Legal weed in California?
October 12, 2010

Supporters of Proposition 19, that would legalize marijuana in California, argue that regulating the drug will end violence associated with Mexican drug cartels. Officials on both sides of the U.S.-Mexico border doubt that because marijuana is just one of many drugs that cartels smuggle.The street is quiet. The homes and two stories and look tidy yet lived-in in this Chula Vista neighborhood about 10 miles from the U.S.-Mexico border.

People here still talk about one afternoon three years ago. That's when the convoy of police SUVs crept into the cul-de-sac. "I was simply sitting on my couch and my father told me, look outside," says Brandon Price, who has vivid memories of that day.

He was nine years old. He peeked out of the living room window to see what was going on. His dad went outside. "They pointed a gun at him and told him to get back inside," recounts Brandon.

The SWAT team had surrounded the house across the street. They eventually rescued a 32-year-old Mexican businessman. He'd been kidnapped by a drug gang, Los Palillos, eight days earlier.

Authorities later discovered the gang had killed nine people. They dissolved two bodies in acid and dumped others in the streets.

It's an example of drug violence, tied to Mexican cartels, that occasionally flares up around San Diego. "And if you look at the violence in Mexico that just can't continue," says Richard Lee, a marijuana activist and a key backer of the proposition to legalize marijuana in California.

About 30,000 people have been killed in Mexico's drug war in the last four years. Though drug violence has subsided in Tijuana, drug murders grind on in the city's outskirts and hundreds of tons of drugs continue to stream across the U.S.-Mexico border.

Lee says Proposition 19 is the best way to undermine drug cartels. "The strongest argument I think personally is to make a first step toward ending the violence in Mexico. It's worse than Iraq and Afghanistan."

Lee and other Proposition 19 backers say legalizing marijuana in California will slash cartels' profits. Marijuana has been their cash crop for decades. Under Proposition 19, Lee says, there would be no need to buy from cartels anymore because Californians could grow their own legally.

But, David Shirk who directs the Transborder Institute at the University of San Diego, doubts that losing the California market would hurt the drug gangs that much. "The reality is that you would probably have to legalize consumption of marijuana throughout the United States, or in several significantly sized states, to have any kind of reverberations here in Mexico," says Shirk.
Joe Garcia, a special agent with Immigration and Customs Enforcement says regardless, pot isn't cartels' meal ticket anymore. "They diversified, there's a larger increase in manufacturing of meth in Mexico. Eighty percent of what U..S authorities seize comes from Mexico," says Garcia. Besides, he says Proposition 19 wouldn't touch cartels' profits from their other illegal activities, "Heroin, cocaine, extortion, gun running, bulk cash smuggling, whatever. They're going to find a way to do it." And the violence that comes with smuggling those drugs, cash and guns will continue.

South of the border, the mayor of Tijuana, Jorge Ramos, fears Proposition 19 means smugglers would pump more pot through his city to California. "And that's costs us a lot of lives and peace here in Tijuana," laments Ramos.

On the flip side, Baja California Attorney General Rommel Moreno fears cartels will forgo smuggling marijuana to California and sell it in Tijuana instead. Why go through the rigmarole of smuggling if there's little profit?

Moreno says whatever happens with Proposition 19 in November, Mexico and California should make decisions about marijuana together. "Making decisions in isolation would be suicide," cautions Moreno.

Meanwhile, Mexican drug organizations are already growing hundreds of tons of marijuana in California, mostly on public lands. Some authorities fear Proposition 19 opens a new legal market for this marijuana and Mexican drug groups will cash in.

One recent report by the California Bureau of Narcotics Enforcement indicates that the amount of pot grown in the state last year was three times greater than the amount seized along the entire U.S. Mexico border.

Posted by jc at 2:22 AM - Link to this entry  |  Share this entry  |  Print

Questionable campaign ads
October 11, 2010

Two top Republicans lit into President Obama and the Democratic Party Sunday over accusations that the GOP strategists and the Chamber of Commerce were using foreign contributions to influence the election, calling the claim a "baseless lie" and accusing the president of "abuse of power."

Karl Rove, a Fox News contributor, said on "Fox News Sunday" that the president had gone too far.

"Have these people no shame? Does the president of the United States have such little regard for the office that he holds that he goes out there and makes these kind of baseless charges against his political enemies?" Rove said. "This is just beyond the pale. How dare the president do this."

Rove was referring to a series of charges that have been leveled over the past week. Obama first said at a rally in Maryland Thursday that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which he referred to without mentioning by name, was paying for ads against Democrats while taking money from "foreign corporations."

"So groups that receive foreign money are spending huge sums to influence American elections, and they won't tell you where the money for their ads come from," Obama said.
Then Obama twice mentioned Rove by name at an Illinois rally, saying "two groups funded and advised by Karl Rove have outspent the Democratic Party 2 to1 in an attempt to beat" Democratic Senate nominee Alexi Giannoulias.

Then the Democratic National Committee rolled out an ad accusing Rove, former Republican National Committee Chairman Ed Gillespie and the Chamber of Commerce of "stealing our democracy."

The ad accuses them of "spending millions from secret donors to elect Republicans to do their bidding in Congress," adding: "It appears they've even taking secret foreign money to influence our elections."

Rove and Gillespie helped found the political group American Crossroads; Rove also helped found Crossroads GPS.

But Rove said those groups raise money legally, that it's "inaccurate" to say he's personally writing out checks to the groups and that American Crossroads reports its donors. In a heated retort, Rove said Sunday that the DNC ad effectively accused them all of a criminal violation of U.S. law -- only without proof.

"They have not one shred of evidence to back up that baseless lie. This is a desperate and I think disturbing trend by the president of the United States to tar his political adversaries with some kind of, you know, enemies list unrestrained by any facts or evidence whatsoever," Rove said.

The Chamber of Commerce accusation apparently stemmed from a report last week by the Center for American Progress-affiliated Think Progress. The report claimed the Chamber was generating hundreds of thousands of dollars in foreign money every year and questioned whether those funds were going toward its multimillion-dollar political operations.

But the Chamber adamantly denies this, saying foreign money is separated from its U.S. political activity. The Chamber said in a statement Sunday that the DNC ad is "ridiculous and false." Rove also said the White House cannot back up its accusation.

Asked about the charge, White House senior adviser David Axelrod put the onus on groups like the Chamber of Commerce to prove foreign money is not influencing the election.

"No one knows where the money's coming from," he said on CBS' "Face the Nation." "Why not simply disclose where this money is from and then all these questions will be answered?"

But Gillespie said the idea that the White House could lob charges and then leave it up to the accused to refute them is an "unbelievable mentality."

"David Axelrod is either woefully uninformed or willfully deceptive and dishonest," Gillespie said.

He said Obama was basing his original charge off a report from a group, the Center for American Progress, "that does not disclose its donors."

"This is the kind of abuse of power in a lot of ways ... that most Americans are rejecting," Gillespie said.

Posted by jc at 3:57 AM - Link to this entry  |  Share this entry  |  Print

Food stamp debate
October 8, 2010

New York's Mayor Michael Bloomberg has a plan to get his city's residents healthy again: A ban on using food stamps to buy soda.

The mayor isn't picking on people who need the city's help to buy groceries: The man is on a serious mission. He's also banned smoking citywide, and compelled restaurants to lose the trans fats and add calorie counts to menus.

This latest effort is a response to the city's widening waist line - and high rates of diabetes - especially among those with the lowest incomes. The mayor is backed up by Gov. David Paterson on this one, who blames the sugar-sweetened beverages as the guilty pleasure most responsible for obesity.

The poorest of the city were the most likely to drink a sugary beverage, at twice the rate of those with the highest incomes, according to the mayor. And 40% of the city's children are overweight or obese. The ban, if approved, would go on for two years - and its effects would be studied by the health department.

Not surprisingly, the soda industry is not a fan, calling the proposed ban "another attempt by government to tell New Yorkers what they should eat and drink." Advocates for the poor also criticize the move as punishing those forced to depend on the federal program for food. Of course, people receiving government assistance could still buy soda, just not with their food stamps. For now, junk food is still covered.

Food stamps already have limits on what can be purchased: They can't be used for alcohol or cigarettes, imported foods, soap, or disposable diapers, among other things. If the ban goes through, it would be the first time an item would be excluded due to its nutrition, or rather, lack of it.

Posted by jc at 2:16 AM - Link to this entry  |  Share this entry  |  Print

Free speech on trial
October 8, 2010

Opening arguments and initial questioning began in the Supreme Court case Snyder v. Westboro Baptist Church Wednesday. The case was filed by Albert Snyder, the father of a fallen U.S. soldier, against the Westboro Baptist Church and its leader, Fred Phelps. Snyder alleges that the church members inflicted emotional trauma upon him and other mourners. The allegations stem from the funeral of his son, Lance cpl. Matthew Snyder, in 2006. The church held an anti-gay protest outside the funeral, as well as posting video of the event on their website with further harsh accusations and religious condemnation of his son.

According to The Miami Herald and others who witnessed the day's arguments, the Westboro Baptist Church is maintaining that the video and protest are protected under the First Amendment, which guarantees the right to freedom of speech and freedom of assembly. Snyder, on the other hand, argues that freedom of speech and assembly do not apply in this case because it was a private funeral, and the church members inflicted intentional emotional harm aimed specifically at him and his family.
Should the court rule against the Westboro Church, the implications are huge. The court would be adding an exception to the right to freedom of speech, particularly in regards to the Internet, where the larger part of Snyder's case against the Westboro Church rests. They also would potentially be defining new criteria for deciding where public protests cross into personal attacks, according to the Baltimore Sun.

Depending on which media outlet you ask, the Court seems primed to do so. The Miami Herald doesn't agree, and reported that Margaret Phelps, lawyer for the defense and daughter of Fred Phelps, who runs the Westboro Church, appeared unfazed by having to defend her Church's, and in large part, her family's actions before the Supreme Court. The Court questioned her extensively about privacy and other matters that have been brought to bear in this case, all of which she answered, only occasionally slipping into religious rhetoric.

Floyd Abrams, a lawyer who specializes in First Amendment law, told Newsweek that he didn't think the court would rule against the Church either, not because Westboro is right, but because of the future impact on other cases. Even he expressed doubts, however, because the Court chose to take the case in the first place, which they didn't have any reason to do necessarily. The line of questioning this morning also seemed to indicate that the Justices were looking for where they could draw the line on what Westboro is doing without making a First Amendment exception to do it.

Hate speech has been protected by the Supreme Court in the past, so if Snyder is going to win his case against Westboro Church, it will have to be on the grounds of privacy and misuse of the Internet. The Court won't rule against the Church's freedom of speech, and the Church apparently so far has always conducted their protests in line with individual state's laws. It will be up to the Court to decide if targeted Internet harassment is protected as well. If they decide it's not, expect to see a raft of lawsuits stemming from Internet bullying and other forms of specifically targeted cyberattacks.

Posted by jc at 2:11 AM - Link to this entry  |  Share this entry  |  Print

High court hears free speech case
October 7, 2010

Free speech or hateful attacks?

The Supreme Court is hearing oral arguments Wednesday in a case involving the protest-happy Westboro Baptist Church, which was sued by a grieving father of a fallen U.S. soldier who accused the group of causing him emotional distress.

The Topeka, Kan.-based group, infamous for picketing funerals for fallen soldiers with signs like "Thank God for dead soldiers," as well as railing against homosexuality, has been facing off against the family of Marine Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder for nearly four years.

The 20-year-old died in a Humvee accident on March 3, 2006, in Iraq. Westboro targeted his funeral, as they have dozens of others, then continued its assault by posting on its website that the Catholic religion is "satanic," and directly attacked Snyder's parents, claiming they raised him to "commit adultery."

"It is an insult to every American who has died for the freedom of speech," Albert Snyder, Matthew's father, said earlier this year. "No one in the history of the nation has ever protested like this. Don't tell me that my son died for that."

His lawsuit against Westboro Baptist Church went before a jury in Baltimore, which awarded him $10 million. The judge later lowered it to $5 million, but called the religious group and its leaders - the Rev. Fred Phelps and his daughter, Shirley Phelps-Roper -- "distasteful and repugnant."

Westboro fiercely defended their right to free speech, and have insisted they never targeted Snyder. They claim their protests are against the U.S. government and its tolerance of gays.

Snyder, who admitted during the trial that he never actually saw the protesters or signs during his son's funeral, later learned of the group through the Web postings.

"I want them to stop doing this to our military men and women," he said on Fox News on Tuesday. "I want the judges to hear that this case is not about free speech, it's about targeted harassment."

Last year, an appeals court threw out the verdict, which ultimately led to the case going before the Supreme Court.

Posted by jc at 1:36 AM - Link to this entry  |  Share this entry  |  Print

Hillary for VP?
October 7, 2010

On CNN's John King, USA last night at 7 pm, award-winning reporter Bob Woodward said that advisers to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton expect that an Obama/Clinton ticket in 2012 is "a real possibility." Moreover, he believes that in that scenario, Clinton and current Vice President Joe Biden would switch roles, making Biden Secretary of State.

Talk of an Obama/Clinton "dream ticket" abounded during the 2008 primary, but Obama quickly squelched rumors. He has not yet personally made any statement on the speculations, but this morning White House spokesman Robert Gibbs told CNN: "No one in the White House is discussing this as a possibility."

With the seed planted that Clinton may run as Vice President-making her the highest ranking female politician in the country's history if she won-pundits immediately began speculating that this may set up a presidential bid in 2016. At 62 now, she would be 68 by the time 2016 rolls around, still younger than Ronald Reagan, who was inaugurated at age 69
President Obama is currently campaigning to reenergize his base of supporters, Democrats and young people especially, to show support in the midterm elections. With falling approval rates, he could use Clinton's ardent support among women and veterans. I'll continue following this as it unfolds

Posted by jc at 1:34 AM - Link to this entry  |  Share this entry  |  Print

Fire department watches house burn
October 6, 2010

Firefighters in a far western Tennessee city let a mobile home burn to the ground because the owner didn't pay an annual $75 fire protection fee, authorities say.

Jeff Vowell, city manager of South Fulton, told the Union City Daily Messenger that the city fire department let Gene Cranick's trailer home near the Kentucky border burn last week because he didn't pay the subscription common in many rural areas.

Cranick's doublewide home is outside city limits. But South Fulton offers fire protection to nearby residents for a fee and once the fire threatened to spread, the department did protect a neighboring house that had paid.

Cranick's son, Timothy, was so angry he later went to the fire house and punched the chief, police said. The younger Cranick was charged with aggravated assault and is free on bond, according to authorities.

South Fulton Mayor David Crocker told the newspaper that if the city allowed people to pay after the fact there would be no incentive to subscribe. As an analogy, he said an insurer won't pay for an auto accident if insurance lapses.

Vowell and Crocker did not return calls from The Associated Press. A message left at a phone listing for Cranick was not immediately returned Tuesday.

Posted by jc at 2:44 AM - Link to this entry  |  Share this entry  |  Print

Midterms and the witch ad
October 6, 2010

Delaware GOP Senate candidate Christine O'Donnell is using a new TV ad to stress that she's no witch, but her latest attempt to get past a decade-ago comment is providing fresh fodder for the chattering classes.

Case in point: Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson said O'Donnell "looks like she might be a witch," referring to her appearance in the ad where she stares directly at the camera and proclaims: "I'm not a witch."

"The lighting, the pale skin and the dark background. She looks like the question is in doubt," Robinson said Tuesday morning on MSNBC's "Morning Joe." "She looks like she might be a witch. And anytime you have to start a new ad and say, 'I'm not a witch,' that is not a good day."

The tea party favorite has been dogged by the witch label for weeks, after a 1999 video clip surfaced of her appearance on Bill Maher's "Politically Incorrect." In the clip, she says: "I dabbled into witchcraft but never joined a coven," and that "one of my first dates with a witch was on a satanic altar."

O'Donnell, who upset Rep. Mike Castle in the GOP primary and faces Democrat Chris Coons in November, released her first general election television ad Monday in which she tries to put the rumors to rest..

"I'm not a witch," she says. "I'm nothing you've heard of. I'm you."

Later in the ad, she again tries to connect with voters.

"None of us are perfect, but none of us can be happy with what we see all around us. Politicians who think spending, trading favors and backroom deals are the ways to stay in office," she says. "I'll go to Washington and do what you'd do. I'm you."

Produced by veteran GOP ad man Fred Davis, the 30-second campaign spot set the blogosphere abuzz.


Several Beltway media personalities drew a comparison with President Richard Nixon's infamous line: "I am not a crook." The Nation's Greg Mitchell tweeted: "Now that Christine O'Donnell is channeling Nixon with 'I am not a witch,' ... she has to say we won't have her to kick around any more."

Meanwhile, The Washington Post's Chris Cillizza tweeted at The Fix: "Christine O'Donnell 'witch' ad has allowed Monty Python's glorious return," a nod to the cult classic film in which peasants comically dress up a girl like a witch, then accuse her of being a witch. "I'm not a witch," the girl says.

David C. Wilson, a University of Delaware political science professor, questioned the logic behind the ad.

After dismissing the witch label, "the rest of the commercial, including O'Donnell's appearance, the background music and the setting all fail to get the 'witch' thing out of our minds," he wrote on The Huffington Post. "Please, for the campaign's own good, do not put out a response to the masturbation statements."

The Atlantic's Marc Ambinder offered an opposite view, saying the ad might work to put the witch issue to bed. "O'Donnell's concession in the ad defuses some of the tension about her witchcraft experimentation, and it might help inoculate her against some of the more valid charges, like her propensity to fudge her resume, or maybe even her opposition to masturbation," he wrote.

Posted by jc at 2:41 AM - Link to this entry  |  Share this entry  |  Print

Sanchez vs Stewart
October 5, 2010

CNN host Rick Sanchez is eating his words after a remark he made about Daily Show host Jon Stewart. Sanchez was on the Sirius Satellite show Stand Up! With Pete Dominick when he made the remarks, according to Yahoo News. Sanchez was talking about the media when he started to insult Stewart. He called him a "bigot" and claimed that Stewart couldn't stand the fact that Hispanic journalists were becoming legitimate in the media spotlight. After these remarks were made Thursday, Sanchez was not on his own show, and, at 6 p.m. Friday, CNN put out a statement that Sanchez would no longer be a part of their network.

Sanchez is not the first pundit who has made controversial statements. Three other pundits who have done the same are David Letterman, Bill O'Reilly, and Don Imus.

David Letterman found himself in a ton of hot water in the summer of 2009, when Sarah Palin's daughter became the butt of one of his jokes. While Palin was in New York, Letterman saw it as timely to poke some fun at the expense of the then-Alaska Governor. Palin had taken her 14-year-old daughter Willow to a Yankees game, and Letterman made a joke about her having to fend off Eliiot Spitzer, the former New York Governor busted for soliciting a prostitute. He also joked about her getting knocked up by Yankees third baseman Alex Rodriquez, according to People. What followed was a media storm in which Palin shot back at the late night host, saying that his jokes weren't funny. Many called for Letterman to retire and for a public apology. Later that week on his show, Letterman did apologize. Apparently the jokes were meant to poke fun at Palin's daughter Bristol, who famously was pregnant at 17, during Palin's campaign for vice president.

Another pundit who made controversial comments but, unlike the others, failed to apologize for them, is right-wing Fox News host Bill O'Reilly. Jennifer Aniston, in August 2010, made comments in an interview saying that it was alright if a woman decided to have a baby without a man, according to the NY Daily News. Well, O'Reilly had to put his two cents in here, saying that Aniston was "destructive to our society," according to The Huffington Post. This became a huge debate in the media, with most siding with Aniston. Both nuclear families and families being raised by single mothers have come out good and bad. O'Reilly just lived up to his reputation of giving his opinion when it wasn't wanted.

Perhaps the most famous case of a pundit sticking his foot into his mouth is Don Imus. Who could forget the
media storm that followed him calling members of the women's basketball team at Rutgers University "nappy headed hos" in 2007, according to CBS News. After about a week of debate over the issue, CBS News decided to fire the radio talk show host from his position. Imus made a public and personal apology to members of Rutgers' women's basketball team.

These are just a few of the pundits who have had consequences for their remarks. All of these pundits were tried in the court of public opinion and lost. Rick Sanchez's future is yet to be seen, but based on all of these other examples, Sanchez is going to have a hard time regaining his previous reputation.

Posted by jc at 4:28 AM - Link to this entry  |  Share this entry  |  Print

Terror threat issued
October 5, 2010

The White House has said a new terror threat alert against Europe was not directly related to the United States.

The US issued the alert encouraging Americans to be more cautious when travelling in Europe but said it did not have enough information to be more specific.

US States Department Spokesman PJ Crowley said: "It wasn't that we had new information on Saturday that warranted the alert that we provided yesterday.

"It was the cumulative analysis over a lengthy period of time, but as we considered it we thought it was the right thing to do at this time."

The FBI and Homeland Security Department have no indication that terrorists are targeting the US or its citizens as part of a European plot, a view confirmed by the White House.

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said: "We want travellers to be alert and aware. The particular threat information, as I said, deals with Europe and isn't related to the United States.

"Having said that, we certainly know that Al-Qaeda and its affiliates seek to do us harm and attack us here."

US Security sources have recently warned about the potential for another Mumbai-style terrorism attack, using automatic weapons among a small group of assailants. They cited Germany, the UK and France as possible targets.

Shares of US airlines have been relativity unaffected in the first day of trading following the alert, as travellers absorb the new warning.

An American traveller to Germany Jennifer Mackey said: "I don't worry about these sort of things. I don't think we should be in a fear-based society. I think if we stop travelling the so-called 'enemy' has won".

Another traveller from the UK Kenneth Walsh said: "I think we've all just got to be aware it is a different world now and when we are travelling we have to be extra careful and extra vigilant, and we've all got to be patient when we come up against extra security".

US officials said despite speculation, there was no one single terror threat that they were focused on.

Posted by jc at 4:27 AM - Link to this entry  |  Share this entry  |  Print