Thursday, March 27, 2008

Illegal fundraising planned for the democrats

The Livingston County Democrats are advertising this for their upcoming fundraiser.

The event begins at 6 pm with dinner at 7 pm It will
include two great speakers, a silent auction, cash bar, and 50-50
raffle.


That's gambling (or gaming in the legal sense). I have nothing against gambling, love a good Texas Hold em game (for chips of course....) and think it should be legal period, but the law is the law on this.

From the State Government

Raffle

Is a game of chance where raffle tickets are sold, a winner(s) is determined by randomly drawing a ticket stub from a container, and a prize is awarded. Almost all raffles need to be licensed.

If your organization is holding a 50-50 or a "drawing for a door prize," these are raffles and should be licensed. If you are not sure if what you want to do is a raffle, contact our office at (517) 335-5780 and we can answer your questions.

You can complete the Raffle Application electronically and then print it.


Now who can obtain this?
Only certain nonprofit organizations are eligible to be licensed to conduct bingos, millionaire parties, and raffles, and to sell charity game tickets. For organizations that have not previously qualified, choose the appropriate category below that best describes the purpose of your organization. Qualification requirement information for that category will appear. This lists the documentation that must be submitted to the bureau before an organization can be granted a license. If you have any qualification questions please contact our office at (517) 335-5780.


First off, political committees are not non-profits. Many think they are, but they are not. Now I am awaiting word from the Gaming Division to confirm this, but based on the statute I've read, political parties committees (As are the Livingston County Democrats) are INELGIBLE for a license.

MCL 432.103
6) "Qualified organization" means a bona fide religious, educational, service, senior citizens, fraternal, or veterans' organization that operates without profit to its members and that either has been in existence continuously as an organization for a period of 5 years or is exempt from taxation under 26 USC 501(c). Qualified organization does not include a candidate committee, political committee, political party committee, ballot question committee, independent committee, or any other committee as defined by, and organized under, the Michigan campaign finance act, 1976 PA 388, MCL 169.201 to 169.282.


Now I am waiting to hear back from Lansing on this to see if it is legal or illegal. I am assuming it is not legal based on what I have read, and based on what happened to one of the dove hunting groups - "Citizens for Wildlife Conservation" - (not the one I treasured) in 2006 when Mike Cox shut down their raffle (correctly so unfortunately). Now while the LCDP has not broken any laws yet, I highly suggest they do not have this 50/50 fundraiser - unless they do have that license.

UPDATE - Heard from Lansing - it's illegal.

Wednesday, March 26, 2008

Livingston Preview 08 (as of 3-26-08)

This is a focus on the 08 races as of now.

US House - Mike Rogers is presumably running again. On the democrat side, I've heard that Bob Alexander wants a rematch. Alexander barely won Ingham County in 04. I don't think Alexander is strong enough to beat Mike, especially with his anti-gun comments after the sunset of the ugly gun ban. He'll have his strong anti-war support, but that won't be enough as Rogers survived 06 despite losing big in Ingham County. A Lansing style of far-left democrat can not win this district post redistricting with the additions of Clinton and Oakland County, and the removal of the Ann Arbor/Flint suburbs.

State Reps:
District 47 - One candidate is in - Carl Konopaska out of Fowlerville. I don't know much about him except that he interned in Joe's office, but don't count out young lesser known candidates from Fowlerville. One won back in 2002. His name was Joe Hune. I also expect Cindy Denby to run, but as she works in Joe's office right now, she is not going to run until she takes a leave of absence - if she decides to run. I've heard Dave Domas and Don Parker may run as well, as did the paper, but we'll see what happens there. If I was a betting man, I'd bet on Cindy Denby winning this open seat, but we'll see what happens. No democrats have declared at this time. If they are going to fire off a strong candidate, this is the time for them to do so with an open seat. I expect a stronger than normal candidate for them. This district should stay ours, but let's not forget the lessons of Don Sherwood for coughing up a safe district about as Republican as Livingston County.

District 66 - Two candidates are in so far on the GOP side. Jason Corosanite and Bill Rogers. Jason is a chiropractor and a businessman. Bill, besides being Mike's brother, is a county commissioner and also a businessman. He has the name, but has experience that can stand on its own merits. Budget matters are the big issue so far in this primary, as expected. On the democrat side, someone from Milford jumped in - Tommy Crawford. I don't know anything about him, except that he pledges to "bring jobs to Michigan, Fight Global Warming, make sure Michiganders have good Health Care, Also everyone is equal to me." I'd like to know how he plans to do that. We'll see. Donna Anderson (who ran against Valde Garcia in 06) may run here. Again, this district should stay ours (and is more Republican than the 47th - as it doesn't have Putnam, Unadilla, Hamburg, or Howell City), but the Don Sherwood lessons apply here as well.

All the County Commission seats are up, as are the township leadership positions.
The County Commission has one open seat. One is the Bill Rogers seat which covers the City of Brighton and parts of Genoa Township. These parts of Genoa are some of the most republican areas in the county, and the City of Brighton is a very marginal area, but it's a strong republican lean for now depending on the campaigns. Carol Griffith (of ERA realtors) is running for the GOP, no democrat has announced. I'm not sure if other republicans are in. The rest of the districts have incumbents unless Dave Domas or Don Parker run for state rep.

I have not heard much about the township races, although I'd be worried if I was a Hamburg Township official right now with the infighting going on there. That township is not so republican where it is impossible for a democrat to win with enough defections. Fair warning to the Hamburg officials reading this.

The school elections for Brighton are up in May.
The three running are:
Winnie Garrett, Jonathan Krause, and Cheryl Leach

Tuesday, March 18, 2008

The Democrats and their mulligan primary

A friend of mine, Jason Miller, just had his column published in the Ann Arbor News on the Democrat's and their mulligan. I partially agree and partially disagree with it, but it's a good read.

Do-over of Democratic presidential primary violates rule of law
Monday, March 17, 2008BY JASON C. MILLER
Under pressure from the Democratic National Committee, Michigan Democrats may be holding a new presidential primary to allocate national convention delegates. This do-over would put Michigan back in the spotlight, but it would also establish a dangerous precedent.

(SNIP)

As much fun as all of that would be, it undermines the rule of law that sustains our democratic institutions. Holding a do-over election establishes a dangerous precedent because of the temptation in the future to hold new elections to get new results. Do-overs undermine the integrity of and faith in elections.

In this particular case, it violates more than just our tradition of not having do-overs, it ignores the law. Michigan law (MCL 168.613a(2)) requires the state party chair to notify the Secretary of State by Nov. 14, 2007 if the party will use a method other than the Jan. 15 primary to allocate its delegates. The Michigan Democratic Party considered not participating in the January primary, but chose to press on and face the consequences.

Michigan Democratic Party chair Mark Brewer did not opt his party out of the process within the deadline set by law. That particular notice provision allows the state to save the money and expense of holding the primary if the parties are not going to use the results. Brewer chose to let the taxpayers hold a primary, but now the Democrats may want to not face the consequences and use those results.

The Democratic National Committee is the real villain here since they are refusing to seat Michigan's delegates because the primary was held too early in violation of their rules. Rules are rules, they say.

Yet, as Sen. Carl Levin rightly points out, New Hampshire held their primary earlier than allowed and broke the same party rules that Michigan did. Michigan is being punished, New Hampshire is not.

The courts will not intervene in this matter. They rightly try to avoid the political thicket and generally leave party affairs to the parties. But just because a judge won't tell DNC chair Howard Dean that he's bending the rules for New Hampshire and demanding Michigan break its own law passed by a Democrat House and signed by a Democrat governor doesn't mean that Howard Dean is right to do so. Nor does this justify ignoring our own laws.


Jason has a good argument here. I don't like revotes in general, especially in any state level elections. The people spoke. The difference in presidential primaries however is that the party delegates decide who each party's nominee will be.It's a different ballgame than our gubenatorial or senatorial primaries.

I hope they have another primary (if we don't pay for it), or even a caucus, if nothing else so they can dump more money here kicking the hell out of each other instead of facing more Soros money sliming our side. I'd also want to hear their plan for Michigan. I don't expect much from them, but Detroit is the most democrat city in the entire country. What are they getting for their loyalty? A lot less than they deserve. The legislature and governor can take care of the laws. This early primary was a gamble for the GOP and Democrats, and the DNC is screwing Michigan over more than the RNC is (1/2 delegates). Levin and Dingell are tired of New Hampshire and Iowa going first, and wanted to push some hardball. I'm no Levin fan, but I can not fault him for that.

However, I'm not surprised. With the democrats' steady abandonment of the auto industry and blue collar America in exchange for the money from Manhattan and Hollywood, this was bound to happen. If Dean, Obama, and to a lesser extent Hillary want to give Michigan the finger, we all should give the finger right back to them when it really matters - November.

BTW - Inside word - this mulligan primary is not going to happen.

DC v Heller - We are on!

SCOTUS BLOG is live blogging the arguments.
DC Gun Case has some updates as well, that site it run by the opponents.

And CSPAN is carrying this live.

Monday, March 17, 2008

And for St Paddy's Day

Y'all be careful out there. Remember before that drive back that the cops are out in full force, and are looking for those that had one too many. Cabs, walking, DD's, are all good options. Lastly, Green Beer is not Irish.

An Irishman, Englishman and a German are caught in Saudi Arabia drinking. "Under Saudi law you are sentenced to 30 lashes then deported. Before you begin you are entitled to something on you back, what would you like?" said the prison guard to the Englishman just before lashing him. The English man, being a bit of a cricket fan, asked for linseed oil. When they lashed him on a post and let him go to catch his flight back to London he groaned and crawled to the airport.

Next came the German. "Under Saudi law you are sentenced to 30 lashes then deported. Before you begin you are entitled to something on you back, what would you like?" said the prison guard "Nothing" said the German and, after receiving his lashes spat on the ground, called the prison guards Schisers and started off towards the airport.

The guards then came to the Irishman. "Under Saudi law you are sentenced to 30 lashes then deported. Before you begin you are entitled to something on you back, what would you like?" "Oh", replied the Irishman, "I'll take the German".

DC v Heller arguments start tomorrow

From the Legal Times, the Plaintiff Attorneys have a column with a sneak preview of their argument.

Armed for Liberty
Alan Gura and Robert A. Levy


03-17-2008



Two hundred years ago, the rights secured by the first 10 amendments were so widely accepted that many of the Framers considered a Bill of Rights unnecessary. Yet the Anti-Federalists wisely insisted on a Bill of Rights, fearing that fundamental tenets of individual liberty might later be deemed inconvenient, impractical, or even dangerous.

The Constitution’s words have since weathered constant assaults from miscreants who would suppress speech, control our private lives, or deny due process — usually in the name of public safety and the greater good.

The prohibitionist attack on Second Amendment rights is thus familiar, even if the arguments against the right to keep and bear arms are demonstrably false. In District of Columbia v. Heller — a case in which we will present oral argument on Tuesday, March 18 — the Supreme Court should recognize some basic truths.

The Second Amendment is an integral part of the Bill of Rights. Read in the same familiar, straightforward manner as other constitutional provisions, it secures a meaningful individual right, a sphere of individual autonomy into which the state may not intrude without good reason and great care. Acknowledging this right does not spell anarchy, but it does mean that law-abiding adult citizens are entitled to keep ordinary functional firearms, in their own homes, for self-defense.

Gun prohibitionists bristle at the notion that private gun ownership is a social good, but their policy arguments are both unpersuasive and irrelevant.

Drug-warriors and terror-warriors advance similar arguments for truncating Fourth Amendment rights. Some moralists have little use for the establishment clause. Others would compromise the free exercise clause. But courts do not declare those constitutional provisions obsolete or undesirable.

Nor should the Supreme Court treat the Second Amendment as if it did not exist. First and foremost, the Supreme Court resolves questions of law — and as a matter of law, Heller is not a close call.

THE PEOPLE’S RIGHT

The Second Amendment guarantees a “right of the people.” The “people” protected by the Second Amendment, as well as by the First and Fourth Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, are all the same: individual members of the American community.

Recognizing that truism, the city and its fellow prohibitionists have abandoned the “pure” collective-rights Second Amendment theory — which secures only a right of states to arm an organized militia. Instead the city has adopted the “sophisticated” or “hybrid,” but equally wrong, collectivist view: that the Second Amendment guarantees rights to individuals, but only when they are serving in a state-controlled military organization.

Imagine a right — intended, in part, as a deterrent to oppressive government — that can be exercised only when, where, and in the manner that government directs.

The collectivist vision seeks support by claiming, first, that “bear arms” has an exclusively military meaning. Yet “bear arms” was often used in a nonmilitary context. Various 18th century state constitutions secured the people’s right “to bear arms in defense of themselves and the state,” including Pennsylvania in 1776 and Kentucky in 1792. And James Madison, author of the Second Amendment, introduced a hunting bill in the 1785 Virginia Legislature, drafted by Thomas Jefferson, which differentiated between “bearing a gun” privately and doing so “whilst performing military service.” Other examples of “bearing arms” appear throughout framing-era literature and legislative enactments — too many to support the prohibitionists’ narrow views.

Moreover, gun prohibitionists conveniently ignore the word “keep,” which plainly relates to nonmilitary activity. “Keep” and “bear” in the Second Amendment are different concepts, like the Sixth Amendment’s guarantee of “speedy and public” trials. Keeping a handgun in a D.C. home is not the same as bearing a weapon on the District’s streets. Heller is about the former, not the latter.
(snip)


The rest of the column is at the link.

This is one of the most significant cases in US History. The only three recent cases on this level are the Gratz case (Affirm Action), Bush v Gore, and Kelo (eminent domain) cases. There is little precent with only the US v Miller case, and there Miller's side didn't show up to SCOTUS, so there was no chance for a good victory there, only a vague case cited by both sides.

This will be an interesting case to follow.

Thursday, March 13, 2008

DC Democrats hate freedom - and the 4th Amendment (House to House Searches)

From the most corrupt city in the entire country, bar none. Washington DC. Land of fascists, politicians, Marion Berry, and more often than not, the murder capital of the Western World. I should not be surprised at this on the eve of the DC v Heller oral arguments which start the 18th. This is reason 99999 why I would never live in that City. If work takes me there, I'm going to the more pro-freedom state of Virginia.

This gets my Irish up more than just about anything else

D.C. police are so eager to get guns out of the city that they're offering amnesty to people who allow officers to come into their homes and get the weapons.

Mayor Adrian M. Fenty and Police Chief Cathy L. Lanier announced yesterday the Safe Homes Initiative, aimed at parents and guardians who know or suspect that their children or other relatives have guns. Under the deal, police target areas hit by violence and seek adults who let them search their homes for guns, with no risk of arrest. The offer also applies to drugs that turn up during the searches, police said.

The program is scheduled to start March 24 in the Washington Highlands area of Southeast Washington. Officers will go door-to-door seeking permission to search homes for weapons. Police later plan to visit other areas, including sections of Columbia Heights in Northwest and Eckington in Northeast.

"If we come across illegal contraband, we will confiscate it," Lanier said. "But amnesty means amnesty. We're trying to get guns and drugs off the street."

Fenty (D) and Lanier announced the plan as part of a new strategy to deal with the prevalence of firearms in a city that has one of the strictest gun control laws in the nation. The Supreme Court will hear arguments next week in a case challenging the constitutionality of the D.C. law.

Residents who agree to the searches will be asked to sign consent forms. If guns are found, they will be tested to determine whether they were used in crimes. If the results are positive, police will launch investigations, which could lead to charges


Gee, they aren't searching Georgetown.......wonder why? Too many lawyers there?

House to house searches piss me off more than just about anything in politics. Now, despite what you see on the TV show Cops, "consenting" to searches is not always a waiver of the 4th Amendment. If asked, I'm saying no to searches on principle. I hope someone asked gives Alan Gura a call, or at least an attorney. I'm not saying this IS a violation of the 4th Amendment in the eyes of a judge without knowing how the individuals enforce this, but to say that my guard is up here is to be an understatement.

Even if this is allowed by law, this is scary as hell. Most people don't know, don't understand, and are quick to waive their rights. Too many people have the attitude of "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to be afraid of." My attitude is get a warrant first, and do not treat me like a criminal unless you have a damn good reason.

I have a few question here:

1. Do residents know that with this "amnesty", that the cops will test weapons to see if they are used in a crime?

2. If residents refuse, will the police give them more scrutiny for not cooperating?

3. Will this be over the whole city, or just in certain areas so the white liberals there do not get up in arms? (Since they don't give a damn about Anacostia and Washington Highlands unless Georgetown is hit)

I hope the residents tell them all "NO." This is high time to question authority. Now show Fenty the door for all of us. Thanks.

Wednesday, March 12, 2008

Jack Kevorkian for Congress?

Well, he wants to be on the ballot

PONTIAC, Mich. - Assisted suicide advocate Jack Kevorkian is planning to run for Congress in Michigan. Kevorkian is on parole since being released from prison last year.

He tells The Oakland Press newspaper that he plans to run without party affiliation for the congressional sea now held by Republican Joe Knollenberg.


He doesn't have a chance in hell, but it'll make the race more interesting.

Monday, March 10, 2008

Dumb and Dumber (and a new No guts award winner)

It's a very interesting political day today. As Vince Lombardi said, "What the hell's going on out here."

First off, this isn't the dumb and dumber part, but the GOP got whacked in Illinois. Illinois is a bad state for us overall with the Chicago influence, but this one really hurt. There was a special election with the resignation of Dennis Hastert. Democrat Foster knocked out Jim Oberweis

Why did this happen? It's quite simple. You do not win when you don't show up. In a marginal GOP leaning district, low turnout hurt bad, since there enough democrats to win if they show up. That happened here.

Special Election 08:
Bill Foster - 52,010
Jim Oberweis - 46,988

That's VERY low turnout for a congressional seat. 06 was an off year, and 04 is a presidential year.

2006
Dennis Hastert - 117,870 - 60%
Jonathan Laesch - 79,274 - 40%

2004
Dennis Hastert - 191,616 - 69%
Ruben Zamora - 87,590 - 31%

Bush won the district 55-44 in 04 and 54-42 in 00. There's no reason we should have lost this. The LOSER in 04 and 06 had 35,000 and 27,000 more votes than the WINNER in the 08 special election. There's going to be a rematch this fall, but Oberweis is obviously behind the 8 ball.

Now, on to Dumb and Dumber.

Dumb goes to New York Governor Elliot Spitzer. No, not for likely (based on his comments) being involved in a prostitution ring.
From the London Times
Eliot Spitzer, the crusading New York Governor often tipped as a future American president, suffered a spectacular fall from grace yesterday when he was implicated in a prostitution ring.

Mr Spitzer, whose eight years as New York State’s Attorney-General earned him a reputation as “the sheriff of Wall Street”, reportedly told senior aides that he was a client of an international escort service that charged up to $5,500 (£2,750) an hour. Court papers hinted at risky sexual practices. He cancelled all his public appearances and met officials in his Fifth Avenue apartment before making a public apology to his family and the public.

“I have acted in a way that violates my obligations to my family and in a way that violates my or any sense of right and wrong,” he said, with his wife Silda at his side. “I apologise first and most importantly to my family. I apologise to the public, whom I have promised better. I am disappointed I have not lived up to the standards I have set for myself.”

Mr Spitzer, 48, who was elected Governor with a record 69 per cent of the vote, is married with three daughters. He did not immediately step down, but said that he needed to dedicate some time to regaining the trust of his family. If he steps aside, he will be replaced by Lieutenant-Gover-nor David Paterson

The dumb part is this.
In 2004 he voiced revulsion as he announced the arrests of 16 people for running a prostitution ring out of Staten Island

Is that a competition ring, Spitz? Apt last name for you if I may add?

The real dumb part - $5500 an hour? THAT's dumb. You're the governor of New York, and have to pay that much? For that price, not to mention your career, she better be really hot.


Dumber goes to the Arkansas GOP. I'm bringing back the No Guts award for these guys. They are our third winner. Our first "No Guts" award winner was Barack Obama. Our 2nd winner was an apartment complex in Jacksonville for firing a guy who did the right thing. Our next winner is the Arkansas GOP for this.

From CQ Politics:

Arkansas Democrat Mark Pryor ’s bid for a second Senate term soared from highly likely to virtually certain Monday, when no Republican challenger met the state’s congressional filing deadline at noon central time.

CQ Politics has changed its rating on Pryor’s race to Safe Democratic from Democrat Favored, reflecting the fact that he is the first Senate incumbent running this year to officially draw no major-party opponent.

It was likely that this rating change would have been made even if the GOP had fielded a candidate. Republicans’ hopes for seriously competing faded after Asa Hutchinson, a former House member and former high-ranking official at the federal Department of Homeland Security, declined a Senate bid. Then former Gov. Mike Huckabee stuck to his pledge not to run for the Senate this year, even though he dropped his presidential campaign last week after Arizona Sen. John McCain won enough delegates to clinch the Republican nomination.


Pryor is a FIRST TERM incumbent. The GOP didn't show up. They could not get John Doe even to run? Pryor was a very beatable incumbent, and one of the best shots in the Senate - and this is a very tough cycle for the GOP Senate (as will be 2010). 2012 is our best shot at a comeback there. Because of the ineptness of the Arkansas GOP, we're handicapped even more. Thanks, guys. As I said in the Hastert seat, you don't win if you don't show up. That earned you all a No Guts award. Every race should be contested. Period.

Thursday, March 06, 2008

Senate candidate Al Franken, inc fined $25,000 for Workman's comp violations

I don't usually comment on national stuff outside of the presidency, but this is too good to pass up. Too paraphrase Stuart Smalley, Al showed here that he isn't good enough or smart enough. We don't know if people like him yet.

From the Minneapolis Star Tribune

DFL Senate candidate Al Franken owes a $25,000 penalty to the New York State Workers' Compensation Board for failing to carry workers' compensation insurance for employees of his namesake corporation from 2002 to 2005, state officials said.

New York officials have made numerous attempts to contact Franken about the matter since April 2005 but have gotten no reply.

Campaign spokesman Andy Barr said that neither Franken nor his wife, Franni, were aware of the matter before Tuesday. They have lived in Minneapolis for the past few years and did not know about the state's attempts to reach them in New York City, he said.


Well, you should be aware. What's nice about this is that we have a primary source here to help us. New York State has a list of corporations.
Al Franken, inc - is here

It's based in New York City, Franken's old home. It's listed as ACTIVE. Most importantly, the Chairman and CEO is Alan Franken. I think it is safe to assume that Alan Franken is Al. A CEO has a fidiciary duty by law to corporation which employs him. Alan Frankin, inc - isn't Al. It's a seperate entity that employs Al Franken as CEO.(Although Al is probably majority or sole shareholder). As CEO, Al had employees. If Al wasn't aware of the workman's comp issue, it's because he was negligent. No excuse. I wasn't aware gets people fired, sued, and in some case maybe jail. If Franken was moving, he should have had an agent, or updated his contact information.

More:

The Workers' Compensation Board began sending Franken notices in April 2005 after discovering that the insurance hadn't been paid for nearly three years.

Officials first sought an explanation. Receiving no response, they sent a penalty notice to Franken in June 2005 that outlined rights to appeal.

The state then turned to a collection agency to reach Franken. When that didn't work, the state tried again in July 2006. Penalty statements were sent in August and December of 2006 and March 2007, Keegan said.

The judgment was finally entered against Franken in May 2007, and another notice sent by certified mail to his Manhattan apartment. Since then, Keegan said, three more statements have been sent -- the most recent in January -- without response.

The Frankens bought a townhouse in Minneapolis in April 2005. Barr said that the corporation relocated to Minneapolis in January 2006.


At BEST, Al Franken did all the following.
1. He did not (or had nobody) check his corporate mail for three years. Not good for a CEO who has or had employees. Is that good judgement for the Senate

2. He did not close up shop properly in 06 if he was relocating his corporation, nor sent notice to New York. His NY Status is ACTIVE. Active IN New York.

3. He did not have an agent in New York. With his money, he could had a lawyer there on retainer in case something happened - or to handle a transfer. The first thing I learned in Biz Org is to have an attorney involved in corporate drafting.

4. He showed overall bad judgment. It takes work to get a default judgment against you like that. I've dealt with many bureaucrats. Most hate extra work. They do not want to have to go to court on a matter like this. This started as a "fix-it". They wanted to settle it afterward. Then they had to get the lawyers involved with a LEIN, and even went to court. Al or his agent didn't even show up to court. Judgment for the plaintiff against Al Franken Inc.

5. He showed what he thinks of the working class. This multi millionaire did not pay his fair share, and broke the law while doing so.

To sum things up, he isn't qualified for the job. Time to send Al Franken back to doing Stuart Smalley skits.

Update - School Board, May 08 and 08 Presidential update

It's been awhile since I updated. That's been due to this rather nasty schedule I've had for school, as well as a bad case of writer's block. Some updates.

May elections:
Many school board races have moved to November, and there is only one contested race. That is Brighton. Cindy Cvengros and Greg Kushner, the two incumbents, are not running again. There are three people running for two positions.

The three running are:
Winnie Garrett, a candidate last year
Jonathan Krause
Cheryl Leach

I was at last year's debate in Brighton and Garrett was one of the participants there. It was not the best English I've ever used in my life as I was typing on my computer during the debate and trying to type fast.

My elections report from last year - I covered Brighton and Howell there.

As far as the presidential debate goes, it's official for McCain. Better him than Billary or the Holier than thou cult wannabe Obama. The dems are still battling out their battle. I hope they kick the crap out of each other.

Lastly, the DC gun case will have arguments on the 18th. Audio will be released the same day. That tells me that SCOTUS knows this is an important case with a large section of the population.