MSM fails to report on John Edwards

Ken Layne, editor of Wonkette, summarizes the John Edwards/love child story that the drive by doesn't have the heart (stones?) to report on. Slate also gives an explanation for the deafening silence surrounding the story.

I was duped by Edwards' faux populism he espoused when he was still jockeying his horse in the race. I should have known better about a guy that talks about the working class, but gets $400 haircuts.

The story, as Layne reminds us is "that politicians in Washington are creeps and weirdos, and whether they're Senator Larry Craig cruising for gay sex in an airport bathroom or ex-Senator John Edwards hiding from tabloid reporters in a Beverly Hills hotel bathroom, they are twisted little Caligulas pretending to be statesmen, on your dime."

Change agent for the common man

I no longer harbor illusions that most Americans possess the critical thinking to parse ideological differences between candidates for president. What has me concerned, however, is that when one candidate says one thing, like he's an agent of change, but at every turn, acts exactly like most other candidate for public office (as in saying one thing, and doing the opposite), then have the honesty to say you're voting for the guy because your an ideological hack, not someone that really believes your candidate will be any different than what your party has been offering for decades.

Take for instance Lord Barack Obama's 47th birthday party.

About 850 people attended the gala celebration, held in the ballroom of a Boston skyscraper, the 33rd floor to be exact, overlooking Boston Harbor. The guest of honor was serenaded first by singer Harry Connick Jr. and then his 10-year-old daughter, Kate. Afterwards, the entire room joined in what was described as an "animated" rendition of "Happy Birthday."

The cost for guests was between $1,000 and $4,600 per ticket. Among those, 250 also ate dinner with Obama — for $15,000 per ticket or $28,500 for a couple.

This is nothing new; candidates routinely shake down supporters for having the honor to be in their presence. It's how you become president in America, in the 21st century, and how it was done for the latter part of the 20th. Heck, Lord Obama left with $4 million in loot.

Interestingly, for a guy that seems to demonize oil, and is a member of the party of Al Gore and smaller carbon footprints, I wonder how many of the limousine liberals in attendance biked to the event, with their high end clothing and all. Come to think of it, I don't think Mr. Gore's spent much time on the bike, of late. Obama, on the other hand, looks like a cyclist, one that keeps his tires properly inflated.

The main course included porcini-crusted sea bass, which isn't the kind of cuisine that the working class, or John McCain was chowing down on, out in Sturgis.

Check out this link for the rest of the menu.

[Note: For the purposes of full disclosure, and in fairness to Mr. Gore for my crack on his weight, I'm carrying a few extra pounds on my own frame. At the same time, I'm not urging my fellow Americans to park the SUV, bike to work, and move to a cave without electricity.--JB]

Small towns run amok

It occurs to me, at a time when Americans are quick to blame the federal government, and those in the Beltway for many of our problems, the systemic root of our failures and shortcomings might be much closer to home.

While railing at some distant bogeyman seems convenient (and often less threatening), it’s much harder to confront those that you encounter in person, particularly if they have the means to get back at you for any criticism, or efforts to bring about change.

In many small Maine towns (and I’m sure similar issues exist in the other 49 states), the officials that run the town were put into their positions for a variety of reasons, the least likely being that they were the best person at the time to fill the position.

While town managers and administrators are hired by an application process that in many cases is competitive, the decision to select the final candidate is often done by those elected to do the bidding of the citizens of the town. Unfortunately, in more cases than I’m comfortable thinking about, these elected officials don’t always act in a manner that benefits the citizens of their community.

My late father-in-law, one of the smartest people I’ve ever known, and someone that I hold in the highest esteem, spent about a decade near the end of his life, serving as an administrator in several small Maine towns. This was about 20 years ago, but I remember him telling me how difficult his job was, coming into a town, and having to butt heads with entrenched town officials, like road commissioners, finance directors, and even town clerks, who resented my father-in-laws questioning existing practices. I always found this interesting, as he had over four decades of accounting experience, was a CPA, and had handled the accounts of several large firms, as well as his own successful business. Yet, many of these local yokels, with a high school diploma at best, were sure that they knew more about ordering the town finances than he did.

I haven’t thought about my father-in-law’s challenges with small town power structures for awhile, but since I’ve been following the goings-on across the river, in my town of origin, Lisbon, it occurs to me that what’s happening there is similar to what he and I used to talk about, two decades ago.

From what I can gather, reading accounts in The Lisbon Reporter, and speaking to people I have known for most of my life, there is a tug-of-war going on between those who have benefited by being on the town’s payroll, and a group of concerned citizens that have grown tired with the town’s business as usual, and some of the tactics of town employees that have grown fat at the taxpayer’s expense.

Recently, I was glancing through the latest issue of the Maine Townsman, a monthly magazine produced by the Maine Municipal Association, and sent to more than 4,500 elected and appointed officials and employees of member municipalities and other readers interested in municipal issues.

In it was an excellent article written by Dorothy Burton, a city councilmember in Duncan, Texas, and a writer and professional speaker about issues affecting small communities, like Lisbon.

Her article, "Why We Fail: Avoiding the Evils of Elective Office" ought to be required reading for the town council members in Lisbon, as well as some of the other town officials, such as the town manager, chief of police, the director of economic and community development, and others, who seem to be embracing many, if not all of the seven evils Burton lists in her acrostic, which spells out FAILURE.

• Forgetting Our Purpose


• Arrogance


• Ignoring the Core


• Lying


• Underestimating Risk


• Ruling out the Rules


• Electronic communications

Burton’s list is an excellent one, and one that all of us ought to look at, and do our own soul-searching, because it also applies to everyday interactions with the people in our own lives.

You can read Burton’s article in its entirety, here:

Durham detritus

The other morning, on one of my early morning walks with my dog, I came across a large box, and packing materials, scattered along Route 9, just prior to the gravel pit, headed south.

I’ve lived in Durham for nearly 19 years, now. Durham had been a farming community for much of its existence, and like similar communities with an abundance of open space, the last 20 years has witnessed substantial growth via residential development taking place.

I live on a section of Route 9, the road to Bradbury Mountain. I regularly walk this busy thoroughfare, along with Bernie, my 13-year-old Sheltie. Most often, my walks are in the morning, just after 5:00 am, before I head out to work. I rarely take my walks in the evening, when I return home, because Route 9 resembles a NASCAR track, with heavy traffic, and drivers that feel like they own the road, and aren’t willing to share it with a man walking his dog.

It wasn’t always this bad. When we first built, 19 years ago, the road was busy, but the volume was noticeably less, and drivers tended to drive slower, and extend courtesy to anyone out for a walk.

In addition to an increase in traffic, and driver boorishness, there has also been a substantial increase in the amount of roadside trash. This refuse comes compliments of drivers rolling down their windows and hurling unwanted items out and along the roadside.


Apparently, drivers feel that it’s alright to bomb down this road, exceeding the 45 MPH speed limit that I personally feel should be lowered, as the area is now residential, with three major subdivisions feeding into it; they also no longer have qualms about dumping their beer bottles, fast food bags, and wrappers, construction materials, in this case, appliance packaging. Worse, I now regularly find dirty diapers strewn along this two mile stretch of road.


We seem to have crossed a societal Rubicon of sorts. No longer is littering seen as an act of wrongdoing, and a blight on the community. In fact, most of these sows probably don’t even think twice. These are probably the same folks that cut you off in traffic, cut in front of you in the store (without saying “excuse me”), steal from their employers, and are raising a generation of children with no concept of respect, or etiquette, or morality.

I close with this story to show that I’m truly old-fashioned in the values, and etiquette that I value, which was instilled in me, at a formative age.

My mother, who my sister and I used to call, “Emily Post,” was a stickler for etiquette. If we were out in public, my mother would insist that I hold the door for anyone behind me, entering a building. She would say, “A young man always holds a door for others.”

We were taught to say, “thank you,” if anyone gave us a sample in a store, and “excuse me,” if we happened to cut in front of someone, while out shopping with her.

When I was eight, or nine, coming back from the dentist with my mother, she decided to treat me to a hamburger at McDonalds. This was back in the day when McDonalds was a special treat, not the second family home, like it is today.

For some reason, we ate in the car, and as we were returning home, and I had completed my meal, I rolled down the window and tossed my trash out. My mother yelled, “what did you just do?”

“I threw my McDonalds bag out the window,” I stammered, embarrassed, knowing I had done something seriously wrong.

My mother has never been a great driver, so it was with great effort that she pulled the large Plymouth Fury off to the side of the road, and pulled a U-turn, returning to the scene of my crime. When we were off the side of the road, she demanded that I get out of the car and get my garbage. Cars were passing by, a couple honked, and I was embarrassed, and mortified.

To this day, nearly 40 years later, I still think of that experience, if I’m ever tempted to even drop a gum wrapper on the sidewalk, let alone toss trash out my window.

Obviously, the pig that offloaded their packing material for their grill, didn’t have a mother (or father) that taught him/her very much about etiquette and social responsibility. Sadly, it appears that an entire generation of adults missed these valuable lessons.

Pride cometh before the fall

Our government is broken. Kaput. FUBAR! Why would I say that? Because those who get elected to do our bidding, irrespective of party, once they set up residence in the 23 square miles surrounded by reality (better known as Washington, DC), seem intent only on lining their own pockets, taxpayers be damned. If you argue its always been that way, read your history. David McCullough might be a good place to start. While corruption isn't new, there was a time when men left their homes, and vocations, to serve their term (or terms), contribute their skills and time to the commons, and came back home. That used to be the model, before our current crooks in office, turned public service into a personal ATM card.

A case in point is the indictment of Alaska Republican Senator, Ted Stevens, on seven felony counts. This is a serious blow to a minority party that is one the ropes. It also highlights how the machinations in DC are devoid of reality.

For a party potentially awaiting a November bloodbath, I hear an awful lot of clucking coming from their AM/FM radio mouthpieces. Just today, Rush Limbaugh was talking about the indictment with the same victim mentality he derides in others. Limbaugh was trotting out one of the right-wing’s tired canards, the one where all charges of wrongdoing of a good ‘ole conservative is the deceptive work of the “driveby” liberal media. Limbaugh posited that if it was a Democrat, like some Senator from one of the southern states (I’m sorry, I was driving and didn’t write it down and Mr. Limbaugh charges for access to his archived programs), this would be ignored, or downplayed.

I’m sure that other conservative commentators will be picking up this mantra, rallying around Stevens, or at least, excusing the inexcusable.

If anyone happened to be paying attention, Stevens was no political neophyte. The 84-year-old, serving his seventh term, was considered the king of Appropriations, legendary for ensuring spending earmarks for his state. His procurement of pork made him immensely popular at home—it also underscores some of the issues that some of us have with the GOP—it says one thing about fiscal responsibility, but goes out and does something entirely contrary, undermining any platform they might have to stand on when it comes to fiscal credibility. All you really need to know about Mr. Stevens, you can learn by a Google search for, “Ted Stevens” and “bridge to nowhere.” I’m linking to the excellent Washington Post article on the subject.
While many in Washington think their role is to deliver pork back to their home districts. An interesting article by Pat Toomey in the Wall Street Journal seems to contradict that idea, at least when it comes to the sentiments of the American taxpayer.

Toomey’s organization, the Club for Growth recently conducted a nationwide poll showing that voters are fed up with Washington's out-of-control spending.

Here are the particulars of the poll, from the article:

The poll was conducted in late June, surveying 800 voters. It’s margin of error was plus or minus 3.46%. Likely voters were asked the following question: "All things being equal, for whom would you be more likely to vote for the U.S. Congress: 1) A candidate who wants to cut overall federal spending, even if that includes cutting some money that would come to your district or 2) A candidate who wants to increase overall spending on federal programs, as long as more federal spending and projects come to your district?"

The results were unambiguous. Fifty-four percent of general election voters chose the frugal candidate, compared with only 29% who chose the profligate candidate. Republicans overwhelming favor less federal spending, 72% to 17%, with independents close behind at 61%. Only Democrats prefer more federal spending, but only by a plurality. Thirty-six percent of Democrats chose the more fiscally conservative candidate, with 42% choosing the alternative.

It seems pretty clear to me. Americans are sick-and-tired of politics as usual. While I have my own reservations about Mr. Obama, and his qualifications for being our next president, the hubris coming from the right will do little to change many Americans perceptions about the Republican Party.

A little humility would go a long way towards getting their flawed candidate elected in November. Instead, they continue to throw stones, while living in their own glass domiciles.