 |
 |
 |
« June 2007 | Main | September 2007 »
Wednesday, August 29, 2007 - 08:10:46
Idaho Sen. Larry Craig Denied Allegations Of Affairs in 2006
He called the allegations "laughable." He probably isn't laughing anymore. Sen. Craig also thinks Bill Clinton is a "bad nasty boy." Sen. Craig recently endorse Mitt Romney saying:
Knowing Governor Mitt Romney is knowing someone who, first and foremost, has very strong family values. That is something I grew up with and believe in.
Hmmmm.......
Idaho Sen. Larry Craig Denies Allegations of Same-Sex Affairs
By Jill Kuraitis, 10-17-06
Mike Rogers, who calls himself "the nation’s leading gay activist blogger" has just finished a nationally-broadcast interview on the Ed Schultz Radio Show in which he alleges that Idaho Republican Senator Larry Craig has engaged in same-sex sexual activity.Senator Craig’s office flatly rejected the claims. "The Senator says this story is absolutely ridiculous – almost laughable," said press secretary Sid Smith. “It has no basis in fact.”
Rogers said he has talked to three men unknown to each other who all reported in detail their sexual encounters with Craig over the last four years. The men were of legal age, Rogers said. (Audio of Rogers on the Ed Schultz show is available here.)
Rogers says that digging into the private lives of politicians who support anti-gay legislation is legitimate. Because Craig supported and voted for the Defense of Marriage act, it is politically relevant to reveal these claims, Rogers said. In a letter to Craig, he wrote: "What these citizens are not being told is that some of the politicians who want their help are or have staff who are part of the so-called ‘homosexual lifestyle.’"
Rogers reported that he took "trips out west and met with folks in the Senator’s region and in the Pacific Northwest" as part of his research. Rogers said he and his advisors are solid on the sources, but they would remain anonymous. Rogers said he tried to contact the Senator, but never got a response from Craig or his staff.
Tuesday, August 28, 2007 - 10:18:32
Understatement of the year
I was at the coffee shop this morning, minding my own business, reading Time. I noticed former U.S. Attorney Bud Cummins next to me, refilling his cup. ( I've never even met him) Some friendly guy was joking with him "I thought you were trying to stay out of the paper?" Bud responded something like --- "They messed with the wrong guy." Not in a gloating way, more of in a -- they underestimated my tenacity - kind of way. If anyone should feel vindicated - it it Bud Cummins. No need to gloat anyway - and he seems far too classy to do so. He went on to say there was "one more guy out there" - I assume he means one more that needs to quit / be fired/ be prosecuted, at the Justice Department but I really wasn't trying to eavesdrop, I just found it all interesting.Monday, August 27, 2007 - 12:12:35
If its a signed copy -- its worth twice as much
I was looking online ( at half.com ) to buy a copy of Sid McMath's book "Promises Kept." Although I think I want a new copy, I saw where you could get a used one for $12.95.
That got me thinking -- I wonder how much other former Arkansas Governors books are going for ?
If you are interested in "Quit Digging Your Grave With a Knife and Fork," by Governor Mike Huckabee, you can get a copy of this timeless book for the low-low price of ....75 cents. I bet a signed copy is worth at least twice that.
Similarly, the memorable book "Kids Who Kill: Confronting our Culture of Violance," by Mike Huckabee, is also selling for......75 cents.
Likewise, you can pick up Huckabee's 1997 smash-hit "Character Is The Issue: How People With Integrity Can Revolutionize America," for 75 cents.
I've been looking but can't find any CD's by his band - not sure they have made it into the recording studio lately.
On the other hand, if you are interested in what Mitt Romney has to say in "Turnaround: Crisis, Leadership, and the Olympic Games," you will have to shell out $10.93.
Or, you can get the thriller: "From Power to Purpose: A Remarkable Journey of Faith and Compassion" by Sam Brownback for $11.49
Friday, August 17, 2007 - 18:19:10
Rove an Agnostic ?
At least according to Bill Moyers.... http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=4462Tuesday, August 07, 2007 - 15:04:58
Does Huckabee Think George Bush Is A Failure?
What does Huck really mean when he says "people don't want another Washington person because Washington has failed" ? Who is he even talking about? Romney? Not from Washington. Giuliani? New York City, so I am told. When he says Washington has failed -- I assume he means the president has failed. What else can he mean? If he means Congress has failed he should run for Congress. I think he is really talking non-sense or at least he doesn't want to identify any fellow Republicans as "Washington types," just in case one considers him to be a VP candidate.
What is more interesting about this rare national press coverage of Huck is that -- not one quote of substance is reported. From this article -- no one knows anything about him or where he stands. Of course - his time spent on Governor was light on substance as well.
From NBC’s Andrew Merten
Huckabee was also interviewed by NBC’s Matt Lauer on MSNBC, and touted himself as a “Washington Outsider,” striking a tone somewhat similar to Obama’s and Edwards.’
 |
When asked about his plans for competing in the Ames Straw Poll this Saturday, Huckabee referenced his Arkansas hometown, saying, “We’re going to be there with Hope watermelons. If nothing else brings them our way -- 150-pound watermelon should do it.”
He also talked about not wanting to go negative on other opponents, using a basketball analogy to do so. The former Arkansas governor said in basketball, there are two strategies: play dirty, using elbows to “cripple” your opponents or be able to shoot well.
Huckabee said he’d like to think he can be the guy “who can hit the 3-pointers.”
Obama, whose basketball interest has been well documented, has also used basketball analogies on the trail, saying he’s “skinny, but tough” and that he has “sharp elbows.”
What do you mean ? I can't use my work computer to have an affair ?
I have written here previously about the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act and consider myself a strong supporter of the FOIA. When I first read that the Arkansas Supreme Court rules that some emails Ron Quillan sent would be allowed to remain secret - I was mildly outraged. I think my outrage comes from the fact that as a former Pulaski County employee myself -- I felt as though government employees have no expectation of privacy if they chose to keep emails on their computers at work. Here is where the lawyer in me comes out. However, there is a difference between expectation of privacy and the actual words of the FOIA. After reading the Supreme Court's decision - I was persuaded their view was logical and the correct interpretation of the FOIA. As I tell people all the time -- you learn all sorts of things when you actually read what a law says, not what you think it should say. The actual opinion can be found in full at: http://courts.state.ar.us/opinions/2007a/20070720/07-669.pdf As the Court points out -- the issue is whether the emails are "public records" as defined by the FOIA. In Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-105(a) the FOIA defines public records as follows: (5)(A) "Public records" means writing, recorded sounds, films, tapes, electronic or computer-based information, or data compilations in any medium required by law to be kept or otherwise kept and that constitute a record of the performance or lack of performance of official functions that are or should be carried out by a public official or employee, a governmental agency, or any other agency wholly or partially supported by public funds or expending public funds. All records maintained in public offices or by public employees within the scope of their employment shall be presumed to be public records. As you can see -- this is not just anything produced by an employee. The records have to be in the scope of their employment. Of course, flirty emails would typically not be in an employees scope of employment. This case is difference because Quillan was having an affair with a county contractor -- and therefore he commonly mixed work discussion and personal discussions. Once the case was remanded, Judge McGowan again ruled that most of the emails were subject to FOIA because of this mixing of social and work topics. Quillan was not only a thief but he was a fool. He could have easily have used a separate private email system such as hotmail to conduct his affair. He knew his emails were capable of being read by people at the County or even subject to FOIA. So I agree with the Supreme Court that not everything is subject to FOIA. Even government employees have some privacy interests. However, I don't think they should. The FOIA should be modified to make clear that unless the records fall under a specific exception --- emails sent through the state inmate system are all subject to FOIA with some narrow exceptions. Having an affair should not be one of these areas protected. As the Corut notes, it is stretching the meaning of the statute to argue that email communication concerning an affair having anything to do with the scope of employment. This is a leglislative issue --- not one for the Surpeme Court. The legislature should make is crystal clear that public computers are to be used for public purposes -- not private affairs. There is a separate issue here as well. We hope and expect our public officials to act in ways that aren't arbitrary. In this case -- it seems unfair that the head of county government gets to decide what is public and private email correspondence. What if the county had done what DHS did - and simply declare that all of the emails were public -- Quillan would have had no recourse it would seem, as it should be. It would be easier to create a bright-line rule --- there is no such thing as personal, private emails stored on government computers. I hope some FOIA supporter in the legislature remembers this case in two years and fixes this apparent loophole. As I already mentioned -- DHS didn't think twice and simply handed over the emails. Our county leaders decided to fight to protect a thief's privacy. This has to be one of the worst PR decisions as well as waste of taxpayer funds I've seen in a long time.Monday, August 06, 2007 - 17:02:47
How is this different than fascism ?
If we have to be scared that if we read certain articles - the FBI will come knocking--- what good is freedom of speech?Jim Stawniak
"The FBI is here,"Mom tells me over the phone. Immediately I can see my mom with her back to a couple of Matrix-like figures in black suits and opaque sunglasses, her hand covering the mouthpiece like Grace Kelly in Dial M for Murder. This must be a joke, I think. But it's not, because Mom isn't that funny.
"The who?" I say.
"Two FBI agents. They say you're not in trouble, they just want to talk. They want to come to the store."
I work in a small, independent bookstore, and since it's a slow Tuesday afternoon, I figure, "Sure." Someone I know must have gotten some government work, I think; hadn't my consultant friend spoken recently of getting rolled onto some government job? Background check, I think, interviewing acquaintances ... No big deal, right? Then, of course, I make a big deal about it in front of my co-workers.
"That was my mom," I tell them. "The FBI's coming for me." They laugh; it's a good joke, especially when the FBI actually shows up. They are not the bogeymen I had been expecting. They're dressed casually, they speak familiarly, but they are big. The one in front stands close to 7 feet, and you can tell his partner is built like a bulldog under his baggy shirt and shorts.
"You Marc Schultz?" asks the tall one. He shows me his badge, introduces himself as Special Agent Clay Trippi. After assuring me that I'm not in trouble, he asks if there is someplace we can sit down and talk. We head back to Reference, where a table and chairs are set up. We sit down, and I'm again informed that I am not in trouble.
Then, Agent Trippi asks, "Do you drive a black Nissan Altima?" And I realize this meeting is not about a friend. Despite their reassurances, and despite the fact that I haven't committed any federal offenses (that I know of), I'm starting to feel a bit like I'm in trouble.
They ask me if I was driving my car on Saturday, and I say, reasonably sure, that I was. They ask me where I went, and I struggle for a moment to remember Saturday. I make a lame joke about how the days run together when you're underemployed. They smile politely. Was I at work on Saturday? I think so.
"Were you at the Caribou Coffee on Powers Ferry?" asks Agent Trippi. That's where I get my coffee before work, and so I tell him yes, probably, just before remembering Saturday: Harry Potter day, opening early, in at 8:30.
So I would have been at Caribou Coffee that Saturday, getting my small coffee, room for cream. This information seems to please the agents.
"Did you notice anything unusual, anyone worth commenting on?" OK, I think. It's the unusual guy they want, not me. I think hard, wondering if it was Saturday I saw the guy in the really cool reclining wheelchair, the guy who struck me as a potential James Bondian supervillain, but no: That was Monday.
Then they ask if I carried anything into the shop -- and we're back to me.
My mind races. I think: a bomb? A knife? A balloon filled with narcotics? But no. I don't own any of those things. "Sunglasses," I say. "Maybe my cell phone?"
Not the right answer. I'm nervous now, wondering how I must look: average, mid-20s, unassuming retail employee. What could I have possibly been carrying?
Trippi's partner speaks up: "Any reading material? Papers?" I don't think so. Then Trippi decides to level with me: "I'll tell you what, Marc. Someone in the shop that day saw you reading something, and thought it looked suspicious enough to call us about. So that's why we're here, just checking it out. Like I said, there's no problem. We'd just like to get to the bottom of this. Now if we can't, then you may have a problem. And you don't want that."
You don't want that? Have I just been threatened by the FBI? Confusion and a light dusting of panic conspire to keep me speechless. Was I reading something that morning? Something that would constitute a problem?
The partner speaks up again: "Maybe a printout of some kind?"
Then it occurs to me: I was reading. It was an article my dad had printed off the Web. I remember carrying it into Caribou with me, reading it in line, and then while stirring cream into my coffee. I remember bringing it with me to the store, finishing it before we opened. I can't remember what the article was about, but I'm sure it was some kind of left-wing editorial, the kind that never fails to incite me to anger and despair over the state of the country.
I tell them all this, but they want specifics: the title of the article, the author, some kind of synopsis, but I can't help them -- I read so much of this stuff.
"Do you still have the article?" Probably not, but I suggest we check behind the counter. When that doesn't pan out, I have the bright idea to call my dad at work, see if he can remember. Of course, he can't put together a coherent sentence after I tell him the FBI are at the store, questioning me.
"The FBI?" he keeps asking. Eventually I get him off the phone, and suggest it may be in my car. They follow me out to the parking lot, where Trippi asks me if there's anything in the car he should know about.
"Weapons, drugs? It's not a problem if you do, but if you don't tell me and then I find something, that's going to be a problem." I assure him there's nothing in my car, coming very close to quoting Rudy Ray Moore in Dolemite: "There's nothin' in my trunk, man."
The excitement of the questioning -- the interrogation -- has made me just a little bit giddy. I almost laugh out loud when they ask me to pop my trunk.
There's nothing in my car, of course. I keep looking anyway, while telling them it was probably some kind of what-did-they-know-and-when-did-they-know-it article about the buildup to Gulf War II. Trippi nods, unsatisfied. I turn up some papers from the
"Journalism," I say. As I duck back into the car, I hear Agent Trippi informing his partner, "He's going to UGA for journalism" in a way that makes me wonder whether that counts against me.
Back in the store, Trippi gives me his card and tells me to call him if I remember anything. After he's gone, I call my dad back to see if he has calmed down, maybe come up with a name. We retrace some steps together, figure out the article was Hal Crowther's "Weapons of Mass Stupidity" from the Weekly Planet, a free independent out of
To tell the truth, I'm kind of anxious to hear back from the FBI, if only for the chance to ask why anyone would find media criticism suspicious, or if maybe the sight of a dark, bearded man reading in public is itself enough to strike fear in the heart of a patriotic citizen.
My co-worker, Craig, says that we should probably be thankful the FBI takes these things seriously; I say it seems like a dark day when an American citizen regards reading as a threat, and downright pitch-black when the federal government agrees.
Special Agent Trippi didn't return calls from CL. But Special Agent Joe Parris,
"In this post-911 era, it is the absolute responsibility of the FBI to follow through on any tips of potential terrorist activity," Parris says. "Are people going to take exception and be inconvenienced by this at times? Oh, yeah. ... A certain amount of convenience is going to be offset by an increase in security."
 |
  |
| © 2004 - 07 Arkansas Times. All Rights Reserved. |  |
