Madness Has Been Announced

ABC finally announced the cast for Dancing With The Stars Tonight. This season there will be:

Michael Bolton (Singer)

Margarte Cho (Comedian/Actress)

Rick Fox (Retired NBA Forward)

Jennifer Grey (Baby Who Is Never In The Corner)

David Hasselhoff (Like you don't know? Don't hassell the Hoff)

Florence Henderson (Mrs. Brady)

Kyle Massey (Someone who is alleged to be an actor. And a Rapper. A Disney rap star.)

Brandy Norwood (RB Singer)

Bristol Palin (Sarah's daughter. Famous for having a child with a d-bag)

Audrina Partridge (The Hills)

Mike Sorrentino ("The Situation" that gives Italians a bad name)

Kurt Warner (Retired NFL Quarterback)

Now this is an interesting cast for a couple of reasons. Partly because there is no clear favorite in my opinion.

In case you forget, my rule of thumb is if there is an Olympian, bet them. They just get it. There are no models, so no easy outs (e.g. Kathy Ireland, Paulina Porizskova). There have been some pro-sports greats that have gone deep (e.g. Jerry Rice, Emmett Smith). However, there have been some pro-sports greats that have stunk up the joint (e.g. Clyde "The Glide" Drexler).

As far as the entertainers go, we have some singers, but neither of them are really known for their dancing. Florence Henderson, actually, might have the most dance background on the list as she used to be in Broadway musicals. Of course, that was like forty years ago.

With this cast, I think, at least for the men, I am going to go with the Osmond rule and make David Hasselhoff the favorite for now. He's a performer. Is he in Donny and Marie's league, I have no idea yet, but we'll find out. For the women, I'm going to say Brandy. Of course, when we see pairings, we'll know more about who to favor.

Another Interesting Lawsuit.

Rick Norsigian just got sued in Federal court by the Ansel Adams Trust. All for using something he picked up at a garage sale.

What makes this so interesting? And why are they suing him?

Apparently Rick Norsigian went to a garage sale a few yearsback. There he picked up some glass plate negatives. When he got them home, he realized what he had bought: some lost Ansel Adams negatives. Eventually, he came forward and said so.

And the Ansel Adams people looked at him skeptically. The grandson of Ansel Adams, Matthew Adams, even came out and stated

"Mr. Norsigian has been claiming these negatives were made by Ansel Adams for many years,...I am unaware of anyone knowledgeable agreeing with him."

Well, some people apparently do agree with Mr. Norsigian. Actually, a bunch of experts who studied the negatives and came to the conclusion that they were Adams' work. So Mr. Norsigian is putting on a show of the "lost" Ansel Adams pictures and selling prints.

So what does the Ansel Adams Trust do?

Why they sue him. For selling the pictures he prints off the negatives. Although they are doing it in a slightly sneaky way. They are going after him for calling them Ansel Adams' work.

Going to be interesting to see how this works out.

More Rumour and Innuendo about the Situation (DWTS Pre-Season)

Alright, I've been gone a while. But that happens when trial heats up. However, its on hold. Which is a bummer. Add to that my beloved Giants are faltering, so what to do?

Talk about Dancing with the Stars rumors is a logical choice. Right?

Anyways, apparently since my last posting on the upcoming season of Dancing With The Stars, some things have been happening.

The only thing for sure is that Karina Smirnoff won't tell us whats going on. At least according to her twitter account.

But from other sources, it looks like Mike "The Situation" Sorrentino will be joining the case. I guess they needed someone who wasn't afraid to take off their shirt to dance. Another person who is rumored to be a lock is Audrina Partridge.

Now I know that Sorrentino (I'm sorry, I just can't call someone "The Situation"... its just to ridiculous.) is on Jersey Shore. Something I have never watched and most likely never will unless absolutely no other channel works the next time I'm in a hospital room. The same goes for Audrina Partridge. She was on The Hills right? I had to look it up on IMDB. I didn't realize there was someone else on that show besides Heidi Montag and Lauren Conrad. Who knew? But anyways, is it really necessary to have two MTV reality show "celebrities" on? I mean, isn't there someone from some lame ABC reality show that could contribute someone to qualify as a "reality star"?

Oh wait, apparently there is. Its also being reported that Ali Fedotowsky (the Bachelorette) will be on this season.

As for other contestants, it looks like he who blabbed is hanging in there. Troy Aikman announced that he was going to be on the show. Apparently, he was not supposed to do that. So the next day, he said he was not going to be on the show. Except, according to some reports he is,... unless they can find another football great who is available. And right now, there's word that Kurt Warner may be close to taking the snaps on the ballroom floor.

Who would you want? Another Cowboy great (who I always think of as the UCLA quarterback because I am prohibited from actually saying nice things about the Dallas Cowboys) or .... a guy who was a journeyman quarterback for some teams that caught fire (there are some other things I could say but I don't want to be mean).

Now, a Dancing With The Stars season would not be complete without an Olympic medalist or two. So far the only one that I have heard mentioned is Johnny Weir. How hard is it going to be for me not to call him Johnny Weird? I've already had to correct it three times. Judging by his choices in the past for his performance wear... he might end up fighting Edyta for her wardrobe. (Alright, that was mean, I'm in a mood.)

Speaking of....

Alright, so we have reality "stars", a tussle for the quarterback position, and an Olympic medalist seemingly ready to go. What are we missing?

That's right, its a singer who used to sell a lot of records but needs a boost to their career. Isn't it nice that Brandy is around to help out ABC? She makes up for the dirty quotient that The Ridiculous, ...er... I mean... Mike Sorrentino is going to drag into the ballroom.

A few other names have also popped up. One is Landon Donovan. Who is he? I know. Do you? Alright, he is a soccer player (or as the rest of the world would call a "footballer") who holds the record for most goals and most assists on the U.S. National Team. Unless a lot of people watch both the World Cup and Dancing With The Stars, I fear for his longevity. Which is a shame.

But then I've saved the best (or is it worst) for last. Any guesses? Apparently they are trying to get the over half of Kate to grace the ballroom. That's right, word is they are trying to bring in Jon Gosselin.

Did I mention that Chelsie Hightower was talking about the Hoff showing up?

I fear this cast. I feel so bad for the professionals.

What the Hell?

Apparently someone is under the impression that poor people do not drive cars. Why do I say this? Because according to San Francisco this must be the case.

This little topic came to me while reading about the current brou-ha-ha going on over the proposed affordable housing project here in San Francisco. Over at Ocean and Phelan Ave, near the San Francisco City College, there is a proposed apartment complex intended as affordable housing (how its going to remain that way I'm curious since it won't be covered by the Rent Ordinance, but thats another topic). The complex will have 71 unit. It will also have five regular parking spaces, one car share spot, and one handicap spot.

For a minimum of 71 people.

Let's think about how this would affect nearly any neighborhood in San Francisco. It would not be good. Yet, the Planning Commission seems ready to let it through.

Why? Because San Francisco believes that poor people will not have cars because... well they are poor. Also because there is this belief that people will ride Muni. This ignores reality.

A good part of why it is believed that the poor won't have cars is that they can't afford car insurance. Has anyone noticed that there is a problem with uninsured drivers in this state? Well there is. According to L.A. Business Journal, its bad and getting worse. As of last year, it was almost 20 percent, and given the economy its expected to rise.

Yet the hope of many in the transit community is that people will abandon their cars and rely exclusively on transit. Yet they fail to explain how this hope will translate into reality, especially in light of recent cuts to Muni and both BART and Muni operated severely into the red?

What sort of fantasy are we living in here? Oh wait. Its not a fantasy. Its Monday in San Francisco.

A Whiff of Madness Future (DWTS Rumours)

So there is a rumor about that this upcoming season of Dancing with the Stars could be ... interesting. ABC has said that they will be making an announcement on August 30 during the The Bachelor Pad (or is it the Bachelorette, I don't really care).

But a couple of names have been popping up. Carrie Ann Inaba, whom we all know is simpatico with me in the thinking department, is apparently lobbying to get Lindsey Lohan into the competition. From a chance at the county pen for bolgna to ballroom for the Fabulous Mirror Ball Trophy? Could it be?

Another name being thrown around is Oksana Grigorieva... that would be the baby-mama of Mel Gibson whom he wished... well unspeakable things. At least unspeakable here.

Meanwhile, Troy Aikman is going around telling people he is all signed up and in to follow in the footsteps of his Dallas Cowboys' teammates. But then he turns around and says no way is he going to dance this season. So which will it be?

Is That How You Act With Integrity?

So my Congresswoman is Representative Nancy Pelosi. Aside from sharing a name with a math teacher who struck fear in the hearts of many who went to my school, there was very little that I have agreed on with this woman in the past four years. However, the one thing I did like to think she was serious about was dealing with corruption in the House of Representatives.

Today, however, it has become clear that she clearly is not. Otherwise, how did she allow the Rangel mess to happen?

Yes. She did allow an investigation to forward. She did all charges to be heard by the House Committee on Ethics. But where was the leadership to call for more than just a reprimand if he is found guilty?

In case you have not been following this story, Charles B. Rangel is the Democrat who has been the Representative for what is now known as the 15th Congressional District in New York. Essentially, it is the borough of Harlem. He has been the Representative of that district since 1971.

Beginning in 2008, there were rumblings that something un-kosher was happening with Rangel. Oddly enough, it seemed to begin when he was questioned for his use of Congressional letterhead when he was soliciting donors for the Charles B Rangel Center for Public Service was improper. When that became public, the media started to question some other things that Congressman Rangel was doing. This included four apartments that he rented for substantially below market rent, the failure to report income on his taxes for property (sometimes described as a villa) in the Dominican Republic which he leases out, as well as other non-reporting and under-reporting of income to the IRS.

And this is the man who is the chairman of the committee which oversees the Federal Tax code.

In fact, he had so grossly underreported his income and holdings, that when he was finally forced to revising his reporting statements in 2007, his network went up by $500,000. That's a half a million dollars.

For some reason, the IRS, although Rangel did pay his back taxes, did not require the payment of any of the fees and penalties. A sweetheart deal is the kindest thing that can be said about that. Although he paid the federal taxes, it appears that he still could not get around to doing what everyone else in this country is supposed to do: pay all their owed taxes. Apparently, he has not been paying some of his property taxes as well as some other taxes. Its hard to tell really when pinning down his assets is like trying to catch a money launderer.

However, there's still more to the story.

Not content to ... hell let's be charitable and call it "fudge" .... his tax returns and required financial disclosures, he also seemed to have been hitting up donors in improper ways and accepting improper gifts from industries and interests which are directly overseen by his committee. By the way, that would be Ways and Means (which he chairs). He is also a member of the Joint Committee on Taxation.

One of these ways was Diageo Rum Bailout. Essentially, Rangel is alleged to have arranged a quid pro quo with Diageo Plc. Diageo, maker of Captain Morgan rum, wanted to qualify for federal funds out of the TARP which was being put together at that time. As reported, at first Representative Rangel met with them but did not give them the support they needed. However, for some reason, this support suddenly materialized. At about the same time, a hefty campaign contribution materialized in Representative Rangel's campaign coffers.

Lets be clear about something. At this point, 2009, the Democrats were firmly in control of the House of Representatives. Yet Speaker Pelosi was content to sit back and not push this forward.

Is it too much to expect a leader of one of the branches of our government to root out corruption, even within their own party? Judging by Speaker Pelosi's lackadaisical handling of the situation, it appears so.

Finally, almost two years since the first, allegations were made, charges were finally brought before the House Ethics Committee. The June 17 charging document lists out the following charges:

• Violating Solicitation and Gift Ban (5 USC 7353)
• Violating Code of Ethics for Government Services (72 Stat., Part 2, B12, H. Re. 175, 85th Cong. (1958)).
• Violation of House Gift Rule (House of Representative Rule XXIII)
• Violation of Postal Service Laws and Franking Commission Regulation (39 USC 3215)
• Violation of Franking Statute (18 USC 1719)
• Violation of House Office Building Commission's Regulations (House Office Building Commission's Regulation, cl. 4)
• Conduct in Violation of the Purpose Law and Member's Congressional Handbook (31 USC 1301; 2 USC 57, Member's Congressional Handbook, p. 6)
• Conduct in Violation of Letterhead Rule (House Rule XXIII, cl 11)
• Conduct in Violation of Ethics in Government Act and House Rule XXVI (5 USC 101 et seq.; House Rule XXVI)
• Conduct in Violation of Code of Ethics for Government Service, cl. 5 (72 Stat., Part 2, B12, H. Res. 175, 85th Cong. (1958)
• Conduct in Violation of Code of Ethics of Government Service, cl. 2
• Conduct in Violation of Code of Conduct: Letter and Spirit of House Rules
• Conduct in Violation of the Code of Conduct: Conduct Reflecting Discreditably on the House

Basically, what these charges boil down to is that Representative Rangel has stolen from the tax-payer, failed to pay his taxes, and treated some constituents better than others because of favors they have given him (where I come from, we call it bribery), and that because he was caught with his hand in the till, his actions reflect badly on the House of Representatives.

After hemming and hawing about this issue for more than a month, it was announced today that House Committee was approving these charges and forwarding it to a sub-committee for trial. All well and good. However, they did not stop there. Although there will be a trial, the committee announced that it was only allowing a maximum punishment of a reprimand.

Let's see, he gets to not pay taxes for years and avoid any punishment. Then he follows it up with a litany of ethics violations where his punishment is capped at the second lowest possible punishment the House can give. As the New York Post reports,

"The House ethics investigatory subcommittee recommended that Rep. Charlie Rangel be reprimanded, which is the least severe punishment, according to a new report".

Here's my question Madame Speaker: Why are you allowing this happen? If it is your intention to actually drain the "swamp" of corruption on Capitol Hill, why are you allowing someone to flagrantly violate multiple laws and House rules without evening slapping him on the wrist.

To allow this is to make a mockery of justice. Its just a chance to look good without achieving any real difference. If Congressman and Senators know that they will not have to worry about being penalized, what is to stop them essentially accepting bribes.

We try and enact laws to prevent money from corrupting the system. Yet, when the people are corrupted by it, we allow them to skate on by. In this case, based on the supporting documents which have been presented to the house Committee, Representative Rangel was accepting campaign contributions in return for his help. Essentially, he was taking a bribe. Yet, rather than prosecute this man, the House of Representatives wants to hush it under the table.

The media is saying that Speaker Pelosi is only giving him a "tepid" defense. Why should he even rate that much? The evidence shows that this man is a crook. If not for the protection offered by his position as an elected official, he would be facing a real trial not the cozy watered down version that seems to be promised.

The money, the trips, the temptation is always going to be there. Rather than trying to restrict free speech, we need to punish those who give in to temptation.

But Madame Speaker seems content to sit back. She is content to allow a back room deal to be struck so that business can go on as usual.

And that, is not acting with integrity.

Do People Not See That We Have A Problem?

I have to admit upfront. I do subscribe to the broken window theory on policing. Either you treat all crimes as important or no crime is important.

That's why I am troubled with the attitude that San Francisco is taking to crime. First, it was announced earlier this summer that, because of perceived racism, Muni was ending its program to crack down on fare jumpers. And before you start to protest, getting on any Muni vehicle and not paying is a crime. You are stealing. It really is that simple.

Then today, there was the announcement by the SFPD that they wanted to embark on a new program. Basically, they have decided that property crimes really are not to be prioritized by the police department. In fact, they will be so de-prioritized that they will no longer be responded to by sworn peace officers (i.e. police with badges). Instead, reports, and investigations apparently, will be done by a civilian investigator.

The idea behind this is that there are cases that happened too long ago, or for property that was taken a while. Also, its to improve "customer service".

Here I thought the goal of policing was the prevention of crime or arresting those who commit it.

The message this sends is that there are crimes which matter, and rate a police officer, and there are crimes which do not matter, so you get a civilian. Now, this is not the first time this program has been tried. In fact, they use it in the United Kingdom. There the program was sold originally as a way of freeing up sworn officers for "important" cases. This was five years ago. As with most things when a government program starts, it did not stop there. Seen as a way to balance their books, the civilian investigators are being used more and more on serious crimes, such as rape and murder.

Try and convince me that in a town like San Francisco, where our elected officials are desperate for ways to cut on essential services in order to keep their own pet projects afloat, that there will not be pressure to use the cheaper civilian investigators more and more. Go on. I dare you. Because, its just never happened before, right?

Now Chief Gascón argues that there is nothing to worry about. For these types of crimes he is promising to use them, there is little danger that anyone will notice any difference. In fact, he opined, when questioned about this, that people would be better served because they would a more certain (and possibly quicker) response time.

Intrestingly, Chief Gascon made the state that, "There's nothing magic about having a police officer testify in court." I beg to differ, but there is. Police officers go through a lot of training. They typically have a college degree, followed by the police academy. Then they serve two years as probationary officers. In order to testify about certain topics, they need to have certain, specialized training. And lets face it, a sworn officer impresses a jury in most cases. They know how to testify. They do it regularly as part of their job. They do the rest of things required for successful prosecutions as part of their job.

It is promised that these civilian investigators will have the same training. But somehow, they're going to cost less. Now, how is this going to happen?

This just does not make any sense. Somehow, we are going to have better policing, at a lower price, with no downside by using unsworn civilians. This seems like fiscal dreams.

But back to my initial point, how is this going to be seen by the people it affects the most? If you know that the crime you intend to commit is not going to get a police response, would that make you more or less likely to take the risk?