October 12, 2006

BizzyBlog Post Noted in Another Post — The New York Post

Filed under: Economy,News from Other Sites,Taxes & Government — Tom @ 7:42 pm

In a rarity, a media outlet is covering a topic that doesn’t have Mark Foley’s name on it.

Referring back to this post (“The Federal Budget Deficit: Bush Benchmark Achieved, Ignored”) that went up at BizzyBlog Sunday morning, the New York Post’s “Tax $$$ Windfall Closes Budget Gap” article today by Roddy Boyd closed with these eight paragraphs (BizzyBlog paras bolded):

“It’s clear that Republicans will be able to force some Democrats to eat crow, at least as far as making permanent [Bush's] tax cuts, since tax receipts are the primary basis for this figure,” said American Enterprise Institute’s Kevin Hassett, an economist at the conservative think tank.

The boost in tax receipts, according to Tom Blumer, an economist whose Bizzy Blog Web site is a clearinghouse for supply-side ideas, was the direct result of the tax cuts.

In a posting, Blumer argued receipts have soared to $2.41 trillion from $1.78 trillion. In 2006 alone, he estimated, receipts will increase by 11.7 percent.

Blumer argued that if federal tax receipts continue to increase at a 9 percent growth rate, the 2009 budget might show a surplus.

He wrote that growth rate is not pie-in-the-sky, as it represented only 70 percent of the 13.1 percent increase in receipts of the past two years.

American Enterprise’s Hassett counseled caution however.

“This administration, and certainly the Congress, has shown little inclination towards spending discipline, so they may well give away the gains [in deficit reduction] via spending,” said Hassett.

Administration officials said the actual 2006 deficit is down to 1.9 percent of the gross domestic product. This continues a positive trend that comes despite soaring war costs and $50 billion in emergency spending for hurricane relief, they said.

Very cool, though the Post whiffed on three things:

  • It’s BizzyBlog without the space.
  • I’m a CPA, not an economist (don’t know, which is worse – ha).
  • It would be nice if the Post joined the 21st century and put links in its articles (esp for the linkee!).

My Rupert Murdoch vast right-wing conspiracy decoder ring should arrive any day now.

The Strickland Saga: A Psychologist and Cleveland Talk-Show Host Bob Frantz Exchange E-mails

Filed under: News from Other Sites,Taxes & Government — Tom @ 7:19 pm

I was copied, along with about two dozen others, many of whom have tedstrickland.com e-mail addys, on the message to radio host Bob Frantz at 1100 WTAM-AM in Cleveland this afternoon. I believe I was copied as a courtesy because the sender linked to BizzyBlog for the Floor Speech link that I have that is included in the sender’s e-mail.

I also was copied on Frantz’s response.

Given the wide distribution both e-mails already have, there’s no reason to keep what I received from either gentleman private.

I’m not sure either missive requires much in the way of commentary, especially given Frantz’s stick-to-the-facts response. Keep in mind that Frantz has made it very clear that he is not excited about either major party’s gubernatorial candidate.

Here’s Miller’s e-mail to Frantz, to which I added a couple of paragraph breaks for readability. I also created links at the end for two URLs that were not hotlinked with the full URL in the e-mail I received from him:

I heard your ignorant and scandalous claims this morning that concluded that Strickland supports pedophilia. The bill that Strickland voted “Present” on in 1999 was a political attack on a scientific study that did not report what the right wanted to hear. The purpose of scientific studies is to learn more about what is not know, NOT to support a political point of view. Strickland’s vote and subsequent comments should be interpreted as nothing more as an attack on the attempted politicalization of science. Please acknowledge that his subsequent comments strongly reference the 10 Commandments. Any conclusion that Strickland supports pedophilia is both false and libelous.

Any clinician knows from first hand experience the deleterious effects that incest and other child abuse can have on both females AND males. What is much less known, is how many people experience that level of impact, how many are less impacted, and do some experience little to no deleterious effects? That is what the study attempted to address. Fellow clinicians who work with survivors of childhood abuse also know that significant recovery is possible for many to most who are treated.

It is acknowledged by most, perhaps with the exception of Mr. Bush’s administration, that many of our troops who have gallantly served in Iraq have experienced various levels of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). What is not known, at least to my knowledge, is when troops are exposed to the exact same situation, who will/not experience PTSD? There is some general knowledge that those who were psychologically healthier before entering the service will generally suffer fewer effects than those who were less psychologically healthy before the service.

There is a real parallel between the effects of child abuse and the effects of war experiences. It is generally accepted that those troops who HAVE experienced child abuse will more likely experience PTSD than those troops who did not. I can’t cite specific studies, but know that they exist. Some of the issues that the study posed was whether the issues of age and consent were relevant to outcome, i.e., would a 16 yo in a consensual situation experience less deleterious effects than a 5 yo who was repeatedly raped?

I have never known of ANY psychologist that supports pedophilia.

I encourage you to read both the original article (link), as well as an article later by the American Psychological Association (link) that more cogently puts this whole situation in a political context than I have been able to do. You will find NO support for pedophilia.

Michael Miller, PhD
Psychologist

Here’s Frantz’s response (italics added to set off the resolution’s language):

One quick glance at the list of Cc’s on your address line to all the “tedstrickland.com” recipients makes it clear you are a Strickland campaigner.

The facts are these: Mr. Strickland was asked to say “yea” to the following:

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That Congress–

(1) condemns and denounces all suggestions in the article `A Meta-Analytic Examination of Assumed Properties of Child Sexual Abuse Using College Samples’ that indicate that sexual relationships between adults and `willing’ children are less harmful than believed and might be positive for `willing’ children (Psychological Bulletin, vol. 124, No. 1, July 1998);

(2) vigorously opposes any public policy or legislative attempts to normalize adult-child sex or to lower the age of consent;

(3) urges the President likewise to reject and condemn, in the strongest possible terms, any suggestion that sexual relations between children and adults–regardless of the child’s frame of mind–are anything but abusive, destructive, exploitive, reprehensible, and punishable by law; and

(4) encourages competent investigations to continue to research the effects of child sexual abuse using the best methodology, so that the public, and public policymakers, may act upon accurate information.”

Mr. Strickland chose not to do so.

Chose not to “condemn and denounce all suggestions…that indicate sexual relationships between adults and children…might be positive for willing children.”

Chose not to “vigorously oppose any public policy or legislative attempt to normalize adult-child sex, or to lower the age of consent.”

Chose not to “urge the President to likewise reject and condemn…any suggestion that sexual relations between children and adults–are anything but abusive, destructive, etc.”

Chose not to “encourage competent investigations to continue to research the effects of child sexual abuse using the best methodology…”

The rest of your psychological commentary is little more than political double-talk to cover the fact that Mr. Strickland was one of only 13 House members present that day who did NOT join his Democrat and Republican colleagues in standing as one to denounce the notion that there may be some benefit to children who are victims of pedophilia.

Frantz did an excellent job during his program of deflecting a caller who tried Ted Strickland’s “no hope of recovery” angle that yours truly dissected in Part 3 of Tuesday’s series of posts, pointing out that the resolution itself did not contain that language.

Right Angle Blog has a link to Frantz’s full program today.

_________________________________________

FOLLOW-UP, Oct. 13: Psychologist Michael Miller Violates First Rule of Holes (Keeps Digging), and Ignores Why the 1999 Resolution Was So Important

Follow-up on BizzyBlog Call into Bill Cunningham on Ted Strickland

Filed under: Taxes & Government — Tom @ 3:15 pm

WELCOME TO BILL CUNNINGHAM LISTENERS! Just got back from running some errands, and spoke to Cunningham for 10 minutes or so before 2:00 p.m. I appreciate Willie letting me on the show and allowing me to plug BizzyBlog (remember, I asked if it was OK first), and then repeating the blog name several times even after the phone call ended.

Here’s a quick reference to previous posts and key documents:

  • Overview and Index (moved to Oct. 13 because of continued interest) — Consider this the Cliff’s Notes if you’re pressed for time.
    Part 1 — Why It’s Being Brought Up
    Part 2 — The Resolution, and Strickland’s Floor Speech
    Part 3 — The Reason Why He Said He Opposed It (and My Conversation with Him about It)
    Part 4 — What It Reveals about How He Might Govern
    Oct. 12 — Latest Developments
  • Dayton Daily News Article from March 17 (text obtained from Proquest and saved at host for fair use and discussion purposes), where Mark Flannery’s raised the Strickland “present” vote and employee issues (mentioned on the Cunningham program today; note how much space is given to criticism of Flannery vs. the substance of the complaints).
  • Full text of H CON RES 107 (saved to host hard drive), the Resolution Ted Strickland voted “Present” on.
  • And finally, below is the full text of Strickland’s July 27, 1999 One-Minute Floor Speech (saved to host hard drive) where he criticized the 355 congresspersons who had voted 15 days earlier to condemn the American Psychological Association’s publication of a study that claimed that adult-child sex pedophilia can sometimes be a good thing — for the child (bolds are mine, and are the things Cunningham and I addressed in his show and during my call):

    (Mr. STRICKLAND asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)

    Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, it troubles me that sometimes in this Chamber we stand and say things that we ought not to say. We criticize people that we have no right to criticize.

    We recently voted to condemn a scientific study and an organization, an organization that has done as much as any organization in this country to fight child abuse.

    I wonder how many of us read the study before we were willing to vote to say that the methodology was flawed. I wonder how many of us were technically competent to make that decision.

    I believe that we ought to observe the Ten Commandments. One of those Commandments says, you ought not to bear false witness against your neighbor.

    When we say things about an organization or about an individual scientist that are untrue or unsubstantiated, in my judgment, we have violated that Commandment.

    We ought to have the decency not to vote to condemn something until we know what it is we are voting to condemn.

Other members of the State of Ohio Blog Alliance are covering Strickland-related matters the big Ohio newspapers have thus far ignored:

Oh, and don’t miss this YouTube vid that will serve as Cliff’s notes for those who are new to the Strickland residency dispute.

Ted Strickland’s 1999 ‘Present’ Vote: Latest Developments

Filed under: Taxes & Government — Tom @ 8:16 am

Pryceless

NixGuy weighs in, and slaps down a critic of Deborah Pryce.

Hmmm

One has to wonder if “Tirade Ted” is hearing footsteps about this. Some might think it impolite that I question the timing of this announcement by Marc Dann and Lee Fisher — but I do (with vid; site was tough to get in the early AM to due to apparent problems with Blogger; HT Buckeye State Blog [some of us have the courtesy to link]):

….. Attorney General candidate State Sen. Marc Dann (Liberty Township) and Lieutenant Governor candidate Lee Fisher (D-Cleveland) discussed Dann’s proposed legislation to fully implement the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 that was passed by Congress in July …..

Fisher was Attorney General from 1991 to 1995 and is a recognized leader in the national effort to strengthen the laws that protect children from sexual predators. He applauded Dann for taking the steps needed to bring Ohio into compliance with “Adam’s Law,” and he said that he and Rep. Ted Strickland (D-Lisbon) look forward to working with Dann as Ohio’s Attorney General to make this state the safest in the nation for children and families.

It’s not exactly a mystery why the second paragraph above leads with the Lieutenant Governor nominee’s credentials in this area.

Oh, and where was Ted? Worried about questions? Footsteps too loud?

_____________________________

UPDATE: This is too easy (HT Lincoln Logs), which is why I won’t take the obvious bait. The link notes that Marc Dann has occasionally defended child molesters. I don’t have a problem with that. Every accused criminal is entitled to representation, and the lawyers who defend the accused don’t deserve to be tarred for doing so unless they engage in over-the-top defense tactics, which is not being claimed (Oops, yes it is; see Update 1A).

That said, here’s what is also important at the link:

Out of 30,000 lawyers in Ohio, Dann was only one of 8 reprimanded.

In 2004, the Ohio Supreme Court took that unusual step for errors Dann made in a spousal support case.

Dann even admitted in a statement at the time he paid insufficient attention to his client’s case.

“I made a mistake and I took responsibility for it and as a result I agreed with the Supreme Court on a public reprimand.”

By the “hasn’t been publicly reprimanded” yardstick, it would appear that there are over 29,000 Ohio lawyers more qualified to be Attorney General than Marc Dann. One of them would be Betty Montgomery. At the moment, I would think that the “Don’t blame me, I voted for Chandra” folks are beside themselves.

UPDATE 1A, Oct. 13: The Montgomery campaign has put up a post with a quote from Dann that is, at best, over-the-top in defending a child-molesting client, but at worst incredibly naive about the nature of the offense:

While trying to help the child molester escape full responsibility for the crime, Dann told the judge that his client had “good intentions in trying to reach out to the young children in the neighborhood.”

Montgomery’s response, also at the post, is this: “As a lawyer, I understand that even child molesters deserve to have legal representation,” Montgomery concluded. “But that’s not the point. Marc Dann’s experience defending child molesters and minimizing their horrific crimes with words like ‘good intentions’ disqualifies him from leading Ohio’s effort to protect children and families.” Hard to disagree.

UPDATE 2: Another “coincidence” — The Fisher-Dann announcement took place the day after this press release from the Montgomery campaign.

UPDATE 3: Yesterday at Right Angle, NixGuy noted that one of Strickland’s highly-credentialed professional colleagues, who happens to be a near-household name, opposed the APA-published study in question.

UPDATE 4: Right Angle also has a link to a Bob Burney audio that is primarily about the March 17 Dayton Daily News story (saved at BizzyBlog hard drive; text obtained from ProQuest for fair use and discussion purposes) about the sexual predator on Strickland’s staff from 1997 to 1999. It also gets to the “present” vote in the final segments. On my computer at least, the audio loaded very slowly. Listen if you can.

UPDATE 5: Bill Cunningham is covering the vote on WLW today, and very validly contrasting the non-coverage of Strickland’s rip on 355 of his congressional colleagues to the saturation coverage of Jean Schmidt’s criticism of ONE congressman last year. I’m told that Bob Franz of WTAM in Cleveland is addressng this too.

Equal Time on Leno For Cali Gov Candidate?

Filed under: Business Moves,Taxes & Government — Tom @ 8:14 am

Item:

A California congressman lodged a federal complaint Tuesday against “The Tonight Show with Jay Leno,” for featuring Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger as a guest one month before the election while snubbing his Democratic opponent.

U.S. Rep. Xavier Becerra, D-Los Angeles, argues in Federal Communications Commission complaint that the NBC program is violating the equal time provision of the Federal Communications Act.

Schwarzenegger is to appear Wednesday on the talk show.

His opponent, state Treasurer Phil Angelides, asked to appear on the show but had not received a response by Tuesday afternoon, said Steve Maviglio, a spokesman for Angelides’ campaign.

Rep. Becerra may not be helping Angelides’ cause. From what I understand of Phil “Mr. Excitement” Angelides, the Terminator/Governator may be hoping that his opponent gets on.

This Looks VERY Significant

Filed under: Taxes & Government — Tom @ 8:09 am

From the UK Times Online:

THE freedom to publish allegations about public figures free from the “chilling” threat of libel laws was won by the British media in a landmark House of Lords ruling yesterday.

In a judgment that lawyers predict will usher in a new era of journalism, five law lords unanimously ruled in favour of a public interest defence that brings English law close to the freedom enjoyed by US media.

Journalists will be able to publish material if they act responsibly and in the public interest, and be free from the risk of libel damages, even if allegations later prove untrue.

It was also very overdue.

What the Dispatch Did with Its Sunday Article on the OH Guv Race

Ken ‘n’ Ted.

Zheesh.

I could handle the frivolity if the Dispatch recognized the existence of this, this, or this.

As it is, it sure looks like Ohio reporters are desperately trying to figure out how to mark time while their guy hangs on to his lead.

More Diebold e-Voting Dung in Maryland

Filed under: Business Moves,Taxes & Government — Tom @ 7:59 am

Just read it. Any attempt to comment on it would violate the blog’s language standards. I promise I won’t listen to your reaction, so you need not feel inhibited.

Enky Blog Is Back in Sleep Mode

Filed under: News from Other Sites,Taxes & Government — Tom @ 7:54 am

On Tuesday, the Cincinnati Enquirer’s Politics Extra Blog covered polls released by the Bliss Insitute. Of course, they neglected to note that the Institute’s polls relating to the Reform Ohio Now initiatives last November were off by as much as 28 points, or a 56-point swing.

The same blog that posted about a dozen times on Jean Schmidt’s 13 year-old Columbus Marathon picture can’t find the space for the Ted Strickland residency controversy (covered by three Ohio papers), the meaning of Strickland’s 1999 “Present” vote on a resolution condemning a psychological research study attempting to begin the process of making adult-child sex pedophilia more acceptable, or the lax attitude on the part of Sherrod Brown towards drug use in his office when he was Secretary of State.

Yep, it’s mid-October in a general-election season. Time for the Enky to go to sleep, with occasional rumblings on endorsement Sundays.

Eliot Corzine?

Filed under: Taxes & Government — Tom @ 7:49 am

Could be (Wall Street Journal link requires subscription):

No one is giving Republican John Faso much chance to beat Eliot Spitzer in their race to be the next New York Governor. But the Republican’s campaign has already done a public service in prompting the Democratic attorney general to make a no-new-taxes pledge.

Mr. Faso, a former leader of Republicans in the state assembly, is campaigning for a significant supply-side tax cut for the state that is one of the two or three most heavily taxed in the U.S. Mr. Spitzer won’t go that far, but during his debate recently with Mr. Faso he pledged, “There will be no tax increase in a Spitzer administration.”

For a guy who is supposedly miles ahead in the polls Spitzer is doing some un-Spitzerlike things. He can’t be dumb enough to be planning to back off of this once elected, can he?

Positivity: Baby Survives Three Days Alone in the Wilderness

Filed under: Positivity — Tom @ 6:01 am

In Alvarado, Texas, two police officers’ decisions to take their day off to continue a search paid off:

Kevin Brown, a 2½-year-old North Texas toddler who survived alone in the wilderness for 69 hours, is back home with his family today, thanks to a huge rescue effort, and two helicopter pilots who spotted him.

A manhunt for Kevin began after his parents reported the boy missing from his front yard on Sept. 21.

Police and volunteers combed acres of pastures, covered with tall grass and ponds – areas where bobcats and coyotes are known to wander.

The search was about to be called off for good when two police officers, refusing to give up, took to the skies in a helicopter on their day off.

“We were losing hope. It was taking so long,” Kevin’s father, Almond Brown, said.

The officers spotted Kevin on Sept. 24, lying on his stomach, apparently trying to get water from a tank.

Brown suffered sunburn, dehydration and bug bites to make it home alive.

“He’s here now, and that’s what we’re most thankful for,” Johnson County Sheriff Bob Alford told reporters.

Police said the child had to walk through a barbed-wire fence and a herd of cattle to get to where they found him.

When the boy’s parents met him at the hospital, he didn’t have much to say to his father.

“He was looking for his mother. He didn’t really say a lot to me,” Almond Brown said.