One of the things I have found most infurriating in New Jersey is the attitude that "corruption is a necessary part of politics".  I'm not claiming that West Texas is a model of purity, but I've never understood how the most widespread reaction to corruption in politics can be a shrug and the explanation is, "Well, what do you expect?"

I expect public officials, regardless of political afffiliation, to uphold the basic minimum of public trust.  That means they show up for their job and at least attempt to do it to the best of their ability.  It means that they put personal honor and integrity above loyalty and ambition.  It means they don't rip me off during the normal course of their workday.

I had hoped that change might be around the corner when Jon Corzine became Governor of New Jersey.  "Hold me accountable" he said.  I understand that there is a lot on his plate - our state is in horrible fiscal condition - but I'm of a mind that nothing takes higher precedence than ensuring the honesty and integrity of our governing structures.  And that means that Jon Corzine's next action should be to fire Javier Inclan.

X-posted from Xpatriated Texan.

Robert Novak ventures out of his own bunghole long enough today to show that he's about as dumb about race in America as he is on everything else.  Need proof?  Take a look:

Ferraro's specific remarks were so impolitic that there is no chance they were designed by Clinton's campaign.

 and then skip down to this idiocy:

In such a prolonged contest, Obama will enjoy overwhelming African American support. The question is whether the Clinton campaign can resist pointing this out in an effort to mobilize white backing. It certainly has not resisted so far, demonstrated by feckless Gerry Ferraro's mimicking what she heard from Bill and Hillary.

So Ferraro's remarks did not come from Clinton's campaign - they just came from Hillary and Bill Clinton.  Is it possible for a remark to come from the candidate but not be a part of the campaign?  Only in some fantasyland where candidates are not part of their own campaign.

that's what Rev. Jeremiah Wright said.  And it wouldn't matter except one of his parishoners is running for President.  And of all the possible issues, this seems the one most likely to do in Barack Obama.  It seems that this is the sort of jackassery that was long feared in the Obama campaign.

David Kuo says that church-hopping is to blame.  If only everyone stayed in churches they hated; then churches would be forced to change.  I have to wonder exactly how many Catholics would have to protest the Pope's stance on abortion for it to be changed.  Also, I wonder if Kuo follows the Catholic belief in the inherent evilness of in vitro fertilization - and if so, does he believe that families who use in vitro should sit in church and be condemned for their children's lives?

I posted this at my blog too, but it's too funny not to spread widely and repeatedly.

Who says Barack Obama isn't tough enough?

My apologies if this has been covered previously.

I have heard all of the arguments both ways to seating delegates from Florida and Michigan.  My personal belief - and you are more than welcome to disagree (somewhere else, please, I'd like to see if we can discuss the actual topic of the diary) - is that they should live by the rules in place when they set their primary date.  

But the fact of the matter is that these are both major battleground states and we need to hear their voices.  Beyond that, it is simply wrong for the party of the people to say that two states are just not going to be heard whatsoever.  After all, it wasn't the rank-and-file Democrats that decided when the primary would be.  If this is about people; then let's make it about people

I don't hold any illusions about where I sit in the world.  I'm not the next Markos or Jerome.  But after plugging away for a couple of years at my own blog, I was invited to be a front-pager at Blue Jersey, which in turn led to being asked to write for the Star-Ledger's NJ Voices feature.  I don't get paid for it, but I enjoy babbling about my view on politics and how state and national developments effect each other.

For some reason, The Hotline is calling Paul Volker "Reagan's Fed Chair".  They note that he was first appointed by Carter, but still call him "Reagan's".  I'm a bit baffled by this.  Take this explanation of Volker's tenure as Fed Chair:

Little wonder Reagan liked Paul Volker so much. He had already made the unpopular but necessary decisions required to tame out-of-control inflation under Jimmy Carter and the inflation arc that had been building for about a decade before Carter took office was already showing signs of coming under control by the end of Reagans second year in office.

Oh, and, of course, Reagan really liked the idea that he would get the credit for the hard decisions Carter made in choosing the right person for the right job of Fed Chairman at the right time (to his political detriment) while he had to make virtually no unpopular decsions with respect to inflation and interest rates.

The chief economic problem of the 1970s was the phenomenon that came to be known as stagflation.  Stagflation is the simultaneous onset of inflation combined with a stagnant economy - particularly with slow growth combined with high unemployment.  Sorry, but this is going to be a long one.

In normal economic times, inflation and employment have an inverse relationship.  When the inflation rate increases, sales drop, resulting in a loss of employment.  As employment falls, demand falls.  This puts downward pressure on prices.  Conversely, lowering prices increases sales which, in turn, drives new employment (NOTE: This is a simplified version).  Nice and simple.  The problem for government is that neither inflation nor unemployment (short of massive governmental employment - as during the New Deal) can be controlled directly.

Battling political corruption in New Jersey is a little like asking people not to wear big-ass cowboy hats in Texas.  You tend to not get a lot of results, make a lot of people mad, and often get told, "This is the way things are here.  Get used to it or get out."  Well, that's the censored version of what you get told.

There are two ways to view political corruption.  The first is to see it as a problem of opportunism.  This is the "I seen my chances and I took 'em" school of "honest graft".  A few bad apples exist here and there, but by and large politics isn't really as dirty as its reputation and corruption is a piecemeal problem.  If only one or two people are doing corrupt things, then it can be justified.  If, however, the problems are widespread; then it isn't just a few apples that are causing problems - the living organism that produces fruit has been infected and corrupted.  This is the second view of corruption - as a systemic indication that something is wrong.  Sometimes a sick tree can be treated, but sometimes it has to be cut down.  This is an attempt to treat one very sick living organism of democracy.

If all Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. had accomplished in his life was to place a spotlight on the moral injustice of a segregated society, he would still be worthy of having a national day of recognition.  If all he had accomplished were to help America cast out the beam in our own eye, he would still be worthy of a place in history.  If all he had accomplished were to restore a measure of humility to a country that often claims to be the mightiest in the history of mankind, then he would still be worthy of our reverence and thanks.

But Dr. King was much more than that.  In the fading days of the argument over whether Dr. King needed Lyndon Johnson or Lyndon Johnson needed Dr. King, on this holiday called to commemorate his life and contributions to our society, let's remember that - like the Gospel he preached - Dr. King's message was never limited to one race or one problem.  Dr. King was a great American because he found within us all a shared spark of the divine and encouraged us to be worthy of it.  He was not just a "great Black American" - he was a Great American.

(X-posted from Xpatriated Texan)

How do you tell when a politician is lying?  Watch their lips.  If they are moving, they are lying.

So President Bush has found his cajones and vetoed the military budget because - get this - it might open the Government of Iraq to having their assets seized in response to lawsuits from American soldiers who were tortured by the Saddam Hussein.  There's a lot to say about this.

X-posted from Street Prophets

I've never been impressed with Mitt Romney - the guy reminds me of a used car salesman (no offense to used car salesmen, of course).  After hearing him (supposedly) speak about his faith, I'm even less impressed.  The one line that struck me was his statement about his father marching with Dr. King.  So I did a bit of research.

Wow.  Am I really unimpressed with Mitt Romney now.  If possible, I have a negative unimpression of him.

I'm sure that (almost) everyone has heard of Thomas Jefferson's famous "wall of separation" statement to the Danbury Baptists.  I'm also sure that almost no one actually knows the wherefore and the why about that statement.  It's much easier to twist such a statement to mean just about anything than it is to actually do a bit of historical study and try to get inside of Jefferson's head.  I'm not going to get into all the details (you can follow the links if you want to get started on that), but I am going to say that it was clear that Jefferson did not want the President to be our national clergyman and that he looked only as far as both England and France to see examples of how the excessive entanglement between politics and religion worked to the disservice of both (Jefferson took a dim view of clergy in general, as even a cursory reading of his letters will show).

Today’s speech by President Bush would be right at home on The Colbert Report (Video link).  Unfortunately, all indications are that the President was actually serious when he – of all people – wanted to lecture Congress about fiscal responsibility, supporting our troops, and negotiating in good faith.  This is a little like hearing Rudy Giuliani say that he was "one of them" when talking about 9/11 rescue workers.  You can’t believe your ears – but then you also want to slap someone back to reality.

Some of the lowlights of the President’s stand-up comedy act public appeal to Congress – followed by some context.

The immediate reason for this diary is hutsu's diary concerning Obama's use of Donnie McClurkin in his campaign.  I've read a few posts on it - from Chuck Currie to Matt Stoller - and I have a few thoughts on the matter.

The first is that it reminds me quite a bit of the John Edwards blogger non-scandal.  First, everyone is entitled to their opinion - even if it is offensive to some part of society (and what comment isn't offensive to some part of society?).  Second, it is, on the surface, a rather silly issue upon which to derail a campaign.

X-posted from Xpatriated Texan
The recent revelation of conditions at Walter Reed Hospital has spawned a set of Congressional hearings.  But the problems with Army medical facilities is both long-term and systemic.  You can chop off a few heads, sure, but it isn't going to change anything.  The problems extend far beyond one or two "bad apples" - an excuse which has worn so thin as to be transparent by now.

This is cross-posted from Xpatriated Texan

Back in September I wrote a post detailing the story of Luis Carranza and his mother Guadalupe.  On top of medical horrors, our inhumanity placed strict limitations on the ability of a mother to offer succor to her child.  As I write this, sitting in the rocking chair in my sons' nursery, I can't help to shed at least a few tears when I read this comment:

Thurman: I am a reporter for El Diario, a newspaper in El Paso and Juarez, where mrs Carranza is originally from. It touched a lot of us deeply to see how people like you, so far away, would worry about this specific story, and we would like to talk to you on the subject, how many of you think the way you do and if you believe something should be done.
Unfortunately, little Luis died last thursday, but her mother’s story is one that should be told over and over again. I would very much like to hear from you, and hope I will do so very soon. You’ve got my e-mail. Thanks.

X-posted from Xpatriated Texan
This story actually starts back a ways...

It seems that Matthew LaClair, a seventeen year old who lives in Kearny, NJ, thought it was a bit odd that his history teacher was telling him that he belonged in Hell.  You have to admit - that's a very odd history lesson that ends up damning contemporary teens.  You can listen to the lesson yourself here, here, and here (many thanks to The Observer for providing links as a public service) and see if it has been taken out of context or not.