings into the Bush administration’s abuses of power. Unfortunately, with virtually no media coverage, there is little pressure to broaden official investigations and ensure genuine accountability.

But, while grassroots pressure has not worked, money still talks. We need targeted government-led sanctions against the US by civilized countries, including international divestment of capital. Many studies have shown that tying investment to democracy and human rights reform is effective in the developing world. There is no reason why it can’t be effective against the world’s superpower.

We also need an internationally coordinated strategy for prosecuting war criminals at the top and further down the chain of command – individual countries pressing charges, as Italy and France have done. Although the United States is not a signatory to the statute that established the International Criminal Court, violations of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions are war crimes for which anyone – potentially even the US president – may be tried in any of the other 193 countries that are parties to the conventions. The whole world can hunt these criminals down.

An outlaw America is a global problem that threatens the rest of the international community. If this regime gets away with flouting international law, what is to prevent the next administration – or this administration, continuing under its secret succession plan in the event of an emergency – from going further and targeting its political opponents at home and abroad?

We Americans are either too incapable, or too dysfunctional, to help ourselves right now. Like drug addicts or the mentally ill who refuse treatment, we need our friends to intervene. So remember us as we were in our better moments, and take action to save us – and the world – from ourselves.

Maybe then I can fall in love with my country again.

I never over-estimate the intelligence of the American public, and so I am not shocked at the lack of knowledge exhibited by the Republicans who would take time out of a busy day to watch Palin as she massacres the way most sentences should be structured.  (For kicks look at her speeches, and then try and diagram her sentences.......no wonder it took five colleges in six years for her to get a degree.)  During her recent flurry of appearances, knowing that the McCain ticket is sinking faster than the homes which slipped into Lake Delton this spring, she has resorted to the type of campaigning that made Spiro Agnew famous, and despised.  Wishing to emulate Agnew is quite a goal, but since Palin will never have any national office she needs something to tell her grandkids about what she did during the fall of 2008.....and she can start those conversations with the baby in just a few months!

To know that conservatives would shout "kill him" while Palin speaks of Barack Obama, shows that they know nothing of the decade not so long ago when such headlines gripped the nation, and turned stomachs.  It also speaks to the fact that they seem not to have been effected by those events.  It is very telling by the words and statements being shouted at Palin rallies what type of people they are.  To yell such outlandish and disgusting bile, and not have Ms Palin stop the speech and rebuke the words and speakers shows that she is exactly what we all know her to be.

An empty-minded two-bit political hack from Alaska that is not ready for prime time.

Worse, Palin's routine attacks on the media have begun to spill into ugliness. In Clearwater, arriving reporters were greeted with shouts and taunts by the crowd of about 3,000. Palin then went on to blame Katie Couric's questions for her "less-than-successful interview with kinda mainstream media." At that, Palin supporters turned on reporters in the press area, waving thunder sticks and shouting abuse. Others hurled obscenities at a camera crew. One Palin supporter shouted a racial epithet at an African American sound man for a network and told him, "Sit down, boy."

The reception had been better in Clearwater, where Palin, speaking to a sea of "Palin Power" and "Sarahcuda" T-shirts, tried to link Obama to the 1960s Weather Underground. "One of his earliest supporters is a man named Bill Ayers," she said. ("Boooo!" said the crowd.) "And, according to the New York Times, he was a domestic terrorist and part of a group that, quote, 'launched a campaign of bombings that would target the Pentagon and our U.S. Capitol,' " she continued. ("Boooo!" the crowd repeated.)

"Kill him!" proposed one man in the audience.

Palin also told those gathered that Obama doesn't like American soldiers. "He said that our troops in Afghanistan are just, quote, 'air-raiding villages and killing civilians,' " she said, drawing boos from a crowd that had not been told Obama was actually appealing for more troops in Afghanistan.

"See, John McCain is a different kind of man: He believes in our troops," she said.

At times, Palin hinted at the GOP campaign's troubles. "It's going to be a hard-fought contest, especially in these swing states, some maybe we would not have expected," she admitted to donors. She allowed that "John McCain and I need to do a better job" of talking about the economy.

At other times, she had troubles of her own, as when she spoke over the weekend of "our neighboring country of Afghanistan" or when she got choked up at the Clearwater rally, saying, "Some of your signs just make me wanna cry," without explaining which ones or why.

But then the gloves came off, the heels came out, and Palin was once again talking about her opponent hanging out in a terrorist's living room.

I've been waiting for further developments before commenting on a couple of New York Times articles about Senator Ted Stevens (R-AK, and huge asshole) and his ongoing trial for accepting $250,000 in home improvements without reciprocal payment, knowingly, from Bill Allen, an oil magnate.

I figure I should probably start commenting on this jackass before he's acquitted or there's a mistrial, but more on that later.  Let's get to the hot steamy corruption.

Some background and hot sex from Monday's NYT:

"The day after the F.B.I. confronted Bill Allen, an Alaska oil services millionaire, with evidence that he had tried to bribe state lawmakers, he reached out to Senator Ted Stevens by telephone to discuss how their relationship might also be the subject of a corruption investigation...

...In the three conversations between Mr. Stevens and Mr. Allen played for a federal jury on Monday, Mr. Stevens repeatedly says he believes they did nothing wrong, but also raises the possibility they could go to jail if they are not careful."

Which is a nice way of Ted saying he doesn't believe it's wrong to be corrupt.  But I think we knew that.

“They’re not going to shoot us,” Mr. Stevens reassured Mr. Allen on Oct. 18, 2006. “It’s not Iraq.” At worst, he said, “we might have to pay a fine and serve a little time in jail.”

And I have a feeling for Bill Allen and Ted Stevens, serving some time together may not be such a punishment.  Sexy gay stuff in bold:

"Mr. Allen, a hulking former welder who ended up running a company that was worth $380 million, and Mr. Stevens, a Harvard Law School graduate who has represented Alaska in the Senate for 40 years, were once close friends, going to resorts together and sharing ownership of a racehorse...

... He [Mr. Allen] said he had liked and admired Mr. Stevens and wanted to help him. But he also testified that although Mr. Stevens sent him two notes asking for bills, the senator sent an emissary who told him explicitly not to furnish them. The emissary told him that the notes asking for bills were simply to create a record to protect Mr. Stevens.

In his testimony and taped calls, Mr. Allen comes across as clearly pained by his role in testifying against Mr. Stevens. Even though the F.B.I. is listening in, he repeatedly apologizes to Mr. Stevens for their problems. At one point, Mr. Allen, a gruff and rugged man, says to Mr. Stevens, “I love you, you know.”...

...In the taped conversations, Mr. Stevens, for his part, repeatedly tries to calm Mr. Allen, telling him he is “one of my best friends” and urging him to take care of his health.

“Get out in the community,” he urges Mr. Allen in a pep talk. “You’re not going to let this thing whip you.”

Mr. Stevens’s chief lawyer, Brendan Sullivan, began his cross-examination of Mr. Allen gently on Monday, having him agree that he was a generous man who liked to do favors for people like Mr. Stevens.

Mr. Sullivan noted that Mr. Stevens had done “guy things together” and that Mr. Allen had stayed overnight several times in the Stevens home. The relationship was “one of pure friendship, wasn’t it,” Mr. Sullivan asked. Mr. Allen responded to all such questions with a simple “yes” or “yep.”"

I apologize for quoting so excessively, but damn, that's hot.  Despite all my hate for Ted Stevens and corruption within the Senate, I would happily see him walk if he gives us an impassioned "if loving this man is a crime, THEN PUT ME IN PRISON!" court room speech, as he stands up from the witness box, pounds his right arm to his chest, and then throws his head up while flinging his arms out to the side like a bird taking flight.  Mr. Stevens, love will set you free.

If this ends in a real-life Thelma & Louise moment, hands gripped tight as they drive an oil tanker full of embezzled money off a cliff in Alaska, I will forgive Ted Stevens and every politician for every dollar they've ever stolen.  And I think I'm serious when I say that.

And now the boring stuff; those looking for the hot and gay can quit reading now.  The end of the previous NYT article refers to some prosecutorial incompetence (we finally get a decades-long influence government thief to trial, and the prosecutor is needlessly screwing things up?  What are the odds?):

"Judge Emmet G. Sullivan of Federal District Court put off until Tuesday a hearing on the defense lawyers’ latest call for a mistrial over what they said was evidence that the Justice Department had improperly withheld information from them. The department has called the claim “theatrics and hyperbole” and said prosecutors had not withheld any information they have been required to turn over.

Judge Sullivan earlier admonished prosecutors on two occasions for failings, though he declined to declare a mistrial."

Something for the Ted Stevens fans!  It looks pretty damn promising there will be some sort of mistrial or technical error that keeps Ted from his government-paid-for retreat with life partner Bill Allen.  Looks like Bill might have to keep picking up the bill.  More information about the impending Ted Stevens mistrial/acquittal can be found in an earlier NYT article:

"The federal trial of Senator Ted Stevens, the longtime Alaska Republican, teetered briefly on the verge of a mistrial Thursday after the discovery that Justice Department prosecutors had withheld information they were supposed to turn over to defense lawyers...

... “How does the court have confidence that the public integrity section has public integrity?” Judge Sullivan asked at the end of an extraordinary hearing he had called after dismissing the jurors for the day.

He ordered the government to turn over almost all its files to the defense, saying he no longer believed in the ability of prosecutors to make full disclosure on their own, as is customary."

So apparently the judge doesn't think the prosecutors are capable of doing their jobs.  Sounds promising?  And the defence seems pretty capable in the rhetoric department:

"Mr. Sullivan, a well-known defense lawyer, opened the day with a theatrical protest, throwing down papers at the lectern, saying that in his 40 years of practice he had never encountered such blatant government ineptitude."

So you've never encountered Mr. Stevens?  How ironic.

And now more discouraging news for those who were expecting justice:

"The government is the gatekeeper of information to the defense” was the way Judge Sullivan put it Thursday in berating Ms. Morris [one of the Federal prosecutors]. “This is not a trial by any means”...

...Ms. Morris and Mr. Sullivan traded several turns at the lectern as the arguments swiftly escalated. Mr. Sullivan, who cited his years of practice nearly a dozen times, at one point seemed to question the good faith of the prosecution. Ms. Morris got up from her seat suddenly and challenged him.

“He called me out, Judge,” she said when Judge Sullivan tried to cool things. “I hear a lot of noise coming from Mr. Sullivan.”

It was the prosecution’s second mistake in the trial. Judge Sulllivan had earlier admonished the government for sending home to Alaska a witness who might have helped the defense. The trial is to resume on Monday."

And from the WSJ Law Blog (with a fantastic headline), which sounds damning for the prosecution:

"Judge Sullivan reportedly said, “It strikes me that this was probably intentional. I find it unbelievable that this was just an error.”"

So the Judge not only seems to be openly feuding with the prosecution, Mr. Sullivan appears to suspect the prosecution of deliberately withholding information from the defense. bmaz of emptywheel has much more and apparently a much greater legal understanding than myself (though his post is pre-Bill Allen's love letter who suggested that Ted Stevens was only requesting the bills for the home improvements to create the impression of innocence.  That can be found in the first NYT article I linked to).

I've been trying to find some history on the prosecutor, Brenda K. Morris, but have failed thus far (no law background here, so I'm not familiar with what resources to use).  So please keep that in mind when I say I suspect, even though this latest mistrial call has been fought off for now, prosecutorial incompetence is looking like a larger and larger factor by the day.  When a very powerful man like Ted Stevens, a symbol of the Senate, is being tried for doing what every other Senator (and congress person) does to a slightly-lesser degree, who does it benefit to have  him successfully tried?  Judging by the latest pictures of him during the trial -- he doesn't look a day over two hundred -- it does not appear likely he'll be able to continue for long (though it does look likely he'd have a fair shot at re-election). And isn't there an election going on involving an Alaskan with ties to Ted Stevens?

The success of this trial would benefit approximately no one (that matters.  Taxpayers don't count).  I see no reason why a horrible prosecutor, with an undermining prosecutorial team, would not [oops, originally had exact-opposite-meaning typo there] be put into play in a situation like this.  Once again, I know nothing of Ms. Morris except from what I have linked to above, but the circumstance certainly lends itself to tempered incompetence.

Free Teddy!

... and the cow goes moo