The 28th Amendment

Thanks to Richard in Atascadero for passing this along -- a proposed 28th Amendment to the Constitution.

Amendment 28

Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the United States that does not apply equally to the Senators or Representatives, and Congress shall make no law that applies to the Senators or Representatives that does not apply equally to the citizens of the United States .

Much Ado About Nothing

Thanks to Jeff Bliss for again joining us tonight and offered fair and balanced analysis about Tuesday's election. It's been interesting to see how the MSM has been all over the map these last 24 hours, touting the Republican victories in New Jersey and Virginia as a sign of defeat, a bad omen for Obama.

Hardly. As we discussed tonight, the exact same scenario hit Bush in November 2001. Back then, the Democrats picked up two governorships, but still went on to lose in both 2002 and 2004. Voting for governor is hardly a mandate on Washington D.C.

Meanwhile, in New York, a Democrat won for the first time since 1872. And he defeated a bona fide conservative embraced by Sarah Palin. To me, that was equally stunning news. Plus the Democrats held on to their East Bay seat. It could have been a lot worse.

I'm more worried about the Republicans than I am about Obama. the conservative wing continues to rule the roost and moderates are not welcome. So keep letting Rush and Glenn Beck pick the Republican candidates. I don't think most Americans like extremists on either side.

The larger drama for Obama is whether or not he gets health care passed by the end of the year. He'll get it through the House. The Senate? Well, that could prove more daunting. Still Obama seems in better shape today than last summer. This first year in office has been his reality check and he's had to do some growing up fast on the job. Should be an interesting Year #2.

Will vs. Cheney

Conservative columnist George Will went after former Vice President Dick Cheney on Sunday, saying the Bush administration could have used some "dithering" before they invaded Iraq.

Will was responding to the VP's widely-circulated comment that President Obama was "dithering" on Afghanistan and putting troops in danger. On the contrary, Will said, it was hasty decisions that put people at risk.

"A bit of dithering might have been in order before we went into Iraq in pursuit of non-existent weapons of mass destruction," Will said on ABC's "This Week. "For a representative of the Bush administration to accuse someone of taking too much time is missing the point. We have much more to fear in this town from hasty than from slow government action."

It is interesting to see such a strong response to Cheney coming from a conservative like George Will. As we pointed out on the radio show last month, George Will also broke ranks by calling for us to withdraw from Afghanistan. However, Dick Cheney continues to be the rhetorical lightning rod of the right. Usually it's customary for former presidents and vice-presidents not to speak critically of the current administration, a practice even George W. Bush has honored. But not Cheney. He has attacked Obama repeatedly and publicly during the last 10 months. This time, however, Obama supporters are pushing back with a legitimate comparison -- how can the architect of our invasion of Iraq be so critical of a President trying to clean up the mess in Afghanistan?

Rush-ing Penalty in the NFL

Well, I have to confess that I'm feeling a bit sorry for good old Rush Limbaugh this week. Here's a guy who has more $$$$ and more influence than any 100 Americans, but he still can't be part owner of an NFL football team.

Associated Press is reporting:

"Conservative radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh has been dropped from a group seeking to buy the St. Louis Rams.

Limbaugh was to be a limited partner in a bid led by St. Louis Blues chairman Dave Checketts, but Checketts said in a statement Wednesday that Limbaugh's participation had complicated the effort. The group will move forward without him.

Checketts said he will have no further comment on the bid process. Limbaugh did not immediately respond to an e-mail sent late Wednesday seeking comment on Checketts' decision.

Limbaugh said on his radio show earlier Wednesday that he had been inundated with e-mails from listeners who supported him in the bid.

"This is not about the NFL, it's not about the St. Louis Rams, it's not about me," Limbaugh said. "This is about the ongoing effort by the left in this country, wherever you find them, in the media, the Democrat Party, or wherever, to destroy conservatism, to prevent the mainstreaming of anyone who is prominent as a conservative.

"Therefore, this is about the future of the United States of America and what kind of country we're going to have."

So is this political payback or just another attempt to smack down Rush whenever he tries to swim in the mainstream? Personally, I don't understand why the NFL doesn't want his money. They've given Michael Vick, a convicted dog killer, a second chance. Why can't Rush have a first chance? Bizarre.

Congratulations, Mr. President!

We all woke up this morning to the news that President Obama has been selected for the world's most prestigious honor -- he is the recipient of this year's Nobel Peace Prize. Obama is only the 4th U.S. President to ever receive this recognition.

All Americans -- I repeat -- ALL AMERICANS should be proud this morning. We should be proud of our President. Proud to be Americans. The Nobel Prize is a big deal.

But try telling that to conservatives, who are already jumping all over Obama and his selection:

"The unexpected news that President Barack Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize has created a remarkable bit of fury among the president's Republican opponents. One week after conservatives were exuberant with Obama's failure to secure the Olympics for his hometown of Chicago, they were left bitter and bemused that he was bestowed the world's most prestigious honor

"The real question Americans are asking is, 'What has President Obama actually accomplished?'" reads a statement from the Republican National Committee. " It is unfortunate that the president's star power has outshined tireless advocates who have made real achievements working towards peace and human rights. One thing is certain -- President Obama won't be receiving any awards from Americans for job creation, fiscal responsibility, or backing up rhetoric with concrete action."

This is sad. You can question whether or not the award is premature and I welcome those posts here. But here we have the far right trying to tear down our President every chance they have. Unlike George W. Bush, this is not a policy debate. Barack Obama is this year's recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize and the only thing anyone sohuld be saying today is this:

CONGRATULATIONS, MR. PRESIDENT!

Chicago -- Not Their Kind of Town

So the news is all over the Internet this morning. Chicago was booted in the first round of the IOC site selection committee voting, despite President Obama flying there personally to lobby delegates. They opted instead for either Madrid or Rio.

We'll talk about this tonight at 5:05. I think the criticism from the Right has been silly. Why shouldn't Obama have gone to try and secure the Summer Olympics for our country, and for Chicago? Nothing wrong with that. Tony Blair did it for London. Putin did it for Moscow.

However, I'm struck by the enormous gamble Obama took and why he did it. He's coming off a very rough summer. He's being perceived as not tough enough by his critics. So now he hands his critics another issue to attack him with. The IOC rejected him. Had I been advising Obama, I would have said, "If they can guarantee in advance that they'll vote for Chicago, go. But unless they can do it, stay home. Send your wife. Send your kids. Your critics will jump all over this and make you look weak."

And I think that's exactly what's going to happen.

What do you think?

The Issue is Drinking

We have spent a lot of time on the radio lately discussing college students and drinking in San Luis Obispo. It remains the problem that refuses to go away. Tuesday night's city council meeting promises to be emotional and interesting as council members chart a new direction -- one which many students might not enjoy.

Council member Andrew Carter will be on the show Monday at 5:05 to discuss the issue and preview the council meeting. he sent over this Op Ed piece which was published in the Trib. Give it a read. What do you think?

"The students are back, and the beer and booze are flowing. At least that’s how it seems to many of us in San Luis Obispo. In the ten days before the start of Cal Poly classes, City and University police arrested at least 64 people for public intoxication or DUI and cited more than 135 for other noise and alcohol violations. On many nights, crowds of one thousand young people or more roamed the neighborhoods near the university.

On Tuesday at 7:00 pm, City Council will be meeting in special session to talk about this issue. Before us will be several proposals from Police Chief Deborah Linden on ways to step up enforcement efforts throughout the year. Here’s some of what’s on the table:

1) Changes to our noise ordinance. For years, the focus of the City’s noise ordinance has been the issuance of warnings, not citations. In large part, that’s because there are not enough police officers to police the bars downtown and parties in the neighborhoods. Most citizens would be surprised at how hard it is to actually receive a noise citation.

Normally, it takes two warnings in a 60-day period before a residence goes on a “premise list,” which then makes the residents eligible for citation on the third offense. The residence stays on the list for six months. Host a noisy party every 90 days, and the residence never goes on the list. Host two noisy parties in 60 days, but “be good” for six months before holding several more. In either case, no harm, no foul, no citation.

Chief Linden is now proposing that a residence be immediately placed on the premise list after one warning. The residence would then stay on the list for twelve months. In effect, one warning, that’s it.

2) Creation of an “unruly gathering” ordinance. One of the key problems we have in the city is large parties. This can mean parties of 100 or more with young people spilling out of a house or apartment into the yard or courtyard and out into the street. Often, people are coming and going and the hosts don’t know half the people there. Often, binge drinking and underage drinking are taking place and there are problems with vandalism, public urination, and other offenses.

Chief Linden is proposing an ordinance modeled on one being used in Tucson and Rohnert Park. Host an unruly party of this kind, not only would you be immediately cited, but your residence would be “red tagged.” That would mean residents would be subject to fines of $1000 or more if there is a future unruly gathering and attendees at that future party could be personally cited as well. An actual red tag is used on the residence to alert everyone involved. There’s even a fine for removal, defacement, or concealment of the tag.

3) Holding landlords responsible. Chief Linden is also proposing ordinance changes that would begin to hold landlords responsible for the repeated actions of their unruly tenants. This could include fines as well as revocation of the business license that all landlords are required to hold if they rent property in the city.

I support everything Chief Linden is proposing, but there is still the issue of adequate police resources. Creation of better ordinance “tools” won’t have a significant impact if there are not enough police officers to use them. That’s one of the reasons why I’ve long supported a local liquor licensing fee as in Santa Cruz or even a local alcohol tax to pay for additional police officers. The primary issue police are dealing with at night in San Luis Obispo is alcohol use and abuse. Isn’t it time that alcohol itself pay for the cost of enforcement?"