Meet the Man Behind the Dale Peterson Parody

Here at Legal Schnauzer, we pride ourselves on addressing some of the biggest issues of our times.

In that spirit, we now tackle the following question: Who in the heck is the guy behind that hilarious spoof of the Dale Peterson ad?

Thanks to a recent Time magazine article about the Web site Funny or Die, we can now answer that question. His name is Jake Szymanski, and he's a member of FOD's full-time staff.

For our two cents, Szymanski produced one of the funniest bits of the Internet era. And it's our pleasure to offer some insight into how the Peterson spoof came to be.

Many folks, in Alabama and beyond, remember Dale Peterson. He's the guy who, in his bid to become our state's agriculture commissioner, produced an ad that was so over the top in its right-wing imagery that it became a national phenomenon.

The ad was not effective politically--Peterson got trounced in the Republican primary. But it helped provide a cultural moment for the ages. Here is the ad that turned Dale Peterson, at least for an instant, into a national figure:



Szymanski saw all kinds of comedic potential in the Peterson ad. So how did his parody come to be? Time reports that FOD videos have become increasingly elaborate and some even feature celebrities, such as Jewel, Jack Black, or Eva Mendes. But the site maintains a scrappy, spontaneous spirit:

When an aspiring Alabama agriculture commissioner named Dale Peterson caused an Internet sensation with an over-the-top campaign ad, writer-director Jake Szymanski found a horse, cast himself in the lead role and turned around a parody in a day.

"Sometimes it's better to do a video at 80% right now than 100% if it takes five days," says Szymanski, a Northwestern University grad who started uploading videos to Funny or Die when it launched, then got hired as the site's third full-time employee. "It's that vibe of picking up on the first funny joke you heard from your friend. You're grabbing on to the collective unconscious."

Szymanski is quick to say that producing a Web sensation is an iffy proposition:

"The Internet is the modern-day freak show," says Szymanski. "Your funny, smart, three-minute video can always get beaten by a cat with a printer."

We love kitty kats, but we doubt that any of them--even with printers--will be topping the Dale Peterson spoof. Mrs. Schnauzer and I love it so much that, if we ever are lucky enough to own a horse, his name will be Franklin.

Here, for posterity's sake, is a comedy classic--with an undeniable Alabama flavor:

Sports Artist Gains Support In His Battle for the First Amendment

Sports artist Daniel Moore has received significant reinforcements in his First Amendment battle with the University of Alabama.

With the law squarely against it, UA seemingly adopted a gang mentality by enlisting 27 other universities to help in its battle against Moore, one of the best known sports artists in the country. The universities' claim? Alabama's crimson and white color scheme is so distinctive that it constitutes a trademark, eclipsing Moore's First Amendment right of artistic expression.

A federal district judge did not buy that argument. And we suspect the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals won't buy it either. But to help drive the point home, Moore has enlisted some impressive support of his own.

The American Society of Media Photographers (ASMP) and the Alabama Press Association have filed a joint amicus brief, supporting Moore's argument that his paintings of classic moments in University of Alabama football are protected by the First Amendment. Thirty law professors, who have taught and written extensively in the area of intellectual property, also have filed a brief supporting Moore. (You can read the full briefs at the end of this post.)

The law professors succinctly sum up the argument that favors Moore and his company, New Life Art:

First, New Life’s realistic depiction of the University’s football games is not likely to confuse consumers about the source of New Life’s goods, or as to the University’s sponsorship of or affiliation with those goods. Confusion is actionable under the Lanham Act only when it relates to these types of source relationships, and not when consumers merely recognize the plaintiff’s mark. Second, even if some amount of confusion about a relationship between the University and New Life did exist, that confusion would be irrelevant if it was unlikely to affect consumers’ decisions to purchase art from New Life Art. Third, the District Court rightly held that the University’s football uniforms and colors are aesthetically functional as used by New Life. Fourth, and finally, New Life’s expressive works are protected under the First Amendment and cannot be deemed infringing.

The ASMP brief addresses the cultural issues at work in the case:

Degas lived in Paris and painted its dancers. Monet lived in Giverny and painted water lilies. Bruegel lived in Belgium and painted lowland peasants. Audubon roamed North America and painted its birds.

Daniel Moore lives in Alabama; he paints football.

Indeed, it is natural that an Alabama artist, seeking to communicate about the world around him, would focus on college football. The sport in our state often is described in religious terms:

Against this background, it is not surprising that Moore, a talented artist who is a University of Alabama alumnus living in Birmingham, married to a University of Alabama alumnus, and the father of three University of Alabama alumni, fills his canvasses with images of the grit and drama of football as it is played at the University of Alabama, the grace and symmetry of its players, and the spoils of battles hard fought. In the tradition of visual artists throughout time–from the cave paintings of Altamira to the photography of Annie Lebovitz–Moore “comment[s] on his world” using the “tools of his culture.”

His art communicates ideas, feelings, messages, concepts, and meanings. . . . and is fully protected by the First Amendment.

(The university's) lawsuit seeking to enforce federal law to suppress Moore’s work thus triggers the full weight of First Amendment precedent.

Trademark law is the primary issue, and the ASMP brief gets to the heart of the matter:

As a preliminary matter, (the university's) trademark claim itself rests on wobbly legs, for the simple reason that Moore has not used any of the images in which (the university) claims trademark rights, as a symbol to identify a source or origin of a product. He, therefore, has not engaged in any infringing activity.

Decades of case law establish that it is the use to which a design or symbol is put that defines it as a trademark.

What does that mean in everyday terms?

Moore’s paintings are not beer cans . . . , taxi cabs . . . , or dry cleaning equipment. . . . They are artistic expression sold on the basis of their intrinsic value as pieces of art. The basic ingredient of infringing activity–use of the mark as a product identifier–is absent.

What kind of world will we live in if the University of Alabama and its friends have their way?

Consider the artist who wishes to paint or photograph a woman carrying a Coach handbag, a child wearing Nike tennis shoes or a construction worker pausing to drink out of a can of Coke. Under (current law), he can be assured that his expression will be protected as long as the trademarked product has relevance to the visual depiction he wishes to create and he does not use it to mislead the viewer that the owner of the trademark is the source of his portraits. Within these boundaries, he can paint and photograph his world.

Under the test proposed by the (university), that same artist, before snapping a shot or raising his brush to the canvas, must first ask himself: Is the mark strong? In each of the above examples, the answer is “yes.” That may be enough for him to refrain from creating his expression, or at the very least, give him pause.

That test makes no sense to us. And the university's case becomes almost absurd when it is examined in a close light:

Notwithstanding the ill-fit of (the university's) test, its trademark claims fail under even that test. The strength of the intellectual property at issue is questionable. Even though (the university) insists the use of the crimson and white projects a strong identity, it admits, as it must, that the colors have the primary purpose of distinguishing its players from the other team on the field. In fact, fifteen other football teams in NCAA, Division I, alone, use some form of red (variously known as crimson, scarlet, vermilion, cardinal red, or red) and white to distinguish their men on the field of play.

The University of Alabama apparently thought this issue was worth hundreds of thousands of dollars to litigate. Why it came to that conclusion, considering the weakness of its case, is beyond our comprehension.

Here is the ASMP/Alabama Press Association brief:

Daniel Moore Brief`1





Here is the law professors' brief:

Daniel Moore Brief2

Blue Cross of Alabama Has More Than One Criminal In Its Midst

A former Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama employee has pleaded guilty to trafficking stolen identities.

Latonia Davis, 32, recently was fired from her job at BC/BS and will serve 18 months of a 10-year split sentence.

This story hits close to home here at Legal Schnauzer because our troublesome neighbor, the guy who initiated our legal headaches, works at BC/BS of Alabama. And as we have reported several times before, Mike McGarity has an extensive criminal record.

After Latonia Davis' arrest, the company issued a statement saying the situation was an "isolated incident." But clearly, Latonia Davis is not the only criminal in the BC/BS of Alabama environment.

Is the company paying attention to the kind of people it hires? And how did a guy like Mike McGarity slip through the cracks?

After all, we're not talking about someone with a few traffic tickets. He has at least eight criminal convictions, including one violence-related offense and one sex-related offense.

But this story goes way beyond my problems with a difficult neighbor. It is national in scope.

As we reported in an earlier post, the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association has a long history of fighting health-care reform--and its affiliates have a long history of Medicare fraud.

Congress has stated that BC/BS affiliates have a special duty to conduct thorough background checks on prospective employees. Apparently, there are several reasons for that:

* Many affiliates are Medicare contractors, and thus handle millions of federal dollars;

* As the Latonia Davis case shows, BC/BS employees have access to highly personal information that can be used to cause considerable harm.

Authorities say that Davis accessed the company's internal database in June and obtained the Social Security numbers of at least seven people with the intent to manufacture credit cards. She was arrested on June 22 after obtaining one such card.

It would be interesting to know if Latonia Davis had a criminal record before joining BC/BS. My guess is that she probably did not and passed the company's background check handily. Obviously, clean background checks are not always a predictor of future behavior.

But what about my pal, Mike McGarity? How did a guy with at least eight criminal convictions in his past--all a matter of public record, which I found quite easily--slip through the cracks at a company that is charged by Congress with being uber careful about its hiring practices?

Did McGarity declare his criminal history on his application, and BC/BS ignored it? Did McGarity fail to declare his criminal history, and BC/BS didn't uncover it? Does the company have a policy for dealing with employees who fail to accurately state information on an application? Does the company even ask about criminal histories?

Koko Mackin, a Blue Cross and Blue Shield spokeswoman, said Davis was the focus of a joint investigation by the company and law enforcement. The company issued the following statement:

"Although this is an isolated incident, Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama takes the security of our members' health information seriously. We will continue to ensure that appropriate measures are taken to protect the security and integrity of our members' health information."

If BC/BS is so serious about security, why has Mike McGarity (and his well-documented criminal record) been working at the company for 20-plus years?

We will soon be providing many more details about McGarity's sordid past. And it will raise this question: How does a company that appears to have been vigilant in the Latonia Davis case let a criminal go unnoticed right under its nose?

Impact of Climate Change Already Is Obvious to UAB Expert on Antarctica

Anyone who doubts that climate change is real, and already is having a profound impact on the world's environment, should spend some time talking with James McClintock.

McClintock, a professor of polar and marine biology at the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB), is an international expert on Antarctica. The National Academy of Sciences has invited him to be part of a panel of 25 scientists who will participate in a workshop later this month on the impact of rapid climate change on polar marine ecosystems.

McClintock, who is writing a book called Meltdown: Climate Change on the Antarctic Peninsula, says the impact in one of the world's most remote locations is dramatic.

In the 19 years I worked as an editor at UAB, before being cheated out of my job in May 2008, I interviewed McClintock a number of times. He not only is a world-class scientist, he is adept at explaining complex scientific ideas for a lay audience. He did just that in an op-ed piece that ran Sunday in The Birmingham News.

The piece essentially asks, "Why should we be concerned about what is going on in polar marine ecosystems?" Writes McClintock:

To an Antarctic marine ecologist with 25 years of working experience and 13 research expeditions to one of the most beautiful and fragile continents on our planet, the answer is obvious. The 1,000-kilometer Antarctic Peninsula is rapidly becoming the poster child for climate change impacts worldwide. Average midwinter air temperatures have skyrocketed over the past 60 years, some 10 degrees Fahrenheit during this time period. Glaciers are rapidly melting, including the stunning Marr Glacier nestled up to the U.S. Palmer Station where I am currently conducting research with my colleagues Dr. Chuck Amsler (UAB) and Dr. Bill Baker (from the University of South Florida).

For a biologist, the signs of distress are easy to see in Antarctica:

There have been eight major breakouts of ice sheets along the peninsula over the past 30 years alone, including one the size of Rhode Island and another the size of Connecticut. As these ice sheets break apart, they are unlocking the door on land-locked glaciers, allowing them to flow ever more rapidly into the sea.

Over a similar period of time, the annual sea ice along the Western Peninsula has receded some 40 percent, both in its extent offshore and its duration. The lives of a bounty of marine organisms are intimately tied to this ice. For example, the sea-ice dependent Adelie penguin has declined by 70 percent over the past 35 years, as have Weddell seals, with their remarkable ice-chipping teeth. Krill, the shrimp-like animals that form the quintessential base of Antarctic marine food webs, are also disappearing along the western Antarctic Peninsula, likely due to the loss of their critical sea ice habitat and the microscopic plants that grow under the ice and nourish their young.

These problems might seem far away at the moment. But McClintock says they eventually could hit close to home:

So why should we in Alabama care whether climate change is impacting polar marine ecosystems such as those in Antarctica? Besides the implications of once land-bound Antarctic glacial ice contributing to global sea level rise (and you thought we only had to worry about additional oil spills along our coast), ironically, polar ecosystems provide natural laboratories to study anticipated climate change impacts in temperate and tropical marine ecosystems. For example, very small increases in sea water temperature can have dramatic near-term physiological impacts on Antarctic marine organisms that have evolved at highly constant, low temperatures over millennia.

Moreover, ocean acidification (a process whereby seawater is becoming more acidic due to absorption of elevated atmospheric CO2) will first and foremost impact polar seas due to the increased solubility of CO2 in seawater at low temperature, coupled with chemical constraints of polar high-CO2 seawater that will limit the availability of calcium carbonate minerals. By midcentury, calcified (shelled) Antarctic marine animals may very well become the first to experience levels of ocean acidity that could literally dissolve their shells. Will they be able to compensate by producing more shell material? Will they simply disappear? What will be the ecological ramifications of the potential loss of keystone species that are critical determinants of community structure? How will ocean acidification impact key fisheries species? The list of pressing questions is long, and it has important ramifications for what faces marine life closer to us here in Alabama.

So where do we go from here? The public must become educated to the very real climate challenges we face, McClintock says:

Of course, none of this means much if one remains skeptical about whether rapid, unprecedented climate change is real, or if so, whether it is largely being driven by a surplus of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, a byproduct of fossil fuels used to power industry and automobiles.

Almost all scientists, including myself, need little convincing. The data supporting recent, rapid, climate change with a human fingerprint is multifaceted and overwhelming. But scientists need to do a better job of bringing this critical issue to the forefront of public discourse. It is simply too important an issue to be kicked about like a political football, to be joked about or be swept under the carpet to be dealt with by future generations.

Jim McClintock has seen firsthand that climate change is not a laughing matter:

When asked, my view is that for the sustenance of our good Earth, for your children and for theirs, we should step back a minute and objectively assess the current climates in which we live, the figurative and the physical. Only then can we really begin to position ourselves to do something about it.

Here is a video of McClintock discussing his work in Antarctica and what it means to science, including the discovery of compounds that might have anti-cancer properties. At about the 5:00 mark, he discusses signs of climate change:

Siegelman and the Downside of Supreme Court's Ruling On Honest-Services Fraud

The U.S. Supreme Court's recent ruling that limited the scope of the federal honest-services fraud statute appears to be good news for victims of Bush-era political prosecutions. The ruling could lead to freedom for those who have been wrongfully imprisoned in the Don Siegelman (Alabama) and Paul Minor (Mississippi) cases.

But the ruling also presents a number of potential downsides. It could make it harder for victims to ever receive full justice. And it could make it easier for truly corrupt public officials to get away with misconduct.

Perhaps worst of all, the ruling might help obscure the truth about what really happened in the Siegelman and Minor cases. If the defendants are eventually cleared, it might seem to be only because the Supreme Court issued a new version of the law. In fact, the defendants never should have been prosecuted, much less convicted, under the old law.

Justice in the Siegelman/Minor cases never will be about the evolution of honest-services law. It's about the need to address rank corruption. It's about prosecutors who surely knew they had no case under any version of the law but proceeded anyway. It's about judges who helped assure convictions by giving bogus jury instructions.

But the Supreme Court's recent ruling does nothing to address those issues. And the Obama Justice Department has shown that it has no desire to address those issues.

On the surface, the Supreme Court's findings dealt with the cases of former Enron executive Jeffrey Skilling and former media magnate Conrad Black. But we suspect their ultimate effect will be to hide the ugly truth at the heart of the Siegelman and Minor cases.

The legal profession has a vested interest in convincing the public that it operates in an honest fashion. If the public ever understood that innocent citizens were imprisoned because of their political affiliations--and came to understand how that happened--there would be calls for massive reform of the justice system. And that's the last thing lawyers and judges want.

What to do? Make it look like the Siegelman/Minor defendants got off only because of a technical change in the law. That legitimizes the actions of prosecutors and judges at the trial level. It legitimizes the blatantly unlawful actions of appellate courts, the 11th and Fifth Circuits, that have upheld portions of the convictions.

Why does this matter down the road? Given the Obama administration's determination to ignore apparent crimes by Bush-era officials, the victims' best chance for true justice probably lies in the civil arena, with lawsuits for rampant violations of Constitutional rights.

If Don Siegelman, Richard Scrushy, Paul Minor, Wes Teel, and John Whitfield are freed from prison and file lawsuits, they could be entitled to massive damages. How do you quantify the suffering of men who have lost a collective 20-plus years of their lives? How do you put a price tag on that? Who will be held accountable?

Such lawsuits, we suspect, become harder to win if it appears the convictions were obtained legitimately, under the law at the time. And that's what the Supreme Court's Skilling/Black rulings appear designed to do.

The bottom line? Victims of Bush-era political prosecutions might now be more likely to receive their freedom. But they might be less likely to achieve true justice down the road.

Finally, problems with the Skilling/Black rulings go beyond the victims of political prosecutions. The decision also leaves the public more vulnerable to the misconduct of truly corrupt public officials.

Technically, the Supreme Court did not overturn the honest-services statute. But it might as well have. The court found that the honest-services statute now applies only in cases where bribery or kickbacks are present. But it's clear that bribery already is covered under federal law. And our research indicates that kickbacks also are covered under multiple statutes.

So what is the purpose of an honest-services statute that depends on crimes that already are covered under other laws? Best we can tell, there isn't one. It might as well not exist.

Essentially, the Supreme Court has monetized public corruption. But history tells us that not all corrupt acts are driven by money. What about the judge who rules unlawfully as a favor to certain parties or attorneys? What about the mayor who ignores zoning laws for a certain business because he's having an extramarital affair with the owner?

Such acts might not be driven by money, but they still are corrupt. The public still is being deprived of the official's honest services.

That was the beauty of the old honest-services law. It recognized that public officials can act corruptly, whether money is involved or not. Until Congress gets around to rewriting the honest-services law to address the Supreme Court's concerns about vagueness, it will be open season for public officials to commit corrupt acts--as long as the wrongdoing does not appear to involve money.

What could this mean to the public. Consider the case of former Chicago patronage chief Robert Sorich. He was sentenced in 2006 to 46 months in prison for convictions mainly on honest-services charges. Our research indicates that the Sorich case did not involve bribes or kickbacks, and he did not benefit monetarily. But he was involved in a scheme to hand out thousands of city jobs as political favors, regardless of the candidates' qualifications.

By almost any definition of the word we've seen, Sorich acted corruptly. But under the new Supreme Court finding, he committed no crime at all. And we suspect he soon will be a free man.

Public officials long have been likely to get away with all kinds of sleazy acts. That becomes even more likely now--especially if they make sure there is no clear money trail.

So where has the Supreme Court left us with its revisions to the honest-services law? In the short term, it appears encouraging. In the long term, it's much more of a mixed bag.

Are the victims of the Siegelman/Minor prosecutions more likely to receive their freedom? Maybe. Are they more likely to achieve true justice? Probably not. Is the public more likely to see public scoundrels get away with misdeeds? Yes.

Has the Supreme Court given citizens any reason to be more confident in their justice system? Definitely not.

Racist Debt Collector Gets Nailed With $1.5 Million Judgment

A Pennsylvania-based debt-collection company has been hit with a $1.5-million judgment in a Texas court for repeatedly leaving vile voice messages over an alleged $200 debt.

Advanced Call Center Technologies (ACT) barraged Allen Jones, of Dallas, with a series of harassing and racially charged phone calls. The company's behavior clearly was over the top, but it raises this curious question: Which is worse, (1) to have a debt collector call you vile names; or (2) to have a debt collector lie to you--about who they represent, what they legally can do to collect the alleged debt, and other relevant matters?

Both are violations of the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act (FDCPA), and it's disgusting to be the recipient of either. Mrs. Schnauzer and I have had debt collectors hurl insults and abusive language in our direction. But we are particularly familiar with blatant falsehoods, the kind noted in No. 2 above.

The ACT case is a brazen example of just how depraved debt collectors can be. Here is a sampling of a few cheery greetings the company's representatives left for Allen Jones:

"This is your motherf------ wake-up call you little lazy a-- b----," a collector said in one early-morning message obtained by Dallas/Fort Worth's WFAA-TV. "Get your motherf------ n----r ass up and go pick some motherf------ cotton fields."

Unfortunately for the debt collectors, Jones saved the messages as evidence. And it turns out a jury wasn't amused. Here is a news report from Dallas:



Jones' attorney said, "If we did not have tapes, no one would ever have believed that this happened."

Well, we have tapes, too--of representatives from Birmingham-based Ingram & Associates, working on behalf of Pennsylvania-based NCO to collect an alleged debt to American Express.

Our tapes do not contain the kind of vulgarities that Jones experienced. But they do include plenty of abusive language and, more importantly to us, out and out lies. In fact, we suspect the kind of falsehoods that were used against us are used against alleged debtors all over the country--probably because they work.

What kind of underhanded tactics have we experienced from debt collectors? You will be learning, and hearing, much more shortly.

Meanwhile, we are delighted that Allen Jones is holding at least one debt collector accountable. We have already shown on this blog that the actions of unethical debt collectors take a high toll on society. If more juries hand down verdicts like the one in Texas, perhaps debt collectors will think twice before resorting to falsehoods, deceit, and abuse.

Celebrating An American Band That Never Grows Old

This has been a rough summer in the concert business. Ticket sales are down, and a number of tours have been scaled back or canceled altogether.

Here in Birmingham, the Oak Mountain Amphitheatre--it's official name is Verizon Wireless Music Center (yuck)--normally schedules about 12 shows. It has seven on the docket this summer.

One band, however, continues to play to packed houses and strong reviews. The Eagles, who have been producing splendid music since 1971, are the American band that never grows old. They have so many major singles to their credit--both as a band and as solo artists--that their concerts nowadays are pretty much greatest hits shows.

That's too bad because the Eagles have an extraordinarily deep catalog. One reason they have endured, in our view, is that their albums tend to be stellar works from start to finish. In fact, some of the band's most memorable songs were never played much on the radio and are almost never heard in concert anymore.

We are particularly fond of the Eagles' first three albums, when they were a genuine country-rock band. The Eagles eventually would adopt a fairly heavy sound, with the addition of guitarists Don Felder and Joe Walsh. But their earliest albums--Eagles, Desperado, and On the Border--remain gems to my ears. And while I like all of the band's lineups, the original foursome of Glenn Frey, Don Henley, Bernie Leadon, and Randy Meisner (Felder joined near the end of On the Border) remains my favorite.

Next year the Eagles will mark their 40th anniversary as a top recording and touring band. The only break came with what Glenn Frey calls a "14-year vacation" from 1980 to 1994. The Rolling Stones are the only other band I can think of that has made so much relevant music for such a long period of time.

With that, let's celebrate a band whose songs will resonate long after its members--and most of us--have exited stage left. And let's especially remember some of those early Eagles LP cuts, the ones that laid the groundwork for the monster hits to follow.

One of my favorites from the Eagles' debut album is a tune that Bernie Leadon wrote with the late Gene Clark, a member of the Byrds. It's called "Train Leaves Here This Morning." This has the feel of a classic folk tune, like something Peter, Paul, and Mary might have covered. Here is Bernie Leadon on lead vocals:



Many music aficionados would call Hotel California the Eagles masterpiece, and it's hard to argue with that. But I would say the band has at least two master works, with Desperado being the other. Desperado generated relatively modest sales and produced no hit singles--"Tequila Sunrise" peaked at No. 64--but it is one of the best theme albums ever written. Its tales of the old west revolve around "Doolin-Dalton," a song about the famed bandit Bill Doolin and the Dalton Gang. The song marked the arrival of drummer Don Henley as a major force in the band, showcasing his considerable gifts with lyrics and lead vocals:



The Eagles explore their country roots on "Midnight Flyer," from On the Border. The song is written by Paul Craft, the same Nashville-based songwriter who brought us "Drop Kick Me, Jesus (Through the Goal Posts of Life)." With Bernie Leadon on banjo and Randy Meisner on lead vocals, "Midnight Flyer" is one of my absolute favorites among the Eagles early albums. If you can't tap your toes to this song, your toes must be broken:



Finally, we have another superb Eagles cover--"Ol 55," written by Tom Waits. With Glenn Frey on piano and lead vocals, this is one of the best ballads the Eagles have ever recorded--a sweet, timeless classic. Enjoy:

Obama Administration Seems to be Terrified of White People

Barack Obama deserves credit for turning the country in a more positive direction following the disastrous George W. Bush presidency. Obama has taken steps forward in several key areas--economic recovery, health-care reform, and financial regulation.

But the Obama record, so far, has not been nearly as strong as it could have been. And based on three major news stories from the past two weeks, we are starting to think there is a fundamental reason for that: The Obama administration is terrified of white people.

This fear, in our view, has nothing to do with the fact that Obama is our first black president. Rather, we suspect it has to do with the fact that Obama is a centrist Democrat. And it seems "centrist Democrat" is simply a fancy term for a liberal who is afraid of white people.

It's not that Obama and other centrist Dems are afraid of all white people. Heck, they aren't remotely afraid of white progressives. They happily trample all over white progressives and expect to hear, "Thank you, sir, may I have another?" We suspect centrists aren't afraid of white right wingers, either. Why be fearful of someone you know is against you and is too far off the deep end to worry about?

But white independents, the people who are too clueless to know what they think? Those are the people that give Obama and his centrist pals night sweats. Centrists seem convinced that clueless white people decide elections. So they live in mortal fear that they might somehow offend the sensibilities of, and shake the fragile psyches belonging to, the mindless white masses.

What brings this thought to the forefront? Consider three major news stories from the past couple of weeks:

* The Shirley Sherrod Charade--Reports in the mainstream press generally have stated that the administration rushed to wrongfully fire Sherrod because of concerns about "black racism." But our guess is that the administration was not really concerned about black racism; it was concerned about white reaction to perceived black racism. In fact, the White House was so concerned about white reaction that it performed a career crucifixion on Sherrod before determining all of the facts--and finding that she had not said anything that was remotely racist.

* The Whitewash of the U.S. Attorney Firings--The six-page letter outlining special prosecutor Nora Dannehy's findings makes it clear that this "investigation" had a predetermined outcome. Dannehy finds that criminal charges against Bush administration officials were not warranted, but she provides no facts or legitimate law to back that up. The Obama Justice Department apparently was fine with that. And it was willing to overlook Dannehy's clear conflicts of interests and her connections to prosecutorial misconduct in a previous case. Why? Our guess is that the administration is terrified that white America would revolt at the sight of Bush officials--all white probably, with the exception of Alberto Gonzalez--being paraded before a tribunal. It's one thing to have Bill Clinton investigated for years. But to have Dubya and various Bush-family cronies under the hot lights? The White House probably figures that white independents don't have the stomach for that.

* The Economy Is Still Tanking, Stupid--Obama's stimulus package perhaps has saved us from a depression. But many leading economists say it was not nearly enough, and we could be heading for a double-dip recession--especially with unemployment hanging around 10 percent. A recent cover story in Time magazine indicates the Obama administration knows what needs to be done--but it is too timid to do it. Reports Time in "The Good and Bad Economy":

For the moment, senior Obama advisers . . . foresee a long and slow recovery, one they would like to speed up with the fuel of more government stimulus to get money into the pockets of consumers who will spend it fast. They don't expect another economic crash—but they also know it's possible, and would sleep better if a new wave of cash were headed into the system. And they are quick to note that despite what their critics may say, this is not an excuse to promote a loony-left tax-and-spend agenda, although even a recent Goldman Sachs analysis recommended that D.C. policymakers consider more stimulus spending.

But Obama and his advisers know their hands are tied. Polls show that voters either don't understand--or don't buy--the long-established economic theory of John Maynard Keynes, which calls for more government spending (even if it means running up deficits) to help the economy through hard times.

So what is the administration's response?

White House officials say Obama's economic team is resigned to the granite-hard public resistance to more bold action as laid out by political advisers. "The arithmetic is simple, but it's been very, very hard to convince people," says Jared Bernstein, chief economic adviser to Vice President Joe Biden.

To what "people" is Bernstein referring? Our guess is it's white independents. These are people who don't have a clue how the economy operates. But the rest of us are being held hostage to the White House's fears of alienating the white "muddled masses" with the truth.

So let's summarize. White independents tend to be wrong about:

* Civil-rights issues, as exhibited by the Shirley Sherrod story;

* Justice issues, as exhibited by the U.S. attorney firings;

* Economic issues, as exhibited by the need for more stimulus money to help get us out of recession.

The White House could take advantage of numerous "teachable moments" on all of these subjects. And it's possible that quite a few white independents might actually be willing to learn--if someone would give it a shot.

But the Obama administration has shown no signs that it will even try. And that's probably because it fears a fierce white blow back.

Meanwhile, our nation's fabric continues to tear.

The Beautiful Side of an Ugly Bush "Justice" Story

The most beautiful person at our nation's seat of power, according to The Hill, is a young woman from Huntsville, Alabama.

Her name is Alexis Latifi. And if that name sounds familiar, it probably means you kept up with the various questionable prosecutions brought by the George W. Bush Department of Justice.

Alexis Latifi not only looks stunning, but The Hill's "50 Most Beautiful Persons" article indicates she is smart, interesting, and principled. The article, however, does not mention the ugly episode that led Latifi to Washington, D.C., with the goal of helping to repair her country's badly damaged justice system.

Latifi, a 24-year-old Republican, works as a staff assistant for U.S. Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL). As an undergraduate at Auburn University, Latifi majored in biomedical sciences and planned to go to medical school. But then her father, Huntsville defense contractor Alex Latifi, was targeted in an investigation led by Alice Martin, former U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Alabama.

The case against Alex Latifi and his company, Axion Corp., was bogus from the outset, and a federal judge eventually dismissed all charges. It became one of the most glaring examples of prosecutorial misconduct during the Bush years, drawing attention from publications such as USA Today and the ABA Journal.

Seeing her father's company ruined by a rogue federal prosecutor made a profound impact on Alexis Latifi. She changed her major as a senior to political science and now plans to go to law school. A desire to get experience in the legislative arena led her to Washington, D.C., and a position in Richard Shelby's office.

Irony abounds in the Alexis Latifi story. Evidence strongly suggests that her father was targeted because he is a Democrat of Iranian descent. The Hill lists Alexis Latifi as a Republican, even though it was a GOP administration that tried its best to ruin her family.

Does Alexis Latifi truly believe in GOP principles or is she just listed as a Republican because she works for Richard Shelby? We're not sure about the answer to that question. Our justice system cannot truly be healed as long as one of our political parties is a corrupt, dysfunctional mess. Perhaps Latifi realizes that and figures one way to move forward is to help bring about much needed change to the Republican Party.

On the subject of Richard Shelby, he should serve as a fine example of how not to do things. After all, it was Shelby and fellow GOP senator Jeff Sessions who happily signed off on Alice Martin's appointment as a U.S. attorney/thug.

Alexis Latifi is important not just because she looks really good. She has seen firsthand how a dysfunctional justice system can destroy lives. And she has radically changed her career path in an effort to help bring about reform.

It will be a tough battle. And we need more people like her.

GOP House Members Are Setting the Stage for Investigations of Obama

President Barack Obama has stubbornly taken a "look forward, not backwards" philosophy to possible criminal acts during the Bush administration. But Republicans are sending signals that they will not take such an approach if they are able to win back the U.S. House of Reprsentatives in the November elections.

Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) is strongly indicating that he will launch numerous investigations of the Obama administration if he becomes chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. Issa already has raised questions about possible White House interference in U.S. Senate races in Pennsylvania and Colorado. In a recent interview with The Washington Post, Issa made it clear that aggressive investigations are coming if he replaces Rep. Edolphus Towns (D-NY) as chair of the Oversight Committee.

Regular Americans could wind up paying a huge economic price for Obama's timidity.

As we have stated on this blog several times, Obama could pay a heavy price for his decision to let Bush officials off the hook. Reports the Post:

From his perch as the top Republican on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, Issa has spent the last 15 months constantly blasting the Obama administration on nearly every controversy and calling for countless investigations that the Democratic-controlled committee refuses to order.

But Issa is finally starting to hit some of his targets. He was one of the leading Republicans in pushing the White House to reveal more details about its discussions to persuade Rep. Joe Sestak (D-Pa.) to forgo a Senate primary run against Sen. Arlen Specter (D-Pa.) in return for a possible government job. Sestak won the primary, and now another Senate candidate challenging an incumbent Democrat, Andrew Romanoff in Colorado, has acknowledged having similar discussions with White House officials. Issa has suggested the White House violated the law and may have offered Sestak "a bribe" in the process, assertions that have not been proved.

Issa, however, is not a single-issue attack dog. He has shown that he will go after Obama from multiple directions:

He is also demanding the administration release details of Cabinet officials' travel to events that might benefit Democratic candidates, continuing to cast Obama as embracing "politics as usual."

"It is abundantly clear that this kind of conduct is contrary to President Obama's pledge to change 'business as usual' and that his administration has engaged in the kind of political shenanigans he once campaigned to end," he said.

Veteran journalist Robert Parry has written numerous times at Consortium News about Bill Clinton's decision to let apparent crimes of the Reagan and Bush I presidencies go uninvestigated. Republicans rewarded Clinton by promptly launching investigations of the president when they took back Congress in 1994. Clinton was hampered for the final six years he was in office, and his presidency never fully recovered.

Parry writes in a recent piece at Consortium News and Truthout that Obama appears to be heading down the same path:

If Republicans gain control of at least one house of Congress, they would surely launch a wave of investigations against Obama, much as the GOP did against Clinton.

Unlike the Democrats who shy away from investigative controversies--turning their backs even on historic scandals such as Iran-Contra, Iraq-gate and contra-cocaine trafficking in the 1980s as well as George W. Bush’s torture abuses and illegal wars last decade--the Republicans have no such qualms.

This could have a profound impact on an American middle class that already is suffering in the Great Bush Recession. By letting Bush criminals off the hook, and setting the stage for a thug like Issa to possibly come to power, Obama is likely to throw an anchor to a middle class that already is on the verge of drowning. Writes Parry:

So, with Obama embattled and the Democratic congressional majorities likely to shrink or disappear, the chances for the United States to confront its structural problems will only worsen.

With unemployment staying high, many middle-class Americans will sink into a growing under-class. The rich will fight to keep as much of their oversized salaries and bonuses as possible, with the Republicans ensuring that the one political sure-thing will be that legislated tax increases won’t happen.

Indeed, the simplest way to address the nation’s myriad of problems – by restoring the marginal tax rates for the rich back to the historical levels of, say, the Kennedy era (around 60 percent on their top income) – is the one thing that is almost impossible to contemplate.

Parry says America desperately needs a president who will challenge right-wing orthodoxy and educate the public about the road to sustained prosperity. Obama increasingly is showing that he doesn't have the stomach for such a challenging task:

Though the Republican vision of the future appears to guarantee a continued decline in the quality of American life, the Right’s propaganda machinery makes any suggestion about the need to tax the rich more heavily akin to socialism. The Revolutionary War slogan, “no taxation without representation,” has been transformed to something close to “no taxation, period.”

Remember the famous encounter between candidate Obama and “Joe the Plumber,” who decried Obama’s idea about the need to redistribute wealth from the upper-income levels to middle- and working-class Americans so the economy would work better.

That debate remains at the center of America’s economic struggles, as it has been since the Great Depression when income inequality and financial speculation were two key factors in the mass unemployment that followed the Crash of 1929. Two lessons learned were that a strong middle class and reasonable government regulations were necessary for a healthy economy.

What are the keys to American prosperity? A strong middle class and reasonable government regulations. Obama is a smart guy who clearly knows that. And he should be smart enough to know that the best route to prosperity requires investigations of GOP criminals, showing that modern conservatism is a damaged brand that is leading our nation toward ruin.

You simply cannot seek bipartisan solutions with a Republican Party that has become grotesquely dysfunctional. Obama has had roughly 19 months to help educate the public about the dangers of modern conservatism. But he has failed to do it.

That has left an opening for the likes of Darrell Issa to take center stage. If that happens, Obama's opportunity probably will be gone for good.