Pro-Union, Anti-Card Check? Possible, I think

My thoughts on Card Check were refreshed by this article from The Hill, a DC-based news service, that said former West Wing stars Martin Sheen, Bradley Whitford and Richard Schiff had more to say on the matter than the actual politicians at a Labor Rally in Washington today.

I say they had something to say on the matter of Card Check, but in reality, from the report, they said nothing about EFCA, but a great deal about the benefit of Unions in general, a most agreeable point.

I was on the horn with Alan Hughes, President of the Arkansas AFL-CIO regarding another article. With Democratic Senators finicky about how to handle the Employee Free Choice Act in a right-to-work state, who better to talk to than the chief delegate of Labor and get his take?

Needless to say, he was agitated.

Asked what he thought about Sen. Lincoln saying the matter was 'not on her radar,' Hughes laughed. "Huh, I believe that it is definitely on her radar," Hughes said. He then went on to run on the point that the NBC West Wingers would make a few weeks later.

"How can you be for Unions and be against Card Check?" Hughes clamored. "You can't."

Nobody thinks Unions are bad. In fact, they're necessary to balance the power of the employer and the power of the employee.

Notice the key word there is 'balance.'

My best good buddy John Brummett has reluctantly been all over Card Check. He says that Unions are getting ready to compromise and 'make some sausage.' I'm reminded of what he said about the biggest spur in the EFCA argument, the secret ballot:

You can be pro-union without wanting unions to reap an inappropriate advantage, just as you can root for the Razorbacks without wanting the officials to give them the game with unfair calls.

Like I said. Balance.

I'm all for watching people's backs against the big, oppressive businesses. But who watches the business' back? Those are made up of people, after all. Can't have one group dominating the other.

It's that whole 'Quis custodiet ipsos custodies?' bit again.

UPDATE: I was right. The Artificially Intelligent Panzer has been so totally super-psyched about it ALL DAY.

W: Memoirs, Baseballs, and Whatnot

A couple of weeks ago, I had the great pleasure of watching Will Ferrell's one-man Broadway show, You're Welcome, America: A Final Night with George W. Bush.

It was absolutely wonderful.

Delightfully and unexpectedly raunchy, Ferrell retired his beloved caricature by unloading every bad thought or misstep that one who hated Bush as sincerely as Ferrell does (he has stated publicly that, despite a tradition as such, he would not want to ever meet the person he so famously portrayed on SNL) could ever conjure, guns-blazing. It may be the last we see of the truly hilarious depiction of No. 43.

For awhile, it should be the last we see of any depiction, real or imagined, of George W. Bush.

In the UFW archives, I've rehashed my optimist's guide to the Bush Legacy. It's not pretty, un-spectacularly amounting to a "nowhere-to-go-but-up" scenario. I stand by it. The bar is set pretty low, anyway.

But now I hear about his 2010 memoirs about the decisions he made while in office, and the circumstances as he interpreted them during that decision-making process. That was a couple of weeks ago. Today, ESPN tells me that he's throwing out the first pitch for the first game of the Texas Rangers this season.

Bush would do well to sit back and let the smoke thin out a little longer than a few months than to bust back onto the national spotlight.

Cheny is sticking his nose into the limelight, to the tune of thunderous boos and hisses, even from Republicans.

There will come a time when his voice may want to be heard. Not by everyone, mind you, but by some. But for right now, even the GOP is trying to figure out how to move on Bush free.

Presidents are often guided by precedents, and skewing from those boundaries can often lead to hot water. One such precedent is to not speak ill of another President while they're in office, even if they're of a different party. You never heard that much from Bill Clinton about W, until he began campaigning for his wife, in which case he subscribed to the obligatory shackling of Bush to the GOP at large. That criticism is often taken poorly, which is why Jimmy Carter and Clinton aren't the best of buddies.

Another such precedent, the precedent for a President to fade into the background for awhile, ought to be heeded more actively by W. There's not a lot of good, if any at all, that can come from this.

Aside, of course, from a Disney-esque freak accident that enables the President from tossing 103 mph fastballs in his opening day pitching. That'd be noteworthy. But otherwise, let's just save it.

Making Tim Tebow Mad By Voting Against His Bill Will Lead To Your Ultimate Demise

Florida's Equal Access Policy — which allows home-schooled children to participate in public school programs — allowed a son of missionaries to fling some pigskin around.

Worked out pretty well for both him and the state which allowed him.

I can't see any reason why Sen. Gilbert Baker's bill to allow Arkansas' home-schoolers to do the same thing should fail.

What's the detriment? So long as the insurance is up, the student academically qualifies according to state standards, and the kid lives within driving distance of the school, what's the rub?

The rub I hear most often is that the school would have to finance a person who is not a student. "They've made their bed," opponents say. "Now they have to sleep in it. Now they have to pay the consequences of this decision."

The argument that the priorities of some outsiders shouldn't take the priority over an insider, who attends the school, has some merit. If there is a roster limitation or something (which I'm not sure there is), perhaps there is a reasonable argument that says if there's no room, the kid who goes to the school in question should get the spot.

But I bet that there will always be enough room for another kid. So long as he can contribute to the team, and he isn't a detriment, and all of the aforementioned qualifications are met, why not let the kids play? Is some legislator worried that his boy won't be in the pocket come fall?

At the very least, we can make the pool a little deeper for those Razorbacks. God knows their running a little thin these days. Although, I heard decent things from Spring Practices this past week.

Fear of a One Party System? Try Four

The word of the week seems to be "infighting."

Republicans are split on what to do about the budget. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is having to fend off an aggressive left flank.

Some Republicans were chastised for voting for the AIG-bonus-supplexing bill. Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi are having closed-door shouting matches.

Can't we all just get along?

Even with a tremendous choke hold on the clear majority, Democrats are starting to dig a line in the sand, dividing the party between the far-Left and middle-Left. A coalition of 16 or so Senators claim in the New York Times and elsewhere that they don't wish to water down out Leftward President's agenda, but to enhance it. Many in the far-Left cry foul.

Not to kick a man when he's down, but outnumbered Republicans find themselves fracturing over principle and pragmatism. Sticking to their guns, at times, has landed them the moniker of "The Party of No." Playing ball with the team that has all of the cards at this point labels them turncoats.

While flipping through the channels, sometimes a case of butterfingers causes me to drop the remote, and it comes to pass that I end up listening to the talking heads, or something equally dreadful. Olbermann has taken to referring to Republicans as "the next Wig Party," due to their overwhelming defeats in aught-six and eight.

It seems more likely to me that four parties might emerge. Like a softball outfield, you'd have your Left, Left-Center, Right-Center and Right. Like the Federalist Papers' solution for factions, perhaps Publicus' notion of multiplying and diversifying instead of unifying would be the most ideal solution.

I don't actually see this happening, by the way. I think there will always be mainly Republicans and Democrats from here on out. But the members of those parties — and their platforms — are always subject to change.

But interesting thought, perhaps.

Slick Obama

Our new President is a smooth character.

He goes on Leno. He goes to basketball games. He's the regular Smith everybody wanted and wants to go to Washington, but he's also the Arthurian Knight of our dreams, an icon so bright that he remains quite popular in the midst of a number of cabinet appointments gone sour, and an at best loathsome economy.

And now he's kicked the dust off these traditional, meddlesome news outlets and has gone straight to the people.

The President is hosting an online town hall meeting. Rather than taking questions from the press, he's taking them from the people.

Never mind that there are already close to 70,000. Never mind that there's no way he can possibly answer every one of those questions, and that the filtering process might be, I don't know, favorable to him, maybe even pre-scripted for him.

He'll get asked tough questions. He'll give straight answers. He'll be praised by some. He'll pass praise to someone else in his cabinet, spreading it around with thoughtful magnanimity. He might even let some criticism get through. He politely crush it.

He'll walk away being a new politician, a true man of the people, connecting with the commoner in his own medium.

On Bill Clinton, I heard a wise sage ask a question about his sincerity in light of his obvious political savvy.

"So there you sat in the audience, asking yourself yet one more futile time whether this was an instinctively good man or a consummate political being, and whether this person or any person could possibly be both."

I'm not about to compare Obama to Clinton in the dawn of his administration, but I think this is a good question of all politicians. And, after all, the President is now under the 24-hour surveillance of the people's now technologically advanced eye.

Guns In Church? Again? Nope.

I've spoken on the matter of Guns in Church before. You can drum it up on these archives, and see what I thought about it then. It's pretty much what I think about it now.

But I have had some good conversations in the meantime. One of which, was very helpful.

I spoke with an officer who was hired by a church to stand guard. The appearance of an officer may be unsettling, he said, but to many, it may be comforting. This officer has guarded numerous churches in Little Rock, and even began attending one on his off Sundays.

Probably needless to say, he had had many a conversation with pastors and other law enforcement officials on the subject.

"The pastors know their flock," said the officer. "They know that there are some people out there who can carry a gun, policemen, maybe."

"I've known of pastors to ask those officers to bring their guns to church," said the officer, with over 20 years of experience. "It's legal. It protects them. And nobody's the wiser. And, the best part, the church can look like a church, without all of those big signs."

A novel idea, I think, from someone in the know. Of course, not every pastor will know his or her flock well enough to tell a guest from an intruder — those people who one really has to worry about. But these things aren't new.

The officer said that on the very Sunday I was questioning him, a man had left a threatening message on the church's answering machine, apparently vexed that one of the pastors didn't want to collaborate with him on some project for television. They had his picture, and if he showed up, he would have been escorted. The officer recognized the member.

We obviously don't want what happened in Illinois to happen here. But I'm not sure allowing registered gun owners to pack heat in church is going to be much of a deterrent. But maybe the pastors can take charge of the situation as well.

It sounded like a pretty good idea to me at the time, anyway.

Card Check? Dead?

I got an email today from someone asking me if I thought Arlen Specter's decision on Card Check would have any effect on the decisions-in-waiting from our own Senators, Lincoln and Pryor.

Here's that response.

I'm not too surprised by this. Specter, despite his very centrist tendencies, is still a Republican. His biggest campaign will be the primaries that those in the further-Right of in Pennsylvania are beginning to mount. It wouldn't have made sense for him to vote for it, especially if he is going to stay a Republican, which he has avowed to do several times over.

As for Lincoln and Pryor, I think we'll get more of the same, and an eventual 'no.'

Lincoln has made up her mind to vote no for it. She'll likely get a pass from the party for it, because the writing is all over the wall: Her right-to-work state isn't for it. She's up for re-election. Such a vote would make her re-election more difficult. There it is.

The trick for her now — and my sources in Washington tell me is now her plan — is to do this in the most Union-friendly way possible, maybe a promise for union devotion afterward or something. I don't know. I think the national hubbub she received about it has helped to do some of the aforementioned wall writing. Or at least to do it in bolder letters.

Pryor is a bit more peculiar, to me, anyway, simply because he's not up for re-election, so he seemingly is a bit more insulated than Lincoln. He may pick up some party clout by sticking it to his right-to-work state and taking up for his party's agenda, because he knows it won't ultimately pass, and he may have time to rectify such an action with his state in the time it takes to run a campaign.

I still don't think he'll do it, though. It's still a pretty close vote, even with a certain Specter vote against. And, it'd be hard to raise money around the state for his eventual re-election campaign.

Of the two, I think Pryor would be more likely, but I don't think either will.

Obama Up, Congress and "Direction" Down

Real Clear Politics has an interesting (at least to me, anyway) poll that I think is reflective of the business as usual in Washington.

President Obama's approval numbers are doing alright, hovering around 60 percent. For the fanfare he received upon his inauguration, one would think that his numbers would still be somewhere in the 924 kajillion percent range, but this economy has understandably darkened most people's moods.

He has had to replace and defend more of his appointed associates than anyone in recent history. His Recovery and Reinvestment Stimulus has received a bevy of question marks, most notably the line that allowed for AIG bonuses that riled the public up to the point of lethal threats. And his main man Timothy Geithner has yet to put his feet on solid ground, while his toxic asset purchasing plan has yet to be determined as successful or hare-brained, with many experts leaning toward the latter.

Brummett gave him an arrow down this weekend. I give him an arrow that has yet to be pointed. He really does deserve a fair shake at this substantial, but not wholly insurmountable crisis.

Congress has its mandate, so says Speaker Pelosi, and now much charge forward to the tune of an abysmal George W. Bushian approval rating of 36.8 percent. Speaking of W., his ratings in the last two years were often better than the Democratic Congress with which he quarreled in his last two years in office. Ouchtown.

This isn't unexpected; Everyone hates Congress.

Sure, people enjoy their own delegates, but loathe the remaining. That means while the average Arkansan applauds their six homebodies (four Congressmen, one Senator, and one Senatorita), they just can't stand the other 529 guys. Like the imitable George Carlin said, paraphrasing, "To us, all of their stuff is s**t, but to them, all of their s**t is stuff."

But the odd blending of these two may yielding the most suprising entry. The overall direction of the country has an even lower and even more stomach-turning approval rating of 35.8 percent. Granted, "overall direction of the country" is a vague description that, in fact, doesn't describe anything much at all.

But what do polls mean in the first place? This one seems to show what everyone else already understands: It's tough out there.

Senate Aide on AIG: "Out of Control"

I wrote about some of the claws that Blanche Lincoln and others clearly had for Public Enemy No. 1, AIG. Those guys and their bonuses were and are an affront to decency, says many or most or all.

Our very own Mike Ross led legislation to put these morons in their place, taxing them to the tune of 90 percent of their income through these bonuses, and many still think it's not enough.

Luckily, I've got a man on the scene.

My agent in Washington, who as I've explained, works for a high-ranking Senator and fills me in on the dirt, had this to say, which I found interesting:

This AIG thing has gotten way out of control here.

We are getting swarmed with people who despite hating AIG, don't want to the bill because they think it is ridiculous, because they are taxing them at a 90% clip. and only targeting specific companies and people.

It is to the point that it is endangering Dodd, and Republicans are loving it. He threw Obama under the bus by saying he put in the amendment that changed the rules of TARP at the behest of the White House.

Interesting point, no? People are worried about the specificity of the tax targeting specific people? It's completely backward, ridiculous, and wrong, but interesting nonetheless.

I think these people are a little crazy, but not nearly as crazy as the lack of oversight that went into the bailout and stimulus that got us here. How quickly could one physically read the 1,073 pages that "accidentally" included an specific exemption from such activities.

I don't know. There's a word that describes the mass hysteria that is going on. It rhymes with a vulgar conjugation of General Custer's last name and a duck. That's the most apt word I can think of, anyway.

President Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho

If you blare this loudly in your place of business or worship, you will likely be admonished by your boss or Lord.


Brummett and I were jawing about this movie, Idiocracy, yesterday while discussing President Obama, who is scheduled to appear on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno.

Obama has also made some headlines on ESPN this week, "following up on a campaign promise" by filling out an NCAA Tournament bracket.

I don't really have a problem with all this. I'm a huge comedy fan to the point of academia, and I've filled out a couple of brackets myself. What's wrong with the President being a normal guy?

Well, nothing really. It's just that the President, while not being royalty or anything ridiculous like that, is our highest office, our most lofty representative, our highest ambassador. There's a certain decorum, a certain prestige that ought to be associated with the office.

I don't think this is a large infringement on that. He's certainly not going to say or do anything that will really hurt him politically. And I think that there's something to be said about showing a little humanity, especially with such an already-iconic president as Obama (still waiting on the Jimmy Carter skull cap).

But sometimes you have to wear a tie to work. And sometimes, work is around the clock.

Taxable Deterrent? Alcopops? Fruit?...I Need a Drink

A bill to impose a higher tax "alcopops," or in other words those sweet and alcoholic beverages you used to sneak when you were in high school because you knew your dad wouldn't miss them, failed in the House Rules Committee today.

The bill would not only tax these unmanliest of nectars, but also keep them out of grocery and convenience stores.

The role call speaking for the bill apparently included a senior at the U of A, who among others, testified that the largest groups of people to purchase such beverages includes women between sixth and twelfth grade. For shame!

A panel endorsed the tax in October, probably miffed due to a lack of invitations to the Stovall Halloween Party 2k8.

The argument seemed to be that these poor youngsters are just having too much free-swingin', free-swigin' access to these fruity spirits, so we ought to tax the crap out of them and their allowance money. Because we all know teenagers, when faced with the choice of a new video game or hooch, will always choose video games.

(Slaps forehead.)

Luckily, this laughable bit o' legislatin' got turned down by Robbie's Rough Rule Riders in the House. But the bill itself brings up an interesting notion that I recall having when this whole cigarette tax was being brought up and ultimately run through the legislation: Taxing to save lives.

Are taxes intended to be deterrents? I sure hope not. It's a dutch door. From a defensive stand point, yes, because these things that are getting taxed are bad and no good, like cigarettes and...Mike's Hard Lemonade (slapping my forehead again). So in order to keep people from doing them, the bad things, the state ought to tax it, making them unaffordable to those who don't garner paychecks, but allowances.

My gut reaction to the cigarette and tobacco tax was that the government might be making investments in the self-harm of Arkansas youths, but upon calling the governor and the Tobacco Control Board for another story, a reasonable answer sufficed.

The costs incurred by these vices is directly proportional to the tax. So by raising the cigarette tax, for instance, the state might be reaping the benefits of a bad habit, but figures the deterrent will lower the cost of the health issues that the tax is for, eventually leveling out.

I'm not sure sure what a tax is on sweet hooch is supposed to raise money for. Awareness about the dangers of underage drinking? Awareness of the dangers inherent in drinking and driving? Those can't be taught without raising a tax?

Kids don't understand taxes. They might understand raised prices, but they don't get that whole notion of a tax as a deterrent. They're going to do what they want to do, often regardless of the prices.

Maybe that's why it got killed in the House Rules gauntlet. I don't know. But this whole bit about taxation as a deterrent is still mighty peculiar. If a vice is bad enough, it ought to be illegal in the first place. If it's not that bad, then why ought the taxes be raised to curb its use?

What's In a Name?

According to the Hill, Democrats are lobbying for their Republican chum Arlen Specter, R-Pa., to go ahead an come on over the fence, abandoning his GOP for the DNC.

According to the article, the governor of Pennsylvania, as well as the Arkansas traveler and VP Joe Biden, have been pushing him to go ahead and defect already, but apparently Specter will not relent, fearing the extinction of moderate Republicans.

I think the entire operation, from both sides of the agenda, can be described by one word: Futile.

Just weigh the pros and cons. Securing that 60th and filibuster proof vote is obviously high on the party agenda for Democrats. They've got the legislature by the throat, now they want to hit em where it hurts. Pelosi is just rigid with anticipation of a rampant Democratic "mandate" that sounds something akin to Manifest Destiny.

But what would Democrats be getting that they do not already possess? Specter has made national headlines since last week regarding the Employee Free Choice Act, or card check, because of the bind in which he finds himself; Being in a pro-union state with a pro-business party, one that may find someone a little more to their liking in the 2010 primaries.

Specter has been widely regarded as a R.I.N.O., Republican in Name Only, due to his centrist tendencies. So what are Democrats getting other than a little more solidarity and another name on the roster?

For the very reasons I listed for the explanation regarding his EFCA plight, it would not behoove Specter to join those Democratic ranks. He's been elected several times over, despite his centrist record and his admittedly Democratic past. There are no Democratic challengers. He's already as far left as it's going to get in this Senate race. So why lower his shoulder and plow through the wall and into the Democratic party? It wouldn't benefit him much; His re-election campaign is squared solely on the shoulders of another Republican, whether he's in the GOP or not.

Plus, I thought our elected representatives were supposed to represent their constituents, not their party, so says Joe Biden while in Little Rock. He let Sen. Blanche Lincoln off the hook by saying he knew that if the party's interest and Arkansas' interest ever conflicted, he was both confident and content with the fact that Blanche would side with her state.

The Democratic party seems to be taking one Senatorita off the hook, and is trying to put a Senator on.

Is Breaking Someone's Thumbs a "Legal Avenue?"

Briefly, on Obama vs. AIG.

AIG was/is broke, and has accepted large sums of bailout cheddar in order to stay afloat, only to turn around and issue about $165 million in executive bonuses under "contractual obligations."

Obama says no dice, fool. He's encouraging his man in the field, Timmy "Asthma" Geithner, to pursue "every legal avenue" to make sure that these people can't pay these bonuses.

It's quite the pickle.

The President is still trying to stimulate the economy but let the businesses play ball. But these businesses — the executives of which by the way, haven't really proven themselves to be, how do you say, good at their jobs — are refusing. Admittedly, their CEO Libby has bitten the sacrificial bullet, taking a tremendous pay cut to one dollar, but that's about $164,999,999 too little of a cut, says most.

The government already took over one bank, Citigroup. I don't think they want to take over another (although they already own a measly 80 percent of AIG). Then we're getting into some pretty serious territories over government control of businesses, more socialist angst, etc. etc. Even with their controlling stake, politicians are put off about just what to do.

This fellow from The Daily Beast has a pretty neat idea: Why doesn't Obama just ask them to forgo their bonuses? Not threaten with pseudo-legalese, or make them criminals in the public eye, but simply ask them because their country needs it. The author points to the need for sacrifice that is apparent during war times, and equates the current climate to economic warfare.

Obama is set to go on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno on Thursday, the only sitting President to do so, and likely one of the only Presidents who can garner enough public appeal to make a pleasant appearance. Don't expect any shoe tossers. Here's where Obama will be at his best: Outside of politics, drumming up public support for his economic vision.

The point is this — Don't expect AIG to win verses the President. In fact, it'd be best for everyone if the two just found a common ground. But so far, neither have budged. Obama might be able to take a graceful offensive; Use his best weapon (public appeal) to wrap his arm around the shoulders of AIG and give them a hug. Or a squeeze?

Tumbleweeds Infest Legislative Halls

LITTLE ROCK — Tumbleweeds have swarmed into the capitol in what most call "The most exciting event to happen in the legislature in weeks."

The collection of rounded grassy refuse rolled all the way from the Senate chambers to the main atrium where a swift wind from an open door blew it right to the steps leading up to the Governor's office.

It remained there for twenty minutes before the custodian was allowed to remove it from the premises.

In the House, Rep. Ann Clemer, R-Benton, took an eight-hour nap as yet another Dan Greenberg bill was violently powerbombed, and Speaker Robbie Wills completed nearly half of the numbers in his daily Sudoku on the House floor.

In the Senate, Pro Tem Bob Johnson allowed AG Dustin McDaniel to showcase his Egyptian slideshow, full of museums, random people from Egypt, and another museum. A rush of excitement as Sen. Jimmy "JayJay" Jeffress, D-Crossett, dozed off and Sen. Tracy Steele, D-North Little Rock, put Jeffress' hand in warm water.

More as that story develops.

-------------

No. Seriously. Is there anything else of value going on? No controversy? Harrelson's Human Cock Fighting bill might turn some heads, and Jon Woods has apparently been blessed with enough teen angst to maybe bring up another tax-cutting bill, that Beebe will assuredly say is a no-go, but really? Nothing else? I suppose that the whole "No New is Good News" Rule might apply, but please. This is just painful.

Thank God that end is in sight. But wait, how many more bills were filed before the deadline?...

Shoot me. Just shoot me.

Obama and Geithner Get Low Grades from Wall Street Economists

The Wall Street Hoover-Blanket says that economists aren't too keen on this Barack guy or his boy Timmy Geithner.

I don't know how quickly or how emphatically I can say the following: Duh?

Of course, these businesses are not going to look favorably on the administration who is taking the reigns for their businesses for the foreseeable future.

The Obama administration certainly hasn't been too friendly with them, as well.

In fact, I read that some, e.g. Wells Fargo, have had it with all of these rules and are giving their government bailouts back and try to wing it on their own.

It's clear that something's amiss on Wall Street. I'm not entirely convinced that regulation is the answer, although it's only through regulation that we can straighten out the incompetents who have apparently run their businesses into the ground, tethered, of course, to the livelihoods of millions of American people.

The fact that Wall Street doesn't grade Obama and Timmy well doesn't surprise me. The fact that some people are willing to give up their automatic budgets in exchange for autonomy surprises me a little.

Frankly, I'm tired of surprises. I'd rather just know if I can rely on either the government or on a business to which my retirement may be linked.

My pessimistic tendencies make me lean toward neither. But then again, I'm not going to hand out grades on it, either.

Rigor and Reward

Heads Up: Since it's South Park, there are two instances of naughty language, so if you're watching this on the House floor, or at a daycare, turn the volume down.


Yesterday, President Obama made an announcement regarding education and his vision for it in America.

It sounds great. And here's the kicker, he's right about nearly everything.

Here's where he's right: We need to make sure our students aren't falling behind, as compared to international standards. We need to get better about accountability and not let grades slip any more. We need to tighten the bolts on students, make the material more rigorous, and push them to succeed. And we need to pay teachers more.

Then Obama offered this notion: To pay teachers according to how well their students perform.

On the front end, you're thinking "Hey, that's pretty good! If a teacher is doing well, they should be paid well. If the teacher is encouraging and molding these young minds to get good grades, they ought to be rewarded. PLUS! It provides an incentive for the teacher to work harder to get their students to achieve more. Golly!"

Hopefully the documentary I provided might have enlightened some to question how this method of rigor and reward might play out.

Luckily for the journalist, suspect grade inflation was discussed at length in the Natural State as recently as last week.

My best good buddy in the whole wide world, columnogger Johnnie "JRay" Brummett, showed an apparent gaffe in the new-fangled state lottery requisites. He showed a list of "grade-inflaters" — schools that were easier to attain better grades. That's not me saying that 64.5 percent of kids in the Earle School district have bogus grades: That'd be the state Education Department.

If we're awarding teachers based on the performance of their students, the teachers in Earle would be sittin' pretty while the faculty of the Glen Rose School district in Hot Springs County, which has 65 students with a B average or higher and zero students with inflated grades would still be underpaid.

And what's to stop some That doesn't add up to me, either.

I get and applaud what the President is trying to do here. We must reach these kids and providing teachers adequate compensation is a wonderful start. But at the end of the day, Mr. Cartmenez's aforementioned question still remains: How do we reach these kids?

President Obama has yet to respond. Hopefully he will, if he's as serious and sincere about education reform as we should all hope he is.

The Son of Stimulus

I've already written about this, but now Democratic leaders are starting to act on what they've already hinted: A second stimulus.

A special meeting of the Democratic Steering and Policy Committee (Good!) this morning yielded the same story from the same economists: More money.

The outlook for the rest of Aught-Nine: Grim.

Pelosi says the Word of the Day is Confidence: The confidence that is apparently lacking in the American markets but is vital to the success of this much-ballyhooed stimulus.

The Proposed Solution: More of the Same. A second stimulus, of equal or more value than the $787 billion that is just now hitting the streets.

My first, knee-jerk thought: D'oh!

My second, more reasoned thought: If the confidence necessary to drive the mechanism the government has constructed to hoist us out of this recession isn't being garnered by the stimulus, how much sense does it make to do it all over again?

Maybe it makes a lot of sense to someone other than me. God, I hope so.

LaborLady Strikes Washington!

Just a quick note that we here in Arkansas aren't the only ones getting fired up over this whole Card Check business.

As you can clearly see, this woman (Yes, this is a woman) has been driven quite mad by the entire thing.

In all actuality, Arkansas is being shoved into the national spotlight for reasons more interesting than former state representatives procreating at questionably and forehead-slappingly high levels.

The Wall Street Cardboard Scrawl is reporting that Lincoln and Pryor, a cajun, and a man with an unfortunately difficult name may be the fab four that bring this EFCA bill down.

The only reason I find this mildly entertaining is that it takes my mind off of the harrowing economy, and there's nothing better than watching a politician dangle in the wake of re-election, a la Lincoln. We'll see how it all pans out.

Whatever, I'm over it.

Obama & Signing Statements: Big Whoop

Beneath the mire of all of this altogether uninteresting business about stem cell research, there was another bit of uninteresting news that Maxwell "Not the Coffee" Brantley brought to my attention.

The headline reads "Bye Bye Bush Era," and it applauds that Obama advising that signing statements under G.W. Bush may be ignored if convenient.

Bush's signing statements — clauses attached to bills that basically call for certain parts of a bill to be openly ignored — had enough coverage in its day. It basically is a loop around line-item vetoes, which are prohibited. So, Obama, accordingly, said that they are all now subject to interpretation by Atty. General Holder, and then they can be deemed constitutional or not.

I wonder how many of them will make it through the filter. What's the over/under on one to two?

Obama getting elected was the mandate. Once in office, he quickly did away with many of Bush's policies and rules, notably the implementation of a White House Happy Hour and looser dress code.

But then Maxwell misses another "important" piece of the NYT puzzle: Obama isn't against doing all that his own dern self. Is this not the pot calling the kettle black?

Of course, not. This is OBAMA we're talking about. You remember? The Hope and Change for America? He makes houses appear for the homeless, jobs appear for the jobless, and still has time to hoop with the Bulls?

I say that sarcastically, not to say that Obama won't do any of those things (he's done all of them) or even that he won't do any of them again (he's on track to do it all again and again).

It's just another example of how bias is often thinly-veiled and useless when some good ole fashioned objectivity would be a better lens.

The next president, who will likely be a Republican if trends mean anything, could reverse Obama's reversal. In fact, I bet he (or she!) might throw out nearly everything Obama puts into play. Clinton did it to Reagan's ugly step-child, Bush I. Bush II did it to Clinton, which I'm sure sticks in some people's craw, that Obama is reminding some of Bush. I'm sure that wily coot Jefferson did it to that old buzzard Adams, and then that upstart Adams II returned the favor, although I'm sure wigs and gloves were more involved back then.

I understand that there are liberal commentators and conservative ones, and I especially understand that those views are more prominently displayed in the blogosphere. I'm just saying that there ought to be a little more objectivity out there.

So I therefore understand the roof raising by some, heck, by many that Bush is gone and out, exiled to his Crawford Ranch and new ritzy Dallas condo. But that's a little old news by now, don't you say Maxwell? Olbermann still harps on Bush, and Maddow is relegated to doing fluff pieces about Boy Scouts, and now this. There's nothing to be critical about in Obama's short time as President? COUGH Wow! Look at all that pork in the gazillion dollar stimulus! COUGH!

I say let's freshen up that material. Frankly, we're still dealing with Bush's inheritance with this whole economy business and I'd rather not bring him up unless we have to. I don't think this is one of those have-to moments.

Lincoln a Definite 'No' on Card Check

I'm going to say on the front end that this is merely hearsay, and no one will confirm such a statement, but I'll go ahead and weigh in on this EFCA bit again.

Sen. Blanche Lincoln, D-Ark., is going to be a definite 'no' on Card Check.

So says my Agent in Washington, who works in the Senate and is often around the Senate halls. He just so happens to be friendly with some of Blanche's people, and through their conversations and eavesdropping, he gave me the scoop.

Of course, it's not anything that you haven't likely heard from others around the state, but I thought hearing it from sources in the bowels of the Senate might be useful.

The Agent says that their office is indeed worried about 2010. They ought to be, as she's drawing opposition in the wee hours of 2009. They should also be confident. Blanche is powerful — she has been a vocal proponent for rural Arkansas, and no amount of union support by her party should bring her down, although it could possibly drive her to the brink thereof.

My friend also says that the Democratic Party is well-aware of Lincoln's intentions to go against the party agenda, and vote against Card Check, They say she just can't come out and definitively say it yet; They have to finesse it.

But the writing is on the wall. Lincoln can't go with this, not in Arkansas. The state is so pro-business that any one running against her would have plenty of ammunition against her. This could make a weak candidate a strong candidate; What would that make an already strong candidate?

You got it, and the Democrats know that calculus as well. She probably wouldn't lose her seat, but why even risk it?

For Lincoln, as I've said before, her thought should be to make sure you get re-elected, then make amends with the Party. But don't think that Lincoln is the only one who understand that. The Democrats need her in 2010, as well.

Those 60 votes are going to be tough to come by. It's hard enough right now, even with the addition of Al Franken, D-Minney-SO-dahdontchaknoe. With the party sort of fracturing from the inside, according to Politico, anyway, losing seats in relatively purple states like Arkansas isn't the way they want to go.

She gets it. They get it. We get it. It'd put Lincoln in an awful pickle to have to go for this Card Check in her state. The Party will give her a pass. They need her in office next year, and can possibly get it without her. If not, no big deal, I say. It's just paying back the Unions for their support. If you can't muster those votes with an honest effort, well, that's just the way it goes sometimes.

What will really be interesting will be to see how her opponents will position themselves without such a pivotal talking point in their pocket. Defeating Lincoln would be hard enough with her impugning herself with an affirmative for Card Check.

Without that, where will a Republican like, say, Tim Griffin, attack?

UPDATE: Politico says good ole Blanchey is one of two Senators upon which the entirety of the EFCA vote hinges. Makes it more interesting, but frankly, it doesn't change anything. Arkansas doesn't care about what everyone else thinks. They don't care for unions. Done-zo.

House Rules Committee (Verbally) Bludgeons AG McDaniel in the Head Repeatedly

The Gauntlet: She has been thrown.

News of Attorney General Dustin "The Dog Whisperer" McDaniel and his ethics reform bills spread like wildfire throughout the legislative halls. McDaniel's announcement of the twin bills, one to offer a "cooling off" period of a year to former legislators before they can get back into the legislators via lobbyists and another that makes legislators pay for food that they eat, came around the noon hour.

Shortly thereafter, a verbal fracas erupted, sending all those involved to the capitol nurses' offices for hot towel treatments, Flintstone vitamins, and even a thermometer for one of the legislators involved.

Rumor has it that as soon as the news broke from the AG's office, the House Rules committee, who is expected to deal with the ethics package once it takes the cakewalk through the Senate, kicked the doors to the office in, and in a very choreographed, and very deliberate way, began to verbally beat McDaniel until he could hardly put out a press release.

The committee, apparently after taking a short break following their choreographed number which provided "super intimidation," according to committee member Steve "The Bod" Harrellson, verbally ganged up on McDaniel to let him and his buddies know that nobody messes with legislators and their lunches or their potential lobbying careers.

(While chewing gum loudly) "You know, it's just stupid, ya know?" said an obviously frustrated Gregg "Don't Fear the" Reep. "I mean, I'm term limited, dog. I need a job after I get done with this. And I gotta eat. AM I RIGHT OR AM I RIGHT?!" Reep then used a capitol coat rack as a javelin and threw it through McDaniel's pick-up truck windshield, before starting a slow clap with the rest of the committee members.

Rep. Barry Hyde, D-Dogtown, said he'd had enough, but couldn't remember why.

Rick Saunders kept the perimeter secure during the entirety of the verbal fisticuffs, while holding a 40 pound boom box over his head, blaring Guns N Roses' Welcome to the Jungle.

"No more Miss Nice Gal," declared Kathy Webb. She then began to sternly dictate a House Concurrent Resolution entitled "Dustin McDaniel is a Big Stupid Dummy Who is Bad at His Job and Smells like a Foot," and filed it shortly after.

The bill is expected to sail through committees and chambers and is to be signed by Gov. Mike Beebe in a press conference as early as next Tuesday.

The sole Republican on the committee, Rick Green, R-Van Buren, was the only person who was uninvolved in the communal verbal thrashing. For partisan purposes, Green was asked by the committee to not get involved, but was allowed to quote "stand off to the side, and tremble with a real mean look in his eye, like he was the really crazy one of the group, because every group has THAT guy."

(While simultaneously flexing his calf muscles and dipping an entire can of Skoal)"AM I RIGHT?! AM I RIGHT?! GREEN IS CRAZY! AM I RIGHT?!" confirmed Gregg Reep again, starting yet another slow clap, then tying a black skull-and-cross bones bandanna around his head.

No comment from McDaniel, but he is said to be holding up well at the duplex of Sen. Steve Faris' in Malvern. Faris is carrying one of the bills in the Senate, and has assured McDaniel's safety from more verbal taunts.

Sen. Gilbert Baker, R-Conway, who is also carrying one of the ethics bills, offered to take McDaniel in, but his neighbor, Conway native Robbie Wills, said "Nah dog. Not in my house. Not in my house," and allegedly and verbally tossed a boutonniere-shaped brick through Baker's front bay window.

More on this story as it doesn't develop.

-----------------------

So apparently, McDaniel is trying to get these ethical matters put to rest through legislative discourse. Conflict of interest is a big deal, after all, and even if there is none with these legislators or commission members-turned-lobbyists, or their meals on wheels, hadn't we at least discuss it?

Like in a committee? I'm not saying I'm for or against the bill, as it hasn't been fully considered yet. How can these leaders who say — before a bill has even been filed, mind you —that it's all going to be D.O.A.?

Just my two cents, but in order to be transparent, the unsettling feelings that surround these instances at least deserve...I don't know.... respectful consideration?