Gone Mild

When I last posted on this blog, I had directed my attention to Claire McCaskill’s support of indefinite detention of Americans without due process, and called her out on her cowardice.  At the same time, I read that Claire McCaskill refused to announce opposition to SOPA/PIPA.   (Some sites are mistakenly claiming that she was a cosponsor, but she was not.)  Of course, I immediately decided to shut my website down as a protest of her apparent silent preference for corporate profits over internet freedom, and, yesterday, other websites joined in my protest.  Even though Ms. McCaskill never actually came out in opposition to SOPA/PIPA, some of her corporate fellow-travellers did, with even Senator Roy Blunt withdrawing his support.

(In a way, I have a grudging admiration for the fact that when Claire McCaskill sells out, she stays sold even when the rest of the rats are jumping the corporate ship like Italian captains.)

Thanks to this site and a few others of similar stature like Craigslist and Wikipedia, it appears that Claire McCaskill’s attempts to harness the internet for Rupert Murdoch have been foiled.  (I’ll admit that the late-coming websites’ decision to actually notify people what they were doing was a nifty addition to my strategy of silence.)

Yesterday, Senator McCaskill voted to allow the US military to indefinitely detain Americans on American soil without giving them a right to trial by jury.  If the military says you are a terrorist, you don’t even need to be charged – you can be locked away for the rest of your life, and Claire McCaskill is okay with that.

“But I’m not a terrorist,” you say.  Well, maybe you are and maybe you’re not.  And maybe you are and don’t even know it yet.

Terrorism is a slippery concept.  It turns out that I could be labelled as a supporter of a terrorist organization because of some raffle tickets I bought in 1979.  If one of your church leaders starts talking about confronting the military for its stockpiling of nuclear weapons, or taking action against abortion providers, or questioning the behavior of the Fed, or swamping the website of a Senator, you, too, could be a terrorist.

And remember, you don’t actually even need to be a terrorist to get locked up for life under McCaskill’s plan.  You merely need to have someone in the military SAY you are a terrorist.  You don’t get to prove your innocence in a court of law.

Yes, folks, it really has come to this, and Claire McCaskill has voted in favor of the military being able to lock up whomever it chooses without even charging them.  (Roy Blunt did, too, but nobody expected better from him, did they?  After all, he’s one of those small-government types who believes the government should be able to jail anyone it chooses.)

While it’s hard to guess why Claire McCaskill voted the way she did, it’s clear that she did it out of cowardice.  Perhaps she really, truly believes that the world is suddenly too dangerous to exist without allowing the military to arrest whomever it wants.  Perhaps she lacks the resolve – the guts – to exist in a free society.

Or, more likely, she fears she will lose her election if anyone makes even the most bogus claim that she is soft on terrorism.  Perhaps she fears that she will face a commercial some day in the future that says “Claire McCaskill voted against locking up terrorists.”  It’s probably a legitimate fear – republican zealots will say and do anything to win an election.

But that’s not an excuse.  Claire McCaskill has voted to give the military rights the military should not have.  Rights that we associate with dictatorships and monarchies.  Whether she did it out of fear of terrorists or out of fear of Jeff Roe, she should have had the courage to stand up for the American public.

Mayor Sly James is in the paper today touting a new downtown hotel.  Sigh.  I told you this would happen.

There are only two groups of people who think that a downtown hotel is a good idea:  people who stand to make big money building one, and politicians who rely on the first group for donations.  It’s a pipe dream that such a hotel would ever achieve more than a 50% occupancy rate, and there is NOT A CHANCE N THE WORLD that the taxpayers will not get stuck with a multi-million dollar tab.

Who wants Kansas City taxpayers to shoulder yet another multi-million dollar failure?  Construction companies, development lawyers, cab companies, downtown landowners, and politicians who are controlled by that same group. Unfortunately, in KC, that means all politicians, even the genial ones. Oh, and the unquestioning development cheerleaders at the Star – one mustn’t forget about them!

Mayor James is wrong, horribly wrong, on the downtown hotel issue.

As I wrote just over a year ago,

First, understand that the big money wants to build a big, expensive hotel downtown, regardless of the consequences for the rest of the city. Why? Because there is a lot of money for them to make, while they bear no risk at all for the inevitable failure of their false projections.

$300,000,000. That’s the low end of what the project is anticipated to cost. That is money that will be spent – pure economic heroin jabbed into the arms of development lawyers, construction companies, consultants and landowners. Three. Hundred. Million. Dollars. (Plus the cost over-runs and change orders and litigation and – well, I would continue on but I can sense the development community reading these words as the hottest form of pornography they can imagine, and I hate to give them that much pleasure.)

Make no mistake.  If this downtown hotel idea were a good idea, it would get built with private funds.  The only reason Kansas City taxpayers are getting tossed into the mix is because somebody other than the politicians and their donors needs to be put on the hook for the inevitable failure.

I had the pleasure of meeting Jeremy Lafaver earlier this week.  He’s bright, level-headed, informed on the issues, and intent on running a clean campaign focused on reasons why he is the better candidate, rather than why his opponent(s?) are inferior.  Folks, it looks like the 44th District might be getting the kind of race it deserves.

Informed observers (that’s me) were concerned that the race to succeed Jason Kander’s seat was shaping up to be a repeat of the 2008 race.  In that race, a bright young attorney ran against a lobbyist preferred by the insiders, and the insiders responded with vile attacks and disgraceful behavior on their way to a humiliating defeat.  A repeat of that race would be a disservice to the district and to Democracy itself.  Fortunately, Jeremy Lafaver has a better plan.

In our conversation, Lafaver focused on what he sees as his key issues.  Education, Child Welfare, Quality Jobs, and Health Care will be his focus during his race, and those issues are forthrightly set out on his website, which launched yesterday.

In a prior post, I had described Lafaver as a lobbyist, and I was pleased to hear that he doesn’t shrink from the description.  ”I think experience in the legislature is a positive, and I’m proud of the work Partnership for Children has done for Missouri’s children,” he explained.  It was refreshing to meet a lobbyist who doesn’t view his occupation as a slanderous label.

My earlier concerns that 2012 would echo the prior contest are calming.  Both Lafaver and his opponent Chris Miller seem focused on the issues, and both have learned from Jason Kander’s positive example that the way to win this race is by knocking on doors and engaging with voters.  Lafaver specifically pointed out the Burke/James mayoral race as worthy of emulation for being a contest that managed to stay positive until the closing moments (when Jim Bergfalk slimed the city).  If their mutual supporters show the same level of dignity that the candidates themselves demonstrate, the 44th District will go to the polls with two good options to choose to step into Jason Kander’s massive shoes.

I wrote about this topic a couple years ago, but my tastes have changed, and the beers available have changed.  So here’s a mildly amended list of beers to serve up with turkey on Thanksgiving.  But, as I said back then, the best choice is whatever sounds good to you.  There is no wrong call on this, or in any other beer match-up.

1)  Tank 7, by Boulevard.  This stuff is perfect for a rich turkey dinner.  Light in body, flavorful, effervescent and hoppy enough to cut through the fats in the rest of the meal.  If Tank 7 isn’t available, ask your beer vendor for a Saison – it’s a French farmhouse style ale that goes great with almost any meal.

2)  Dead Guy Ale, by Rogue.  This is a rich, malty, ale version of a Maibock. It is tasty enough to stand out, but won’t dominate the meal.  If you can’t find Dead Guy, ask for a maibock.

3)  Blue Paddle Pilsner, by New Belgium.  This looks like a typical pilsner, but it is bursting with hop flavor.  The malt body is really pretty impressive, but the hops steal the show, and will awaken your palate between bites.  If you can’t find Blue Paddle, ask for an American-made hoppy pilsner.

4) Boulevard Pale Ale, by Boulevard.  One of the most under-appreciated beers in the land, this has the balance between malt and hops to wash down the whole plate of turkey, stuffing, potatoes, and pumpkin pie.  If you can’t find Boulevard Pale Ale, Sierra Nevada is a great choice, too.

5) Baltika #6, Baltic Porter.  This beer doesn’t get the love it deserves – you can usually find a 16.9 oz bottle for a couple bucks.  This is a big, rich beer, so don’t mess with it unless you are wearing loose sweat pants and going for the sheer gluttony approach to the meal.  It’s not subtle, it won’t clean your palate, and it will coat your tongue with another level of richness after turkey meat, stuffing, and pumpkin pie.

Have a great Thanksgiving, everyone!

When I heard who the Republicans were turning to for a second-string Lieutenant Governor candidate, Brad Lager’s name triggered a vague negative connotation.  When a Republican friend posted an Facebook status praising Lager for being a “good family man” and an “outstanding fiscal conservative”, I dug through the archives of the blog and unearthed my first contact with the guy - a little over 5 years ago, on a not-fast-enough-for-a-VIP stretch of highway.  Not exactly a big scandal, and I’d be shocked if there aren’t Dems who have done that and worse, but it struck an impression that his subsequent 5 years of participation in Jefferson City Republican politics haven’t erased.

The Missouri legislature is considering putting toll booths on I-70 to raise funds for highway maintenance. Implementing toll booths would require a legislative vote and a voter-approved amendment to the Missouri Constitution, but it’s possible we could see that vote in the coming year.

My predilection is to oppose toll booths.  It’s not so much the money – I would willingly pay increased taxes to have better roads in Missouri.  I don’t like the hassle of stopping for tolls, nor the “big brother” devices that could allow me to zip past the booths while having my movements recorded by bureaucrats.  The prospect of facing toll booths would discourage drivers from exiting to visit the various businesses along the highway, and our flea markets, tobacco shops and porn emporiums could suffer an economic hit.

To be fair, though, I’ll acknowledge that imposing a toll would distribute the cost of highway maintenance to those who benefit, though rough justice in that regard is already accomplished by funding the maintenance through gas taxes.  There are a host of details to be worked out – including the possibility that the work would be done by a private company, with the inevitable corruption and insider dealing that would arise from the collusion of Jeff City republicans and their big-business donors.

This bad idea has been around since at least 2002; will 2012 be the year for tolls?

Several years ago, Missouri’s 44th District overwhelmingly elected a hard-working young lawyer from outside the insular crowd of insider democrats to bring a fresh vigor to the General Assembly.  Their willingness to think outside the same crowd of lobbyists gave Missouri Democrats a huge shot in the arm, and now Jason Kander is headed toward state-wide leadership.

Chris Miller is a hard-working young lawyer who hopes that lightning strikes twice in the same district.

I met him for breakfast last week, and I was struck by his positivity and determination.  I was also struck by his early success in fundraising; in one month he has raised $15,000.  And, don’t forget the youth – he’s under thirty, and will be graduating from law school this year.  Like Kander, he’s a man on a mission, and looking forward to the challenge of his race.

So far, he has only one announced opponent, and there are a few striking parallels to the prior race.  Chris has embraced the internet by meeting with bloggers and hosting a website, while his lobbyist opponent has talked to a few other lobbyists and doesn’t have a website up.  I haven’t yet met his opponent (and there could be more), or decided who I will support.  It just might be that the 44th District will get another chance to send a fresh young hard-working Democrat to rescue Missouri’s Democratic party from the group that has led us into virtual irrelevance in Jefferson City.

In a case that somehow rings a bell for me, Joe Paterno is resigning after it came to light that he mishandled a sexual abuse case.  It seems like he values his moral authority to lead a football team.  Strange.

Kansas City’s powerful business interests are having backroom, secret meetings with Jefferson City bureaucrats about stripping the residents of the district of democratic representation.  It sounds like a crazy conspiracy theory, but it’s the truth, as reported in the newspaper.  Ironically, one of the few people we know participated in the secret meeting is the president of the so-called Civic Council of Greater Kansas City, which is a business group including many of Kansas City’s TIF Pigs, who have robbed the School District’s coffers of needed tax dollars for years.

(If you want to check out the leadership of the Civic Council, good luck to you.  They have taken their website down.  For “scheduled maintenance”.  Sure.)

The effort is part of a hasty, shaky statutory interpretation trying to seize control without allowing this board the mandated 2 years to fix a problem that has been growing since the 70s.  Why the sudden rush?  Why the secrecy?  Why the Civic Council?

If the Kansas City power-brokers really want to control the School District, I think that is wonderful.  They are welcome to run for the School Board just like any other person who cares about the students (some prefer “scholars”), assuming they haven’t fled our city for the suburbs.