Politics

In April 2009, the city of Phoenix received $40 million in federal stimulus money under the Neighborhood Stabilization Program. This program is designed to put a floor on house prices by providing zero-interest loans of up to $15,000 to home buyers to cover downpayments and closing costs on purchases of foreclosed homes. The number of home buyers who have used this program to date: zero. Several hundred people have applied for the program, but none has purchased a home yet. The program requires that buyers have incomes between $55,350 and $104,400, depending on size of family, must complete eight hours of financial counseling in budgeting and home ownership, and must invest $1,000 of their own money. The NSP loan must be repaid in the event that the home is sold or refinanced. (Via ABC15.com.)

Talk about great timing–a few minutes ago, I received an email from “Governor Sanford” with the subject “Join Me.” I thought perhaps it might be an invitation to travel to Buenos Aires. But no, it’s an appeal from the Goldwater Institute to join, signed by Mark Sanford, the Republican Governor of South Carolina who is in the news today for confessing that his recent week-long disappearance was to visit a woman in Argentina that he’s been having an affair with. I suppose they can be sure the recipients are more likely to open such an email today, though I’m not sure how much Sanford’s name will result in people giving them money. BTW, Fox News ran a caption on Sanford’s confession press conference identifying him as a Democrat, just like they did with Republican Rep. Mark Foley of Florida back in 2006. ...

Radley Balko summarizes PolitiFact’s report card on Obama’s promises, as: 31 promises kept, of which 20 expand government power and 6 of which make it smaller, more transparent, or more accountable, and 5 are neutral. 6 promises broken, 5 of which would have limited presidential power, provided tax breaks, or more transparency or accountability to federal government, and one of which was symbolic (recognizing the Armenian genocide). No promises broken which expand government power. ...

As newspapers decline and die, it’s good to see other opportunities opening up to support investigative journalism. Along with wire services, which are beefing up their staffs and seeing growing profits as their content is syndicated to more and more places including websites and broadcast media, think tanks are also getting into the business. (There are also other nonprofits that support investigative journalism, such as the Center for Public Integrity.) The Goldwater Institute has hired investigative reporter Mark Flatten from the Tribune to investigate and report on cases of government corruption, abuse, and waste. Flatten is an award-winning reporter who has covered state government for nearly 20 years in Arizona, including covering the impeachment of former Gov. Evan Mecham, the AzScam corruption scandal, and the alternative fuels fiasco. Flatten is the only reporter who has ever been banned from the floor of the state legislature, which occurred at the order of former Arizona Speaker of the House Don Aldridge (R-Lake Havasu City) because of Flatten’s reporting on links between Aldridge and Max Dunlap, who was convicted for his part in the 1976 murder of Arizona Republic reporter Don Bolles. In 1976, Aldridge was a member of the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors, and he accompanied Dunlap to the law office of Neal Roberts on June 2, the day a bomb went off under Bolles’ car, allegedly about a runway paving problem at the Mohave County Airport (as reported in the Kingman Daily Miner, June 28, 1976). On June 3, Roberts and Dunlap met at Durant’s Restaurant to discuss raising $25,000 for the defense of Bolles’ killer, John Harvey Adamson, who was at the time facing a minor criminal charge and had not yet been caught for the murder. A May 10 NPR story describes the Goldwater Institute’s job ad for this position and raises concerns about political bias infecting any stories produced. While I think that’s a real concern, I think it’s often better to have stories come from an advertised bias rather than pretend objectivity. In any case, Flatten’s stories have gone after abuse regardless of party (Mecham was a Republican, the alternative fuels fiasco was caused by a Republican, and AzScam caught both Republicans and Democrats taking bribes). I look forward to seeing what he will investigate and write about in this new role. UPDATE (October 19, 2009): Flatten has published his first major investigative piece since being hired by the Goldwater Institute, and it’s an account of how a federal program designed to provide business opportunities to the disadvantaged is being used by political insiders for their own benefit, including County Supervisor Mary Rose Wilcox. Wilcox obtained the Chili’s Too franchise in Terminal 4 at Sky Harbor Airport as an Airport Concession Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (ACDBE), which requires that the owner participate in the day-to-day operation of the business, which she does not (though perhaps her co-owner does?). She also received a $450,000 loan from Host International which meant she didn’t have to bring any money to the table, a loan which violated city policy (the City of Phoenix owns and operates Sky Harbor). Flatten’s “High Fliers” report may be found here.

On May 19, 2005, Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) spoke out against filibustering judicial nominations of President George W. Bush, and said he was willing to give up the tool permanently, and not block future Democratic presidential nominees: “Republicans seek to right a wrong that has undermined 214 years of tradition - wise, carefully thought-out tradition. The fact that the Senate rules theoretically allowed the filibuster of judicial nominations but were never used to that end is an important indicator of what is right, and why the precedent of allowing up-or-down votes is so well established. It is that precedent that has been attacked and which we seek to restore…. My friends argue that Republicans may want to filibuster a future Democratic President’s nominees. To that I say, I don’t think so, and even if true, I’m willing to give up that tool. It was never a power we thought we had in the past, and it is not one likely to be used in the future. I know some insist that we will someday want to block Democrat judges by filibuster. But I know my colleagues. I have heard them speak passionately, publicly and privately, about the injustice done to filibustered nominees. I think it highly unlikely that they will shift their views simply because the political worm has turned." ...

Yesterday’s New York Times has an interesting article about how security researchers at the University of Toronto have helped uncover online spy activity, apparently conducted by the Chinese government, against the Dalai Lama’s office in India. One odd comment in the article: “And why among the more than 1,200 compromised government computers representing 103 countries, were there no United States government systems?" I find this particularly odd in that I’ve seen compromised U.S. government systems plenty of times in my information security career, including spam issued from military computers. I don’t find it plausible that the U.S. government has recently improved the security of all of its computers and networks so that there are no more compromised systems. In the context of the article, it’s discussing more specifically compromises due to the particular spy ring being monitored. The preceding sentences point out that they weren’t able to determine with certainty who was running it, and the immediately preceding sentence asks, “Why was the powerful eavesdropping system not password-protected, a weakness that made it easy for Mr. Villeneuve to determine how the system worked?" The question should actually have asked why it wasn’t encrypted, rather than “password-protected,” but the possibilities suggested to me here are that (a) this particular activity is being run by amateurs or (b) this particular activity was intentionally detectible as either (i) a distraction from other, more hidden activity or (ii) to put the blame on China by somebody other than China. ...

“It’s important for people to understand that in a democracy, there will be a full investigation. In other words, we want to know the truth. In our country, when there’s an allegation of abuse … there will be a full investigation, and justice will be delivered. … It’s very important for people and your listeners to understand that in our country, when an issue is brought to our attention on this magnitude, we act. And we act in a way in which leaders are willing to discuss it with the media. … In other words, people want to know the truth. That stands in contrast to dictatorships. A dictator wouldn’t be answering questions about this. A dictator wouldn’t be saying that the system will be investigated and the world will see the results of the investigation." And on the treatment of war crimes: “War crimes will be prosecuted, war criminals will be punished and it will be no defense to say, ‘I was just following orders." The former quote is from the video below, the latter quote is from this March 2003 CNN transcript. (First quote via Dispatches from the Culture Wars, second quote via The Agitator.) And, for your edification, please read Scott Horton’s article, “Busting the Torture Myths." ...

The FCC rule on “fleeting expletives,” permitting massive fines even for individual occurrences of the “seven words you can’t say on television,” arguing that they always have sexual connotations even when used as an intensifier, was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision. The decision is noteworthy for using the terms “F-word” and “S-word” and “fing” and “s*” in its text, rather than spelling them out. Clarence Thomas’ concurrence in the majority, however, questioned the constitutional basis of the FCC’s ability to regulate content. It should be just a matter of time before the FCC’s ability to regulate indecency is curtailed, but the Supreme Court did not rule on that issue in this case. Adam Thierer at the Technology Liberation Front has a thorough commentary: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4 Thierer points out that Scalia, purportedly a strict constitutionalist, in his decision has endorsed a brand-new justification for the FCC’s power to regulate broadcast content. The original justification was that the airwaves were a scarce resource that needed to be protected for productive uses; the new argument is that because there are so many unregulated alternatives like cable, satellite, and the Internet, that the government needs to protect one last refuge from offensive content. (Previously, previously.)

A nice visual depiction of what it amounts to. (Via The Agitator.) Historical Comments Ktisophilos (2009-05-03): Good one!

At the Financial Times (with more detail for each item): 1. What is fragile should break early while it is still small. 2. No socialisation of losses and privatisation of gains. 3. People who were driving a school bus blindfolded (and crashed it) should never be given a new bus. 4. Do not let someone making an “incentive” bonus manage a nuclear plant – or your financial risks. 5. Counter-balance complexity with simplicity. 6. Do not give children sticks of dynamite, even if they come with a warning . 7. Only Ponzi schemes should depend on confidence. Governments should never need to “restore confidence”. 8. Do not give an addict more drugs if he has withdrawal pains. 9. Citizens should not depend on financial assets or fallible “expert” advice for their retirement. 10. Make an omelette with the broken eggs. (Via Will Wilkinson.) ...