( – promoted by JulieWaters)

“Nuclear Plant”
“Emergency Shutdown”
“Scram”

Per the Rutland Herald article “Failed valve triggers Yankee shutdown:”

[…]
Workers at the Vernon reactor had “flagged” a large troublesome steam valve when it failed to shut off during testing Wednesday. When they returned Thursday to further test the troublesome valve, all four steam line valves started to close, throwing the plant into an emergency shutdown, or scram, according to State Nuclear Engineer Uldis Vanags.
[…]
Vanags said the plant remained in “hot” shutdown rather than “cold” shutdown. Such a shutdown is usually an indicator that Entergy Nuclear believes the problem can be fixed quickly.

But Vanags said he didn’t know what the original problem with the first valve was at this point and he was waiting for additional information from Entergy.
[…]

Well, that’s comforting.

UPDATE– Bearing Blamed in Yankee Outage…

Lack of grease in a bearing in a large motor-operated valve is being blamed for Thursday’s emergency shutdown at the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant.

And the plant’s staff may have made things worse during their troubleshooting and actually caused the shutdown, a state official said Friday.

Uldis Vanags, the state nuclear engineer, said it appears that the bearing was inadequately lubricated during the last refueling outage at Yankee.

“There was insufficient grease applied in the last outage,” Vanags said. “They’ve put in a new bearing and lubricated it really well.”

Vanags said that federal regulators were investigating the possibilities that actions by Entergy Nuclear staff during troubleshooting of the sticky valve is what actually caused the reactor to shut down, rather than the valve itself.

“The way the troubleshooting was conducted could have caused the trip,” he said.

ENVY had an unexpected, automatic shutdown today.

“Plant officials said the shutdown occurred at 3:12 p.m. EDTduring routine testing of steam valves. Plant technicians are trying to determine the cause of the automatic shutdown.”

I believe this is known in the industry as a “scram”.

Well, the other shoe just dropped.  Vt Yankee had an emergency scram today (Thursday) from 62 percent power.  All four main steam stop valves “inadvertantly” slammed closed during a test.  That left 1.6 million horsepower with no place to go.  (At full power, it would have been 2.5 million horsepower.) The resulting scram shut the reactor down.  Why did it happen?  Stay tuned for Mr. O'Brien's next press release supporting the Entergy management team. 

(Beth Robinson, for those who may not know, was “co-counsel to the plaintiffs in Baker v. State, Vermont’s landmark case involving the rights of same-sex couples, and she helped lead the lobbying effort which led to the passage of Vermont’s civil union law.” (from her firm’s website) – promoted by odum)

When Gaye Symington and Peter Shumlin launched a blue ribbon commission to study Vermont’s marriage laws, I expected opposition from gay-rights opponents.  I wasn’t prepared for the push-back from some on the left, wrongly assuming that the broader progressive community would appreciate both the moral rightness and the political wisdom of Symington’s and Shumlin’s actions.  As leader of Vermont Freedom to Marry, I take personal responsibility for failing to lay the groundwork within this community.  I hope you’ll indulge me now.

Symington and Shumlin didn’t pull this issue out of thin air.  Freedom-to-marry advocates have stepped up our advocacy considerably in the past couple of years, and have been pressing them hard.  Recognizing that it wasn’t right to back-burner an important civil rights issue indefinitely, but understandably cautious about their broader legislative agenda, these leaders chose a path that would nudge our struggle forward by facilitating a public conversation, while keeping it outside of the statehouse for the balance of this biennium.  They made it clear that the Legislature would not be taking up the issue in 2008, but agreed to set in motion a grassroots-level process that would provide a forum for Vermonters to discuss the issue.  It was really a modest, though critically important step.

Civil Rights Are Important 

I’ve been most surprised by the suggestion by some on the left (many of whom claim to support same-sex marriage, and most of whom enjoy (and have exercised) their own legal right to marry) that even a volunteer commission with no power to take any action is too much attention to devote to considering our exclusionary marriage laws.  This notion is shocking.  They may just be focusing narrowly on the trees, ignoring the forest that many progressive visionaries usually understand.  The freedom to marry issue in Vermont is not just about moving us closer to securing for same-sex couples all the vital family protections that our heterosexual counterparts take for granted.  It’s not just about making the dignity and history of civil marriage available to same-sex couples who choose it.  It’s not even just about committed same-sex couples who want to marry.  Rather, it’s an essential component of a broader civil rights movement. 

The NAACP didn’t take on the unpopular cause of eliminating the ban on interracial marriage in the 1960s because interracial couples were lining up in droves to marry.  Nor did the NAACP focus on interracial marriage primarily because they were concerned about health insurance or social security survivor benefits for interracial couples.  They tackled the issue because they understood the power of our marriage laws to perpetuate and reinforce racial division.  They understood that a successful civil rights movement must tackle all the central spheres of our collective lives—including commerce (Civil Rights Act ), political access (Voting Rights Act), education (Brown v. Board), and laws regulating marriage and family—like the ban on interracial marriage (Loving v. Virginia). 

The main civil rights struggle of this generation involves gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender (glbt) Americans.  And, once again, all the pieces are connected.  What we can do here in Vermont to help the effeminate kid in Kentucky who has no legal protection from homophobic bullying on the playground, or the employee in South Dakota who’s at risk of losing his job because he’s gay, or the lesbian mother in Georgia fearful of losing custody of her child if she comes out, is to continue to lead.  Vermont has the opportunity, and responsibility, to make a critical difference by doing what we can to push the envelope of this civil rights movement to it’s necessary conclusion:  genuinely equal rights for glbt citizens.  It’s our contribution to the pressing civil rights movement of our time. 

The Commission Is Politically Wise 

Symington and Shumlin’s creation of a commission wasn’t just the right thing to do; it was a politically wise thing to do.  They created a way to move the conversation along in Vermont’s communities without spending a single tax dollar and without diverting any legislative time.  The alternative would have seen freedom to marry advocates back in the Statehouse next year pressing for action—a much more distracting scenario.

Those who suggest that the commission plays into the hands of Symington’s and Shumlin’s political rivals forget just how much times have changed since 2000.  We’re bordered on two sides by jurisdictions in which same-sex couples can marry.  Opposition to Vermont’s civil union law has receded to a small, albeit vocal minority.  Most Vermonters aren’t bothered if the two men or two women who live next door make a lifetime commitment to one another, and they’re fine with the law treating their neighbors as equals.  That’s not to say that we won’t face opposition, but most Vermonters—including a strong majority of self-identified independents– believe that same-sex couples should be allowed to legally marry.  And many Vermonters are committed to working hard to support political leaders who support our civil rights— far from detracting from other issues, the conversation about the freedom to marry has the potential to strengthen and broaden a progressive coalition in this state.

The beauty of the commission and the incremental approach that it represents is that it will enable all of us to see where the opposition is coming from, and how strong it is, as well as where most Vermonters are.  Many peoples’ reactions to the resurgence of the issue are grounded in conventional wisdom based on events from seven years ago.  The commission process, and the public reaction to it, will give us all a better picture of where Vermont is today as we consider our options moving forward.

The Time Is Right 

Some folks have criticized the timing of the commission– another way of asserting that the issue isn’t important, or the politics are disadvantageous.  For those who fear the politics of the issue so much that they don’t want to even restart the conversation, or those who don’t value the civil rights advance we seek, the time will never seem right.  There will always be a legislative majority or super-majority to build or protect, there will always be an incumbent Governor to protect or oust (or perhaps an open seat), and there will always be an election on the horizon.

Let’s Work Together

I hope we can work together as part of a broader progressive agenda.  Freedom to marry advocates are Vermonters, too.  We care about the environment, health care, education, energy, taxes, and the quality of life here in Vermont.  We see the marriage commission, and the conversation it will engender, as reinforcing these values.  What will undermine all of our collective goals is if we splinter and divide, or if we misdirect our frustration with a Governor who doesn’t share many of our values toward Democratic leaders who trying to do the right thing, and the wise thing.

Thanks for reading!

There was a break in at a property owned by Montpelier gadfly Gary Schy over this last weekend. Property was stolen, smashed and defaced. The Times Argus gave it front page treatment, though. Why?

A pair of swastikas were left at the site of a destructive burglary in Montpelier late last week, transforming the break-in into a hate crime, according to police.

Property owner Gary Schy discovered the anti-Semitic symbols amid the aftermath of a destructive rampage when he checked in on his teenage children's East State Street “clubhouse” early Thursday morning. The burglars, according to Schy, took two expensive guitars from the small barn before ransacking the premises and spraying the interior with a fire extinguisher. Schy said the swastikas were traced into the layer of white residue deposited by the extinguisher.

“I saw it on my kids' face, they know what hatred feels like,” Schy said.

A lot of folks on the left like to echo the right wing on hate crimes. Hate crime laws evoke strong negative feelings from the damndest people, and to a person they use the same arguments. That its somehow penalizing thoughts. That all crimes somehow involve hate already, so what's the point? That its some sort of fallacy to prosecute a random assault differently, and with a different set of punishments, than an assault based on a persons race, creed, color or sexual orientation. And they always go straight to angry that anyone would suggest otherwise, throwing around accusations of “political correctness.”

Often when somebody goes straight to angry like that, it's a sign that there isn't a lot of rationality to their argument to waste any time with.

First of all, lets do away with the two least developed arguments. No, not all crimes involve hate, and even if they did – that's not the point. Call them bias crimes if you want, it hardly matters. A rose by any other name, and all. This argument is a straw man at best.

Second of all, there's no penalization for thoughts. You don't get charged with a hate crime for thinking bad things about people – you get charged when you do bad things to people, and as is the case with any violent crime, intent matters. We prosecute criminals differently for reckless homicide vs. intentional murder. We prosecute differently for premeditation. We let people off completely if they can prove they weren't in their right minds. This is all common sense. Throwing out the “thoughtcrime” canard is, after a second of thinking about it, clearly a way to suggest that bias and ethnic, racial or sexual identity motivations should be specially singled out as beyond consideration (so now who's making special allowances?).

Finally, there's the argument that an assault that is motivated by bias-hatred should simply be prosecuted as an assault. That it's no different.

And that's a load of crap.

First of all, there's – again – the argument that we don't treat all assaults or attacks the same in other ways, as I mentioned before. Why single out the consideration of bias motivations as specifically arbitrary or inappropriate?

And the fact remains that a garden variety break in or vandalism and one motivated by bigotry are NOT the same crimes. Not even close. Need proof? There are break ins all the time in central Vermont with comparable damage and theft. Generally, you'll find them in the police reports. Sometimes a blerb on the sidebar in the B section. This particular break-in, however, was front-page-above-the-fold. What was the difference?

The swastikas.

Surrounded as we are by a disturbing complacency on such matters, fed by a media that considers those that gleefully associate themselves with dangerously fascistic bigots to be “quaint,” we have a special responsibility to call this sort of thing out and tell it like it is. By defacing Schy's property with swastikas, the peretrators were not simply trashing the place and stealing a few items, they were dropping a fear bomb into Montpelier's Jewish community – and by extension, all of us with friends and family among the Jewish community. It's the same when someone targets a gay man for a beating specifically because they're gay. Sure there's an assault, but there's also a violent, loud threat to the entire gay community, and an intent to terrorize them.

If you doubt that there's something much than in a garden variety act of violence when bias is the motivation, simply look at the ripples made in the community and you'll have little choice but to admit there's something more in play.

And that something is what makes it a hate crime. They're a form of terrorism, and should be treated as such.

The party line then (emphasis added):

Family groups believe Vermont’s “civil unions” law will have a negative impact on the state and may be used to undermine marriage laws across the country.
    Janet Parshall, chief spokeswoman for the Family Research Council, decried the lawmakers’ action.
    “This is ‘gay marriage’ in everything but name, and it is a direct assault on society’s most essential institution,” Parshall said.

The party line now:

“It appears that, from their side,” said (Stephen) Cable (President of the “Center for American Cultural Renewal” in Rutland), “it is a battle of semantics, and being in a position of being more accepted in terms of the word ‘marriage.’ From our perspective, ‘marriage’ is drastically different. The word marriage,” he said, “implies, you know, it implies [the] opposite sex can form a union. So it’s very, very different from our perspective.”

( – promoted by odum)

I’m on dozens of Email lists, everybody from the New York Times to Victoria’s Secret (great articles over there) sends me Email and I spend way too much time scanning and deleting most of it daily. I subscribe to Email lists from news organizations, campaign committees, government watchdog groups and all kinds of public service organizations. I also get stuff addressing me as Dear One, with great investment opportunities in Nigeria and missives that promise to make me larger, but I delete them all summarily as I have nothing to invest and…, never mind.

Most of what I receive is of a “progressive” or “liberal” nature but in the interest of knowing what the adversary is up to, I also subscribe to publications from conservative groups, the spectrum runs from the Coulter, Limbaugh breed of invertebrates to the American Enterprise Institute and other large lizards. I”ll tell you, a little of this stuff goes a long way.

I got a real dandy this morning from the Heritage Foundation, you know, the conservative think tank that has worked so tirelessly for the Bush administration, embroiling us in various wars of empire and providing invaluable aid and advice in support of administration efforts to relieve American citizens of such pesky irritants as habeas corpus, civil liberties and due process of law, while conducting additional studies aimed at relieving us of our money.

Heritage has long fought the good fight for corporate rights and limited government. These are the guys who burn the midnight oil to come up with ways to help corporations pocket employee pension funds without exposing themselves to criminal liability while working diligently to ensure that federal regulatory agencies are toothless, and in all ways impotent. The effectiveness of their efforts on behalf of corporate America can be measured in such events as the Crandall Canyon mine collapse.

The organization, which came into existence in 1973 was bankrolled by Joseph Coors, of the Coors Brewing Company and billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife, Paul Weyrich was one of it’s founders, there were no wild eyed leftists in that circle unless they were carrying a rake, polishing the crystal or cleaning the pool.

Heritage is now funded to the tune of 30 to 40 million annually by obscenely wealthy individuals and cash bloated corporations. They also receive large sums from foreign governments and such entities (it has been reported) as the Korean Intelligence agency. In return for their generosity Heritage spends about twenty percent of the take lobbying government on their behalf and publishing studies which tell them things that they want to hear and helping them market bullshit and lies to the rest of us.

In this morning’s Email from Heritage was a featured article written by “Senior Fellow” (please pause to genuflect) Robert Rector (Photo at right) at the National Review Online and titled “Poor Politics” in which he offers the following nuggets of conservative think tank wisdom regarding persons in this country who are classified as poor. From Mr. oops, “Senior Fellow” Rector:

“The following are facts about persons defined as “poor” by the Census Bureau, taken from a variety of government reports:”

“46 percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.”

“Senior Fellow” Rector quoting from a “variety of government reports.”

I don’t know the actual numbers but I’m guessing that most of the 46% quoted own nothing more substantial than a 30 year mortgage which they struggle mightily to pay while staying ahead of such wolves as the costs of daily living and working in America. The idea that forty percent of those below the federal poverty level “own” their homes is nonsense and “Senior Fellow” Rector knows it.

In addition, what happened to the legions of people who live in houses with fewer than 3 bedrooms and the gazillions of apartment dwellers, not to mention the many people who call the porch or patio “home.”

“80 percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, in 1970, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.”

“Senior Fellow” Rector quoting from a “variety of government reports.”

I suppose that “Senior Fellow” Rector would feel more comfortable with the poor if they were sweltering in their “three bedroom houses” and dying quietly and unobtrusively of heat prostration. It must also be noted that those who rent houses or apartments don’t “own” their air conditioners any more than they own their homes. Either way they pay dearly in utility bills and taxes for the meager comfort of not sweating through their shorts.

“Only six percent of poor households are overcrowded; two thirds have more than two rooms per person.”

“Senior Fellow” Rector quoting from a “variety of government reports.”

I currently live in a five room house with my cat, which I suppose places us above “Senior Fellow Rector’s” mandatory squalor requirement average. I will soon be forced to move (due to poverty) from this spacious splendor to share an apartment with my brother and his Grandson. We will then share 5 rooms, I am doing my part to “walk the walk” of the poor by cramming myself into smaller accomodations so that the ruling class may have more room to ride their horsies.

“The typical poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)”

“Senior Fellow” Rector quoting from a “variety of government reports.”

It should be noted that America as she was growing in the 19th century and the early part of the 20th, had so many more times the available land area than most European countries that there can be no comparison. Except for those unfortunate millions who were crammed into urban tenements and company “housing” “provided” by railroad, mining, factory or mill owners we have historically been able to spread our elbows regardless of economic status. It does look bad though, I admit it, all those so called poor people with so much wasted space between them. Inefficiency.

“Nearly three quarters of poor households own a car; 31 percent own two or more cars.”

“Senior Fellow” Rector quoting from a “variety of government reports.”

I own a car, It’s 12 years old and I bought it used back when I was not disabled and working six days a week to stay just above the poverty level. I still drive it to my physical therapy appointments at the VA hospital and the grocery store when I can afford to pay the fuel prices that Heritage helped to arrange.

“97 percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.”

“Senior Fellow” Rector quoting from a “variety of government reports.”

I have two, one is 8 years old and works well, the other was given to me by a friend and sometimes works as well, there is nothing on them but lying news people reading scripts prepared at the Heritage foundation. If that violates my status as “poor” I’ll be happy to turn one over to the “unnecessary entertainment police.”

“78 percent have a VCR or DVD player.”

“Senior Fellow” Rector quoting from a “variety of government reports.”

My wife made me buy a DVD player a couple years before she died. She was an invalid those last several years but found joy and laughter in rented Disney movies. She’s gone now, a year next month. I do feel a bit guilty for the extravagance and promise to atone.

“62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.”

“Senior Fellow” Rector quoting from a “variety of government reports.”

Got me again, and, I have wireless internet as well. I must have these things, they allow me to stay abreast of those who wage this unrelenting war against the middle and lower economic classes in this and other countries. I also need it to get my Email from the Heritage Foundation and Victoria’s Secret. (good articles over there)

“89 percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a more than a third have an automatic dishwasher.”

“Senior Fellow” Rector still quoting from a “variety of government reports.”

In all his quoting of vague “government sources,” “Senior Fellow” Rector doesn’t mention wage stagnation, the continually rising cost of living in all areas, outsourcing and offshoring of jobs in all sectors of the economy, community crippling layoffs, pension defaults, natural disasters, catastrophic illnesses, death, war and a host of other legitimate reasons why good, honest, working people have fallen into poverty yet still have that embarrassing  dishwasher in their kitchen and still reside in the three bedroom house with a patio that they lived in before their jobs were shipped off to Timbuktu.

There may be a difference between the face of poverty in Dorothea Lange’s hauntingly beautiful “Migrant Mother” from 1940 at the top of this rant and the modern version in this new century but I doubt it, you have to look at the eyes, close up, and personal to see, to know the despair.

I don’t know, Maybe “Senior Fellow” Rector hasn’t heard about those things, yeah that’s probably it.

Anyway, I’m off the hook on the last one, (is he still running on?) my ten year old nuke died and I can’t afford another, that damn poverty thing again, and alas, no dishwasher. I’ve been waiting a long time for a veteran’s disability pension to show up in my mailbox and I’m sure that it will, probably the day after they plant my butt at the VA cemetery. I’ll celebrate, maybe buy a new microwave or a … they still sell “stereos?”

Bob Higgins

Worldwide Sawdust

In my post a few days ago, one of the things that I touched upon was how people are waking up to the fact that in the conservatives' mad rush to privatize just about every aspect of our economy, that when profit is the ultimate motive, often human needs are pushed to the side with disastrous results, and that when you combine that with having people who are anti-government in power, the problem is compounded to epic proportions. Nowhere was this more apparent than the government's inept handling of the Katrina disaster. And even more infuriating is the mindset that was all too apparent by those on the right as to how to benefit from the tragedy, as Rick Perlstein's article over at TomPaine.com clearly illustrates. Jump below the fold for your morning outrage. Don't spill your coffee…

It's amazing how hypercapitalists see a silver lining in every cloud. You may remember a few years ago in Michael Moore's  “Fahrenheit 9-11” when there was a convention of sorts that was presenting all sorts of new business opportunities from the Iraq invasion, with businessmen openly declaring that the debacle was going to make a lot of people rich. In the Katrina debacle, not only were the vultures circling for economic opportunities, many saw it as a great opportunity to push through the other demented right-wing policies that had nothing to do witth the hurricane. As Perlstein points out:

Tod Linberg, editor of the right-wing flagship “intellectual” journal Policy Review rejoiced. “Bush has what Social Security and tax reform lacked: a real sense of crisis that places his political opponents in an awkward position,” he wrote on September 20, 2005 in the Washington Times. “He can make demands in the name of New Orleans, including demands for substantive policy changes that he could never obtain in the absence of a crisis.”…

Disgraced/corrupt-as-hell former Texas congressman Tom Delay could barely contain himself at the prospect:

Tom DeLay wrote that Katrina “has introduced a valuable forum to promote the triumph of our ideas and solutions for government over the crumbling and outdated policies of the Democrat-controlled Congresses of past decades.”

Yeah, the New Deal was in part responsible for the mess. Riiii-ght. And former senator Jack Kemp was practically drooling:

He called Katrina a golden opportunity on September 6—a “golden opportunity to 'green line' the Delta and Gulf Coast with government policies that facilitate and empower the private sector.”

What did he have in mind? Suspending those horrible regulations, such as the Davis-Bacon act, which requires the government to pay the prevailing local wage in construction projects. Kemp also said that “onerous regulations imposed by the Federal Trade Commission, the Federal Communication Commission, and the Environmental Protection Agency could be suspended.” Kemp also called for the suspension of numerous taxes, becuse you just know that in the wake of a disaster of this magnitude, the best thing to do is starve the public coffers even more. To add insult to injury, Kemp, who as of late has worked hard to help asbestos companies wrangle through litigation, quotes, of all people, Bobby Kennedy, in a thoroughly inappropriate context.

Other conservatives saw equally as ridiculous and unrelated opportunities here, such as reintroducing the effort to privatize Social Security and to cut the funding for public broadcasting even more than it already has been.

This is living proof of the fact that there is no tragedy too horrible for the right-wing in power to exploit for personal or political gain. They did it with 9-11, the Iraq War, and Katrina, and you can be damn sure should another tragic opportunity present itself, they'll be lining up at the trough to benefit their business buddies in any way possible. 

Let those other big-time bloggers cover the serious stories, like Fredo's last stand. Hey, he didn't even have the decency to tell us he was quitting to spend more time with his family, so where's the entertainment value there?

Still, when so many things are going badly, it's good to have everyone's favorite guilty pleasure to fall back on, so, partly at the request of my brother, here's a Top Ten of sex scandals and peccadilloes by our political enemies. It's not that Democrats are always pure and Republicans are always corrupt. It's not even that I think other people's sex lives are our business, unless those same people are taking a more than healthy interest in the sex lives of their fellow Americans.

When it comes down to it, it feels so much better when the guys who are hollering the loudest about those icky people and their icky practices get caught engaging in those icky practices themselves.

And, as much fun as that is, what makes it all the more fun is watching the explanations they really seem to believe will get them off the hook.

So, here we go, although this Top Ten does not come from the home office in Wahoo, Nebraska:

Number Ten–John Jenrette, D., S. Car. His downfall in Congress was probably the result of his bribery conviction, but what really catapulted him into glory was when he had sex with his then-wife, Rita Jenrette, behind a pillar on the steps of the Capitol Building.

Number Nine–Jack Ryan, R., Ill. He was married to TV star and former Borg Geri Ryan, but his campaign for the U.S. Senate ran aground when her divorce filings revealed that he had taken her to sex clubs in New Orleans, New York City, and Paris, where he had begged her to perform sex acts with him in front of other attendees of the clubs. Jeri Ryan described one as “a bizarre club with cages, whips and other apparatus hanging from the ceiling.” Brack Obama was eventually elected after Ryan was replaced in the Senate campaign by Alan Keyes.

Number Eight–Jeff Gannon. You may know him by his real name, James Dale Guckert, or you may just remember the guy who got preferential treatment by the Bush Administration for being just their kind of conservative wack job, at least until they figured out that he was a male prostitute masquerading as a journalist.

Number Seven–Ted Haggard. Before his scandal broke you had probably never heard of him, but he was a big name in the world of evangelical mega-churches. Too bad he got caught spending church money on the services of a male prostitute. He said it was just a massage, the prostitute says it was three years of sex and amphetamines. Buh-bye, Ted.

Number Six–David Almond, R., N. Car. He may deserve a higher spot on the list, except you've probably never heard of him because he was only a state legislator and he had the decency to step down as soon as he got caught. Still, what can you say about the family values politician who exposed himself in front of a female employee and chased her around the room yelling “Suck it, baby, suck it.” ? Oh yes, in true Republican fashion Almond was the vice chairman of the House committee on children, youth and families.

Number Five–Paul R. Balach. A top aide to former Labor Secretary Elizabeth Dole, Balach was forced out of his job when he  admitted “he had procured male prostitutes and was subjected to blackmail threats by one of the call boys.” Thanks, Washington Times, for driving this particular scandal to new lows.

Number Four–Robert Bauman, R., Md., another conservative extremist who served in the Congress from 1973-1980, where he received a perfect 100 on the Christian Voice Morality Rating. Too bad that was before he got caught interfering with young boys in a public toilet.

Number Three–Mark Foley, R., Fla. I guess the best he can say for himself is that he didn't actually have sex with them, but sending lewd e-mails to Congressional pages and asking them to send him pictures of themselves seemed just a tiny bit out of keeping with his family values and anti-child-pornography legislative positions. What puts him so close to the top here, though, is the way his sudden departure helped pave the way to a Democratic House majority in 2006.

Number Two–David Vitter, R., La., the first Republican ever elected to represent Louisiana in the U.S. Senate, family values guy, and early supporter of Rudy Giuliani. He got his start in Congress replacing Bob Livingstone, who stepped down as Speaker and resigned from the House after his own marital infidelity was exposed during Clinton's impeachment trial. Following in Livingstone's footsteps, Vitter has been implicated in the “D.C. Madam” case, with his number appearing repeatedly in her phone records.

Number One–Larry Craig, R., Id. It's just come out that he pled guilty earlier this month after he was caught in an airport men's room by an undercover cop. Larry made himself comfortable in a stall, put his briefcase down in front of the door, and began signalling to the man in the next stall.
“At 1216 hours, Craig tapped his right foot. I recognized this as a signal used by persons wishing to engage in lewd conduct. Craig tapped his toes several times and moves his foot closer to my foot. I moved my foot up and down slowly. While this was occurring, the male in the stall to my right was still present. I could hear several unknown persons in the restroom that appeared to use the restroom for its intended use. The presence of others did not seem to deter Craig as he moved his right foot so that it touched the side of my left foot which was within my stall area,” the report states.

“With my left hand near the floor, I pointed towards the exit. Craig responded, ‘No!’ I again pointed towards the exit. Craig exited the stall with his roller bags without flushing the toilet. … Craig said he would not go. I told Craig that he was under arrest, he had to go, and that I didn’t want to make a scene. Craig then left the restroom.”

His explanations and excuses are priceless:
“At the time of this incident, I complained to the police that they were misconstruing my actions. I should have had the advice of counsel in resolving this matter. In hindsight, I should not have pled guilty. I was trying to handle this matter myself quickly and expeditiously.” And Craig stated “that he has a wide stance when going to the bathroom and that his foot may have touched mine.”
Do I need to say it? A very quick check of Craig's record on gay issues turns up the fact that he  voted in favor of an Idaho Constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman, and  also voted in favor of last year's Federal Marriage Amendment doing the same thing.

So come on, people. Let's hear it for those upstanding men and women–oops, men only, sorry–who are working so hard to uphold the values our nation was built on.

I didn't see this coming:

Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, whose tenure has been marred by controversy and accusations of perjury before Congress, has resigned. A senior administration official said he would announce the decision later this morning in Washington.

It looked for all the world like Bushco was dug in on this – as they are on everything. What changed? If they were going to care about political pressure and public standing, why now and not months ago when the writing was all over the wall? Perhaps Rove was the driving force behind the stubborn support of Gonzales, and now that he's gone…

Who knows. I'm sure all these questions and more will be asked. Hopefully there will be a Washington reporter or two that will do their jobs and dig a bit for the answers. In the meantime, it begs the question as to who comes next? Rumors place DHS boss Michael Chertoff as the next name in line, but Victoria Toensing (mother of fellow national GOP hack and Charlotte resident Brady Toensing) strikes me as a possibility.

Stay tuned…