How To Help America From Home

If, like so many other Americans, you're sick and tired of a corrupt Congress that's grown willfully blind to the reality of Bush's disastrous Iraq war ... A mountainous National Debt, and climbing, that will saddle future generations... Unfair and ruinous tax cuts ... Depressed wages and a jobless 'economic recovery' ... Rapacious federal contractor fraud ... And those among their own congressmen who have committed unethical or illegal acts (and even have been convicted) but still retain their congressional perks ...

... Then maybe it's time you helped to get out the vote. Sign up with MoveOn.org to call from home. Click here to fill out this brief page, where you can pick your own days and hours. Instructions matching the number of calls you can make and your other preferences will be given soon after.

Dr. Dino's Judgment Day

The federal court jury Thursday afternoon convicted Kent Hovind ("Dr. Dino") and his wife Jo of multiple counts of tax fraud. The jury deliberated only two and a half hours; much of that time, we suspect, was occupied by ordering lunch and selecting the foreman.

Nicole Lozare once again drew the short straw at the Pensacola News Journal:

"Kent Hovind, founder of Creation Science Evangelism and Dinosaur Adventure Land in Pensacola, was found guilty of 58 counts, including failure to pay $845,000 in employee-related taxes. He faces a maximum of 288 years in prison.

"Jo Hovind was charged and convicted in 44 of the counts involving evading bank-reporting requirements. She faces up to 225 years in prison but was allowed to remain free pending the couple's sentencing on Jan. 9."

Many may suppose the convictions were a foregone conclusion when Dr. Dino's lawyer was admonished by the judge for wasting the court's time and, the next day, both defendants elected not to call any witnesses or to testify themselves. The truth, however, is that unlike cynical hypocrites such as the Hovinds, who made a small fortune peddling biblical fantasies to simple-minded religionists, lawyers have to work in a world of reality with the facts they are given.

In the end, reality always prevails, sooner or later.

Amplification Dept.
Two Dinosaurs
Dr. Dino gets his sentence.

End of the (Fishing) Line

Washington Post:

The world will run out of seafood by 2048 if steep declines in marine species continue at current rates, according to a study released today by an international group of ecologists and economists.

The paper, published in the journal Science, concludes that overfishing, pollution, and other environmental factors are wiping out important species across the globe, hampering the ocean's ability to produce seafood, filter nutrients and resist the spread of disease.

"We really see the end of the line now," said lead author Boris Worm, a marine biologist at Canada's Dalhousie University. "It's within our lifetime. Our children will see a world without seafood if we don't change things."

The BBC has more:

Historical records from coastal zones in North America, Europe and Australia also show declining yields, in step with declining species diversity; these are yields not just of fish, but of other kinds of seafood too.

Zones of biodiversity loss also tended to see more beach closures, more blooms of potentially harmful algae, and more coastal flooding.

Experiments performed in small, relatively contained ecosystems show that reductions in diversity tend to bring reductions in the size and robustness of local fish stocks. This implies that loss of biodiversity is driving the declines in fish stocks seen in the large-scale studies.

The final part of the jigsaw is data from areas where fishing has been banned or heavily restricted.

These show that protection brings back biodiversity within the zone, and restores populations of fish just outside.

American Association for the Advancement of Science:

"The good news is that it is not too late to turn things around," Worm said. The scientists studied 48 areas worldwide that have been protected to improve marine biodiversity. "We see that diversity of species recovered dramatically, and with it the ecosystem's productivity and stability."

"Through this research, it became clear to me that we hardly appreciate living on a blue planet," Worm said. "The oceans define our planet, and their fate may to a large extent determine our fate, now and in the future."

Chertoff's Unjust Desserts

Wonkette has the correspondence.

Future of the SRIA - Redux

What's with this? The Pensacola Bay Area League of Women Voters is sponsoring "a public forum on Nov. 18 [a Saturday] to discuss the future of Santa Rosa Island," according to the Pensacola News Journal.

"The forum will be at 9:30 a.m. the Noonin Center, First Presbyterian Church, 33 E. Gregory St. Lawyer M.J. Menge and Escambia County Commissioner Mike Whitehead will discuss the island’s history, the establishment of the Santa Rosa Island Authority and its responsibilities."

The announcement adds, "the presentation will include the recent proposal to consider abolishing the Island Authority."

There's no mention whether the League's discussion will include all the county study reports over the past twenty years which document, time and again, why it's a terrible idea to turn island government over to Escambia County commissioners who famously busy themselves by soliciting developer money to fuel their own political ambitions.

No matter how many times you drive a stake through the heart of this very bad idea and think you've buried it for good, avaricious interests manage to drag it back out of the coffin to save Buck Lee's skin and let Whitehead start sucking the last drop of blood from Pensacola Beach.

If the League intends to host a truly informational public discussion about good government on Pensacola Beach, why has it not included an advocate for self-governance through municipal incorporation? Someone like Kent Marple or ex-SRIA board member Don Ayres, for example, both of whom devoted the better part of two years to in-depth analysis of all the alternatives for governing Pensacola Beach.

"No" on Constitutional Amendment No. 3

ALERT! This article is a historical archive from 2006. To see our views on 2008 Florida ballot measures go here.

Wednesday, the Pensacola News Journal editorial board came out four-square against ballot initiative No. 3, which would make it "harder to pass constitutional amendments." It's a welcome change of position for the newspaper, as the News Journal confesses:

"We have supported similar proposals in the past, but the parade of large special interests pushing this amendment gives us pause, and we agree with the League of Women Voters of Florida that the petition process is important.

As the editorial acknowledges, Florida lags behind more progressive states that allow "voters, through a simple majority, to create state statutes." Instead, the only referendum power allowed under current Florida law is a voter-initiated amendment to the constitution.

Wouldn't you know it? The same legislature that doesn't want the people empowered to initiate state laws that the legislature won't pass on its own, now wants to restrict the initiative power of the people to adopt constitutional amendments.

The News Journal is getting smarter. The Florida legislature isn't. As the St. Petersburg Times has editorialized, Florida legislators "just want to make it harder for citizens to overrule their Legislature."

Dr. Dino Defense Rests

UPDATES BELOW
In Wednesday's installment about the Dr. Dino trial, the Pensacola News Journal reported "The defense has subpoenaed 10 witnesses." For Thursday's newspaper, however, the PNJ is reporting "the defense will not present a case."

As we said yesterday, there is "literary precedent" for this. Given a defendant who scams millions by preaching that dinosaurs and mankind were set down on Earth simultaneously, Morgenhall himself couldn't have said it any better:

"Tactics, you see. We'd decided not to trouble with science."

---------
UPDATE # 1

In the print edition of Thursday's paper we're told, "Before the break, [defense counsel Alan] Richey discussed with [Judge] Rodgers the witnesses he planned to call. After Wednesday's session, Richey said there was no need for a defense."

Sounds to us as if the judge may have issued a gentle -- or not so gentle -- private warning to Richey. Something along these lines, we imagine:

"I will not have any religious screwballs making a circus out of my courtroom, Mr. Richey. So I suggest you check your witness list twice to be sure every single one of the ten witnesses you have subpoenaed has personal knowledge of some admissible fact relevant to the case, not just a hair-brained opinion or 'faith-based' belief that defies reality. Otherwise, the U.S. Marshall will be measuring you for an orange jumpsuit, too."

UPDATE # 2

Red State Rabble ("A skeptic's dispatches from the fly-over zone") got off a good one about the defense's failure to offer any evidence:

"Hey, wait just a minute. That's the same proof they offer for creationism and intelligent design."

Bon Appetit To Close

We've been hearing from multiple sources all morning that the popular Gulf Breeze waterfront restaurant Bon Appetit Cafe & Bakery advised its staff last night that it is closing in two weeks. Now, the restaurant is confirming the rumor.

Bon Appetit will be closing November 16. It's been sold, the new owners plan to remodel, and a new restaurant will not re-open in the same space at the Bay Beach Inn for three months or more.

To say goodbye and thank them in person for over a decade of elegant dining and superior, friendly table service call (850) 932-3967 for a reservation. The familiar menu is here.

Dr. Dino's "Terrible Trumpet"

"There are ways and ways of losing."

-- John Mortimer, The Dock Brief, Sc. 2

To her credit, Nicole Lozare slips in a bit of courtroom color in her article summarizing yesterday's doings at the trial of Dr. Dino. At last, readers are given a taste of the real flavor of the courtroom, with all the bumblings and fumblings and missteps and outbursts that try judge's souls and make the proceedings ever so human:

"[O]n Tuesday, it wasn't always clear where [defense lawyer] Richey's lengthy cross-examination of Schneider was going. The Washington attorney was admonished by U.S. District Judge Casey Rodgers for asking irrelevant questions.

"One example: Richey questioned Schneider about a letter U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson sent to Hovind in response to the evangelist's questions about taxation. Nelson wrote that the IRS is committed to ensuring that "everyone pays their fair share of taxes."

"'Does everyone in your office pay their fair share of taxes?'" Richey asked Schneider. Schneider didn't respond because Assistant U.S. Attorney Michelle Heldmyer objected and the judge agreed it was irrelevant."

Although Lozare doesn't give us an exact body count, offering that snippet as "one example" suggests that, overall, Tuesday wasn't a good day for the defendants -- or Dr. Dino's defense lawyer.

"When Richey spent several minutes looking for documents, [Judge] Rodgers excused the jury. She then told Richey he was wasting their time. Rodgers then suggested Richey come in earlier or stay later to make sure his files were organized."

Who is this Richey fellow? "DodgerDean" over at The Panda's Thumb speculated last September in the comments section that he might be the same Port Hadlock, Washington, attorney who previously represented one Nadine Griffen who was convicted of filing a false tax return on her earnings as a saleswoman of off-shore seminars which "promoted and marketed fraudulent tax schemes."

Well, as they say, there are many opportunities to specialize in the law. You just have to find your niche.

The larger question Lozare's dispatch inspires is this: Is there any method to Dr. Dino's madness in having Mr. Richey as his lawyer? One precedent, of a literary kind, comes to mind: John Mortimer's classic radio play, The Dock Brief.

The play was later filmed and released under the title "Trial and Error" starring Peter Sellers and Richard Attenborough. As Bosley Crowther explained in a New York Times review at the time of original release, the film, like the play on which it is based, is --

"[N]othing more than a long dialogue ... between a meek little man [played by Attenborough] accused of murdering his eternally cheerful wife and the ponderous and dull-witted barrister [Peter Sellers] assigned by the court to defend him.
* * *
"The humor is in the fumbling discourse, the clumsy clichés by which these two expose their pathetically dull backgrounds and their horribly middle-class minds.

"The law's a tricky business," Mr. Sellers sagely observes, and Mr. Attenborough, after some cogitation on that weighty observation, replies, with the profundity of a pundit, "It is a bit chancy, yes."

We can't find a full text version of the play on-line, but Wisconsin law professor John Kidwell's essay offers a deliciously detailed description of the plot and liberally quotes from the script of this hilarious satire of lawyers at their work:

"The Dock Brief ... gives new meaning to the phrase 'ineffective assistance of counsel.' It opens with Morgenhall, a barrister played by Peter Sellers, being admitted to the cell of a man who has been accused of murdering his wife. Morgenhall, we quickly learn, is an unsuccessful barrister who has been waiting for years for the court to assign him a case; in England such an assigned case is referred to as a 'dock brief' -- hence the name of the film. Morgenhall’s first dock brief -- and in fact, apparently, first case of any kind -- is the defense of the unfortunate Mr. Fowle, played by Richard Attenborough. Fowle is the meek proprietor of a birdseed shop who has killed his wife because she saw humor in everything, and her raucous laughter and practical jokes finally drove him over the edge.
* * *
Most of the film is set in Fowle’s cell, and consists of Morgenhall’s discussion with Fowle about the strategies to be employed to obtain Fowle’s acquittal, notwithstanding ... that Perry Mason, Clarence Darrow and Cicero working together couldn’t have succeeded in getting Fowle off.
* * *
Ordinarily we expect the client to be the victim of some predicament, who turns to the lawyer to be rescued. Here ... that assumption is turned on its head. Morgenhall the lawyer is the one who needs help lest his whole career be a complete failure. When Fowle admits his guilt Morgenhall suggests he is being selfish and inconsiderate.

Morgenhall [the lawyer]: You think you killed your wife.
Fowle [the defendant]: Seems to me.
Morgenhall: Mr. Fowle. Look at yourself objectively. On questions of birdseed I have no doubt you may be infallible -- but on a vital point like this might you not be mistaken . . . ? Don’t answer.
Fowle: Why not sir?
Morgenhall: Before you drop the bomb of a reply, consider who will be wounded. Are the innocent to suffer?
Fowle: I only want to be honest.
Morgenhall: But you’re a criminal, Mr. Fowle. You’ve broken through the narrow fabric of honesty. You are free to be kind, human, to do good.
Fowle: But what I did to her . . .
Morgenhall: She’s passed, you know, out of your life. You’ve set up new relationships. You’ve picked out me.

When the defendant gently points out that, in fact, he hadn't picked Morgenhall to defend him -- instead the court had assigned the lawyer to his case at random -- Morganhall is momentarily crushed. But he recovers quickly:

Morgenhall: Never mind. You hurt me temporarily, Fowle, I must confess. It might have been kinder to have kept me in ignorance. But now, it’s done. Let’s get down to business. And Fowle -
Fowle: Yes, sir.
Morgenhall: Remember, you’re dealing with a fellow man. A man no longer young. Remember the hopes I’ve pinned on you and try . . .
Fowle: Try?
Morgenhall: Try to spare me more pain.
Fowle: I will, sir. Of course I will.

And so it goes with the two of them, lawyer and client, sitting in the jail cell before trial as the lawyer Morgenhall tries out first one defense and then another, practices imaginary witness examinations, and dreams of delivering the clinching final argument that will win the day in court. With every exercise, however, the client gently, so as not to hurt the lawyer's feelings, points out there is no such witness as he has imagined exists. There is no evidence of his innocence, no reasoned basis for the lawyer's fantasies, because the defendant really did it.

In the end, it seems, the husband is convicted of killing his wife. It develops, as well, that his lawyer has thoroughly botched the trial. He cross-examined no one, he called no witnesses of his own. He was struck dumb before the jury when it came time for his summation.

Back in the cell after the jury has returned its verdict, the lawyer continues to be assailed by self-doubts while simultaneously yearning for his client to assuage them. From a hard copy of the play we happen to have on hand:

MORGENHALL: And then they called that doctor.
FOWLE: You were right not to bother with him.
MORGENHALL: Tactics, you see. We'd decided not to trouble with science.
FOWLE: So we had. And with Bateson . . .
MORGENHALL: No, Fowle. I must beware of your flattery. I think I might have asked Bateson . . .
FOWLE: It wouldn't have made a farthing's difference. A glance told them he was a demon.
MORGENHALL: He stood there, so big and red, with his no tie and dirty collar. I rose up to question him and suddenly it seemed as if there were no reason for us to converse. I remembered what you said about his jokes, his familiarity with your wife. What had he and I in common? I turned from him in disgust. I think that jury guessed the reason for my silence with friend Bateson.

As for the final argument:

MORGENHALL: I stood up, Mr. Fowle, and it was the moment I'd waited for. Ambition had driven me to it, the moment when I was alone with what I wanted. Everyone turned to me, twelve blank faces in the jury box, eager to have the grumpy looks wiped off them. The judge was silent. The prosecutor courteously pretended to be asleep. I only had to open my mouth and pour words out. What stopped me?
FOWLE: What?
Morgenhall: Fear. That's what's suggested.

Eventually, however, it dawns on Morgenhall that his client may not appreciate the gravity of what he supposes to be the court's judgment:

MORGENHALL: I lost, Mr. Fowle. You may not be aware of it. It may not have been hammered home to you yet. But your case is lost.
FOWLE: But there are ways and ways of losing.
MORGENHALL: That's true, of course.
FOWLE: I noticed your artfulness right at the start, when the policeman gave evidence. You pulled out that red handkerchief, slowly and deliberately, like a conjuring trick.
MORGENHALL: And blew?
FOWLE: A sad, terrible trumpet.
MORGENHALL: Unnerved him, I thought.
FOWLE: He never recovered. There was no call to ask questions after that.

The surprise comes when the lawyer at last notices that Fowle appears altogether too happy for a man who has just been convicted. As Prof. Kidwell describes the scene:

"Fowle, somewhat reluctantly, discloses that he is about to be released. When Morgenhall asks why, Fowle even more reluctantly admits it is because the trial has been ruled 'no good at all—it is all null and void—because the barrister selected for him was no good—an old crock.'

Morgenhall's incompetence, it seems, was the best defense of all.

FOWLE: Don't you see? If I'd had a barrister who asked questions and made clever speeches I'd be as dead as mutton. Your artfulness saved me... . The dumb tactics. They paid off! I'm alive!"

It seems improbable that here in Pensacola we will see Dr. Dino escape justice by relying on a similar collection of "dumb tactics" orchestrated by his out of state defense lawyer. Still, it isn't totally out of the question. As The Dock Brief defendant points out (above) to his own court-appointed lawyer, "There are ways and ways of losing."

Questioning Bush

The other day, we noted the observable shift in sentiment about Bush's Iraq war among active military leaders. Today, Los Angeles Times reporters Julian E. Barnes and Doyle McManus report about the same phenomenon:

"Growing numbers of American military officers have begun to privately question a key tenet of U.S. strategy in Iraq — that setting a hard deadline for troop reductions would strengthen the insurgency and undermine efforts to create a stable state."
* * *
"'Deadlines could help ensure that the Iraqi leaders recognize the imperative of coming to grips with the tough decisions they've got to make for there to be progress in the political arena,' said a senior Army officer who has served in Iraq. He asked that his name not be used because he did not want to publicly disagree with the stated policy of the president."

Bush as much as calls any Democrat who makes such a suggestion a traitor to the country. As Robert Parry put it in the Baltimore Sun:

"Bush’s lies also aren’t about petty matters, such as some personal indiscretion or minor misconduct. Rather his dishonesty deals with issues of war and peace, the patriotism of his opponents, and the founding principles of the American Republic.

"They are the kinds of lies and distortions more befitting the leader of a totalitarian state whipping up his followers to go after some perceived enemy than the President of the world’s preeminent democracy seeking an informed debate among the citizenry."

Yet, as the LA Times reporters write, "Some in the military argue that publicizing a timetable for reducing forces is far less damaging to a counterinsurgency campaign than the administration has suggested."

Do you suppose Bush thinks that make them traitors, too?

Dr. Dino On God's Payroll

Up to bat with the latest Pensacola News Journal report about Dr. Dino's tax fraud trial is Nicole Lozare. With the excessive credulity she usually musters for any fantastic fable, Lozare again refers to Hovind, erroneously as we have hinted before, as a "tax protestor." Then she reports without a hint of irony:

"Despite a million-dollar business and speaking engagement earnings of nearly $50,000 a year, Pensacola evangelists Kent and Jo Hovind did not count the money as income.
* * *
Special IRS Agent Scott Schneider testified Monday that the couple denied that they had any income in numerous documents.
* * *
"Kent Hovind, a tax protester, makes a substantial amount of money. Schneider testified that in 2002, the ministry sold more than $1.8 million in Christian merchandise. But Hovind believes he and his employees work for God, are paid by God and, therefore, aren't subject to taxation."

It's difficult to believe Schneider actually testified that Hovind "believes" his own bull. More likely, what agent Schneider testified is that this is what Hovind claimed.

Maybe Lozare was just exhausted. She writes that Schneider was on the witness stand "for nearly eight hours," from which one can assume (because the reporter isn't saying) that the judge is making the lawyers work overtime after a week off due to a defense attorney's illness.

In any event, Hovind's substantial income didn't stop him or his wife from pleading poverty to a local medical establishment:

"'Dr. and Mrs. Kent Hovind do not earn salaries,' wrote Martha Harris, the trust secretary of Creation Science Evangelism to Baptist. 'As health insurance is not provided for this couple, we would appreciate (financial assistance.)'"

That little anecdote reminds us of a line from Edward Albee's great stage play about self-deception, Who's Afraid of Virginia Wolf? One of the house guests, Nick, is explaining to George that he's financially set because he married a woman whose father was a traveling preacher. The preacher collected a fortune from Christian simpletons, he says, "And when he died there was a lot of money."

George asks, slightly mystified, but wasn't that "God's money?"

"No," says Nick, "He spent God's money and saved his own."

City of the Dead

Union Hill Cemetery
(photo by John Williams)

Apropos of Halloween, about a week and a half ago Barrier Island Girl posted an excellent photo-essay on historic St. Michael's Cemetery in downtown Pensacola. The cemetery certainly is worth seeing if you're a history buff and BIG's stunning web photos are worth viewing even if you're not.

The Pensacola area is littered with so many historic cemeteries, marked and unmarked, it might be called "City of the Dead." A few years ago "A Student of New York Institute of Photography" -- said to be known in real life as John Williams -- web-published photographs of a number of these cemeteries. "Student of New York Institute" doubtless has matriculated by now, but luckily the site hasn't. It's still here.

One of the more interesting and forlorn cemeteries "Student" visited is Union Hill. One he didn't is Mount Zion Cemetery, located alongside a railroad track. You're not likely to fine any trick-or-treaters there on All Hallow's Eve. Too scary, even for the dead. The last time we stopped by with a grad student friend who was doing some research, several of the graves had collapsed or were left open after resident bodies were moved -- or perhaps they just crawled out and walked away from the drug dealers, pimps, and prostitutes that crowd the area.

A number of other forlorn cemeteries in the Pensacola area have been pinpointed by the intrepid folk at USGenWeb. Among them Pensacola Beach residents, tourists, and campers will remember Chasefield Plantation Cemetery, that odd little fenced-off collection of graves just outside the gates of Ft. Pickens.

We aren't sure if it survived Hurricane Ivan, but you can look for the only cemetery on Pensacola Beach this coming Saturday during the guided "Full Moon Walk" at Ft. Pickens. Access is by foot or boat, only, since the road still hasn't been repaired.

Hickory Ridge, being an early Mississippian aboriginal burial ground, is much older. Archaeologists at the University of West Florida aren't saying exactly where it's located, for obvious reasons, other than it "lies west of Pensacola on a large peninsula that is formed by Perdido and Pensacola Bays."

One cemetery you aren't likely to find on the web is a small, empty block that sits unobtrusively in the midst of a neighborhood of neat, small frame houses on the near north side of Pensacola. To passers-by it looks like three or four undeveloped lots with randomly-scattered mature trees. In fact, it's an old graveyard whose headstones collapsed long ago and were hauled away. Only a very few grave markers, flush with the earth and usually hidden beneath dead leaves, tell the tale. Our grad student friend gave us a snapshot of it. Sadly, Hurricane Ivan buried it along with our house two years ago.

Today seems the right time to point out that one of the lesser-known but persistent challenges facing all of Florida is identifying and preserving abandoned and neglected cemeteries.

"There are literally thousands of abandoned cemeteries in Florida, many of them unknown and forgotten as old homesteads are subdivided and sold off, cemetery operators go out of business, churches are moved, and new property owners are unaware of old burying grounds.
* * *
Maintaining cemeteries that are no longer active is a widespread problem throughout the state. A review by the Task Force on Abandoned and Neglected Cemeteries appointed by the Legislature in 1998 determined that some counties had more than 100 such cemeteries, and that thousands probably remain undocumented and uncared for in the state."

When in Florida, be careful where you tread. You may be walking over someone's final resting place.

Joe Roberts for Congress

UPDATED BELOW

Today's PNJ carries one of the few articles the newpaper has printed this election season comparing local incumbent congressman Jeff Miller (R-Chumukla) with his opponent, Joe Roberts (D-Gulf Breeze).

Reporter Larry Wheeler wasn't given much space to work with. He writes, in a little over 740 words, as if differences over the Iraq War is the most important issue in the local congressional race:

"Despite the increased violence in Iraq and growing public dissatisfaction with U.S. involvement there, Republican Jeff Miller declines to criticize the Bush administration’s policy and remains staunchly supportive of keeping U.S. troops in Iraq for the foreseeable future.

"Joe Roberts, the Pensacola Democrat trying to unseat the three-term congressman from Chumuckla, believes the president’s strategy of “unending presence in Iraq” is unacceptable and Congress should step in to force a solution."

It's certainly true that the two candidates disagree over Iraq. It's also true that the whole Iraq mess is of vital importance to future generations of U.S. citizens, from new born babes to teens approaching draft age -- and quite likely the children of those children.

Joe Roberts has taken a position closer to the critical views of prominent retired and active military officers whom we mentioned yesterday. Miller, by contrast, seems to have swallowed the Bush administration's Kool-Aide to such an extent that he still wants to 'stay the course' even as George W. Bush is trying to disavow that policy.

To be sure, Wheeler writes that "The war in Iraq is just one of many issues on which Miller and Roberts don’t agree." But he's given space to mention only one other in any detail: veteran's benefits.

"Roberts says Miller is not the friend of veterans he claims to be.

The Disabled American Veterans “key votes” chart shows Miller voted against legislation the organization endorsed nine times while voting with the group just three times."

Miller's response?

“The DAV has chosen to play politics in an extreme way in the 2006 elections,” Miller said."

That's an odd thing for a politician to say. It's not as if Miller doesn't "play politics" himself all the time. More to the point, at 1.2 million members the D.A.V. is, just as it claims, the foremost representative of the interests of disabled veterans and their families, their widowed spouses and their orphans before federal, state, and local governments."

Miller counters that, "A different organization, American Veterans, gave Miller a 100 percent voting record." It's not immediately clear which of the dozen or more "American Veterans" organizations Miller means. But if he's referring to the well-known AmVets organization, founded after W.W. II to support veterans generally, then Miller's claim isn't quite accurate -- or relevant, for that matter.

Miller voted as the AmVets wanted on 6 out of 7 "key votes." That's high, but not 100%. The AmVets is a venerable veteran's organization, but not one for disabled vets.

A fundamental problem with Jeff Miller is that over the entirety of his five full years in Congress he has displayed no imaginative ideas, no leadership skills, and no political muscle around Capitol Hill. Although he's one of many members of the Republican-dominated House Armed Services Committee and Veteran's Affairs Committee, the fact is that he has accomplished little and initiated nothing notable, even there.

It's as if even his Republican colleagues in Washington see him only as the small-time county commissioner he once was. He may be a nice enough fellow, personally, but he's a light weight and always will be.

According to a detailed run-down by the non-partisan, completely independent Project Vote Smart, Miller is particularly weak on environmental issues, labor, education, personal privacy rights, public health, and (shockingly) senior citizen issues. There are a lot of items in that list that are of interest even to hard-core conservatives of Northwest Florida. Yet, as reporter Wheeler summarizes, while voting for virtually anything that contained spending money for "military and homeland-security" (not to mention Halliburton give-aways) Miller regularly opposes other bills that would "fund energy, water, foreign operations, legislative-branch, commerce, justice, science, transportation, treasury and housing programs."

Even when it comes to projects that would serve the legitimate needs of his own district in Northwest Florida, Jeff Miller has under-performed. Over a five-year stretch when Republicans dominated all three branches of government including the House of Representatives, he collected only a few leftover crumbs from the table -- and those were in the oven long before he was first elected.

If, as most polls are now saying, the Democrats win a majority in the House next week, how much less effective will the nay-saying Miller become for us? Panhandle voters concerned about the local economy, wage base, affordable housing, hurricane preparedness, beach cleanliness, and better highways -- as well as the Iraq disaster -- ought to give Joe Roberts a second look for Congress.

He's been running a "spirited campaign," as another PNJ reporter remarked the other day. He's honest, forthright, and energetic. And he'll fit in with the new Democratic majority a heck of a lot more comfortably than do-nothing Jeff Miller.

Update
Nov. 9, 2006

Northwest Florida Congressional Wrap-up

109th Congress: 'Thieves and Perverts'

"The worst Congress Ever" is how Matt Taibai describes the 109th Congress in a recent issue of Rolling Stone. Most incumbents of that Congress, of course, are even now treading the land, begging us to reelect them so they can go back to Washington -- and do it again.

"These past six years were more than just the most shameful, corrupt and incompetent period in the history of the American legislative branch," Taibai vividly writes. "These were the years when the U.S. parliament became a historical punch line, a political obscenity... a stable of thieves and perverts who committed crimes ... and did their very best to turn the mighty American empire into a debt-laden, despotic backwater, a Burkina Faso with cable."

"Congress has become an exercise of raw power with no principles -- and in that environment corruption has flourished. The Republicans in Congress decided from the outset that their future would be inextricably tied to George Bush and his policies. It has become this sad session of members sitting down and drinking Kool-Aid delivered by Karl Rove. Congress became a mere extension of the White House."

"The end result is a Congress that has hijacked the national treasury, frantically ceded power to the executive, and sold off the federal government in a private auction."

To read the full story on "how it all happened before our very eyes" click here.

Following Florida's Insurance Money

Today, the final installment of the Gannett media series about Florida insurance reforms focuses squarely on who has the incentive to find them -- and who doesn't. In the latter category are a bunch of fast-talking politicians who are hiding the fact that they've already sold out to the insurance industry.

Top of the list is Charlie Crist. It's shocking to read in "The Money Trail" by Paige St. John and Aaron Deslatte that --

"Attorney General Charlie Crist, the Republican candidate for governor, has taken in $763,507 in insurance industry contributions through Oct. 6, the most among any candidate in the general election."

By contrast, his Democratic opponent, Jim Davis, has received only $74,450. That's 9.8 percent of Crist's total.

The mountain of money Crist has raked in from insurance companies and agents doesn't yet break the all-time state record. That dubious distinction belongs to Florida's current Chief Financial Officer, Tom Gallagher, who collected over $1 million during the primary while supposedly regulating them. That's a million dollars of our premium money passed through intermediaries like State Farm, Florida Peninsula, and other property insurance companies.

But there's still time. Charlie Crist almost assuredly will break Gallagher's sell-out record by the time final candidate campaign contribution reports are due, well after the November 11 election.

Crist, of course, says the money won't influence him if he's elected. But talk is cheap. As Bill Newton of the Florida Consumer Action Network says, "You need to follow the money. The money talks. I don't pay attention to what people are saying -- it's the money that talks."

Other articles in the final installment of the Gannett series include --

• "Insurers Shell Game Targeted,"
• "Slow '06 Season Doesn't Make Up for Past Storms," and
• the PNJ editorial, "Sound Solutions Do Exist"