We didn’t realize it, until an alert, longtime local scribe pointed it out to us, but the Review-Journal forgot to mention one important sealed case in its series on secret justice last week. Back in the day, ex-R-J City Editor Mary Hausch sued the newspaper and its then-parent company, Donrey Media Group, for sexual discrimination after she was passed over for promotion to editor.
After winning favorable rulings from state and federal equal employment commissions, her case was filed in federal court. But both sides agreed to meet for non-binding arbitration. And what was one of the R-J’s conditions of the arbitration? That the results be forever confidential, sealed, if you will, from public view.
To be fair, R-J special projects writer Frank Geary would have had no way of knowing about the old Hausch case. In fact, he only examined cases in District Court, starting in 2000. But plenty of other old timers at the R-J no doubt knew about the matter, and probably should have mentioned it.
And to be even more fair, the Hausch case itself was never sealed, only the results of the arbitration, which is a fairly common practice with similar lawsuits. Still, while we know that Hausch won her lawsuit and monetary damages, we don’t know how much. And we never will, since that amount is … what’s the word? Sealed.
» Is it just us, or does it seem to anybody else that U.S. Sen. Harry Reid’s Iraq "strategy" involves only non-binding resolutions, ex-post-facto resolution re-writing, failed cloture votes and pretty much everything except getting our troops the hell out of Iraq?
In a story in today’s Review-Journal – which deceptively uses the word "strategy," although that clearly implies Reid has some kind of plan — the Senate majority leader says he’s going to work on re-writing the 2002 resolution that gave the president the authority to go to war in Iraq in the first place.
Don’t forget: Reid voted for that resolution, and has failed to regret his vote despite the fact that its factual underpinnings have turned out to be total bullshit. In Reid’s world, the re-written resolution would confine the president to using troops only for anti-terror operations, force protection and training.
But the reality is, the president is commander-in-chief of U.S. armed forces, and once they’re deployed to the field, he’s got full authority to decide how they may be used. That’s how it should be under the Constitution, and that’s why it’s so important to only use the military when it’s the last resort. Reid and Bush screwed that part up, badly.
Altering past resolutions (or even passing all-new ones) is only going to force a national debate over separation of powers, not get American kids out of harm’s way.
The only thing that would do that — cutting off funding, which is the purview of Congress and has been done before (SEE, Vietnam) — is the one thing that Reid refuses to do. That, Reid said, "is no strategy. We believe … troops, at whatever cost to our treasury, we must take care of. We’re not about to leave our military in Iraq or Afghanistan or anyplace else without the equipment or materials they need. … We’re talking about a redeployment, not having all the troops come home tomorrow," Reid said.
Where to start? We’ve already had troops in Iraq and Afghanistan without the equipment or materials they need … thank former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld for that. Nobody is saying we should leave the troops in Iraq or Afghanistan without bullets — they’re saying approve as much money as we need to get them the hell out of there. And why the hell aren’t we talking about having all the troops come home tomorrow?
Answer: Because the Democrats don’t want to be seen as anti-war pussies, despite the fact that they won an election based largely on American dissatisfaction with the Republicans’ handling of the war. If they bring the troops home, then Democrats will have "lost" Iraq, they reason. And that means more wandering in the political wilderness instead of the cozy confines of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
Please. What do they think Bush’s strategy is right now? Get the hell out of Washington, D.C., and let the next guy — probably a Democrat — deal with the fallout from the war. Which means the Republicans are going to blame the Democrats for losing anyway!
So, if you’re going to get "blamed," no matter what, why the hell would you not pull the troops out now, and minimize to every extent possible American losses? (This would force the Iraqi government to stand on its own, by the way.) Because supporting the troops doesn’t just mean giving them armor kits and bullets and praying for their safe and swift return; it means being responsible to see that not a single drop of American blood is shed for a lie. Bush has already shown he’ll sacrifice American lives with little thought as to the consequences. If the Democrats are going to do the same thing, why the hell do we even need an opposition party in this country?
» Oh, Curtis Myles, that cockeyed optimist! Sure, he heads the Las Vegas Monorail, which has never made a profit, seen its bonds drop to junk status and had its worst year ever in 2006. But he told the Legislature on Tuesday that the monorail’s future is "very bright." Now that’s a glass-half-full (of vodka, apparently) outlook!
Where does Myles get his hope? Well, he can’t point to profits or riders or reduced debt. But he does say that the monorail is carrying more people than systems in Denver or Salt Lake City. "We have received a lot of criticism, some of it due," he said. "But compared to other states, it’s been relatively successful."
Hey, we get it. It’s the contrast theory. Sure, getting hit by the (wildly more successful) Deuce bus on the Strip might hurt, but compared to falling out of an airplane into a pit of spikes laced with acid all while listening to an iPod stocked only with Toby Keith songs, it’s a day in the park!
By that standard, the monorail is way ahead of, say, Mayan civilization, which may have had the calendar and astronomy, but sure as hell didn’t have a tax-dodging peoplemover! (Perhaps their society could have been saved, if only they’d had a four-mile escape from Mel Gibson movies!) Ants may be able to live several times their body weight, but they have to walk everywhere, so we’re way ahead of ants! And have you seen any episodes of HBO’s classic Deadwood lately? Those people had to use horse-drawn stagecoaches! Las Vegas is way ahead of them!
» Kudos to the Las Vegas Sun for highlighting the issue of public employee overtime, which some have said is getting out of hand. The Sun ran a front-page story Sunday on the issue, which revealed that the number of government workers earning six-figure salaries in Las Vegas is three times the national average.
But a dart to the Sun for missing a blatant and obvious conflict of interest in today’s follow-up piece.
"[Henderson] City Councilwoman Amanda Cyphers said she did not think the overtime, particularly among firefighters, was out of line. Records show 121 out of 162 firefighters — nearly 75 percent — topped the $100,000 threshold last year.
"’One of my jobs for the past 12 years has been to be a watchdog for the public,’ Cyphers said. ‘I don’t see this as abuse. It’s a need we have to meet.’"
We bet she thinks there’s been no abuse. After all, Councilwoman Cyphers’ husband, Michael Cyphers, is the city’s emergency management coordinator. In that job, which is appointed by the city manager, he "…is subject to the direction and control of the fire chief."
Now, how would it look for Michael Cyphers on the job if Amanda Cyphers criticized the fire department’s high salaries? Not too good, we think. It was a conflict that should have been noted.
As soon as we heard that U.S. Sen. John Ensign had missed Saturday’s vote on a resolution disapproving of President George W. Bush’s troop surge in Iraq, we knew it could be only one thing: Golf.
And, according to today’s Las Vegas Sun, we were right. Ensign failed to return to Washington for the vote, scheduled by his good friend Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, so he could play a round of golf with his son. In a statement, he said "Saturday’s vote is nothing short of a political stunt." Missing it, Ensign said, was no big deal.
("His position is valid. Whether or not it’s popular, that’s another question," said UNR political science professor Erik Herzik, in another demonstration of why Dina Titus and Jerry Simich are the only people who should be allowed to teach politics in Nevada.)
Now, Ensign has taken a lot of shit over the years for paying more attention to his daily workouts and participation in athletic contests than he does to the business of government. (We’ve often been the ones dishing it out, frankly.) Our colleague Hugh Jackson over at the well-read Las Vegas Gleaner site has even gone so far as to document Ensign’s golf handicap. (As of this month, it’s 4.5, which is unbelievable unless you play all the time.)
In the Saturday-morning cartoon version of how the Senate works, of course Herzik is totally wrong: Ensign’s position isn’t valid. He was elected (by 55 percent of the people in Nevada) to represent them, and their views. Now, we don’t know if 55 percent of the people oppose the president’s troop surge, but we know at least some of those people do, and Ensign is paid $165,200 per year to express that sentiment on their behalf. By choosing to play golf over represent the interests of his constituents, Ensign demonstrates a shocking disrespect for people who voted for him, the U.S. Senate and the government of the United States.
But this isn’t Saturday morning cartoons, people! And that’s why we at Various Things & Stuff don’t at all mind that Ensign hit the links rather than the Senate floor on Saturday. In fact, we want to encourage him to continue to do just that. (After all, a 4.5 handicap isn’t going to maintain itself!)
See, John Ensign may be a lightweight when it comes to thinking deep thoughts. (We laughed out loud when Review-Journal columnist Jane Ann Morrison wrote recently that Ensign’s staff schedules 30 minutes per day for him to "think." C’mon! We know you kind of feel obligated to print whatever they say, but remember a little thing called skepticism?) Can you name an important bill or law that Ensign has introduced? (No, banning the interstate transportation of roosters for purposes of cockfighting does not count.)
The overall point is this: If a guy is wrong on almost every issue there is — and that pretty much describes Ensign — then why not let him out of votes? It’s better for the country if we do! In fact, we think it’s Ensign’s patriotic duty to golf as much as possible. He should play softball and basketball, too. Hell, shuffleboard is fine with us. Just so long as he’s not voting.
So let’s all make like Harry Reid, and not criticize Ensign. No, not because we have some stupid "non-aggression pact" that has robbed Reid’s state of a chance to get some real money behind an Ensign challenger. Let’s do it because we love our country, and we want to protect it from all enemies, whether foreign, or domestic, or with one hell of a backswing.
Blogs
