Its hard to put into words about all the flooding going on in Atlanta right now.  Taking a look at some of the pics from Austell makes me want to cry.  Especially this one of Clarkdale Elementary.  We hope that the bigoted attitude of many of the GA GOPers gets washed away with the flood, and that they ask for federal help humbly and are aware that for months and months they’ve been lambasting the same federal government that will come to our aid.

Our thoughts are with the families and friends of those who have lost loved ones and property during this Great Atlanta Flood.

Just a quick posting regarding the recent flooding in Atlanta.

1. Our condolences go out to the friends and family members of the (thus far) eight who perished in the flooding.
2. For road closures/updates, this seems to be a pretty decent compilation of information: http://www.ajc.com/news/minute-by-minute-updates-143387.html
3. According to the National Weather Service, if you see standing water on the road, you should turn around and “do not drown.” Sound advice.
4. If there are barricades on the road you wish to use, just assume they are there for a reason. Police, fire, and rescue services have had to rescue more people today than yesterday because people seem to think that roads are safe if there is no water on them. NOT TRUE. A lot of bridges/overpasses/roads have sustained structural damage that must be repaired before they can reopen.
5. Gee, where on Earth are we going to get the money for the millions upon millions of dollars of damage this has done? Crap. New Rule: No natural disasters during a recession.

All in all, things could have been a lot worse. Still, many people lost their homes, cars, and belongings to this flood, and our hearts go out to them.

In the aftermath of the flooding, just remember not to drown.

I have fear in my heart right now, due to the Atlanta police department and their stonewallesque raid on the eagle last night.  I feel less safe because of the apd, who’d rather crack down on us queers rather than people murdering and mugging college students five miles away.  What is that?  Do I deserve to be hunted worse than a murderer because I like boys and not girls?

I went down to the eagle, and people are rightfully pissed.  They want to stand up.  But there’s an undercurrent of fear in everyone right now.  Honest to god, not to make light, but I feel as though I’ve been a victim of terrorism.  I feel some of the same thoughts as I did eight years ago today.  Am I safe?  Will I be able to live my life free from fear again?  How could it happen here?  What did we do to deserve this?  What can I do about it?

And to think the police did it this time.

I feel fear tonight.
I feel outrage tonight.

Neither good.  Neither do I like feeling.  Its easy to want the outrage to win out.  Anger over fear.  There’s not much worse than fear.  But anger can be worse to me.

There is no forgiveness in my heart right now and that makes me even angrier.  There is no understanding in my heart right now and that makes me even angrier.

I’ve never been to the eagle before tonight.  I’ve neglected the gay side of me for too long, letting the corporate side of me dominate my life.  No more.

Barack Obama gave what was supposed to be a very important speech about health care reform last night. Sadly, as I lack cable just as keenly as I lack health insurance, I was not able to watch his speech in real time. However, I was able to use the powers of the internet to catch up on what I missed today.

In some ways, I was very impressed. The President certainly lived up to his reputation as a great orator. No matter what party affiliation, no one can deny that he is a powerful speaker. Long-winded, perhaps, given that it took 12 minutes just for him to get around to introducing “The Plan”, but still talented. In other ways, I was sorely disappointed. Apparently Candidate Obama was neutered when he became President Obama. Since his election, he has wavered on mandates, fines, and the public option. Then, in a speech designed to clarify his stance on these issues, he took the safe road.

I came away from this speech with the feeling that Obama hopes to go down in history not as a great liberal President, but as a great compromiser. This is, in many ways, an admirable goal – who doesn’t hope for bipartisanship and peace across the political spectrum? But at some point, compromising becomes nothing more than giving in, and I fear that President Obama may not recognize how near he is to that point.

In his speech, Obama continued his support for a public option – but he did not demand one. He should have. Obama gave support to the idea of mandating health insurance coverage – but did not address the issue of fines or who would really pay them.

I had hoped that this speech would lay out exactly what Mr. Obama wants to see on his desk. I had hoped that this speech would signal exactly what is and is not acceptable to Mr. Obama. Instead, I saw a President so intent on compromising with the minority party – a party that is home to one member who rudely and inappropriately heckled the President of the United States by calling him a liar during a nationally televised speech – that he doesn’t even recognize how many of his most ardent supporters have lost faith in him.

I am one of those supporters.

One of my favorite movies, Primary Colors, contains a quote that perfectly describes my interest in politics: “You had Kennedy. I didn’t. I’ve never heard a president say ‘destiny’ and ‘sacrifice’ without thinking, ‘bullshit.’ Okay, maybe it was bullshit with Kennedy, too. But…but people believed it, and I guess that’s what I want. I want to believe it.” Al Gore was boring, and he was a known quantity. You couldn’t believe it. John Kerry was even more boring, and more than a tad ridiculous. You couldn’t believe in him, either. But Barack Obama…he was something else. And whether I fully agree with him or not, at the end of the day I truly believed that he would be able to affect some kind of change in a country that has been slowly unraveling for years. Now I’m not so sure.

Yes, I want my President to make overtures to the other side, I want him to reach across the aisle. But if that doesn’t work, if the people across the aisle still insist on calling him a “socialist”, a “liar”, and a “racist”, if the people across the aisle still insist on working against absolutely everything he and the Democratic party stand for, then stop reaching. Some people are impossible to compromise with.

So, to our dear President: Stop compromising and deliver what you promised before you were elected. Clearly the majority of Americans wanted what you said you would deliver, or you wouldn’t be in the White House. So deliver on your promises. Reach down, find some balls, and stand up to Congress. Otherwise, not only will you never succeed in pleasing the Republicans, but you will also lose everyone else.

In case you’ve somehow been lucky enough to miss all the hoopla, President Obama will be delivering a speech to America’s students on Tuesday. This sounds like a boring little news clip that should be slotted near the bottom of the list of news stories, somewhere between Jack the waterskiing terrier and the new road resurfacing project on the local highway. Presidential addresses used to be boring affairs that people simply ignored, or — in the rare event of an address on all the networks — groaned about having to watch because none of the regularly scheduled programing was available.

Not today. Today, no matter what Mr. Obama does or doesn’t do, there is a steadily growing right-wing population ready to attack him for his evil socialist actions. I would really like to think that these people exist only on the fringes of the Republican party, because (believe it or not) some of my best friends are Republicans. Sadly, the more these people shout, the more I begin to think that they are EVERYWHERE.

Today’s shouting match is about Obama’s address on Tuesday. The speech is intended to encourage students to work hard, stay in school, and stay off drugs, hardly (I hope) a controversial issue. It is to be broadcast live on the White House website and CSPAN, and schools are encouraged, though by no means required, to air the speech. This was announced weeks ago, but the righty talk show hosts somehow failed to pick up on it until Wednesday. Then, as soon as the righty talking heads began to complain, so did a whole bunch of very loud mouthed righty parents.

When I first came across headlines reading “Some Parents Oppose Obama School Speech,” I was confused. What on earth could people oppose about a speech from the President of the United States that is intended to encourage American students to stay in school? But then I remembered about that sect of Americans who believe that everything Obama does is intended to promote socialist propaganda. In fact, some talking heads have gone so far as to suggest that Obama intends to use this speech to indoctrinate America’s youth into socialism in much the same way that Saddam Hussein and Kim Jong-Il indoctrinated the youths in their countries.

Parents with a problem with this speech being aired in front of their children need to wake up and realize a few things.

1. This is hardly the first time a President has addressed the students of the nation. Bush I did it in 1991. Dems in Congress complained about him using taxpayer money to broadcast a partisan speech, but the complaintes were relatively quiet and the speech wasn’t really partisan. Methinks the same will play out here.
2. Your kids are not going to pay attention to the speech, even if they are forced to sit through it. They will spend that time picking their noses and poking one another. Obama could tell the students that all Republicans are descended from Satan and that Socialism is the only way to achieve salvation, and the kids would just blink at the screen and pull out their cell phones to start texting about Susie’s new hair cut.
3. Particularly in light of the amount of scrutiny that he has received, not just for this speech but for everything he has done in the last nine months, Obama will be certain to exclude any partisan references from his speech. It would be the height of stupidity for him to even suggest that one side might be better than the other, and whatever else you might say about Obama, he is not a stupid man.

So, for any upset parents out there, relax. Between Obama’s political smarts and your children’s indifference, there is not the slightest chance that a single child will magically become a cog in the socialist regime that is supposedly taking over America. Isn’t it time we went back to thinking “Who the heck cares?” when the President speaks?

Most states have laws against usury. In recent years, they have cracked down on title loans, payday loans, and various other predatory lending practices. Yet there is one industry that has managed to escape usury laws, and that needs to stop: Banks.

 In the past year, some of the nation’s most prominent banks have had to be bailed out in order to keep them from bankruptcy. At the time, I agreed that allowing our banks to collapse would be a bad idea. Then there was the scandal regarding executive bonuses. That ticked me off, but seemed like a comparatively minor issue considering that various economic crises going on at the time. Besides, those bonuses didn’t really take money directly from my pocket. Then, just last week, I saw this headline: “Bank overdraft fees to total $38.5 billion.” Upon reading the article, I learned that 90% of this record breaking amount was paid by just 10% of consumers. As one of those 10%, I got really mad; so, I did what I usually do when a situation like this arises and did some research.

 There are a number of interesting articles out there about how banks make their money off of overdraft fees. The articles themselves tend to side with the consumer in arguing that the methods that banks use to charge overdraft fees are ridiculous and unfair. However, it’s the reader comments at the bottoms of the articles that I want to address first. One of the common comments on these articles goes like this: “If people would be responsible and not overdraw their accounts, they wouldn’t have to pay fees. Be responsible and quit complaining.” It’s a semi-valid point – yes, if I never overdrew my account I wouldn’t have to pay fees. But I’ve yet to meet anyone who purposely sits around planning ways to overdraw their bank accounts. Generally, an overdraft item wasn’t done on purpose. When you live paycheck to paycheck, and every dime that goes into your account has to go back out, accidents happen. Yes, in a perfect world everyone would easily be able to live within their means and no one would ever overdraw their accounts. But we live in a world in which a large percentage of the population is unemployed, under-employed, or broke for any of a variety of other reasons. As a result, people will sometimes overdraw their bank accounts.

 When people overdraw their bank accounts and spend money that they do not have, banks should charge them a fee. That is not the practice that I am disputing. What I am disputing are the amounts and methods of these fees.

1.  Overdraft Fees are Usurious. Credit card companies were criticized when they drove interest rates to 30 percent or more, which led to Congressional laws mandating more fair lending practices. In many states, pay day loans have been outlawed because they essentially charge roughly 300 percent interest. Yet, according to a 2008 study by the F.D.I.C., overdraft fees for debit card purchases can carry an annualized interest rate of greater than 3,500 percent. The definition of usury is “the lending of money at an exorbitant rate of interest.” Usury is immoral and illegal. If this isn’t usury, then I am at a loss as to what is.
2. Despite What Banks Claim, Overdraft Protection Programs Are Not a Customer Service. Once upon a time, roughly a decade ago, banks didn’t generally provide overdraft protection. If your account had insufficient funds for a transaction, the debit card was declined and no fees were incurred. Now, the bank approves the transaction and charges a heft penalty fee. There is no alarm that tells the customer that he has just paid $38 for a gallon of milk – not until he receives his bank statement. Some bankers claim that the system benefits debit card users by allowing them to spend money when they don’t have it. Perhaps some bank customers might agree. I’m sure that somewhere out there, there are people who prefer to be able to float on overdraft protection until pay day despite the fees that they incur. But I feel that it is safe to say that most would prefer to be informed, in real time, that they have no money and avoid overdraft fees. At the very least, this “customer service” ought to be optional. But it’s not. Banks automatically enroll customers in overdraft protection programs, and the programs are not remotely transparent. Then, once you’ve incurred those fees, there is no way to opt out of the program. Perhaps I’m wrong in thinking that a customer service should be up to the customer…
3. Banks Purposely Pay Overdraft Items to Maximize Fees. Here’s a bit of information that is probably located in the fine print of your bank account paperwork (I say probably because, like most account holders, I didn’t read all the fine print when I opened my basic free checking account). When you overdraw your account, the bank pays the big items first, and the small items last. Consider this scenario: You have fifty bucks in your bank account. On the day before pay day, you pay your $35 cell phone bill online. Then you buy a $6 fast food dinner and a $1.50 bottle of Coke at the gas station. Then, thinking that you have a little more in your account than you actually do, you put $10 worth of gas in your car. You have overdrawn your account by a total of $2.50. Oops. One would think that you would pay a $35 overdraft fee on that $10 purchase that pushed your account over the limit, bringing your account to negative $37.50. Nope. Your bank paid the cell phone bill, then the gas purchase bringing your account to $5. THEN they paid the $6 fast food purchase, bringing the account to negative $1 and charging you a $35 fee. So your fast food really cost you $41. THEN they paid the $1.50 Coke purchase and charged you ANOTHER fee, so that Coke cost you $36.50. And now your account is negative $72.50. Nifty, huh? Yeah, I didn’t think so either when I once wound up paying $245 worth of fees when I overdrew my account by $35.

 Representative Carolyn Maloney, a New York Democrat, said, “Consumers are currently enrolled [in overdraft protection programs] at many major banks without their consent or knowledge and not even allowed to opt out once they’ve been badly surprised by excessive fees. It’s an issue ripe for congressional action.” Yes, it is. If the Fed won’t act, then Congress should. In an economy in which jobless claims and unemployment keep rising, and average Americans are having trouble keeping the roofs over their heads, it is unfair, immoral, and bad business to force people to pay such excessive fees. It is usury, plain and simple, and it cannot be allowed to continue.

Gwinnett’s land-grabbing tendencies have made the papers again, this time regarding a vote on the purchase of 16 acres of land near Suwannee. The vote comes after an AJC exposé on Gwinnett’s shady land deals and a call by Gwinnett District Attorney Danny Porter for a grand jury investigation. The deal in question was put forth by Chairman Charles Bannister, and has been the target of heated debate.

This isn’t the first time Bannister has championed a ridiculous land deal. Earlier this year, the Board voted to purchase 33.2 acres of land south of Dacula. In that deal, the land owner applied to the Board to change the zoning of the land so that he could build a 91-home subdivision on it. The Board denied his request and allowed him to build only 33 homes. In response, the developer sued the county. The county initiated proceedings to purchase the land (which the county needs about as much as it needs a hole in the head – the land is intended to expand an adjacent 294-acre plot of undeveloped park land that has been sitting around for about eight years now). The county appraiser valued the land at just over a million dollars. Bannister decided that that figure was far too low and introduced a copy of the developer’s appraisal, which was based on 2006 land sales and valued the land at $2.29 million. Bannister claims that he believes the second appraisal to be the more accurate of the two. Thus the county, at the good Chairman’s behest, paid twice what the county appraisal said they should pay for a completely useless tract of unneeded, undeveloped land – all because the County Chairman was more concerned about the developer turning a profit on the sale than on saving the taxpayer’s dollars.

That, as we’ve discussed in a previous post, is not the only example of shady land deals in Gwinnett’s recent history. According to research by the AJC, Gwinnett County has paid politically connected developers inflated prices for parkland on AT LEAST four occasions in the last two years. Among the shady dealings in these purchases:

• In arriving at its generous offers, the county did not follow established procedures in buying parkland. Commissioners said that they didn’t need to follow these procedures because the purchases were made to settle lawsuits. Judging by that explanation, this must be common practice, right? Wrong. Buying land to settle lawsuits is not common practice in other metro counties, including Cobb, DeKalb, and Cherokee. As Clayton County Chairman Eldrin Bell said, “Our attitude is not to turn around and buy their property, because we refuse to let them do whatever they want to do.” Only Gwinnett is in the practice of placating developers with hugely inflated land purchases.
• The commissioners who championed the land deals acknowledge friendships or political affiliations with the developers who sold the land. Oddly, these same commissioners voted on the purchases rather than recusing themselves from the vote based on a conflict of interest. Hmm…
• In interviews with the AJC, the county commissioners who pushed for the land buys either said they couldn’t remember how the county settled on the purchase prices or said they were not involved in the negotiations. However, the Board of Commissioners not only approves purchases, but it authorizes how high staffers can negotiate. In other words, either the commissioners are totally ignorant of their job descriptions, they all have Alzheimer’s, or they are lying. None of those make me feel very comfortable considering that these people hold the county’s checkbook in their hands.
• Shadiest of all are the appraisals themselves. Two of the appraisals were done by Lawrenceville appraiser Ron Foster. He didn’t submit a bid, because the county didn’t ask for bids. He was just handed the job. (Wonder which commissioner he’s friends with, eh?) In his appraisals, he used improper zonings in order to inflate the value of the properties. A third appraisal was done using land values from 2006 – the peak of the housing market – even though the deal was made in 2009, when metro land prices had plummeted.

Following these deals is the one that was voted on earlier this week. The land in question has been involved in litigation for years.

A bit of background information from TalkGwinnett:

The land, owned by Ty Robinson and Old Peachtree Partners, LLC, lies in the path of the extension of McGinnis Ferry Road near Suwanee. While Lorraine Green was still the D-1 Commissioner, the county appraised, negotiated and agreed to buy approximately two acres, all that was needed for road right-of-way and a sewer force main.

Before the deal could be closed, the LLC partners backed out; a nearby tract had sold for a higher per acre value and they apparently decided that they could sell the entire 16 acres for a higher price.

The county sued to enforce the terms of the contract; in the alternative, it also proceeded with condemnation to gain clear title. The county has reportedly offered Robinson and the other partners the original, contracted price in the condemnation proceedings.

As land buys and condemnations go, this one was fairly cut and dried. The county sought only that property required to complete the extension. Robinson had agreed to sell at a fair price. When Robinson reneged, the county asked the court to enforce the terms of the contract. Regardless, the county could acquire the two acres through its exercise of eminent domain.

The county has proceeded in good faith and is under no further obligation to Robinson and Old Peachtree Partners, LLC. Inexplicably, however, Bannister brought before the Commission a proposal to purchase the entire 16 acres. Even worse, the purchase price that Bannister proposed is close to the seller’s asking price; approximately double the county’s own appraised value!

Luckily, the commission voted against the land purchase 4-0. However, one has to wonder what prompted this vote. Was it the recent negative media coverage? Was it the threat of a potentially explosive grand jury investigation? Or was it the several hundred emails that flooded county offices? One thing is for certain: It wasn’t because the commissioner’s recognized a bad deal when they saw one.

Charles Bannister championed the deal from the start. Sly guy that he is, he says, “Never before have I seen an issue become so twisted,” referring to news coverage on the deal. He claims such purchases are not unusual and that they involve controlling the cost of litigation. Problem with his reasoning: The deal he favors would cost well over $5 million…the original price for the 2.6 acres that the county actually needs is only $1.1 million. Is litigation on a simple condemnation and/or contract violation really going to exceed $4 million? Somehow I doubt it.

Commissioner Kevin Kenerly (who has championed a couple of the other shady land deals), expressed concern about allowing the lawsuit to go ahead, pointing out that the county had to pay higher than its appraised value in all 14 contested condemnations in the past decade. That’s true – in part. Yes, the county paid more than the COUNTY appraisal in all fourteen deals; however, in the vast majority of those cases, they paid well under independent appraisals.

Commissioner Shirley Lasseter brought forth the motion to kill the land deal. She says, “I think we need to be more prudent with tax money, if we want [residents] to believe and trust in us.” This is wonderful news! They want to be prudent with our money! Good to see that Ms. Lasseter has decided not to follow Charles Bannister on this one, despite generally aligning herself with him in the past.

The only Commissioner who really comes out smelling like roses on this one is Mike Beaudreau, the only commissioner who has not been implicated in any shady land deals. He had this to say about last week’s vote: “Let the courts decide. It seems to me to be a clear-cut case of seller’s remorse.”

So, it seems the courts will decide this land deal. Ideally, I’d like to see the county wind up paying $1.1 million for the original 2.6 acres. But the court case that I’m most interested in will be the grand jury hearing. If DA Danny Porter decides not to go through with this threat, I will be most disappointed. Let’s open the records and allow the tax payers and voters to see how crooked out Board of Commissioners really is. Let’s show Bannister and his cronies for the crooks they are. Let’s clean up Gwinnett’s leadership, and let’s spend tax money where it’s actually needed.

So it looks like a healthy shake of conservatives out there, like over at The Peach Pundit, are all to happy to suggest that Scott, or one of his supporters, painted a swastika on his office sign. Why? There’s going to be a helluva lot of negative press on this. Sure it might distract from their hysterical attempts to shift the debate on Health Care so they want to say on message.

But this is going to seriously inflame things ahead of our 2010 Gubernatorial election. The GOP candidates are going to be on the defensive, unless they come out strong against it. So they either doom their chances in the general election by not condemning this disgusting act, or they doom their chances in the wingnut primary by condemning blatant acts of racism. This is something that the Democratic candidates can jump on, where it’ll help both in the primary and the general election if they condemn it. No one wants to be the party of people who spray paint swastikas on a black Congressman’s office. No one wants to be seen as supporting people who spray paint swastikas on a black Congressman’s office (well, most politicians. Lots of loons out there on the right apparently.)

Spray painting swastikas on a black Congressman’s office really shouldn’t be a partisan issue. There should be no political motivations behind condemning such an act. But its clear that there is, or the main conservative blogs out there would be condemning it. But they aren’t. They’re trying to blame the Congressman.

Score one count against the GAGOP in 2010.

Via the AJC,

A vandal spray-painted a large black swastika on the sign outside U.S. Rep. David Scott’s office in Smyrna.

It’s a short article – story is just in the breaking phase. The police are on the scene and the Congressman is on his way to the office.

Scott is one of the few Democrats from Georgia in the US House – represents a slice of Metro Atlanta, including my neck of the woods in the Vinings-Smyrna area. The same area where Bob Barr lives (well, he voted in my precinct at least) if that’s any idea of what it’s like. And Scott is my Congressman.

This is where the vitriol of the right is taking our country.

I was searching to find his contact info, and this news story from The Washington Times came up -
“Rep. David Scott sees link between ‘tea baggers’ and racist attacks”

Rep. David Scott, a Georgia Democrat, who came under scrutiny after accusing a local doctor of “hijacking” a recent town hall meeting is standing by his remarks and says some of the conservative protesters are motivated by racism.

Mr. Scott, a member of the Congressional Black Caucus, appeared on Fox Business’s “Happy Hour” Monday afternoon to give his side of the story after a Washington Times report of his contentious town hall was linked by the highly-trafficked Drudge Report over the weekend.

During the interview the congressman said “drama” over health care reform was being manufactured by right-wing protesters and has produced an uptick in racially-motivated attacks.

“There were tea baggers all over the place,” the congressman said of his past town hall meeting. Later in the interview Mr. Scott produced a flier for the television camera that had an image of President Obama styled as The Joker. “If you look at this, that’s a picture of President Barack Obama,” Mr. Scott said holding the sign up. “He’s grinning there like here’s the clown from Batman. Underneath that it says Nigga, nigga David Scott. It says you were, and you are, and you always forever shall be but a nigga. If that ain’t it I don’t know what is.”

So coincidence this happened this morning when that post was put up yesterday? Doubtful.

And to those who are jumping at the bits to blame Rep. Scott for vandalizing his own office, like Pete Randall at The Peach Pundit, I suggest you take a look. Look at what your party is doing to America. Look at what your peers think is the right response to debate. Look in the mirror and see if you really satisfied over your disgusting demagoguery. Its pathetic you’re trying so hard to save face that you resort to this.

Well, there’s more on the water front, two stories from the AJC:

Sonny Perdue may actually have a point.  Or whoever researched this for him does.  I grew up in the Columbus area, and I remember in high school in my AP US History class, our teacher taught us that indeed, Georgia’s border does end at the end of the Chattahoochee.  Most other states that have a river as a border have the line of demarcation down the center of the river, so both sides can develop on it.  But Phenix City, AL, right across the river from Columbus, was stunted in its growth because it doesn’t have legal access to the river.  I hope that’s not the only basis Georgia’s got for the upcoming River War, but it is a fair point.  It’d completely screw over Alabama, but it would save Georgia.  Maybe we do need to look beyond just a state plan and reemphasize the focus on a regional, sustainable plan.  I do think the answer is not just tapping the ‘Hooch more, but building up a reservoir base.

The other article is about the scary influence Southern Company has in these water negotiations.  Scary.  Well worth the read.