The Media "is" Incompetent

President Bush was summoned for jury duty in Crawford last month. Obviously, the President won't be able to fulfill this summons while in office. Instead of assaulting my readers with a barrage of reasons for this, let's assume those are apparent and focus on how News.telegraph, an online news provider in the UK, reported the "event".

Alec Russell penned the article, all of which contained factual information as far as I can tell. My complaint isn't with factual reporting. It deals with the rhetoric used to deliver the news. Amid details on the lackluster story, (emphasis mine)

County officials posted a jury summons to President George W Bush at 43 Chapel Ranch Road, the address of his Texas ranch, last month.

But the White House said yesterday that Mr Bush was too busy with affairs of state to appear in court on Monday and would have to "reschedule".

We already decided that the idea of the President serving as a juror during his presidency is ludicrous. To apply accusatory rhetoric to the President's response (which, I'll point out, the article never actually quotes) is ignorant. Notice that the second sentence, which is intended to deliver the administration's message regarding the summons, has only one word in quotations. All I got from this was that at some point during Scott McLellan's press conference, he said the word "reschedule". To say that "Mr. Bush" is "too busy" makes him sound like he's trying to weasle his way out of a date with an ugly girl. I wonder what the rest of the sentence/paragraph actually said. I guarantee you the "too busy" thing is out of context. The man answered the most strenuous, verging-on-insane call to public service we could dream up in the United States and some half-wit crumpet-munching "news man" wants to call him out for dodging jury duty? You couldn't nail him to the cross on draft-dodging and you couldn't dig up any dirt on his military service. Now this? Give me a break. I want to start writing syndicated columns about liberals (and Brits). All I need to do is put one word they say in quotations and the rest is poetic license. Journalists actually get paid for this? The media "is" incompetent. Now give me fifty bucks.

P.S. - In case Alec Russell reads this, seventh graders know not to begin sentences in English papers with "and" or "but". Yes, I do it in my blog, but I don't get paid to write any of this, and as the saying goes, "I do what I want".

The Washington Senators

My beautiful friend Lorin has written an incredible article on the NCAA mascot ban drama. I highly recommend hopping over there to read it. I also encourage you to get into the discussion. It builds character.

In other news, the Senate made me proud today, passing the sweeping Deficit Reduction Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 2005, "the first comprehensive deficit reduction bill since 1997". It will save more than $35 billion over the next 5 years, and it includes the Higher Education Reauthorization I talked about yesterday.

New column coming soon. Topic to be determined.

Fiscal Responsibility and Student Aid

Yesterday, Marshall University's student newspaper, the Parthenon, published (essentially) an op-ed by the federal issues coordinator of the West Virginia Citizen Action Group that caught my interest and drove me to do some research. The column concerned the House Education and Workforce Committee's budget cut proposals, made at the request of GOP leaders in Congress to curb the widening budget gap. Initially, Congress had been asked to shoot for $35 billion in reductions, but the rising costs of hurricane relief have driven Congressional leaders to ask for an extra $15 billion in reductions from a wide range of committees.

The Education and Workforce Committee was tasked with finding $18 billion in net savings from direct spending programs. In the course of its investigation, it discovered some inefficiency in the federally-subsidized student aid programs in place under the Higher Education Act. To quote the Committee's report from October 25, 2005, (emphasis mine)

Since 1965, the federal government has invested hundreds of billions of dollars in higher education on the premise that all students, regardless of financial circumstance, should have the opportunity to pursue postsecondary education. Four decades later, taxpayers are spending more than ever before on higher education, yet the goal of higher education access remains elusive to far too many American students.

There is no question that an investment in higher education pays dividends for the future. An educated workforce drives economic growth. Scientific breakthroughs keep America on the cutting edge of technological advancement. Children whose parents are college educated are more likely to pursue postsecondary education themselves, continuing the cycle of success and prosperity. Yet despite the clear imperative for an effective and efficient investment in higher education, billions of taxpayer dollars are being wasted through inefficiency and unwise public policy.
After more than a decade of tuition increases that have far outpaced the rate of inflation and growth in family incomes, it has become clear that blindly increasing federal student aid is doing nothing to solve the challenge of skyrocketing college costs. Indeed, the vast increases in federal student aid have coincided with these tuition increases, calling into question whether the current federal investments in higher education may actually be a contributing factor to the college cost explosion that is squeezing the budgets of hard working low- and middle-income American families.

Taxpayers are carrying a tremendous higher education cost burden on many fronts. In addition to the more than $70 billion in direct student aid paid for by taxpayers in FY 2005, American families are subsidizing aid to institutions, research, and numerous federal programs outside the Higher Education Act that award funding to colleges and universities. Moreover, higher education consumes a significant portion of the taxes paid at the state level, and even after all of this, families with children enrolled in college are paying more than ever before for their own tuition bills.
To ensure the federal investment in higher education is made in the best interests of students, families, and taxpayers, the Committee has developed comprehensive reforms that will expand college access for low- and middle-income students while simultaneously generating savings for taxpayers by eliminating program waste and inefficiency, trimming excess subsidies paid to lenders, and placing the aid programs on a more stable financial foundation to ensure their long-term viability and success for future generations of American students.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates these reforms would save between $14 billion and $15 billion over five years, eliminating waste on behalf of taxpayers while expanding student benefits. Taken together, these reforms will help put student aid programs on a strong financial foundation to ensure their stability now and into the future, protecting both students and taxpayers.

In short, the people who proposed this (read: Republicans) are not anti-education. They're not even trying to keep poor and middle-class West Virginians from going to Marshall. More importantly, this legislative proposal doesn't have any such results. Let's break it down.

First, let's look at the efficacy of trimming government spending on student aid while maintaining or improving the level of service. More and more American students are pursuing higher education every year. At the same time, over the last decade, tuition costs have continued to rise steadily. As such, student loan programs have grown significantly over recent years. Through investment in technology and refining its programs to maximize efficiency, loan programs have been able to provide better services to borrowers and to do so at reduced costs. The loan programs, however, are still collecting subsidies from the federal government well in excess of today's required costs for running the programs. The new proposal requires all funds acquired above the minimum guaranteed be returned to the federal government to be reinvested in the student aid program.

Today, borrowers who wish to consolidate their student loans must lock on to the prevailing fixed-interest rate of the day, regardless of whether interest rates will go down in the future. The Committee's proposal offers borrowers, for the first time in history, the opportunity to choose between keeping the variable interest rates of their student loans when consolidating or selecting a long-term fixed rate that suits each borrower's financing plans. Most consumer loan products (like mortgages) charge a 2% premium to lock in long-term fixed rates, whereas the Committee's proposal will cost the borrower 1% above the variable interest rate of the year the loan is consolidated. A one-time 1% offset fee by the borrower will allow the federal government to secure the fixed rate for up to thirty years.

Another area the Committee's proposal targets is the security of tax-payers in responsibility for loan defaults. The proposal reduces the amount of money the federal government will pay to loan companies on defaulted loans, increasing the incentive for loan companies to work with borrowers to prevent defaults in the first place so tax payers aren't forced to bear the burden.

Student borrowers pay up to 4% in loan fees today, including a 3% origination fee and a 1% default fee charged to some borrowers. With a stronger default fee structure, the Committee's proposal was able to reduce origination fees for all borrowers, resulting in total loan fees of 1%.

The proposal also attempts to compensate for tuition inflation by increasing the borrowing limit for first and second-year students (from $2,625 to $3,500 and $3,500 to $4,500, respectively), although aggregate limits will remain at $23,000. Graduate limits will increase from $10,000 to $12,000 annually.

In addition, the "single holder" rule, which limits consumers’ ability to consolidate with the lender of their choice by requiring consumers who have all of their loans held by a single lender to consolidate with that lender, even if they could obtain better terms and service elsewhere.

There are more benefits to the Committee's proposal, all of which you can read about in their report, from which a great majority of this information was acquired.

In my next post, we can talk about why the op-ed concerns me and why it concerns me even moreso that no one (no political groups on campus, no student interest groups, no Student Government official, and certainly no one on the Parthenon's staff) found the column's egregious claims even remotely newsworthy, warranting any kind of comment or rebuttal. If student financial aid isn't important to college students, who do you think's going to care? (Wrong answer: Their parents. You don't belong in college. Go get a real job.)

I Am Not a Journalist

Well, it's been ages. I've been working a lot, and spending pretty much all of the "down time" (if there exists such a thing) reading. I have a lot of things I should be writing about here, but that will have to wait until later this week. I also will probably just take all the suggestions you guys gave me in my last post, but that's also going to have to wait. For now, I just wanted to share this with you.

A Clinton-appointed federal judge actually made a finding of fact that [Matt] Drudge [, maintainer of the Drudge Report,] is "not a reporter, a journalist, or a newsgatherer." Hustler magazine is journalism protected by the First Amendment. Penthouse and the National Enquirer are journalism protected by the First Amendment. Indeed, even the New York Times is deemed "journalism" protected by the First Amendment. The dean of the Columbia Graduate School of Journalism noted with some consternation that "no journalist or journalism organization protested after this federal judge took it upon himself to determine who can be called a journalist.

-Ann Coulter, Slander

So, let me get this straight. It's "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press when it's 1) smut-infused garbage or 2) convenient to the [blatantly anti-competitive] liberal media." (Sadly, the two often coincide.) Really, it's right there in the Constitution. Much-heralded First Amendment. Check it out some time.

Facebook Faceoff

I've been having a very interesting series of discussions on Marshall's Facebook lately with Meg and one of her friends, Sean. I wanted to post some excerpts before they disappear into wall-land forever.

This is what started it all:

Sean wrote
at 8:27pm September 29th, 2005
how can a person with such good taste in musica have such bad taste in politics, its sad. i love you anyways.

Meg wrote
at 12:01am September 30th, 2005
I chose to be Republican because that is my only real choice out of the two parties...if I had a REAL choice I would be Libertarian...so. I love you too...why dont' we ever hang out ?
Meg

Sean wrote
at 2:53pm October 2nd, 2005
The only Real choise, Is no choice,both parties are corrupt its just that the Democrats have a stronger history of favoring working class people and civil rights, which are the back bones a democracy.

Meg wrote
at 3:34pm October 2nd, 2005I love how I didn't even mention politics and there is a battle on my page!!! Thanx Sean...Always giving me crap...Well, I, of course, can't let that go without a come back...
If democrats are the backbone of society than we have some serious osteoporosis.
Hearts,
Meg

Sean wrote
at 8:44pm October 2nd, 2005
I didnt say that democrats are the back bone, i said that they sympathize with them a heck of alot more than the republican party.Oh, and the Republican Party are very proud about their philosophy on OutSourcing of American jobs- they say it helps the economy well if thats the truth we should be in a economic Boom! Another thing, this administration( And Congress) hasnt proposed one bill that has helped the middle class or poor, Not One. They only protect their own, the top 1%(wealth wise).

[This is where I hopped in]

I wrote
at 3:31am October 3rd, 2005
I'll weigh in on the fight that Meg didn't start, participate in, or finish ;-)

1) The backbone of democracy is not to favor the working class. The backbone of democracy is to favor no one moreso than anyone else except the majority. And even in doing so, democracy is designed to protect the rights of the minority.

2) Administrations (being members of the Executive branch) don't often propose legislation.

3) I find it hard to believe that no legislation proposed by any Republican in Congress in the last (how long were you talking about? Congress runs on a different electoral schedule than the Oval Office) has benefited anyone but the wealthiest 1% of the population. What, in your mind, would satisfy the category of beneficial to middle or lower class Americans? I won't try to refute this in abstract, though I'm sure I could.

4) One's "taste" in music has no bearing on one's political persuasion, I hope to God.

5) I strongly encourage you to avoid political affiliation. It will make your vote, and, in turn, your voice much stronger. I promise. I'm a Republican. Would I lie to you? (hint: rhetorical question)

Meg wrote
at 11:54am October 3rd, 2005
BOYS!!! Alright..well, as a poli sci major (and a novice at that), I would like to point out that SEAN is making rather large and vague accusations without even saying a single thing that isn't a soundbit from CNN or something...so...let's hear something originial and possibly true...And seeing as I am not partaking in this...I have nothing else to say...:)
Meg

Sean wrote
at 8:33pm October 3rd, 2005
1.) i just had to ask , Adam, to be my " friend" in order to defend what i was saying- which i think is humorously ironic. 2.) Yes, I know the executive branch doesnt propose bills, but they can And Do put pressure on their party to get Passed, What they want.
3.) Maybe my accusations are large but i think OutSourcing American jobs is an important issue not only economically, and socially as well.
4.) I think republicans should wake up and realize how bad this adminstration is, oh did you hear Tom Delay- has been got for insider trading, the whole batch is rotten, from the top down. And from their failed policies - have affected many people for the worse.
5.) I appreciate Meg, allowing us this arena to debate these issues, even if she didnt want to , and I am sorry to have started this , but open discussions are very democratic.

Meg wrote
at 1:55am October 6th, 2005
Liberals do suck SEAN.... All they do is bitch and moan and make up things to raise taxes and pretend that they are making a difference. Take Johnson for example. How many programs did he make? How many were successful? How much $$$ did he waste fixing nothing? They make programs and then they don't take the time to make them work...I don't want a bullshit response to this about war or military spending either...because that is a boring fight...so hit me with an original....thanx
meg

Sean wrote
at 3:50pm October 6th, 2005
all i have to say is, No Child Left Behind ACT, need i say more...

Meg wrote
at 5:43pm October 6th, 2005
No Child Left Behind is lame...but I don't see any other recent reforms that have not been equally as lame...Assessments are a part of educational life and a lot of teachers don't have any business teaching (AHUM...FHS)...lol...Anyways. At least they are attempting to hold teachers accountable, though they are going about it totally the wrong way and not being reflective of how much parents need to partake in education- though many parents at FHS were a little too involved if you ask me...So...education sucks and is what I would consider an impossible fix...liberals and republicans alike have failed to fix it. So...that is not really a good argument either.
Meg

[Well, they started talking about education, and as you may or may not know, that's my breaking point...]

I wrote
at 8:47pm October 6th, 2005
And while they both continue to fail on the political (aka public) front, private schools are sidestepping a vast majority of the American public schools in competition for placement at selective colleges, virtually flawless graduation rates, much higher test scores, etc. The public school students who can compete almost always do so of their own accord, assisted by active parents and a handful of diamond-in-the-rough teachers sprinkled conservatively throughout their academic careers. What gives here? Is it that "rich" kids are just inherently smarter, or can afford to "buy" their educations? Come on, now. You can't buy a brain. What you can do is have access to better teachers. How does that happen? Offer more money to the applicant pool, increasing competition and turnover to better qualified candidates. How does that happen? Well, you can go the government incentive route, but the government can't afford to do what needs to be done. My suggestion: school vouchers. Get public schools competing with private schools for government funding, and public schools will feel suddenly feel the burning desire to compete. Capitalism really isn't a bad thing, boys and girls. Peoples' money is attached to their minds and their hearts. To convince them to part from it, you have to try to win over both moreso than the next guy. This competition naturally raises the bar in any industry it touches.

PS - Education is the silver bullet.

[followed by...]

I wrote
at 9:00pm October 6th, 2005
See if you can contribute to this "conversation" without using any of the following words, names, or phrases:

Liberal
Conservative
Democrat
Republican
Bush (President Bush is ok, or just the President will suffice)
John Kerry (spoils of war, my friends)
propoganda (the word)
propoganda (this includes any and all broad, sweeping references to any current military engagements, the "administration", any individual "scandals" occuring within the federal government (ala Tom Delay), or anything which could be the name of a campaign platform category header (military, economy, homeland security, foreign/domestic affairs, etc.) unless accompanied by at least two descriptive supporting elements...)

Warning: This might force some of you to understand what you're talking about. Don't worry. It doesn't hurt.

Sean wrote
at 10:57pm October 6th, 2005
Tell me how many people benefited from Bush's Drug Bill? Probably only a handful of corporate cronies that's who. I know drugs costs are at an all time high and health care is rising also. Not to mention the administration could make it legal to acquire cheap drugs from Canada but that would be too sensible. This administration has favored corporate interests above all Americans. I dont even want to mention roll backs on enviromental policies.It feels 90 today , that doesnt seem natural. B/c it's not ! I would like you to tell me 1 policy that has benfited a good number of Americans, just one. Besides Faith based initiatives , for that could be a good program.

Sean wrote
at 11:00pm October 6th, 2005
I am sorry Adam i didnt follow your little rules. I guess i am just not that clever, I'll leave the tough work to you.

I wrote
at 12:38am October 7th, 2005
You followed the rules pretty well, except you didn't say President Bush, and that's an important rule ;-) But let's talk about beneficial policies. Since you brought it up, we'll start with the President's "drug bill", by which I assume you're refering to the Medicare bill passed in 2003. It would be difficult to name one person who has benefited from the new policies outlined in this bill, since the benefits don't kick in until January 2006, as stated in the bill. When they do, though, we'll be able to name millions of beneficiaries. Here's how: Starting in January, new low-cost prescription options will allow seniors with no or average drug coverage to cut their drug costs by half or more. For catastrophic coverage, Medicare will cover 95% of all prescription costs after seniors spend $3,600 of their own money each year. The new Medicare will also help retired seniors pay the costs of medical coverage from former employers. I think this is going to be a big hit for people like my father who are bleeding financially-tight pensions from 9/11-struck companies to pay for health care instead of enjoying their retirement in peace. But the big new benefit of Medicare will be for limited-means seniors, who will no longer have to pay any more than a $5 copay for prescription drugs, and over 95% of drug costs will be covered by the federal government.

That sounds beneficial to me. I realize many of you latch on to what your party's got to say to define your political "ideas". You need to understand WHY they're saying what they're saying, though. In this case, Democrats are indeed expressing concern over the new Medicare bill. But their concern is that the plethora of options available to seniors will be too confusing. People also complain that electronic ballots will be too confusing. I say get over it.

Since that was kind of long, and I don't want Meg to have a heart attack, I'll just outline a few more policy initiatives I feel are helping people, but I'm not going to explain why. I'm sure it'll all come out eventually.

The President's Jobs and Growth package has given much-needed tax relief to 90% of small business owners in this country who pay taxes on the individual and not the commercial/corporate level. This is highly stimulating to the economy.

The President has proposed several initiatives geared toward homeowners and families wishing to own their first homes. See the American Dream Downpayment Act and the Self-Help Homeownership Opportunity Program (SHOP).

In the style of Enron, Tyco, et al, corporate accountability has become an important issue for EVERY American. Believe me, the kind of financial fraud we're talking about here can negatively effect everybody from the top down. The President proposed a "Ten-Point Plan to Improve Corporate Responsibility and Protect America's Shareholders", and the SEC adopted and implemented all 10.

The President is looking ahead economically speaking. We as a nation have been trying to hold onto outdated or outdating jobs like a family pet. The thing is, nobody short of God himself can stop the world from progressing, and if we're going to stay competitive in the international market, we're going to have to progress with it. The President's "Jobs for the 21st Century" initiative proposes more then $250 million for community colleges (like Marshall's) to train workers in industries that are creating the most new jobs, as well as funding for secondary education programs to prepare students for the jobs of the 21st century. As far as the "outsourcing" of these dying jobs you mentioned a few days ago, Sean, the President's Trade Adjustment Assistance program (which he signed an expansion for in 2003) provides $1.1 billion in FY2005 to cover wage differences and health care costs for displaced workers when production or labor has been shipped overseas while they adjust to their new jobs.

The President is funding research in hydrogen and fuel-cell technology to the tune of over a bilion dollars, wihch will be spread over 28 institutions of academia, industry, and national laboratory.

You mentioned the faith-based initiatives, an element of this administration I'm incredibly proud to have supported. I don't even need to discuss how this is beneficial to millions. This has been a strongly bipartisan effort in Washington.

Look, I'm tired, and I haven't even touched on national security, foreign affairs, energy, or the environment. It's not that these are weak areas.... it's that I can't type anymore tonight.

Now, who wants to argue policy with me?

I wrote
at 12:47am October 7th, 2005
Crap.... I forgot to address the Canada thing. See, the problem with legal reimportation from Canada is that the FDA can't guarantee the safety of the drugs that are coming back since they're outside its comprehensive regulatory net. Canadian officials cite the same problem when the express their distaste for the idea (which is really because they aren't producing the drugs, so they're not making any money on the exports.) So besides the fact that Canada doesn't want it and the US thinks it's a danger to anyone taking prescription drugs, sounds like a great idea to me. (Until then, I'd remind you that it IS possible to go to Canada right now and bring back personal prescriptions if you're careful, just like it's possible to bring back personal "prescriptions" of the green leafy kind. It's cheaper now than it would be if it were legalized, with the taxation and whatnot.... The choice is yours, America.)

Meg wrote
at 5:53pm October 7th, 2005
Now I have huge amounts of stuff on my wall...thanx a lot...people are trying to educate you now...poor Sean
Meg


Meg wrote
at 6:05pm October 7th, 2005
Oh...and Adam kicked your ass...cuz he actually looks deeper into things than the CNN news channel...you should try that sometime...ahhh...

Sean wrote
at 7:09pm today
You and Adam , maybe all conservatives i dunno, are beautiful with words and stats and weave great agruments, but the problem with you all, is you dont deal with reality. Your so stuck on theory that you cant see the problems in your own back yard.To republicans and maybe all politicians, The means justifies the ends, We go to war based on faulty intelligence, down right lies and manipulations which should be a crime, but 9/11 happened so all critical thought just went out the window. I am not going into the details of why this war was wrong i am just saying the means do not justify the ends. If you start something on a questionable foundation its likely to fall. And the arrogance that the president has is unpresidential and unbecoming of a person in such a prestigious position. "Mission Accomplished" and all that , what bullshit. If it was accomplished then what are we doing over there, Peacekeeping?? Please.

Meg wrote
at 9:53pm today
The TRUTH...After years of coverups on boths parties ends, it is very difficult for me to even imagine that the truth could be found in today's world. Because of the over-globalization, we are now forced to fake it openly and not discuss the real heart and details of any matters anymore...we have to save face to the world. I honestly believe that the government is corrupt, but I don't think one elected official was the cause of this nor do iI believe that we should be putting our livelihoods closer intwined with such a fate. True freedom would be a lack of laws establishing such freedom...it should just be there. If there is no longer a truth, is there a freedom? It is something to ponder tonight while you watch CNN...There is no way that anyone is really telling the truth because no one speaks it or hears it...They shout and protest a world that they don't even understand...this is for both sides. What is the truth?

I wrote
at 10:52pm today
I speak the truth. I don't just *know* about the world. I go out into the world intent to learn about it. I've learned what every basic government must provide its citizens, I've learned what "amenities" can be provided to a people, given the peoples' willingness and consent to taxation to provide common ("public") goods. I've learned some of the problems that have arisen and continue to arise in democratic society (where the peoples' will truly is law, and there is nothing to stop the people from willing themselves into bad situations, or worse, to stop them from willing at all, as I believe we're facing today on many levels.) It is exactly this kind of ongoing debate we've been having that should be batted across every dinner table, tossed around every water cooler, and (this is for all you Marshall students who are skimming over this even as we speak, likely ignoring all the "boring" stuff) ESPECIALLY tossed around on every college campus in this country. When you allow yourself to flow into a "mainstream" political machine, all the intricacies of your voice in particular are surrendered to the "corruption" of which you all complain. Your individuality, the very heart of this and any democracy, is forfeited in favor of a cookie-cutter candidate system prone to corruption by the sheer ignorance of the masses. Sean, it hasn't mattered to me what your arguments have been at all. It has only mattered that in my rebuttals, I've convinced you to do some research of your own, even if all it did was strengthen your convictions. People, this goes way beyond your average "get out and vote" campaigns that seem to be directed at our generation election after election. I'm trying to convince you to participate in the society you're cohabiting. I don't mean turn on Fox News, CNN, or MSNBC and let them tell you how you're participating. I mean you, the demos in democracy. The one voice who must speak his mind so that he may harmonize with others and conflict with still others until, in chorus, we form one great nation. With my voice, I will add "under God".

I wrote
at 10:55pm today
I think you mean the ends don't justify the means...

Obviously this is still ongoing. It's fun. It's... well... it's just fun. Feel free to read over it, or, of course, you could ignore it, thus proving me exactly right ;-).

I worked hard tonight, and I was paid well for it. I only had two tables, but they both said it was the best night out they've ever had, one of the tables got six chef specials (iron chef type deal) and lots of wine, and they both made me feel very good about taking care of them with their wallets. Yay for that. I'm not typing anymore, so have a lovely evening. I'm out.

WV Supreme Court (In)Justices

Senator Byrd seems to command quite a bit of support in his umpteenth bid for reelection this year. In apparent disregard for Canon 5A(1)(b) of the Code of Judicial Conduct, two West Virginia Supreme Court Justices, Joseph Albright and Larry Starcher provided a visual endorsement by attending Byrd's campaign kickoff in Charleston.

We should point out that the new Code of Judicial Conduct now specifically proscribes the conduct complained of in this case. Canon 5A(1)(b) of the Code of Judicial Conduct, effective January 1, 1993, clearly states that a judge or a candidate for election or appointment to judicial office shall not 'publicly endorse or publicly oppose another candidate for public office.
-WV Supreme Court comment on a 1993 case involving a Wood County Circuit judge

Justices Albright and Starcher have unquestionably committed an ethics violation in Senator Byrd's favor right out of the gate in the 2006 election, but it appears that Byrd isn't only flanked by the Judicial Branch of government in his attempt to seige power from West Virginia. Byrd recently ordered a military aircraft to carry him and his campaign manager into Wheeling to serve as a backdrop for a thousand-dollar-a-plate campaign dinner. West Virginia GOP chairman Robin Capehart has called on Senator Byrd to "acknowledge he is blatantly wrong to spend our hard-earned tax dollars for political campaigning" and to "refund the cost of the travel to the taxpayers of West Virginia." It has been months since the June 24 campaign event, but Senator Byrd's campaign records on file with the FEC do not indicate that any such reimbursement has been made. Senator Byrd, Congresswoman Capito hasn't even announced her plans to run against you yet. You're overcompensating in your old age. Then again, maybe you realize that you no longer see eye to eye with the people of West Virginia. West Virginians are ready to bring you back home. It's clear that you're not in line with this either.

Yes, It's Killing Me Too, But....

We've all seen the picture.

It's clever. In a comparative analysis with, say, gas prices 5 years ago, it's probably close to true. But here's the thing, folks. Oil is cheap. It's dirt cheap. Until it starts to run out. I don't want to feed some mindless liberal frenzy and imply that the concern is physically depleting all the world's supply of oil. The key word is starts. Crude oil discovery peaked in the 1960's. (Richard Reese) That means that since about 1962, the rate of discovery of new oil has been in steady decline. In the meantime, oil production, that is, the production (a function of demand, for the economically challenged) has increased on an exponential curve. As the demand for oil increases, mounting pressure on oil producers suffering from a visibly diminishing supply drives oil prices up. It's a response designed to slow demand to keep consumption in line with supply. This is a relatively simple concept. I don't feel like I've enlightened anybody.

So let's continue. There are two distinct facets of this situation I'd like to examine. The first is the relationship between an exponentially increasing demand for oil and a curiously coinciding exponential population growth since around 1940. (Population Reference Bureau) What do you suppose is going on here? The relationship is symbiotic. The mechanical capabilities derived from the dawn of oil as fuel have created a world capable of sustaining exponentially more people. We've built a society and almost all social structures therein on the presumption that oil would continue to fuel our system. Of course it can't do that forever. I'm not the kind of person that cries disaster, but this situation certainly has the potential. As our ability to sustain this population thrust levels out and starts to decline, we're faced with one of two consequent situations. The first and more gruesome alternative involves releveling global population to maintain a healthy supply-demand relationship with oil. Of course, even with a healthy dose of death, this solution could only ever be temporary. How many people would we be willing to expend before we were forced to choose another solution? The more relevant question, I think, would be what kind (read: nationality, social class.....) of people would we be willing to expend before we caved in.... But let's leave this alternative to pure hypothesis and credit the human race with a better collective mind than that (I'm laughing with you, not at you, I swear....) Eventually, the elusive "alternate fuel source" will need to become our primary fuel source.

This leads me to the second facet of our situation. Getting back to the price of gas. Our world, like it or not, is more or less run by a capitalist machine. The machine is sensitive to few things: supply vs. demand, cost vs. benefit, ethical vs. profitable..... (ok, not so much...) We've already talked about supply and demand with regards to oil. What I want to look at now is the cost vs. benefit analysis companies entertain when deciding what to do about oil. As long as the cost of the (process of) depletion of the world's supply of oil does not outweigh the benefits of exploding said oil to propel products from point A to point B, these companies will (11 times out of 10) not think twice about changing the pace, switching up the game plan. Enter "arm", "leg", and "first-born"-priced gasoline. People are complaining. Then people are buying less gas. Many of these people are laffable to me, because I hear them claim to be helping to protect our oil supply, but 100-1 says gas prices drop to $1.50 a gallon they'll be driving the motor homes to sunny San Francisco and back as often as Saturday. This is why gas prices can't drop ever again. They need to steadily (slowly's ok, too fast and you cripple economies.... not desirable either) increase. In stride, the pressure on consumers to decrease consumption (the driving force behind demand) will increase. Other effects will ripple down. The price of goods will increase since transportation costs will increase. Economic stimulus will be a rarity since people will have less to spend. Suddenly, corporate demand decreases with fewer goods coming out of production. Now the costs outweigh the benefits. In times like these, Research and Development departments the world over get frantic calls from CEO's and Board members to the effect of "Find us this damned altermenant fuel or whatever nonsense it's called!" And that, my good friends, is when we free ourselves from our dependence on oil.

It's a hard, fast bullet to bite, but it's one our parents and their parents felt we could handle, or perhaps didn't see coming (again to the credit of mankind, something I'm not always comfortable conceding). Or, you know, we could take plan A and kill everybody (you know, in Africa, Asia, and everyone in the Middle East that's not Israel... maybe parts of South America too... nobody in Europe or North America, though.... except Canada.) Ok.... Clearly I've gone on for too long.... I hope I've made sense, and I hope you don't realize how offensive any of this was.... err..... I hope I haven't offended any of you. Have at it, folks. Ohhh... and let me just put something in perspective for you in closing. It's a good thing the world isn't powered by Scope.

• Diet Snapple 16 oz $1.29 ............ $10.32 per gallon
• Lipton Ice Tea 16 oz $1.19 .........$9.52 per gallon
• Gatorade 20 oz $1.59 ................. $10.17 per gallon
• Ocean Spray 16 oz $1.25 ........... $10.00 per gallon
• Brake Fluid 12 oz $3.15 ............. $33.60 per gallon
• Vick's Nyquil 6 oz $8.35 ............ $178.13 per gallon
• Pepto Bismol 4 oz $3.85 ............ $123.20 per gallon
• Whiteout 7 oz $1.39 ................... $25.42 per gallon
• Scope 1.5 oz $0.99 ..................... $84.48 per gallon
• Evian water 9 oz $1.49................$21.19 per gallon

Lest We Forget