Nebraska Democrats will hold a caucus on February 9, 2008, to get the jump on across-the-river neighbor Iowa. Howard Dean (remember him?) thinks it's a good idea. Given the I'm-going-before-you-do nature of the current primary system, we might as well. A few years ago prominent attorney and Democrat Vince Powers tried to do the same thing, except to do it in December prior to the election year. It fell flat. And this was before the current primary goat rope.
Look, let's do it this way: have one national primary on one day. Popular vote only for every party participating. That way no one state sets the tone for others. And maybe we'll get an early picture of who the country likes and who they don't like.
One other change I'd like to see: Change election day to a Saturday. It might not make a huge difference but I think we'd see a noticeable increase in voters.
Monday, November 26, 2007
Where the hell are the Democrats in this benighted state?
Four years ago the Nebraska Democratic Party hired a fireball executive director from Maryland who was to get the party all fired up and make the Nebraska Democratic Party something other than the other choice on the ballot (sometimes). He did pretty good: the party started a program to get a Democrat committee in all 93 counties and as best as I can figure out, they've come pretty close. That's a good thing.
But here we are going into a Senatorial race for an open seat and who's getting all the press? The GOP. Granted, it's been about candidates bailing, candidates deciding they wouldn't enforce laws they didn't like, etc. But as the saying goes, even bad publicity is better than no publicity.
Isn't it time we find out who the Democrats are going to run against Mike Johanns? Still no word from Scott Kleeb. And there just aren't a lot of other high-profile Democrats and almost none with Kleeb's charisma.
Please, please, please don't tell me we're going to run another Stormy Dean.
But here we are going into a Senatorial race for an open seat and who's getting all the press? The GOP. Granted, it's been about candidates bailing, candidates deciding they wouldn't enforce laws they didn't like, etc. But as the saying goes, even bad publicity is better than no publicity.
Isn't it time we find out who the Democrats are going to run against Mike Johanns? Still no word from Scott Kleeb. And there just aren't a lot of other high-profile Democrats and almost none with Kleeb's charisma.
Please, please, please don't tell me we're going to run another Stormy Dean.
Earmarks (formerly known as Pork Barrel Spending) are a Bad Thing
Nebraska Congressman Lee Terry (R-1st district, Omaha and surrounding area) thinks we are spending too much on "earmarked" appropriations in the coming spending bills. During the GOP domination, earmarks pork spending was de rigeur. The Democrats have reduced it by 25%. But Terry thinks that's still too much, and being spent on stupid things including a "hippie museum to Woodstock." (1)
Of course this has always been Terry's position on pork spending. Hasn't it? As Al Smith said, "Let's look at the record:"
Now of course this raises a couple of questions:
1) How come earmarks were fine with Lee prior to the Democratic takeover, but not fine now? (The answer, of course, is that earmarks are okay in the first person, but not okay in the second, as in "My earmarks will benefit my constituency," but "Your earmarks are highway robbery.")
2) This little snippet may have snuck past you, but look at it again: "[Terry] expressed concern about new House ethics rules that require lawmakers to certify that they have no financial interest in a specific earmark."
You mean Lee Terry is nervous about running afoul of ethics rules that require him to certify that he has no financial interest in a pork amendment for Omaha? Now why would that be? Of course the innocent interpretation is that Terry, as a resident of the district, would benefit from any pork spending in his district.
That's one possibility. The other is that somehow he himself was benefiting directly or indirectly from the pork spending. To be fair, Lee is an attorney and former member of various Omaha governmental bodies, so it's not like he has a construction business which would make Big Bucks for building the Omaha Meatpackers Museum (I made that up). And, of course, a citizen is innocent until proven guilty. But Lee Terry isn't a citizen. He's a congressman. And when a congressman shies at certifying he has no conflict of interest, I have to ask questions.
What's the problem with stating you'll play by the rules, Lee?
====================================
(1) So will this museum have a genuine vintage bong?
Of course this has always been Terry's position on pork spending. Hasn't it? As Al Smith said, "Let's look at the record:"
In his ad [a radio ad run on local stations and paid for with campaign funds], paid for with campaign funds, Terry poked fun at several items approved this year, such as $70 million for peanut storage and $20 million for cricket eradication. With a chuckle, he said, "They even wanted to spend your tax dollars on a hippie museum at Woodstock."Omaha World Herald Feb. 26, 2007.
"Incredibly," Terry continued, "we see tens of thousands of requests like these. . . . That's why I voted over 50 times to eliminate an earmark and have been a leader in Congress making sure earmarks are transparent, publicly debated and forced to several votes."
Terry acknowledged that, in years past, he wasn't shy about seeking earmarks for his Omaha-centered district. In addition, since he was first elected in 1998, he has voted dozens of times for spending bills that included his and other lawmakers' earmarks.
Terry made no earmark requests this year. He expressed concern about new House ethics rules that require lawmakers to certify that they have no financial interest in a specific earmark.
Now of course this raises a couple of questions:
1) How come earmarks were fine with Lee prior to the Democratic takeover, but not fine now? (The answer, of course, is that earmarks are okay in the first person, but not okay in the second, as in "My earmarks will benefit my constituency," but "Your earmarks are highway robbery.")
2) This little snippet may have snuck past you, but look at it again: "[Terry] expressed concern about new House ethics rules that require lawmakers to certify that they have no financial interest in a specific earmark."
You mean Lee Terry is nervous about running afoul of ethics rules that require him to certify that he has no financial interest in a pork amendment for Omaha? Now why would that be? Of course the innocent interpretation is that Terry, as a resident of the district, would benefit from any pork spending in his district.
That's one possibility. The other is that somehow he himself was benefiting directly or indirectly from the pork spending. To be fair, Lee is an attorney and former member of various Omaha governmental bodies, so it's not like he has a construction business which would make Big Bucks for building the Omaha Meatpackers Museum (I made that up). And, of course, a citizen is innocent until proven guilty. But Lee Terry isn't a citizen. He's a congressman. And when a congressman shies at certifying he has no conflict of interest, I have to ask questions.
What's the problem with stating you'll play by the rules, Lee?
====================================
(1) So will this museum have a genuine vintage bong?
Hot News in Nebraska
As always, the Lincoln Journal Star and the Omaha World Herald lead with sports, sports, and more sports. Tom Osborne holds forth on something or other, "Recruits playing a waiting game," etc. etc. etc.
There is good news for sports fans, and as always it comes from the women's volleyball team. They have the #2 seed in the NCAA tournament. That means they host several games. That's good, I guess. I note that they are playing in the Colosseum, which was the original "gym" on campus. It's about the size of your average high school gym. The Bob DeVaney center, just up the road, holds a lot more fans and is a classier place. I guess the girls aren't good enough. They may be on their way to another national title, but the brouhaha over the crash of the feetsball team still gets top billling.
Another day in Huskerland.
There is good news for sports fans, and as always it comes from the women's volleyball team. They have the #2 seed in the NCAA tournament. That means they host several games. That's good, I guess. I note that they are playing in the Colosseum, which was the original "gym" on campus. It's about the size of your average high school gym. The Bob DeVaney center, just up the road, holds a lot more fans and is a classier place. I guess the girls aren't good enough. They may be on their way to another national title, but the brouhaha over the crash of the feetsball team still gets top billling.
Another day in Huskerland.
Saturday, November 24, 2007
Welcome back to the Barricades
Welcome back to the Barricades. After a hiatus of several years -- there is no truth to the rumor that I was hijacked by Jon Bruning's office -- I'm writing again.
When I started the first To The Barricades, there were maybe 100 credible political blogs on both sides. Now there are millions. I have no illusions that I can compete with Daily Kos or even The Plattsmouth World Blog. But, just as I did with the first To The Barricades, I write for myself, not for anyone else. You gotta question or comment, it may inspire me to get up on my soapbox. But in general I write what I feel. That may run the gamut from commentary on the Presidential campaign (now that's a novel idea for a blog...) to the death of irony.
But join me at the Barricades. It's not as hazardous as it was back in 2000 when I started the first one. But I hold out hope. Maybe we'll all wind up on one of the Emperor's lists.
When I started the first To The Barricades, there were maybe 100 credible political blogs on both sides. Now there are millions. I have no illusions that I can compete with Daily Kos or even The Plattsmouth World Blog. But, just as I did with the first To The Barricades, I write for myself, not for anyone else. You gotta question or comment, it may inspire me to get up on my soapbox. But in general I write what I feel. That may run the gamut from commentary on the Presidential campaign (now that's a novel idea for a blog...) to the death of irony.
But join me at the Barricades. It's not as hazardous as it was back in 2000 when I started the first one. But I hold out hope. Maybe we'll all wind up on one of the Emperor's lists.
True confessions
I'm hoping that some of my former colleagues in law will read this blog from time to time. Others who know me may read it also. For their benefit, let me get this issue out of the way up front.
In 1998 I was admitted to the Nebraska bar. I practiced with a county attorney, a criminal defense firm, a general practice, a personal injury firm, and on my own. From 2004-2006 I had a sole practice. Part of the time I was office sharing with a Spanish-speaking insurance company; the rest of the time I had a small office.
The last couple of years I practiced, I became more and more disenchanted with law. I won't go into a rant about the injustice of the justice system. It is about as good as it can be without a major overhaul to which nobody will agree. (More on that anon.) As I became disenchanted, my enthusiasm for my clients' cases waned. I let things slip. I made mistakes. Towards the end I just didn't give a damn about my clients. I wasn't making any money; I had to do everything myself; they were all guilty as hell (not really true) and I hated myself for having that attitude. I knew I was in the process of screwing up my career and a lot of other things, but I just didn't care.
In August 2006, after a long discussion with my wife, I resolved to leave the practice of law in September. I took no more new cases, made arrangements to transfer existing cases to other attorneys, and began wrapping things up. I also notified the Bar Association that I would resign at the end of the year, when my license would be up for renewal.
But it's not that easy to get yourself out of a pile of crap you've put yourself into. About two weeks after I announced that I was leaving the law, I received a copy of a bar complaint from a client. She complained that I had done nothing on her case in two years, and that I kept making up excuses or imaginary court dates that didn't happen.
I had to face the proverbial music: I could not contest her allegations. So my response to the complaint was to state exactly that and that I would surrender my license immediately. The Supreme Court's Counsel for Discipline discussed this with me prior to my submitting my formal response. I must state that the attorney I spoke with was more than fair. But, as I said, I couldn't contest the allegations, I was leaving the bar anyway, and saw no reason to drag it out. I just wanted out and didn't care what happened. My response was accepted. I surrendered my license. The Court accepted my no contest response and issued an order of disbarment on December 15, 2006.
Since then, it's been a tough year for a number of reasons. But I am not asking anyone's pity or sympathy. I screwed up. I admitted it. I've accepted the consequences, even though I haven't always liked it. I did not go into "treatment" for anything, since I am no more insane than I have ever been; I am not an alcoholic, drug addict, or anything else. I was just stupid, and there isn't a lot anyone else can do for that.
For the last six months I've been preparing for the Nebraska Supreme Court Interpreter's Exam in Spanish. I don't know how well I will do. But given that I have been an interpreter in one language or another since 1973, and that most of my clientele the last three years were Spanish speakers, that seems the logical place to go. If I screw this one up... well, I will just do my best not to.
Thank you for listening to my confession.
In 1998 I was admitted to the Nebraska bar. I practiced with a county attorney, a criminal defense firm, a general practice, a personal injury firm, and on my own. From 2004-2006 I had a sole practice. Part of the time I was office sharing with a Spanish-speaking insurance company; the rest of the time I had a small office.
The last couple of years I practiced, I became more and more disenchanted with law. I won't go into a rant about the injustice of the justice system. It is about as good as it can be without a major overhaul to which nobody will agree. (More on that anon.) As I became disenchanted, my enthusiasm for my clients' cases waned. I let things slip. I made mistakes. Towards the end I just didn't give a damn about my clients. I wasn't making any money; I had to do everything myself; they were all guilty as hell (not really true) and I hated myself for having that attitude. I knew I was in the process of screwing up my career and a lot of other things, but I just didn't care.
In August 2006, after a long discussion with my wife, I resolved to leave the practice of law in September. I took no more new cases, made arrangements to transfer existing cases to other attorneys, and began wrapping things up. I also notified the Bar Association that I would resign at the end of the year, when my license would be up for renewal.
But it's not that easy to get yourself out of a pile of crap you've put yourself into. About two weeks after I announced that I was leaving the law, I received a copy of a bar complaint from a client. She complained that I had done nothing on her case in two years, and that I kept making up excuses or imaginary court dates that didn't happen.
I had to face the proverbial music: I could not contest her allegations. So my response to the complaint was to state exactly that and that I would surrender my license immediately. The Supreme Court's Counsel for Discipline discussed this with me prior to my submitting my formal response. I must state that the attorney I spoke with was more than fair. But, as I said, I couldn't contest the allegations, I was leaving the bar anyway, and saw no reason to drag it out. I just wanted out and didn't care what happened. My response was accepted. I surrendered my license. The Court accepted my no contest response and issued an order of disbarment on December 15, 2006.
Since then, it's been a tough year for a number of reasons. But I am not asking anyone's pity or sympathy. I screwed up. I admitted it. I've accepted the consequences, even though I haven't always liked it. I did not go into "treatment" for anything, since I am no more insane than I have ever been; I am not an alcoholic, drug addict, or anything else. I was just stupid, and there isn't a lot anyone else can do for that.
For the last six months I've been preparing for the Nebraska Supreme Court Interpreter's Exam in Spanish. I don't know how well I will do. But given that I have been an interpreter in one language or another since 1973, and that most of my clientele the last three years were Spanish speakers, that seems the logical place to go. If I screw this one up... well, I will just do my best not to.
Thank you for listening to my confession.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
