Review-Journal Watch

Not quite yet RJ. (a.k.a. Poor RJ... Poor TASC: Part Deux)

2006-06-21T15:39:00.000-07:00

So we predicted a funny RJ Editorial on June 21st pending the results of the TASC petition. We had expected it to be an angry rant about militant communist hippies who denied voters the chance to vote on one of the worst initiative's ever. Alas we were wrong.

Instead it was a strange and somewhat oblivious lockeroom good job ass slapping column about TASC having enough signatures to be on the ballot.

The funny thing is the editorial seemed to just completely ignore the numerous lawsuits and questions raised about both the viability of the signatures and the petitions.

If you want to read a real newspaper by a real reporter you can hop on over to Anjeanette Damon's blog and check her thread on the many faces of TASC.

http://www.rgj.com/blogs/inside-nevada-politics/

To sum it up there were a few versions of this initiative floating around that 153,000 people apparently signed. The TASC people try to downplay this to nothing more than typos. Yet another classic example of our "rule of law conservatives" choosing to ignore the law whenever it does not suit them.

As Anjeanette puts it TASC will tell you the difference is a mere typo... smart people will tell you it's $1,300,000,000 .

So not quite yet RJ, the hottest issue on the ballot isn't quite there yet. Sorry.

Poor TASC... Poor RJ

2006-06-13T12:00:00.000-07:00

So it is looking more and more like TASC will not have enough signatures to qualify for the ballot in November.

Earlier TASC threw a legal temper tantrum about an apparently successful strategy of shadowing siganture gatherers and letting people know the real facts about TASC. It seems once people here about the downsides (not that there are really upsides) to this flawed idea they "decline to sign."

TASC folks don't like that so they spewed allegations about harrassment and 1st amendment violations and asked for a restraining order. Additionally, and more importantly, they asked for a 6 week extension of time to gather more signatures to counter the successes of Nevadans for Nevada, the group trying to stop TASC from qualifying. Both requests were denied but apparently the two parites have agreed to a rather humorous set of ground rules.

So the same sctrict constructionist folks who spit venom over the Supreme Court's decision during the 2003 tax debate were now advocating the court create a new special deadline just for them. We just find that funny. But not nearly as funny and sad (and pathetic) as this mornings RJ editorial. The collective thought amongst the RJ Watch team today was simply "wow."

The RJ editorial is nothing less than a free advertisement for both TASC and the Property Tax initaitves. The RJ did not even attempt their usual window dressing on their blatant crossing of the line between newspaper and partisan newsletter. Actually, we tend to rank the RJ just above those little flyers that people seem to try to hand you everywhere on the strip.

RJ Watch is still busy working on a new project to roll out in the coming weeks but we just could not resist commenting on how absolutely pathetic the RJ Editorial Board's shameless whoring was today. However, that is all we will say about it, shameless whoring. Frnakly this puts them on the level of those little flyers... way to go guys.

We look forward to the June 21st editorial where no doubt the Editorial Board will piss and moan about the communist hippie conspiracy to deny voters the opportunity to vote on one of the worst ballot initiatives in recent memory. Ah, what a glorious and fun filled morning it will be.

RJ Spins the Facts on the GOP Culture of Corruption

2006-05-24T13:30:00.000-07:00

Complacent.

That word is the key difference between Democrats and Republicans when corruption in Washington is caught in the light of justice.

When Democrats in office are found to be corrupt, and they have been, we hold our own accountable. Democratic Representative Jefferson is now under investigation for taking bribes. In the same timeframe that this story broke House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi called for his immediate resignation from the powerful Ways and Means committee. There was no political jockeying or internal polls taken, he is under investigation for breaking the law and he needs to step to the side. End of story.

When Republicans in office are found to be corrupt it takes nothing short of an act of God and then some to finally push Republicans into disciplining their own house. We are talking about the party that impeached President Clinton for lying about a personal affair but refuses to even hold hearings on potential Bush Administration: misrepresentation of intelligence, illegal wiretapping of phones, collecting a database of Americans calls, outing of an under cover agent, etc, etc.

That's not even focusing on their party's sad defense of Tom DeLay until it was clear they had absolutely no choice. Some might call that loyatly but it's complacency. We could go on and on about the Republicans who were found to be corrupt only to be protected by their party's leadership but we think the people get that despite what the RJ Editorial Board might want.

Democrats don't have a moral or ethical lock in politics and by no means are all Republicans corrupt. But by in large Democrats clean up after themselves while it seems that Republicans just push the mess under the bed.

That's complacency and that is a culture of corruption.

Sherman, Sherman, Sherman...

2006-05-24T12:17:00.000-07:00

We at RJ Watch spent a bit more time than usual when reading RJ Publisher Sherman Frederick's odd rant about Senator Harry Reid last Sunday. Sherman's "columns" tend to be oddball rants of a personal nature but this "column" was special even for the Sherminator.

Sherman must have expected some responses to the column given that he went out of his way to predict calls of the RJ being a "conservative rag." We don't do that because it would be unfair to true conservatives. The RJ is actually just a libertarian rag in conservative clothing.

We really had to debate about whether it was even worth responding to Sherman. While few say it publicly (wonder why given the personal attacks in his "columns") very few people we've spoken to in NV journalism actually respect or like Sherman Frederick. It's not for his views but because of his generally uninspiring and self promoting personality. The word one highly respected journalist used to sum up Sherman Frederick probably said it best "pathetic." We agree.

That being said we are going to make three observations and leave it at that.

Sherman Frederick spent a lot of time thinking about Senator Harry Reid dressed up as a woman which really leads to more questions about Sherman then Senator Reid. However, unlike Sherman, we don't believe his personal life is any of our business so we'll just say to each his own.
His prediction of Senator Reid's defeat in 2010 is not only premature it shows a lack of political calculus that is all too common in his "columns" and the RJ Editorial boards political anaysis in general. Senator Reid won his last election with almost 2/3 of the vote running against a candidate who more or less attacked Senator Reid on all of the same pathetic points Sherman did. Sorry Sherm, apparently despite your views most Nevadans don't agree with you and do seem to agree with the Senator.
We at RJ Watch get the strong sense that Sherman's anger has more to do with Nancy Pelosi and the expanding number of women taking leadership roles in our country. Our guess is Sherman thinks a woman's job is to: make babies, raise babies, cook meals and do what their husbands tell them to do. Nancy Pelosi obviously did not follow the Frederick Feminist model and she wound up one fast approaching election away from being 3rd in line for the Presidency of the United States. Senator Reid works well with his Democratic colleague in the lower house and we think that's what really gets to Sherman and his "values".

Note: Look for an big announcement in the coming weeks about a new initiative regarding the Las Vegas Review Jounral from RJ Watch. Details coming soon...

RJ Forgets the 1st Amendment

2006-05-05T10:10:00.000-07:00

It's been awhile since the RJ Watch team has updated the blog. It was a brief vacation but you can expect us to be back in full swing for the rest of this year without much delay.

We were jolted back into action today after reading two editorials in the RJ. The first one criticized those marching for immigrant rights for not having the proper permits to march. The second was a shameless plug for the Gibbons "Education First" initiative.

In their pro-Gibbons rant the RJ states that the State Supreme Court set aside the 2/3 tax restraint rule in the 2003 session and that it was wrong. Without rehashing the 2003 tax debate we'll just state one more time that despite that court ruling the tax bill passed both houses with 2/3. Get it RJ? The taxes would have passed anyway!

And the bigger point: Education First is widely panned by Republicans, Democrats, educators and pretty much anyone else who has stepped foot in a classroom. This initiative feels good but does nothing to help one child read, one child graduate, one child find a fulfilling path in school.

However, we reference this little editorial of theirs because they take a stand against ignoring provisions of the constitution... it's going to be important to our point in about one minute.

In the RJ's other post they attack those who marched for immigrant rights this Monday for not getting the proper permits. The city/county requires protestors to obtain free permits and pay for any police officers and barricades needed to block off roads. Apparently these protestors did not go through all of the proper channels.

The 1st Amendment of the Constitution of the United States clearly states the right to peacefully assemble and to petition our government for a redress of grievances. Many of those marching on Monday were citizens of the United States.

So the RJ jumps at the chance to defend the Nevada Constitution from the State Supreme Court (whose job is to interpret that constitution) when a potential tax increase is at stake?

However, when it comes to defending our first amendment rights the RJ feels it is ok to allow local governments to set restrictions on those rights? Part of their critique is that protestors, or organizers of the protest, are required to pay for any police officers or services needed to maintain order. Let's set aside the facts that we already pay taxes for the police officers and city services that are supposed to serve the public... including when the public exercises their constitutional rights.

The RJ does insinuate that they have concerns about these permit requirements in relation to the first amendment. However, their editorial did not focus on the violation of the first amendment that these requirements impose; they focused on why the immigrant rights protestors 'got away with breaking the law'.

If the RJ truly believes that these requirements infringe on our civil liberties then they should call for all such requirements to be eliminated, otherwise the RJ is supporting a system where only those who can afford to petition their government and assemble peacefully may do so?

Maybe the RJ Editorial Board is not just a bunch of self interested libertarian ideologues... maybe they are a bunch of self interested middle-aged white men who think that the only rights you can have are the ones you can afford.

RJ Editorial Board Lashes Out At Hispanics

2006-04-14T09:37:00.000-07:00

The RJ Editorial Board came out with what could be one of their worst editorials to date. We think we can sum up the gist of it with this quote by the RJ Editorial Board:

"Why should highly skilled, would-be immigrants from Asia, Africa or Canada languish in line while their places are taken by unskilled Latin Americans who believe a handy land bridge exempts them from following our laws?"

After all of the crap we have read from the RJ on this topic the RJ's true motivation in all of this is borderline racism. The RJ could have just said that all the unskilled Mexicans need to go back home.

Despite all of the RJ's race baiting tactics the important thing to note is that neither the Republicans or the Democrats have called for any amnesty. Neither party has called for "open borders." Neither party is advocating granting automatic citizenship to illegal immigrants.

First, we need to enforce border security. All of us agree that national security must be our top priority.

What Democrats want in this debate is simple, straightforward, fair and frankly American. Immigrants who are in this country illegally are not here to attack or harm America; they are here in search of the American Dream. Those who are here in this country should be provided an opportunity to earn citizenship in this country. Democrats also want true immigration reform that will stop the backup that makes those who wish to legally migrate to this country wait years simply because of an inefficient government bureaucracy.

To close we would like to answer the RJ's rhetorical question above. Those people should not have to "wait in line while illegal immigrants take their place." The line needs to be fixed so that good people, regardless of their race or ethnicity, don't have to wait years to become Americans in the first place.

Let's give those families who are here an opportunity to earn citizenship in America without kicking them out. Then let's fix the process of immigration in this country so that our borders are secure, the incentives to illegally migrate are eliminated, and the process for legal immigration is timely, secure and fair.

Rare Moment Number One (and a half): RJ Attacks Republican Big Spenders

2006-04-05T14:55:00.000-07:00

Several weeks ago we unveiled the 'Rare Moments' feature of RJ Watch. Rare moments are when the RJ Editorial Board actually criticizes Republicans.

Now we are unveiling Rare Moment Number One and a Half. It's only one and a half because they lied and still found a way to make Democrats more evil.

So basically USA Today pointed out that, "Federal spending is outstripping economic growth at a rate unseen in more than half a century."

The RJ correctly points out that Republicans once again are outspending Democrats.

They don't point out that Republicans are also driving the country further into deficit and debt. The National Debt under President Bush has increased by 3 TRILLION DOLLARS in just five years. They also neglect to mention that Democrats under President Clinton sucessfully balanced the budget.

The RJ suggests that despite "alarmist rhetoric" from Democrats about budget cuts that the Republicans have only increased spending.

We want to make two points:

1. The Republicans have increased spending overall. However, they have made deep cuts to programs like veterans health care and prosthetic devices for wounded soldiers in Iraq.

2. The Republican increased spending overall is compared as a ratio to economic growth in the USA Today story. Well we should also point out that the Republicans led us into an economic recession and their has been slow economic growth ever since Bush took office and only a part of that is related to the trgic events of 9-11. (Also worth pointing out that the economy grew at an unprecedented rate under Bill Clinton and the Democrats)

And to the REPUBLIC For Which It Stands...

2006-03-29T15:04:00.000-08:00

The RJ Editorial Board ran yet ANOTHER Pro-TASC piece today. This one more or less calls anyone opposed to the TASC initiative a socialist. So we thought today we would take another approach to TASC and why we oppose it (hint: it has nothing to do with socialism).

The RJ Editorial loves to reference the founding fathers and their intent for this nation. We at RJ-Watch also like to reference the founding fathers and their intent for this nation... we just prefer to not spin it.

One of the fundamental tenets of America in its early design was that America was not to be a "democracy" in the traditional sense but a Republic.

That did not mean that the citizens should not control the direction of their own government, nothing could be further form the founders intentions, but it meant that a direct democracy should be avoided.

The founders settled on a Republic; a system in which the people as a whole would not make the actual day-to-day decisions but would elect fellow citizens to make those decisions. These representatives would be accountable to the people by elections and serve defined terms. Compromise was the thread by which our constitution was woven, and this was no exception.

There are plenty of statistical and moral reasons to oppose TASC, many of which we have used. Yet, another reason to oppose this initaitive is that is goes against the very intent of the founders of this nation.

The state budget is an extremely complex topic. Despite what the RJ Editorial Baord will tell you, every session lawmakers from both parties work hard to cut different items to pay for others. Sometimes taxes are raised because the majority of those elected to represent the people of our state believe cutting anything else would be a detriment to our states population.

The RJ Editorial Baord often disagrees with those representatives and they are perfectly entitled to their opinion.

However, the way to change our government is not to strip away the very foundations of that government. If the representatives elected by the people are not doing what the people believe is in their best interest they should vote them out of office and elect someone else. If no candidate meets their standards then anotehr citizen should stand up and run.

The last thing we need to do is strip away our power to elect representatives who live in districts that represent the unique circumstances and needs (or lack of needs) of our communities.

TASC is a clever initiative designed to appear as if it is giving power to citizens but in reality it is taking our power away and spreading it thin so a small minority of citizens views can more easily be forced upon the rest of us.

Opposing TASC does not make you a socialist... it makes you an American.

Fun with the RJ Privacy Policy

2006-03-28T10:06:00.000-08:00

One of our RJ-Watch contributors was perusing, or rather trying to peruse, the RJ Editorials today as part of our daily masochistic ritual.

However, they were temporarily delayed when they ran into a screen requesting their: zip code, country, date of birth and gender. Several members of the RJ-Watch team have ran into this little page before and we rather enjoy entering ourselves as 101 year olds from Guinea-Bissau.

Today we decided to take a look at the LVRJ "Privacy Policy" that was right beneath this request for our personal information. At first glance it looked like a standard boring document written in drab legalese.

But then we found this part: Second we may require users to voluntarily register in order to access features of the site..."

So the Las Vegas Review-Journal, the bastion of libertarianism in Nevada, is REQUIRING you to VOLUNTARILY give them personal information to access parts of their web site.

The RJ should really, really invest in a Dictionary and try looking up the words hypocrite and oxymoron.

LVRJ Should Look At The Reno Gazette Journal

2006-03-24T13:51:00.000-08:00

The following is from Anjeanette Damon's blog:

The Reno Gazette-Journal is seeking applications for its 2006 Election Advisory Board, a citizen corps of volunteer advisers who will help guide election-year coverage. We're looking for a diverse group of people with various backgrounds in the community who are not affiliated with any political campaign. Duties will include advising RGJ reporters and editors on what issues are important to voters, evaluating the performance of candidates for office and acting as a key sounding board when campaign news breaks. Interested members of the panel also will have the opportunity to write a blog about Nevada politics to help give our readers a citizen perspective on the campaigns. To apply, please send your resume to Senior Editor Mark Lundahl, P.O. Box 22000, Reno, Nv., 89520 or mlundahl@rgj.com

The following is NOT from Anjeanette Damon's blog:

Both the LVRJ and the RGJ have hard working quality journalists coverning politics and other stories. However, the LVRJ has an Editorial Board that is completely out of touch with the citizens of Southern Nevada.

They regularly promote their radical agenda through their editorials and selective process choosing which letters to the editor they will show. Furthermore despite all of the diversity found in Las Vegas the Review-Journal Editorial Board is composed of all white middle-aged men with more or less the same ideological outlook.

The LVRJ Editorial Board should look at what the RGJ is doing and create an Election Advisory Board to help guide their focus. Such a board would also provide an opportunity for the RJ to actually have some diversity with regards to age, race and gender when it comes to their Editorials.

Such a board would in no way prohibit or hinder them from taking narrowminded radical positions. The only difference would be the Editorial Board taking those radical positions on issues that citizens might actually care about.

Then agian chances are the RJ Editorial Board would somehow create an advisory board of all white middle-aged male libertarians.

In any case we commend the Reno Gazette Journal for their dedication to the citizens of Northern Nevada.

More RJ Pushing Of TASC (it's getting old guys)

2006-03-21T09:52:00.000-08:00

The RJ Editorial Board wrote yet another piece today pushing Bob Beers TASC initiative which they curiously neglect to mention by name. Worried guys?

The bottomline is that TASC/TABOR has a proven record of more or less destroying state governments. We're not talking about the government that the RJ Editorial Board hates (the one that takes care of it's working citizens when they are unable to do so themselves). We're talking about the government most of us tend to take for granted.

We're talking about: after school programs, new(ish) textbooks, well paved roads, efficient infrastructure, etc. All of these basic of government services were crushed under TABOR in Colorado.

Parents found themselves having to raise money privately to provide for any sports programs for their children. In at least one school the government was so broke it was unable to turn on the heat in the middle of winter. Roads went unattended because of the lack of workers leading to poor roadways. Basically, the quality of life plumetted. Even the majority of REPUBLICANS in Colorado don't like TABOR.

This is not about Nevada having a "spend, spend, spend" mentality.

While we disagree with the RJ Editorial Boards view that government should take no role in educating our children or making sure our working citizens down on their luck don't die from a lack of money; we recognize they are entitled to their point of view.

However, if the RJ Editorial Board wants to see those changes implemented in our state they should attempt to do so by trying to elect public officials with their same cold, narrowminded views.

What Nevadans should not do is let the RJ Editorial Board, Bob Beers, or anyone else trick us into making Colorado's mistake. If TASC somehow qualifies, Nevadans should vote it down.

RJ Editorial Forgets Past and Ignores Present With Attack On Unions

2006-03-14T12:22:00.000-08:00

The RJ on Monday took a broad sweep at the labor movement and its push for card check organizing rules. The RJ points correctly to a national decline in union memberships and uses the following three points to make their arguments:

Union's have been sucessful in winning battles important to workers.
Worker-Management relationships have improved.
The economy has evolved.

Union's have been sucessful in winning battles important to workers.

Yes, it's true that unions have won many crucial worker rights battles. The RJ forgets to point out that labor unions fought against management to win those crucial battles like: minimum wage, the 40 hour work week, emergency family and medical leave, maternity leave, non-discrimination in the workplace, etc, etc. None of those reforms were supported by management and in fact most employers fought tooth in nail because of fear that it would hurt their bottomline.

However, not all of those battles were fought at once. Like most movements throughout history the progress was acheived one grueling step at a time. It took real organizing to get get workers to stand up and declare they should have a voice in their work place when none of these rights existed.

Our point is two fold: (1) there are still many battles to fight and win and (2) the tide can always reverse and you have to organize just as hard to hold to the ground you've gained as you do to gain it in the first place. Unions still fight to this day for: health insurance for all employees, fair paid time off rules, pension reform, etc.

Worker-Management relationships have improved.

Some worker-management relations have improved; some (cough Venetian, cough Wal-Mart) have degraded. But those that have improved have done so because unions continue to organize after gaining recognition and even after getting a collective bargaining agreement. Those employers where relations have improved are at workplaces that have unions!

In other words, worker-management relations improve once there are worker-management relations that come when workers organize to form a union. Despite how the RJ and Wal-Mart might protray it unions are not third parties that come in and talk for workers. Unions are workers joining together electing their own leaders, stewards and captains and giving themselves a voice in their place of work.

The economy has evolved.

Yes, the economy has certainly evolved, just like the economy began to evolve after the Civil War. At that time the economy moved from agriculture to industrial production. With that evolving economy came brand new opportunities for worker abuses (e.g. children working in factories, no minimum wage, horrendous working hours, and of course people losing their arms in giant gears and equipment).

This new 'service economy' has equal opportunity for worker abuses like: forcing nurses to work mandatory overtime, forcing maids to clean an insane amount of hotel rooms per hour while having to flip heavy mattresses, forcing cocktail waitresses to where 6 inch high heels, etc.

In addition, we still have the same global worker right issues such as access to health care and retirement benefits. We know from their previous Editorial that the RJ is fine with people dying on the streets because they can't afford health care or homes. They're fine with people working until the day they die because they never make enough to retire. Most of us find that disgusting.

Card Check Is Fair; The Current Process Is Not

As for Card Check, despite what the RJ says Card Check is much more fair system then current management favored rules under the NLRB (National Labor Relations Board).

The RJ Makes it sound like getting a union election called in the first place is an easy task, like someone just brings it up in the cafeteria... not true. You still have to get a large percentage of workers to sign enough cards to have the NLRB call an election. During that period of time workers are often subject to near criminal intimidation tactics and lies by their employers. They are pulled from work to watch bullsh*t videos about "evil unions". They are threatened with termination (thanks "right to work" law). Essentially, it is a living hell and it takes a level of fortitude few of us could imagine to stand up to that pressure and get an election called.

What workers are asking for is simple, straight-forward and fair.

If they have to gather cards to have an election called anway than if a majority of workers sign the cards the preference of the workers is obvious... they want a union. The RJ and bad employers are terrified of this because it denies them their second window to intimidate employees and stop them from having a voice at their job.

With the current rules it is very difficult for workers to organize, which in a new economy is a large reason for declining membership. With card check workers could sign cards and know they would not be turned over or subject to harrassment until a majority threshold was acheived. At that point the cards would be turned over and the workers would have their union and would not have to fear management intimidation tactics.

Card check is fair and protects workers and that is exactly why the RJ, Wal-Mart, The Venetian, and big corporations oppose it. They're not in the business of treating workers with fairness, they are in the business of using their labor as cheaply as possible to create massive wealth for themselves.

The Right To Nothing.

2006-03-13T13:21:00.000-08:00

The RJ Editorial Board on came out swinging at the Clark County Democratic Party this past Friday, March 10th.

The headline reads "A 'Right' to Everything: County Democrats build rally around government growth." We were surprised about the Op-Ed not because it was a complete load of unintelligent ranting, we expected that, but because it semi-accurately laid out our views and actually showed them for the gutless, heartless, self-centered, egomaniacal ideologues that they are.

We were going to go point by point on this editorial but instead we just picked out our top 3 quotes and gave our two cents.

#3. To grant everyone all of these "rights" championed by county Democrats -- the "right" to a house, a nice salary, "affordable" health care, free education and a wonderful retirement -- would require the destruction of the very private market economy that has proven the most effective approach history has ever known for creating wealth and battling poverty.

That's right folks. Those evil Democrats want businesses with millions and billions in profit to pay a fraction of a percent of that to provide: affordable health care, quality public education, and an ability to retire with dignity.

As for that last sentence we would just advise you to go to Google and type in October 29, 1929 and see how well everyone did before any of these things were considered rights.

#2. Once you begin defining homeownership, cheap health care and a comfortable salary as "rights" rather than desirable goals, you are advocating an expansion of government power that will ultimately destroy the concepts of private property and individual liberty.

Democrats just don't think a good image for our country would be people dying when a treatment to save their life was available but they could not pay for it. Democrats get slammed constantly by Republicans for being "unpatriotic". If you are willing to let your fellow countrymen die because they don't make enough money than that is unpatriotic. If you think it's ok for your fellow citizens who work in your city to not make enough money to live in your city than that is unpatriotic.

#!1 More importantly, none of these "rights" are real rights at all. A true "right" imposes no obligations on others.

Bullsh*t. That's really the only response that does any justice to what might be one of the most unintelligent statements in modern journalism. We decided to go ahead and look the word "right" up in the dictionary to check that definition and here is what we found.

Conforming with or conformable to justice, law, or morality. Well Democrats consider it an obligation of justice and morality that working Americans have all of these things. Under this definition we find that all of our points are most certainly rights.

That statement is more telling about the RJ's ideology than anything they have put on paper before. If it means they might have to contribute a little money to society, than to the RJ it can't be a right.

Most Americans (Republicans and Democrats) believe in the rights outlined in the Declaration of Independence. That we are all endowed by our creator with unalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Like the framers, and before them John Locke, we believe strongly in liberty and individual property rights. However, we believe that those rights include an obligation by our government to help make those things attainable for its people.

Indeed it was Thomas Jefferson himself, the founder of our party who said "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed--That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government"

Even today nobody can say it better.

Still Taking Names...

2006-03-09T10:52:00.000-08:00

This is just a post to let everyone know that RJ-Watch is still up and running. However, with the 2006 Clark County Democratic Convention happening this Saturday March 11th at the Golden Nugget the RJ-Watch team has been preoccupied.

That being said we expect to resume with a more aggressive posting schedule beginning this weekend.

Now speaking of this weekend...

It was brought to our attention by one of our loyal RJ-Watch readers that apparently the RJ Editorial Board plans on running an Editorial tomorrow addressing the Clark County Democrats Platform. We would never have known because it was in the print version of the RJ and we at RJ-Watch prefer to use our 50 cents on those charity jars at the grocery stores.

Since the platform has not been approved or even viewed by the convention yet we found that a bit puzzling. We assume that the RJ is referring to the convention theme which is Securing the American Dream. The theme focuses on six rights provided by the American Dream:

The right to earn a living wage.
The right to own a home.
The right to responsible government.
The right to affordable health care.
The right to quality public education.
The right to retire with dignity.

We're not exactly what this RJ Editorial is going to say but if past precendent is indeed a predictor of future behavior we expect it won't be a ringing endorsement. I guess we'll just have to wait and see which, if any, rights we have pointed out the RJ disagrees with.

Our guess is something about how they agree with all of the points but that Democrats records show the opposite or something like that. Should be fun.

Half Ass Immigration Reform in the RJ again...

2006-03-01T09:35:00.000-08:00

The Las Vegas Review-Journal published an Editorial on Tuesday tackling the issue of immigration reform. Let's get the things we agree with the RJ on out of the way.

We agree that immigration reform is one of the most crucial issues facing the United States. We also agree that we need to beef up our border security for multiple reasons, most importantly National Security.

Where we disagree with the RJ is in reconciling their two statements:

Governors and federal lawmakers can't legislate with knee-jerk reactions to populist demands that could harm whole industries and stunt the economy.
It (illegal immigration reform) must cut off illegal immigrants' access to Medicaid, education and other taxpayer-funded services.

So basically the RJ is saying Democrats are out of their minds saying that illegal immigration reform must include strict penalties for employers who hire illegal immigrants. However, the RJ says, Republicans are right in saying cut off their state services even though they pay taxes through their illegal employment.

That's why the RJ and the Republicans are supporters of half-ass immigration reform. If either of the two were really serious they would support the Democrats' plan to ensure illegal immigrants don't get employed by American business in the first place. People migrate here illegally and take the risk because they know if they get in they can easily get a job. If that was not the case, a good portion of the incentive would be gone.

But the RJ and Republican plan for illegal immigration reform is also half-assed because it only focuses on illegal immigration reform. What the United States needs just as badly is LEGAL immigration reform.

We need to make it easier for people and families who want to migrate to the United States to do so legally, giving us more control over the number of people who come here. The United States’ greatest strength is our diversity. It is that diversity that has provided a solid multicultural backbone that makes our people and our nation unique.

Until we hold those companies who seek out and hire illegal workers accountable, no attempts to reduce illegal immigration will be successful. Unless we focus on both sides of the equation and rethink our process for legal immigration, this problem will continue well into the future.

Port Controversy Not About Free Market Economics

2006-02-23T09:57:00.000-08:00

The RJ today ran an Editorial supporting selling the operations at multiple US ports to a company owned by the government of the United Arab Emirates.

The RJ points to free market economics as their grounds for why the port deal should go forward. They contend that if a foreign British corporation can own the port operations as a result of foreign investment the same should be true for a corporation from the United Arab Emirates. We would love to go into a Sherman Frederick style offshoot and talk about Republicans and how they do not practice free market economics, but alas, that will have to wait for some other time.

To start with there is one large difference between Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co and Dubai Ports. The P & O Group is a full private corporation whereas Dubai Ports is owned by the government of the United Arab Emirates. The UAE on a whole is a more moderate Middle-Eastern State. However, given today's geopolitical climate and its relation to the War on Terrorism it's easy to see why Democrats and some Republicans have expressed concern.

The RJ's nonchalant view of Britain and Western Europe versus the UAE and the Middle-East is childish and lacks common sense.

It should be made clear that the majority of Arab people are not terrorists and don't endorse their tactics. It should also be clear that not all terrorists are Arab people (e.g. Timothy McVeigh).

However, the major breeding ground for terrorism and Anti-American Militant's has been in the Middle-East. In the times we live in we can't afford idealist foreign policy and we must be pragmatic in our approach. Those opposing this deal are right to express their concern.

The Bush Administration's veto threat is not surprising. This Administration had grown accustomed to a weak Republican led congress that has been unwilling to challenge or even question this President's policies on almost anything, above all his policies on the War on Terror.

We hope that Republicans will join Democrats in opposing this deal.

If anything this scenario should make clear the need for true checks and balances in government. Even if both Chambers of Congress and the President are all from one party they still have duties to country that exceed their loyalty to their party. The Republican Congress has shown no ability to place their duty to country above their loyalty to this President and their party and that makes electing a Democratic Majority in 2006 even more important.

If nothing else a Democratic Majority will restore much needed checks and balances to our government.

Sherman Frederick Owes Me $2.50

2006-02-21T11:17:00.000-08:00

I don’t buy print editions of the RJ. I read it online for free. It’s a matter of principle. I see no need to pay $5.50 a week to be aggravated by poorly thought out political commentary.

However, this past Sunday, I ran to my corner store like Charlie Bucket ran to buy a Wonka Bar. Sherman Frederick promised me that this Sunday he would provide rationale for a statement he made last week about Congressman Jim Gibbons: “No one works harder than this guy.”

Had I know I would find a “Dear Diary” entry lamenting about how mean Democrats picked on him when he was just trying to be nice I would have saved my money.

The “column” was a Kubrickean journal entry that seemed to drift farther and farther from reality the more you read. I can only speculate as to what the relevance of that offshoot into Arizona’s Secretary of State and Lt. Governor was all about.

Sherm’s fundamental assertion in this diatribe is that he was “pretty darn nice” the week before and that Democrats are being mean spirited and picking on him for something he wrote.

For starters, whoever said it was the job of the media to be nice? Columnist and reporters have just one objective: to report the truth to the public. Even columnists should be able to back up their opinions.

Then Sherm called my email “classic character assassination.” My emails are still posted on Jon Ralston’s blog at vegaspundit.typepad.com. If that’s character assassination, Sherm needs to grow a backbone.

Sherm might be afraid to back up his positions, but I’m not. Jim Gibbons is NOT the hardest working person in Nevada:

FACT: Gibbons has refused to debate anyone outside the GOP primary and refused to debate those within it until after filing closes.

FACT: Gibbons refused to take a position on a major issue before Nevadans (TASC) when every other candidate for the same office had.

FACT: Jim Gibbons pushed a mining bill, which would have given lots of public land to mining companies and failed to even muster some support within his own party.

FACT: Jim Gibbons sent a letter to the BLM to encourage having a whistleblower alerting the public about a toxic mine transferred away from the project.

FACT: Jim Gibbons has proposed allowing more mercury to be dumped into Walker Lake.

Now if someone wants to interpret those facts as flaws of character I consider that a problem of Gibbons own making and not mine. If a US Congressman has to plagiarize a speech and call protestors communists and suggest they be sent to Iraq to be used as human shields I can’t help it if some people consider those facts flaws.

Sherm, perhaps you are a good publisher (I admit I am ignorant of the day to day duties of a publisher of a major newspaper) but you just don’t seem to be a good columnist. After reading your columns it sounds like maybe you are a little too thin skinned and not a big fan of: criticism, debate, or public discourse… kind of like Jim Gibbons actually. Maybe that’s why you think he works so hard?

In any case I want to go ahead and state a couple more facts.

FACT: RJ Watch will continue as a project of the Clark County Democratic Party and we will be even more proactive in promoting that site to the public.

FACT: When the RJ Editorial Board or any of its members makes a blatantly false or stupid statement they can count on being publicly called out and challenged to support that statement.

That being said I eagerly look forward to reading the next RJ Editorial and certainly Sherm’s next column, online of course.

Sincerely,

Justin Gilbert
VP of something or other
Clark County Democratic Party.

Throwing you-know-what at the wall to see what sticks.

2006-02-16T09:34:00.000-08:00

The RJ continued its absurd defense today of the Bush Administration's decision to hold news for nearly 24 hours that Vice President Dick Cheney had shot someone.

Now, shockingly, they found a way to try and drag Senator Reid into this story and attack him using standard RJ-Logic.

Well, that’s a stretch. Last year, Reid suffered a minor stroke and the media was alerted a few days later, once tests had come back telling doctors what had actually happened. Until then, they didn’t know.

We’re pretty sure that Cheney knew exactly what happened on Saturday.

Now a quick review:

Case #1: The Vice President shoots someone in the chest, neck, and head with a shotgun. Following the incident, the Administration goes out of their way to make sure the press does not find out while they go into damage control mode.

Case #2: Senator Reid feels ill, goes to the hospital where he rests comfortably and announces what happened once he receives the test results.

We at RJ Watch would say there is a pretty big difference. But the RJ is also confused on why Reid and others have leveled criticism at the Adminstratrion for the delay.

This is not about what the Vice President did; it's about what the White House did not do. Once again, it’s symptomatic of a bigger problem: a White House that doesn’t feel any obligation to answer to the media or, even worse, to the American people.

The RJ trying to drag Senator Reid into this is a classic example of RJ-Logic; throwing you-know-what at a wall and seeing what sticks.

C'mon. It was a weekend.

2006-02-15T10:19:00.000-08:00

The RJ editorial board complains about Washington press corps who have persistently questioned the White House about Vice President Cheney accidentally shooting a fellow hunter last Saturday. The RJ is correct to point out that the primary concern should be the welfare of Harry Whittington, the man who was shot.

But we have something to point out to the RJ: THE VICE PRESIDENT SHOT SOMEONE!

This doesn’t happen every day, and therefore it qualifies as news.

It took the White House 24 hours to acknowledge this little incident. In a day of multiple 24 hour news channels, web sites, blogs, etc the RJ came up with a borderline idiotic excuse for the delay; "it was a weekend".

Really? It was a weekend? We know that Republicans like President Bush like to take vacations more than they like to work, but give us a break!

We’d like to point out that reporters work weekends. Both Molly Ball and Erin Neff of the RJ attended Democratic precinct caucuses on Saturday. Newspapers don’t break for weekends, and neither should the White House.

This is part of a bigger problem: Secrecy in the White House. This administration already goes out of its way to find any and every excuse to make sure that the American public does not know what their government is doing.

This is the administration that in its first term held secret energy task force meetings and now four years later we see windfall profits for oil companies while gas prices skyrocket. This is the administration that almost immediately after being elected classified archived information from the Reagan administration under Executive Privilege. This is the administration that has authorized secret spying on Americans, with no oversight, all in the name of our protection.

Now the RJ wants to set the standard that the Bush Administration only needs to check in Monday through Friday?

How "important" the story might be is irrelevant. The point is that in America the people have a right to know what happens in their government and by members of their government. The White House should have reported this information as soon as they received it. Instead they held it for 24 hours so they could figure out how best to spin it. That's not right and it is not American.

What??? Working hard at what?

2006-02-13T13:49:00.000-08:00

So RJ Publisher Sherman Frederick in a Sunday column said the following of Congressman Jim Gibbons, "No one works harder than this guy." If you react to that quote the way we did the first time we read it you are probably just picking yourself up off the floor from laughing and trying to dry the tears from your eyes. So feel free to take a moment to compose yourself before reading on.

So according to RJ numero uno nobody works harder that Jimmy Boy. We at RJ watch would like to pose this question: What exactly is Jimmy working so hard on?

Could it be that he is working extra hard to try and get BLM managers fired when they try to alert the public about toxic mines?

Could it be that he was working harder than anyone to try and push a mining bill that even Republicans on the hill thought was a psychotic special interest give away?

Was Gibbons working harder than anyone when he was trying to dump toxic mercury into Walker Lake and essentially risk killing the economy, and perhaps the people, of Hawthorne?

You know what on second thought we agree with Mr. Frederick we just think we should finish the rest of the sentence.

No one works harder than this guy to dump chemicals into our water, protect toxic mines, and side with everyone except the people of Nevada at every single opportunity.

We would go on to say more about how hard Gibbons works to screw over his own constituents but we don't want to risk being sent to Iraq to be used as human shields or something.

Rare Moment 1: RJ Disagrees with Bush on Illegal Spying

2006-02-08T09:36:00.000-08:00

Because we at RJ Watch feel we should be fair, even if the RJ is not, we have a duty to point at those rare moments when the RJ actually disagrees with the Republicans in power.

So today we unveil Rare Moment 1!!!

The RJ Editorial in Tuesdays Edition actually criticized the President for his audacious claim that it is perfectly legal for the Executive Branch under his direction to spy on legal American citizens with absolutely no oversight. We're not going to give the RJ too much credit on this one because frankly a 5th grader should be able to come to the same conclusion. Nonetheless it is a rare moment.

Senator Specter, a moderate Republican, has been more aggressive than one would expect on the administration so far during hearing's over this illegal program. Just like the RJ, we're not going to give Specter too much credit because he also refused to demand Attorney General Gonzales be sworn in and so far has not issued a single subpoena.

The RJ Editorial Board believes that the Constitution establishes an almost non-existent government. In reality the framers were not seeking so much to limit the size of government as much as they we're seeking to limit any one parts power and make sure it was hard to pass new laws. Henceforth, shared and reserved powers between the federal government and the state governments as well as shared and reserved powers amongst the three branches of the federal government.

The Bush adminstration has decided that the Executive Branch under their control has the absolute authority to create and interpret the law instead of just enforce it. They have interpreted a resolution passed after September 11th in a national wave of patriotism to mean that this adminsitration may do whatever it wants, with no checks or balances, as long as it is in the name of fighting terrorism.

As the RJ correctly points out the Bush program is wrong. The RJ goes as far as to say that this type of program can lead to a proto-dictatorship. The RJ does not say the program is illegal (psst, it is) but we'll go ahead and give that a pass.

Here is our question for the RJ: When it comes time for those fabulous RJ endorsements this year who will the RJ support? Will it be Democrat Jack Carter who has stated from the beginning this program is wrong and that the he does not want his government spying on him or anyone without oversight? Will it be Republican Senator John Ensign who has defended the President's program and in using the RJ's logic is leading us down the road to a dictatorship?

We guess that will be the real test of the RJ's convictions...

Core principles??? Are you kidding???

2006-02-06T16:50:00.000-08:00

The RJ Editorial Board had the chutzpah this Sunday to suggest that Republicans would look better in the 2006 elections by going back to there core principles.

Let's just set aside the fact that a "newspaper" shilling for an entire political party makes its credibility vansih faster than a surplus under George W. Bush.

The RJ quotes the new Republican leader in the house is "committed to reviving the spirit that swept Republicans into the majority in 1994." However earlier in this partisan diatribe the RJ actually makes one semi-true statement: "Members of the GOP get elected by talking about smaller government and fiscal responsibility. But under George W. Bush and the Republican-controlled Congress, discretionary spending is up 48.5 percent -- outpacing what even LBJ and congressional Democrats were able to get away with during the 1960s."

We'll go ahead and let you try to reconcile those two statements.

Ready. So the RJ is saying Republicans campaign on fiscal discipline but then get elected and drive spending up at a higher rate than Democrats. They even point out in this piece that a mere 20% of the budget increase has gone to Afghanistan or Iraq (while our troops still lack body armor). We also have to point out the well known fact that Democratic President Bill Clinton balanced the budget and erased the first Bush deficit only to have it replaced by a larger second Bush deficit.

The RJ ends their gem of a piece with this line "Let's hope this time they actually try it."

Why??

If the Republicans campaign as being guardians of fiscal discipline but then spend money like they are teenagers who found the country's credit card... then fiscal discipline is not one of their core values.

Actually it would seem that lying to the American public is a Republican Core value.

So the RJ Editorial Board is looking out for Nevada's best interests, right? They believe that our best interests include fiscal discipline and a balanced budget, right? They admit that Republicans are in no way good on those issues and that according to the numbers Democrats are better, right?

Yet we need to reelect the Republicans to Congress because this time they are telling the truth?

Are you serious??? The RJ should just go ahead and change it's name to the Las Vegas Republican Journal because just like that party they also seem to have no core values except lying to the public.