Sanford to reveal position on Pee Dee Coal Plant today

Gov. Mark Sanford's office has announced a press conference today at 2:00 pm, where he will supposedly announce his position on Santee Cooper's proposed Coal-Fired Power Plant at Kingsburg. I've made my thoughts on this proposed plant pretty clear. To date, only one local elected official has spoken out against the plant, Florence Mayor Stephen J. Wukela.

So how will Sanford come down? No one I have spoken with knows for sure, Sanford's folks are playing this one pretty close to the vest. Want my prediction? Ok...I predict that Sanford will announce today that he opposes the coal plant. Why? How about because:

-Sen. Leatherman is for it. If you don't know why Sanford would oppose something just for that, you don't follow local politics. There is no love lost between the two. Now, Leatherman has never come out publicly for this plant, but come on. No way a state utility builds this thing in the Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee's back yard unless he is on-board. Plus, I know that several reporters have asked him for his position and he ain't talkin'. The biggest politician in the area's silence speaks volumes.

-Sanford is positioning himself for a run at the White House in 2012. And he can't do it as a supporter of coal. I have my problems with Sanford, but he is smart enough not to attach himself to an 18th-Century technology that is coming down and coming down fast.

-Going against a state-run agency for using a shitload of money on antiquated technology. Doen't that fit perfectly with the Mr. True Conservative image Sanford is pimping so hard?

-Mr. Environment...Sanford likes that image. See the pic above. Coal is not conducive to that image, unless the coal is in a grill and he's cooking steaks.

So...lets see what happens. Those of you who are interested, the odds are even money I wind up with egg on my face. But as my man Cheritto said in Heat: for me, the action is the juice.

Fred Barnes is an idiot

Ok...that's not really news. I mean, we all knew that when Barnes suggested W should bomb Iran the day before he left office.

Ever the one to push the envelope, Barnes has sunk to new lows. In attacking President Obama's efforts to pass the stimulus bill, Barnes tried out an absurd analogy of comparing Obama-stimulus, to Al Gore-global warming.

The more the case for man-made warming falls apart, the more hysterical Gore
gets about an imminent catastrophe.

What? Since when did the case for man-made warming start falling apart? We had not heard that. Neither had TPMMuckraker. So they called to ask Mr. Barnes for some enlightenment:

At first, he cited the fact that it's been cold lately.

Perhaps sensing this was less than convincing, Barnes then asserted
that there had been a "cooling spell" in recent years. "Haven't you noticed?" he
asked.

Asked for firmer evidence of such cooling, Barnes demurred, telling
TPMmuckraker he was too busy to track it down.

We pressed Barnes again: surely he could tell us where he had found
this vital new information, which could upend the current debate over how to
address global warming.

In response, Barnes said only that he knew where he had found it, but
would not tell us, apparently as a matter of principle. "I'm not going to do
your research for you," he eventually said, before hurriedly ending the
call.

There you go folks. The case against global warming is falling apart, because Fred Barnes feels warm. Maybe Fred is just having hot flashes...

If you don't like these rules, whose would you use?

Rules, damn those rules...

As a trial lawyer, I can tell you, sometimes the law can be a bitch. That's right, it often gets in the way of what you want to do.

Fortunately (or unfortunately if you feel like it), rules and laws are what we live by. Along with opposable thumbs, it is what separates us from the animal kingdom.

A perfect example of the power of rules was had during the Florence City Council Meeting held today. It seems, a majority of council wanted to set the date for a referendum on nonpartisan elections. But that majority did not have the requisite 2/3rds majority to call the question.

Some council members seemed upset at these rules. In fact, it was apparent that some council members did not even know the rules. Because if they had, it would not have taken an hour and multiple failed votes for them to realize there was an insurmountable impasse.

A word of advice to our City Council members: Our city council just got called out recently be the South Carolina Supreme Court, for not following the rules (illegally trying to change certification dates during the primary controversy). Learn the rules and work within them.

Here's Florence Morning News' article and it provides a perfect example of what I'm talking about when I say "know the rules." Councilman Brand says:

“There were four that wanted it to pass and three that didn’t,” Brand said.
“And, therefore, because of a ruling by the mayor that it takes two-thirds to
pass it, instead of continuing the meeting on into the night, I just decided to
defer it to the next meeting so that I can look up some other legal venues to
take on this issue. That’s the best I can say about it.”

Councilman Brand...the Mayor did not issue a ruling, he stated the rule. As in Robert's Rules of Order, the rules the City Council adopted by ordinance long before Mayor Wukela was elected.

Remember, there are reasons we have rules:

“Majority rule only works if you're also considering individual rights. Because you can't have five wolves and one sheep voting on what to have for supper.” -- Larry Flint

Ahh, shit. Get your towels ready...

Michael Phelps gets high. So what.

I pretty much purposefully ignored the Michael Phelps bong-pic story, because I don't find it news that a 23-yr old kid visiting friends on a college campus and attending a party smokes some weed.

I don't find it news that some prick got upset that his girlfriend and his "boys" were all over Phelps' jock, so he snapped a camera phone pic and then tried to get even with it, while also getting paid. The world is full of haters.

I don't find it news that some of his sponsors would back away from him, despite this the fact I would be willing to bet money that the kids of everyone of these companies CEOs' have toked up before and accomplished a whole hell of a lot less than Phelps has.

I do find it funny as hell how these "reprimands" have been handed down. USA swimming suspends him "without funding" for three months? How much of a joke is that? Got a lot of big meets he's gonna be missing out on over the next three months? And like the money means anything. What...he loses his meal stipend or something?

I love that Omega watches is not backing away. I mean hell...check out the pub they're getting in the pic.

I really love Kellogg's backing away from Phelps, saying his actions were not consistent with their image. Do what? To see how ridiculous that is, check out the video below. Ace Corrolla did a bit about it earlier in the week that was just as good, listing all of Kellogg's products. But the Aceman brought up a better point: with Phelps' legendary lung capacity, how good of a bong hit did he get? Did they have to stop half-way through and repack the bowl? Did he run everyone out of the room with the smoke?

What do Jake Long and George Rogers have in common?

They are the last two #1 overall NFL draft picks to make the Pro Bowl as rookies.

When Jason Peters, LT for the Tatonka Bills got hurt, Long replaced him becoming the first #1 since Rogers in 1981 to make it as a rookie. I have decided we might as well get used to calling the Bills something other than Buffalo and "tatonka" means Buffalo in Sioux (see Dances with Wolves) and sounds a little like Toronto, which is where the Bills are probably going. Consider it our methadone as we make the change.

BTW, Long and Rogers are two of only four all-time #1s to make it as rookies since the 1970 merger. Other Dolphins to make it as rookies: Daniel Constantine Marino, Jr. and Richmond Webb.

Republicans and language

You have to give Republicans credit, when it comes to defining debates, they walk the dog with the Democrats. Even after getting their teeth kicked in, they're still at it. Witness the efforts of the #1 GOP tag-team of Senators Graham and McCain to redefine the the term "bipartisan."

According to Sen. Graham, “This not remotely close to what we could have done if we had sat down in a true bipartisan fashion and found a better way.”

Sen. McCrancky says "You can call it a lot of things, but you can't call it bipartisanship."

It is amazing how quickly one becomes a staunch proponent and strict constructionist of "bipartisanship" when they're the minority party. Apparently, meeting with Republicans for several days in what was described as frenzied behind-the-scenes negotiations, which slice about $110 billion from the bill, which had grown to more than $930 billion as amended on the Senate floor ain't enough for Republicans.

You see...according to Republicans, it ain't bipartisanship until they get what they want? And what do they want? Tax cuts and nothing but tax cuts, despite what Conservative mastermind Karl Rove may say to the contrary.

The amendment the House passed that the Senate was considering was this crazy-ass Jim DeMint authored wish list:

o Permanently repeal the alternative minimum tax once and for all;
o Permanently keep the capital gains and dividends taxes at 15
percent;
o Permanently kill the Death Tax for estates under $5 million, and cut the
tax rate to 15 percent for those above;
o Permanently extend the $1,000-per-child tax credit;
o Permanently repeal the marriage tax penalty;
o Permanently simplify itemized deductions to include only home mortgage
interest and charitable contributions.
o Lower top marginal income rates from 35 percent to 25 percent.
o Simplify the tax code to include only two other brackets, 15 and 10
percent.
o Lower corporate tax rate as well, from 35 percent to 25 percent.

Want to know how stupid this amendment is? It would COST $3.1 Trillion over the next decade. That's right, the GOP solution, is THREE TIMES MORE costly than the current one being offered by the Dems. And it relies on permanent tax cuts to provide stimulus, which according to Moodys and the CBO, tax cuts are one of the least effective way to stimulate the economy. We'll ignore the fact that it would create even bigger deficits than the ones the GOP controlled Congress has given us over the last decade at a time that Republican leaders have taken to publicly decrying the long-term cost of the Dems plan.

So, according to Sens. McCain and Graham, Obama and the Dems aren't being bipartisan, because they won't give in on a fundamentally flawed alternative. When, I have to ask, did the Republican-controlled Congress go to such lengths, huh? If this is the definition of bipartisanship, when has it ever happened?

As Paul Krugman notes about the GOP all-tax cut plan:

"We got 36 out of 41 Republican senators voting for that, which is
completely crazy," Krugman said. "So, how much bipartisan outreach can you have
when 36 out of 41 Republican Senators take their marching orders from Rush
Limbaugh?"

How can you be bipartisan, when your potential partners are crazy insane?