This week marks the 21st year anniversary of what many have come to call either the city hall midnight massacre. If you want to have a better understanding of Danbury's current political landscape (or the close relationship between Democrats and Republicans in the city), this incredibly nutty episode is the perfect starting point.

In honor of this embarrassing moment in Danbury (and to give the old-timers a good laugh), I went through the archives of the News-Times and pieced back together the chain of events which resulted in the downfall of then mayor Jim Dyer. The following article is a good starting point.

From the News-Times Jun 2 1987. click here to download the article as it appeared in the newspaper (PDF):


I still scratch my head whenever I think about what Mary Ann Doran does for a living today...but it's too early in the revisiting of the Dyer saga to talk about that now.

What?

Are you saying that our incompetent City Clerk Jean Natale purposely did not notify certain members of the Common Council about an ad-hoc committee via her usual procedure opting instead of doing only the minimum that was legally required from her in terms of providing legal notice?

Are you saying that our incompetent City Clerk Jean Natale is in bed with Elise Marciano and the racist anti-immigrant movement?

Are you saying that our incompetent City Clerk Jean Natale is basically nothing more than an arrogant, outrageous, anti-immigrant, racist, piece of **** bigot?

What would make you say a thing like that? Hmm, I wonder...


Trust me folks, News-Times is only scratching the surface on this story but for now, I'm under legal advice to keep my mouth shut...for now.

When it comes to Mayor Boughton screwing the taxpayers of Danbury with his batshit crazy (and most likely ILLEGAL) bond package, this comment sums things up.

The expenditure of funds for capital items recognizes the necessity for those items to have a lifespan exceeding the payment of the bond.

Cars, computers, and studies for phosphorous are not items that should be bonded.

The budgetary game-playing of this administration is incredible. Shifting costs to long term debt is a dangerous and risky policy that will catch up to Danbury and raise the interest cost of bonds in the future, as well as increasing our taxes with the cost of the debt service on the bonds.

The name for it is deception, and like the three-card-monty player, the sucker always looses.

Welcome to Republican politics, suckers.

Bravo!

Paging Congressman Chris Shays...you now have a problem.

The Cook Political Report, whose ratings of Congressional races are well-respected by political pros, has just changed its ratings on ten House races -- and has changed them all in favor of the Dems.

It's very rare that Cook flips so many ratings at once -- much less flipping them all in favor of the same political party.

[...]

CT-04 - Chris Shays - Lean Republican to Toss Up

Here's the full report from the Cook Report:

Of all the Republican incumbents who are moving into the Toss Up
column, Shays probably possesses the deepest and longest-standing
personal appeal. But he also sits in the most Democratic district. At
a PVI of D+5, this district has a clear leftward tilt and more urban
cities like Bridgeport and Stamford are likely to see a surge of
support for Obama. Shays survived impressively in 2006 because voters
knew the difference between him and national Republican leaders, but a
presidential year presents him with an even more difficult test.

Democratic investment banker Jim Himes starts out the race with less
name recognition than Westport selectwoman Diane Farrell began with in
2006, but his blistering fundraising pace will allow him to get his
name out in the fall and match Shays dollar-for-dollar on television
and in mail. Himes will also be able to argue that now that Shays is
in the minority, the value of his incumbency has diminished.

McCain's nomination saves Shays some grief and reinforces the helpful
notion that Republicans can be mavericks. But in this kind of district
and political climate, Shays can take nothing for granted.

HIMES! HIMES!

In honor of the latest round of nonsense at City Hall, here's a flashback from 10.03.06:



It's amazing how a picture can tell a story about the viewpoint of the anti-immigrant community in Danbury.

Since the moment I posted this disgusting picture of this idiotic hate-filled xenophobe expressing his true feelings about immigrants and the City Clerk who obviously had no problem proudly standing next to him, the image has been picked up by several of the top blogs in Connecticut and has sparked an outrage from readers in Danbury, Connecticut, and across the country.

CTBob:

It's rare that I'm struck speechless by an image. But I'm afraid if I comment upon this, I'll use naughty words that will offend everybody who reads this blog. And my regular readers know I'm not adverse to using a bit o' salty language on occasion.

Lots of occasions, in fact.

But I'll just let the hateful people in this picture speak for themselves:

[...]

There was a march to support 11 undocumented aliens who were picked up and arrested recently when they were trying to make an honest living!

Meanwhile, we have a US Representative who had to resign because he wanted to perform illegal acts on a child, but he's still walking around free.

Good thing this country has a firm sense of proportion.

There is hope for the situation, I think. A good number of people showed up to support the immigrants in their struggle for an chance at the American Dream. Our nation was founded by the promise of opportunity.

Spazeboy:

I'm sad that there is so much hatred in the world, and that some of it is here in Connecticut. I'm from Iowa, and in Sioux City we have a large population of immigrants from Mexico.

Still, I've never seen anything like this:

[...]

That's not to say that the midwest is free of such hatred-I've just never seen it on display, and in this picture it is almost literally on parade.

We've got a long way to go, members of the human race-even in Blue CT.

I'm sure this particular image will continue to pick steam across teh blogosphere as this story is gaining more interest by the minute (and I haven't even posted the video or filed my full report yet).

Trust me, you haven't heard the last of this yet. Here are a sample of the numerous responses to this picture and brief report.

I hate to tell you... (4.00 / 1)
that sign seems to reflect the general feeling of 99% of WT in Danbury. And when you remind them that it was Reagan who gave amnesty legalization of status to illegals who met certain criteria back in the 80s..

Jodi Rell is useless. And Nancy Johnson, who attended a meeting of the US Citizens for Immigration Law Enforcement in April just fed into the ugly tone.

It makes me fear for my new homestate. :(

-----

Speak English (4.00 / 1)
That's one of the stupidest arguments I've ever heard.

Hey jackass... does this look like England to you, chap? No? Well, screw English then. You want to live here? Learn to speak American.

Besides, if we're going to start deporting people, I say, let's start with the Irish and Italians.

I wonder what Native Americans think when they see white people bitching about immigrants. YES! That's what we've been saying all along! Deport all of you! Speak Iroqouis or die!


-----

expose - send to EVERY CT newspaper (4.00 / 1)
That's neo nazi BS. Put some sunlight on this and link the republicans in Danbury to it. Any person who doesn't speak out strongly on it, denounce them too.

-----

WOW! (4.00 / 1)
Even though I should be used to this Racist crap in CT, I keep getting surprised.
When first moved to Meriden, I had the "pleasure" of witnessing a KKK Rally setting up at Meriden Square Mall (I went there to get tires at Sears... saw the Confederate Flag Raising, and booked the hell out there)

Then in Wallingford, a few years back, some Arian group (I think KKK as well) had a rally going on.

You'd think in this day, or year (2006) we'd be beyond that... and in Connecticut for crying out loud!

I can almost understand the various arguements in regards to immigration (not that I agree with them)... but when "Speak English or Die" (oh yeah, I did like S.O.D. back in the 90s which had a song with the same title, but it was tongue in cheek funny )is plastered and supported by city or state officials, we got a serious problem here... and the problem isn't Puerto Ricans or Hispanics or Mexicans or Vietnamize or Koreans or Jews or Italians or Poles or Pourtagese (please forgive my spelling)... it's the punk ass racists that are just plain miserable with their own lives, that they need to place blame on someone else... and the sorry ass politicians that give them credos.

That picture posted here just sickens me! But I hope more people see it, and see it for what it is.

-----

What a piss-poor sign (4.00 / 1)
I guess they gave all their disposable income to Joe, Jodi, and Nancy, unless they spent it all at the dry cleaners for their white sheets.

It always made me chuckle when people say that all foreigners should go home. First off, there are several countries that have a large unwelcome American population that is armed to the teeth and secondly, it really looked/sounded silly when the person mouthing off about foreigners had a name like O'Malley, Fellini, or Cormier. There was guy who I used to work with that was French-Canadian that was chirping about all the Asians and Hispanics that moved into the area. I responded by saying "and they ought to take all the damn Canucks with them, huh?" He got the point, but I wonder how deep it penetrated.

You should send this to the local organizations that support the local immigrant community; I'm sure they would have something to say about that.

-----

thanks for reporting this (4.00 / 1)
Underneath all the rational reasons why people object to immigrants, scratch the surface and you find out that the rational reasons came later, and the basis is they object to immigrants.

that's putting it kindly.

-----


Death threat? (4.00 / 1)
An overt death threat, especially with racial overtones, is illegal. Where are the State Police? The Danbury police? I agree with a post above, send this picture and commentary to the press -- How about the Newtown Bee? I would also send to Public Safety website, legislators, etc.

I spend time on Candlewood Lake and have had the pleasure of watching hard working and artisan immigrants beautifying the area by repairing stone walls, landscaping, painting, etc. They are on time, take precious little time for lunch, work steadily and always do meticulous work. What does the clown with the sign do for a living? And, I'd like to hear him speak a paragraph without gross errors.

I can't believe Danbury citizens of conscience are not standing up to this crap.

-----

This is disgusting! (4.00 / 1)
What the hell are these people thinking?! That is the Town Clerk?!

Classless. Vile.

I agree that the Governor and police should get involved here. This is a physical threat against a social group. It's probably illegal. This is exactly the kind of situation where our political leaders need to stand up and have the courage to denounce bigotry.

And in Connecticut of all places! My whole life I mistakenly assumed that our state was clean of this kind of filth.
(correction: The person in the image is the City Clerk).

-----

that dude dressed in black looks like a neo nazi or something...scary...

-----

I look at those faces and I see scary hatred. It’s not about speaking English, - it’s about threatening people with violence and looking for a justification for it, using a fake moral high ground.

The language a person speaks is not sufficient reason to condone violence, EVER.

-----

Somebody in Danbury should write to tne News Times and demand that Jean Natale resign immediately!

-----

Some people are just ignorant. This is an outrage!

Trust me, this is only a sample of the responses I've seen on the various blogs across the state as word of this hate-speech continues to circulate across the country, expect the outrage to continue.

It makes you wonder why anyone would take many of these anti-immigrant xenophobes seriously in the first place. Imagine what would happen if someone on the pro-immigrant side held a sigh that said "white people, speak Spanish or DIE." You got it, front page of the News-Times and every Republican politician expressing outrage. Yet, this jerk hold up a sign and NO ONE says a word to him. No one.

That speaks volumes about the mentality of those who groups who are against illegal immigration and why you can't take the groups leaders at their word that they're only against illegal immigrants.

For those who were unable to attend the CT Film festival, these two pictures will give you an idea of the restoration project underway at the Palace Theatre.

(click on image to enlarge)

Before restoration:



Restored condition:



Although I think the restoration is amazing, it still annoying that this could have all been avoided if the Palace never closed in the first place. I only hope that they rip the partitions and fully restore the place back to it's original glory.

Post bumped to the top. Keep this in mind when you find how Mayor Boughton spent 2.5 MILLION DOLLARS of your money without your input (better known as a referendu). Something to think about when you get your property taxes in the mail in a couple of weeks...

---

Let me make this simple. Something has been bugging the hell out of me since May's Common Council meeting and since the period between May and June is historically the time when Boughton and the Republican majority pulls off their political shenanigans, I thought it might be useful to bring this matter to everyone's attention.

Let me take this step by step:

1. Here's page 299-300 of the city's proposed 2008-09 budget that pertains to the Capital Budget, a.k.a, the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). This is part of the budget where the FIVE 500,000 dollar bonds the mayor is adding to our tax burden without our approval comes into play. Note the section highlighted in red.



2. From yesterday's Common Council meeting, listen to Lynn Taborsak as she attempts to talk about the out-of-control bonding habits of this mayor.


Why wasn't Taborsak allowed to speak about an item that's on page 305 of the very budget that's being approved? She point had nothing to do with the bonds for the proposed CIP but on the item on page 305? For the record, here's page 305 of the budget Taborsak was referring to...read it and weep.

Now, understand what the mayor said. Boughton stated that the portion of the bond Taborsak wanted to talk about was NOT ON THE AGENDA although she is reading right from the budget. Again, she didn't talk about the bonds for the proposed CIP but the out-of-control bonding habits of this mayor when it comes to items that shouldn't fall under the category of capitol improvements.



3. So to repeat, in the video, did you catch Boughton say that the portion of the budget Taborsak was referring to (a portion of items within the Capital Budget) wasn't coming up for a vote until JUNE.

Think I'm kidding...look, here's the budget that was approved last night.

20 – ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION - An Ordinance Making Appropriations for the Fiscal Year Beginning July 1, 2008 and ending June 30, 2009 and a Resolution Levying the Property Tax for the Fiscal Year beginning July 1, 2008 and ending June 30, 2009

A. General Government 1 Budget Report
B. General Government II Budget Report
C. Education Budget Report
D. Public Works Budget Report
E. Health & Housing, Public Safety, Welfare & Social Services Budget Report
F. Grant Agencies Budget Report

Notice something missing...you know, that portion of the Capital Budget that includes the five 500,000 bond items that the mayor claims he can do without going to referendum (LIKE EVERY PREVIOUS MAYOR PRIOR TO BOUGHTON HAS DONE IN THE PAST).

Here the reference to the bonds in the section of the Capital Budget entitled "Capital Budget Financing (page 301)"



Here are the items (bonds) from the Capital Budget in question that were not on May's agenda with the rest of the budget.




Here's the wording of the five bonds that are in question. Note the words "Capitol Budget" in the wording...

2. An Ordinance Appropriating $500,000 For Replacement Patrol Vehicles For The Police Department And For Public Safety Technology Equipment In The 2008-2009 Capital Budget And Authorizing The Issuance Of $500,000 Bonds Of The City To Meet Said Appropriation And Pending The Issuance Thereof The Making Of Temporary Borrowings For Such Purpose

3. An Ordinance Appropriating $500,000 For School Technology Projects In The 2008-2009 Capital Budget And Authorizing The Issuance Of $500,000 Bonds Of The City To Meet Said Appropriation And Pending The Issuance Thereof The Making Of Temporary Borrowings For Such Purpose

4. An Ordinance Appropriating $497,850 For School Improvements In The 2008-2009 Capital Budget And Authorizing The Issuance Of $497,850 Bonds Of The City To Meet Said Appropriation And Pending The Issuance Thereof The Making Of Temporary Borrowings For Such Purpose

5. An Ordinance Appropriating $500,000 For Recreation And Field Improvement Projects In The 2008-2009 Capital Budget And Authorizing The Issuance Of $500,000 Bonds Of The City To Meet Said Appropriation And Pending The Issuance Thereof The Making Of Temporary Borrowings For Such Purpose

6. An Ordinance Appropriating $500,000 For A Phosphorus Study In The 2008-2009 Capital Budget And Authorizing The Issuance Of $500,000 Bonds Of The City To Meet Said Appropriation And Pending The Issuance Thereof The Making Of Temporary Borrowings For Such Purpose

NOTE: the Common Council held a PUBLIC MEETING on these very items back in April.

Now, go back to the top of this post and re-read the section in RED...notice the part that says May 15th.

Finally, take a look at section 7-4 of the city charter and take note of the section in BOLD.

Section 7-4 DUTIES OF THE COMMON COUNCIL ON THE BUDGET.

The Common Council shall hold one or more public hearings not later than May 1st or the next business day thereafter if May 1st shall not be business day, at which any elector or taxpayer may have an opportunity to be hear[d] regarding appropriations for the ensuing fiscal year. Following receipt of the estimates from the Mayor, the Council shall cause sufficient copies of said estimates to be made available for general distribution in the office of the City Clerk and, at least five (5) days prior to the aforementioned public hearing, the Council shall cause to be published in a newspaper having a circulation in the City a notice of such public hearing and a summary of said proposed budget estimates showing anticipated revenues by major sources, and proposed expenditures by budgets or departments in the same columnar form as prescribed for budget estimates in Section 7-3 of this Chapter, and shall also show the amounts to be raised by taxation. Not later than May 15th[,] or the next business day thereafter if May 15th shall not be a business day, the Council shall adopt a budget and file the same with the City Clerk; provided, however, if the Council shall insert new amounts or programs, increase, decrease or strike out amounts or programs in the budget such changes shall be adopted by an affirmative vote of at least two-thirds [( 2/3)] of all the members of the Council. The ordinance adopting the budget may provide for appropriations by department or function, and such appropriations need not be in greater detail than to indicate the total appropriation for each department or function. At the time when the Council shall adopt the budget, together with a provision for uncollectible taxes reserve, it shall also fix the tax rate in mills which shall be levied on the taxable property in the City for the ensuing fiscal year. Should the Council fail to adopt a budget within the time specified, the budget as transmitted by the Mayor, in accordance with the provisions of Section 7-3 of this Chapter[,] shall be deemed to have been finally adopted by said Council. The tax rate shall forthwith be fixed by the Mayor and thereafter expenditures shall be made in accordance with the budget so adopted.

A few questions:

1. If the mayor was certain that he could bring five 500,000 bond items to the council without it going to referendum, why wasn't this portion of the budget on May's agenda? Why was the vote of the bonds delayed until June's meeting? As far as I can tell, there was no explanation given for the delay because NO ONE asked Boughton (or President Joe Cavo) about this at the meeting.

HERE'S THE OBVIOUS ANSWER: In order for Boughton to get these bonds passed, Boughton needs a 2/3 majority vote in his favor. During the May Common Council meeting, the Republicans had two Common Council members absent therefore were two voted short of their 2/3 requirement to get the bonds passed (there are 14 Republicans and 7 Democrats on the Council). You can bet that there was NO WAY any Democrat was going to sign onto five 500,000 bonds as the way these items are being presented goes against the way every other administration has done things in the past.

2. If the charter states that the budget has to be approved by May 15, how can the section of the budget that pertains to the bonds (Capital Budget) be voted on IN JUNE. If any of the bonds pertain to items in the Capitol Budget for 08-09 (i.e., if the wording of the bonds have the words "Capital Budget 2008-2009" within in it), then shouldn't the items be voted on BEFORE May 15?

For example, from April of last year, here's the budget of 2007. Note item 21, which are the bonds for the Capital Budget (in bold).

20 – ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION - An Ordinance Making Appropriations for the Fiscal Year . Beginning July 1, 2007 and ending June 30, 2008 and a Resolution Levying the Property Tax for the Fiscal Year beginning July 1, 2007 and ending June 30, 2008

A. General Government 1 Budget Report
B. General Government II Budget Report
C. Education Budget Report
D. Public Works Budget Report
E. Health & Housing, Public Safety, Welfare & Social Services Budget Report
F. Grant Agencies Budget Report

___________________________________________________________

21 – ORDINANCE - An Ordinance Appropriating $500,000 for Public Improvements in the 2007-2008 Capital Budget and Authorizing the Issuance of $500,000 Bonds and Bond Anticipation Notes of the City to Meet said Appropriations

This year, there was no iten 21 pertaining the to bonds for the Capital Budget because, according the Boughton, the item was being held till June.

NOTE: Contrary to the Corporation Council's ruling, in which they NOW state (after being questioned) that the CIP was approved in May, the mayor himself stated on several occasions that the CIP is coming up for a vote IN JUNE. This is why he ruled Lynn Taborsak and Common Councilman Warren Levy out of order when they attempted to talk about the out of control spending habits of the current administration.

Do you want further misinformation from the mayor? Here's a copy of the his own e-newsletter...note the portion in red



Again, according to his OWN CORPORATION COUNCIL, this is INCORRECT. The CIP was already voted on in May, the BONDING for the CIP is what's being voted on.

In short, this mayor is trying to have it both ways.

On one hand, Corporation Council is attempting to say that the Council voted on the CIP as part of the budget back in May BUT didn't approve the way in which the CIP would be paid (the FIVE 500,000 bonds) which were not on the agenda in May (again, this is most likely because Boughton didn't have his 2/3 rubber stamp majority). If that's the case, then Boughton is incorrect in his statements to Taborsak and Levy last month and in his e-newsletter because, again, according to his corporation council, the plan was approved in May, just not the way in which the plan would be paid.

On the other hand, Boughton is saying that the CIP is going to be voted on in June, which is why Levy and Taborsak were not allowed to speak about this item in May. This goes against the opinion of Corporation Council AND places the city into a charter violation situation...which beings me to my next point.

3. If we take Boughton at his word and the CIP plan was not voted on in May, then according to the charter, if the CIP isn't voted on by the 15th of May, the plan as presented by the mayor is automatically approved the next business day (per sec 7-4 of the charter).

Now, this could be just a misunderstanding but given the history of the present administration when it comes to adhering to the city charter, I rather bring up the questions than watch all hell break loose come May 16.

Something to think about...why were the bonds (which caused a great amount of controversy) NOT on May's agenda? Would it have to do with this statement from the former mayor?



EVERY RESIDENT OF DANBURY should be VERY CONCERNED about what's happening here. Given that the towns that connect Danbury (Bethel, Brookfield) rejected their budgets (those towns operate under a different form of government which allows the people to vote on budgets as opposed to elected officials), one should be very concerned when a city chooses to change the way they do bonds and not allow the people a change to vote on how their taxpayers money is to be spent. These bonds could have been presented in a way which would have allowed the public to have their say and seeing that we're talking about 2.5 MILLION DOLLARS not giving the people a chance to voice their opinion (while they're getting slapped with higher property taxes than what the mayor stated back in April) is troubling.

Please note today's News-Times article on this subject:

Traditionally, the Common Council would authorize borrowing $500,000 each year by May 15 -- at the same time city officials adopted a new budget.

That was the practice for at least the past nine years.

However, this year, the borrowing resolutions were not included on the May Common Council agenda -- and Democrats such as Warren Levy, often critical of the city's spending practices, were limited on what they could say about the borrowing because it was not on the Council's agenda.

Now, note the Mayor's rationale on why the bonding items were not on May's agenda.

Boughton said the lawyers did not have the borrowing resolutions ready in time for the May meeting.

What the mayor said here doesn't pass the smell test simply because he's been working on doing this radical new way in bonding for months. He got his opinion from the bond council on late March, talked about the way the bonds were to be presented during his budget presentation (where he also stated that residents would only see a 0 to 6 percent increase in their property taxes in April, and already presented the wording of the FIVE 500,000 bonds within the Capital Improvement Plan of the budget package. Hell, the common council also had a PUBLIC MEETING ON THESE VERY BONDS back in April so this explanation makes NO SENSE.

What makes sense is that the mayor simply did not have in April the 2/3 Republican majority needed to pass the bonds.

I'll have more on this later...

Since Barack Obama is all but officially the Democratic nominee, lets go back to last night and watch one of the most amazing moments in my lifetime.

Here's the speech from Obama that everyone is talking about. Absolutely amazing!



Now, here's John McBush's speech from the same night. Absolutely embarrassing.


My good friends at Crooks and Liars said it best about McBush's "fact-free" speech.

What’s that you say? This wasn’t a comedy sketch? Could have fooled me. From the very first sentence when he declared himself to be in New Orleans (and not “N’awlins,” but “New Or-lee-ens”) when he was in fact in Jenner, Louisiana, the speech was a non-stop laugh fest of strange and nonsensical rhetoric. Proving that he’s not above co-opting more than Bush’s presidency, he spoke before a green backdrop reminiscent of the one used by Arnold Schwarzeneggar, covered with a modified Obama campaign slogan. Politics 101 says you don’t let your opponent frame the debate…McSame still hasn’t figured that out? And the choice to make a speech at that time, just before the polls closed in Montana and South Dakota and Obama was scheduled to make his speech? That’s comedy gold, because there was no way the networks wouldn’t pre-empt him.

Pundits and party elders have declared that Senator Obama will be my opponent. He will be a formidable one. But I’m ready for the challenge and determined to run this race in a way that does credit to our campaign and to the proud, decent and patriotic people that I ask to lead.

Maybe the argument that McCain is ready for the challenge would be more persuasive if he at least acknowledged that in this country, it’s the VOTERS that declared Obama would be his opponent, not pundits. But hey, his party doesn’t seem to put a lot of stock in the democratic process.

Want more laughs at McBush's expense, lets take a look at what the Republican "ha ha" nominee said versus his record.

JOHN MCCAIN’S RHETORIC VS. JOHN MCCAIN’S RECORD

MCCAIN IS AS CLOSE TO BUSH AS THE SENATE HAS TO OFFER

MCCAIN TONIGHT: “This is, indeed, a change election. No matter who wins this election, the direction of this country is going to change dramatically.”

• REALITY: McCain voted with President Bush 95 percent of the time in 2007. According to Congressional Quarterly, He also has a record of heartily supporting Bush on some of his most controversial priorities, including the Iraq war and comprehensive immigration reform. In 2007, as he ramped up for his second White House run, McCain voted with Bush 95 percent of the time, according to Congressional Quarterly, which tallied votes McCain was present for on issues in which the administration took a position.” [Arizona Republic, 4/6/08] McCain had the highest rate of support in the entire U.S. Senate. [Congressional Quarterly, 1/13/2008]

• REALITY: John McCain is promising to take the Bush tax cuts to reckless new extremes. McCain’s Own Tax Cuts Would Double Cost of Extending Bush Tax Cut. The New York Times noted, “The McCain campaign put the cost of his tax cuts at roughly $200 billion a year, but its estimate did not include the cost of making the Bush tax cuts permanent, which would more than double that figure.” [New York Times, 4/16/08]

• REALITY: John McCain is willing to keep our troops in Iraq for 100 years, Long Term American Presence In Iraq Analogous To South Korea. At a New Hampshire town hall when McCain was asked “President Bush has talked about our staying in Iraq for 50 years.” McCain responded: “Maybe 100″ and “that would be fine with me.” McCain explained his 100 year remark by drawing an analogy to the long-term American presence in South Korea: “We’ve been in Japan for 60 years. We’ve been in South Korea for 50 years or so. That’d be fine with me as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed.” [McCain Town Hall, Derry NH Opera House, 1/3/2008; New York Times, “The Caucus,” 1/11/2008]

MCCAIN WAS SILENT WHILE WAR WAS FAILING

McCain Tonight: I disagreed strongly with the Bush administration’s mismanagement of the war in Iraq. I called for the change in strategy that is now, at last, succeeding where the previous strategy had failed miserably.

FACT: McCain Was Late To Criticize War.

McCain: “No One Has Supported President Bush on Iraq More Than I Have.” During an March 2008 interview on The Mike Gallagher Show, McCain stated, “no one has supported President Bush on Iraq more than I have.” [Think Progress blog, 4/2/08]

Rich: McCain Failed To Stand Up When It Counted. “He didn’t just vote to authorize the war; in response to a question from Tim Russert in September 2002, he lent his military credibility to the administration’s undermanned war plan. When Gen. Eric Shinseki, the Army chief of staff, challenged that strategy in a February 2003 Senate hearing by calling for ‘’several hundred thousand soldiers,” Mr. McCain did not speak up in support. … The one part of his Iraq past that Mr. McCain does want us to recall now is his subsequent criticism of the war’s execution. But contrary to his current claims, he never publicly demanded Mr. Rumsfeld’s head. And when Mr. McCain did call for more troops in Iraq, he was again in sync with Democrats like Joe Biden, with whom he made that case on ”Meet the Press” in August 2003. Rather than dwell on this ancient history, Mr. McCain said last week, we should talk about ”what we are going to do now.” But his answer to ”what we are going to do now” in Iraq is merely more of what he did then.” [Op-Ed, Frank Rich, New York Times, 3/2/2008]

McCain in 2003: “I Have No Qualms About Our Strategic Plans” in Iraq. ”I have no qualms about our strategic plans. I thought we were very successful in Afghanistan,” McCain told the Hartford Courant in March 2003, just prior to the Iraq invasion. [Hartford Courant, 3/5/03]

November 2003 - McCain: I’m a Great Admirer of Secretary Rumsfeld. On a 2003 appearance on MSNBC’s “Buchanan & Press,” Bill Press told McCain, “Your comments calling for increased troop levels in Iraq “imply at least a criticism of” Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, asking the Arizona Senator: “Do you still have confidence in Secretary of Defense Don Rumsfeld?” McCain replied: “I’m a great admirer of Secretary Rumsfeld. He’s part of the president’s team. I support him. When I came back in August, Bill, I said, look, these people on the ground are telling me things are going to get a lot worse unless we do something different. And in August I said we needed more of the kind of troops that I just described.” [MSNBC, “Buchanan & Press, 11/6/03]

McCain: No, Rumsfeld Shouldn’t Leave Post; “Things Go Bad in Wars” and We Adjust. Press agreed with McCain that things were not going as well as the administration had originally asserted in Iraq, asking McCain: “The man in charge of the post-war plan in Iraq was Rumsfeld. The man in charge now is Rumsfeld. He’s obviously not doing the job. Wouldn’t it be better for him to get out of there?” McCain replied: “No. Look, things go bad in wars. I was watching a thing last night about the Korean War. One of the great blunders in history was committed by General MacArthur when he refused to accept the evidence that the Chinese were coming…But the American military adjusted…You have to adjust and we have made some adjustments.” [MSNBC, “Buchanan & Press, 11/6/03]

MCCAIN HELPED BUSH BALLOON THE DEFICIT

McCain Tonight: [Bush] and I have not seen eye to eye on many issues….

McCain Voted for Four of Five Bush-Republican Budget Resolutions Totaling $9.8 Million

McCain Voted for 4 of 5 Bush Budgets Adding to $9.8 Trillion in Spending. McCain supported four of the five Bush budgets that the Senate voted on from 2001-2006.

2001: H. Con. Res. 83: $1.95 Trillion [2001 Senate Vote #98]

2002: McCain Voted to Table [2002 Senate Vote #134]

2003: McCain Voted No [H.Con.Res. 95; 2003 Senate Vote #134]

2004: S. Con. Res 95: $2.45 Trillion [2004 Senate Vote #58]

2005: H.Con.Res. 95: $2.6 Trillion [2005 Senate Vote #114]

2006: S.Con.Res. 83: $2.8 Trillion [2006 Senate Vote #74]

SEE NO EVIL: MCCAIN DIDN’T LOOK FOR CORRUPTION IN CONGRESS AND DIDN’T FIND ANY

MCCAIN TONIGHT: “When I fought corruption it didn’t matter to me if the culprits were Democrats or Republicans. I exposed it and let the chips fall where they may.”

REALITY: McCain’s Toothless Committee Failed To Investigate Congress, Said No Need For Reform

McCain Acknowledged That Members Had Responsibility In The Lobbying Scandal, But Refused To Investigate Member’s Actions In An Investigation That “Ignored” Congressional Republicans. McCain acknowledged that Members were responsible for their conduct in Congress surrounding the lobbying scandal, saying, “Many cast blame [for the Abramoff Scandal] only on the lobbying industry. But, we should not forget that we, as Members, owe it to the American people to conduct ourselves in a way that reinforces, rather than diminishes, the public’s faith and confidence in Congress.” But during his investigation, McCain refused to include the legislative actions taken by Members of Congress saying, “We stop when we find out where the money went.” The Associated Press reported that, “The intervention by congressional Republicans…was all but ignored in recent hearings on Capitol Hill led by [McCain], that examined Abramoff’s lobbying inside Interior. [Senator McCain, CQ Transcriptions, 1/25/06; Roll Call, 3/10/05; AP, 11/17/05]

McCain’s Abramoff Report Said No Need for New Lobbying Laws Following Abramoff Scandal. The report by released by John McCain and the Senate Indian Affairs Committee in June 2006 on the Abramoff investigation argued that “no new lobbying restrictions are needed to prevent schemes like those used by former lobbyist Jack Abramoff.” In addition, “despite a pledge by McCain two years ago to get to the bottom of a now-convicted lobbyist’s influence-peddling, his committee’s 373-page report does not detail the relationships between Abramoff and the dozens of lawmakers to whom the lobbyist helped funnel hundreds of thousands of dollars in tribal political donations.” [Arizona Republic, 6/23/2006]

MCCAIN PUTS TAX CUTS AHEAD OF RENEWABLE ENERGY AND JOBS

MCCAIN TONIGHT: “If America is going to achieve energy independence, we need a President with a record of putting the nation’s interests before the special interests of either party.”

FACT CHECK: John McCain voted against tax credits to encourage renewable energy and create jobs. And h’s proposed bit tax cuts that would reward big energy companies to the tune of nearly $3 billion

• McCain Repeatedly Voted Against Tax Credits For Renewable Energy Production.
  McCain voted against an amendment to extend the renewable energy production tax credit and clean renewable energy bonds programs for four years including $290 Million for renewable energy R&D on Solar, wind, geothermal, biomass, hydropower. [2006 Senate Vote #42, 3/14/2006]

  McCain Voted Against Major Energy Legislation Providing $18 Billion In Energy Related Tax Incentives. McCain voted against the passage of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. The bill would overhaul the nation’s energy policy and provide for approximately $18 billion in energy-related tax incentives. [2005 Senate Vote #158, 6/28/2005]

  McCain voted against an amendment to establish tax credits for investments in renewable energy technologies, incentives for new energy efficient residential construction and tax deductions for increased energy efficiency in commercial buildings. [2001 Senate Vote #125, 5/21/2001]

McCain’s Proposed Tax Cut Undermines His Proposed Environmental Plans. “A global warming plan that weans America off dirty energy requires taking a stand against the huge utility & energy companies. But John McCain’s tax plan seems slightly more interested in lining their pockets. An analysis from the Center for American Progress Action Fund finds that John McCain’s massive corporate tax cut would save America’s ten largest electrical utility companies and ten largest energy companies over $2.8 billion. (This is in addition to the $4 billion tax break for America’s five largest oil companies.)” [ThinkProgress.org, 5/13/08]

Oh, I wish it was November already!

I'm falling behind in my posts here. At my count, I have two special comments to make, video footage of the Memorial Day parade to show, and footage from the Portuguese festivals to show.

...and yes, I didn't go to the doctor yet...and yes, my wife is very upset that I didn't go to the doctor yet...and yes, I planning on going to the doctor because two times during last night's Common Council meeting I had to run to the bathroom because it felt like my head was going to explode.

Finally, if you're a member of the media, attorney, or a member of organization, please email me at hatcityblog@yahoo.com. I've received several emails from groups across the country asking me questions but they email my other address (which I'm not giving out here because it would only make matters worse). Just email at the address I provided and I'll be able to answer any question you have for me regarding Danbury (a.k.a. the armpit of Connecticut).

I'll catch-up with the post (as soon as I deal with the horrible sinus infection), I promise.

Unbelievable. I get down to New Haven ready to shoot my video and the battery to my camcorder is dead.

All the media outlets were on hand at the federal court house to hear James Galante plea guilty to three of the 97 93 charges against him. The charges he plead guilty to were racketeering conspiracy, conspiracy to defraud the IRS, and conspiracy to commit wire fraud. As part of the plea, Galante agreed to never be involved in the trash business ever again.

As of now, I'm unsure about the alleged illegal campaign contribution in which Galante was arrested for back in October of last year. It's most likely that those are seperate charges from this case but again, I'm looking into that now.

I'll post the news reports from the network stations later today.

I'm making the trip to the federal courthouse in New Haven right now. James Galante is scheduled to plead guilty to some of the charges against him at 10:00 A.M. Don't know if the illegal bundled campaign contributions is one of the charges he'll take a plea for but if he does, I want to be there to hear it for myself.

Again, here's the details in the campaign contribution charge, which was first reported by the Hartford Courant and followed-up by sister paper, the Fairfield Weekly.

Sources told the Hartford Courant (the Weekly's papa paper) that Galante gave $8,000 to Boughton's People over Politics PAC in eight separate thousand-dollar donations—a grand being the legal limit for an individual—through friends, family and employees in October 2003, with promises of favors or reimbursement. Boughton told the Courant, "I was absolutely unaware that there was anything wrong with any donations."

People over Politics only received a total of eight donations of $1,000 in that reporting period.

[...]

Four checks are from the family of Paul Dinardo, Galante's brother-in-law and a longtime employee of his trash business, who got 21 months in prison in September for conspiracy to inflate hauling prices through extortion and threats. He gave $1,000. So did his father Anthony Dinardo, the father-in-law of James Galante and a resident of Putnam County, N.Y., where Automated Waste's operations stretched. The other Dinardos were Paul's brother Robert, a Danbury police officer, and his wife, Jackie, a teacher and guidance counselor in the city's public schools.

[...]

If People over Politics got $8,000 from Galante, the trash magnate provided about one-third of the $24,287 the PAC raised in 2003 and half of the $15,750 from "individuals," as opposed to business or organizations. The PAC listed $9,750 as its total contributions from individuals from Oct. 24 to Dec. 31, meaning, without that $8,000, People over Politics would have collected $1,750 from actual people. Of the eight $1,000 donations, six arrived on Oct. 26 and the other two on Oct. 23 and Oct. 30.

So no one at People over Politics thought it strange that individuals bolstered their cash stash by $8,000 within eight days, with half of it coming from the heavily Galante-connected Dinardo family in a city like Danbury, where the political and business establishments are small enough that everyone knows everyone? (Boughton certainly knew Galante, who hauled the city's trash and owned its minor-league hockey team.)

[...]

And as HatCityBLOG pointed out, this was not the first time the same group of people stuffed Boughton's piggybank. Within a five-day period in January 2003, Walkovich, Seri, Paul DiNardo and his wife (Galante's sister) all gave $1,000 to his reelection fund, as did Maria Rullo, of New Fairfield, who pled guilty to tax fraud in July in a case related to United States v. Ianniello, aka Matthew "Matty the Horse" Ianniello of the Genovese family, which has alleged ties to...James Galante.

I'll update this post once I have more information...

In honor of today's announcement that James Galante is pleading guilty to some of the charges in his case, here's a little flashback for those who need to be updated on the Galante-Boughton connection.

From 10.14.07

---

A ticking timebomb years in the making is about to explode.

FLASHBACK: New York Times 05.02.04

James Galante, who owns trash hauling companies in Danbury and Putnam County, N.Y., first tried to get into the hockey business in New Haven, but he eventually realized the city's team couldn't be saved. When Danbury opened its ice arena in 2001, Mr. Galante saw another opportunity. He had watched his son play hockey in high school and noticed that young people from the area were signing up for junior and pee wee leagues. A hockey team, he realized, could take root here.

[...]

The team will also be paying for major renovations to the ice arena, expanding the capacity from 750 seats to as many as 2,500. The renovation still needs the city's approval, said Kevin McCormack, regional manager for New Jersey-based Floyd Hall Enterprises, which owns the arena. The arena had also not signed a final contract with the team, Mr. McCormack said.

The arena, which holds two rinks, already logs 400,000 to 500,000 total visits a year for youth leagues, adult leagues and recreational skating, among other events, Mr. McCormack said. None of those activities will be curtailed by the hockey team, he said. He expected the team to boost interest in the arena, rather than drive it away. Danbury residents are already coming to the ice arena asking where they can buy season tickets, Mr. McCormack said.

Increasing the seating was a prerequisite for admission into the league, Mr. Brosal, the U.H.L. president, said. He also said he was not concerned that James Galante had served a federal sentence in connection with filing false corporate tax returns.

FLASHBACK: Hartford Courant, July 21 2005

FBI agents searched an undisclosed number of homes and businesses in western Connecticut and suburban New York late Tuesday as part of an organized crime and political corruption case that centers on the refuse hauling business.

Shortly after 5 p.m. Tuesday, dozens of agents began sifting through business records at the offices of Automated Waste Disposal Inc. in Danbury. Automated dominates the refuse hauling business in southwestern Connecticut, and its owner was linked in federal court in the middle 1990s to mob efforts to stifle competition in the industry in Westchester County, N.Y.

Automated is owned by James E. Galante, 52, of New Fairfield, who was sentenced to a year and a day in prison and fined $ 100,000 in 1999 for assisting in the preparation of false corporate tax returns.

FBI agents also appeared at the law offices in Danbury of Galante attorney Jack E. Garamella, a law enforcement source said late Tuesday. In addition, agents armed with search warrants were at Galante's home and the homes of several of his senior employees, said a source familiar with the investigation.

[...]

The indictment alleged that Milo and the others -- including Mario Gigante, the brother of then Genovese crime family boss Vincent "The Chin" Gigante -- were part of a mob cartel that used arson, bribery and violence to dominate the garbage-hauling industry in the suburbs north of New York City.

[...]

Galante also owns a professional, minor-league hockey team that he named the Danbury Trashers. It is part of the United Hockey League and plays in the city-owned ice rink in downtown Danbury. Galante bought the team as an 18th birthday present for his son, who is general manager.

[...]

Galante and employees of his businesses have been generous contributors to Danbury Mayor Mark Boughton. Boughton could not be reached Tuesday night for comment.

Some senior city employees, who asked not be identified because they fear retribution, have said the city of Danbury allowed Galante to spend millions to quickly renovate the ice rink to comply with league standards -- but without timely city inspections for code violations. The arena was too small for league standards and needed to be expanded to a capacity of more than 3,000. The city employees said they felt pressured to quickly approve the renovations.

More goodies from The Hartford Courant dated 07.21.05:

Shortly after Boughton became mayor in 2001, Galante requested and received a permit to increase the numberof tons per day of garbage he could bring into the transfer station from 950 to 1,250. Boughton said he didn't become aware of the application until 2003, but under the terms of the previous contract Galante had the option to apply for expansion to the regional trash authority.

Galante recently has asked for another expansion to 1,900 tons a day. That application is pending, Boughton said.

[...]

The city's handling of the expansion of the ice rink has raised questions with Boughton's critics. Galante would not have been able to open the season without expanding the seating capacity at the Danbury Arena to meet United Hockey League regulations.

Hartford Courant, October 2007

Danbury garbage executive James Galante turned himself in to the state police Friday morning to face charges of making nearly $40,000 in illegal campaign contributions, as a third political figure acknowledged being the recipient of $8,000 in questionable money.

Danbury Mayor Mark Boughton, a Republican, said Friday that one of his political action committees received money from Galante in 2003 that was disguised through third-party, or "straw" donors. Sources familiar with the campaign finance case said this week that Boughton got the money in October 2003.

[...]

As Danbury's mayor, Boughton has worked closely with Galante, whose network of trash-related businesses is a major presence in the city. In particular, the Boughton administration worked with Galante on issues related to the rehabilitation of a city ice rink where Galante's minor league professional hockey team, the Danbury Trashers, played. Boughton dismissed local critics who said the city bent rules to rush approval of an occupancy permit for the rink. Boughton also said he is not close to Galante socially.

---

From 10.25.07

---

Isn't it amazing how a little local blog's coverage of the mayor's dishonesty can grab the attention of the ENTIRE mainstream media.

In what will be the a long list of articles on Mr. People over Politics ties to the mob, The Fairfield Weekly delivers what has to be the most damaging story on Mayor Mark's illegal contributions, as well as an analysis of Boughton's LIES excuses.

No wonder you can't seem to find a copy of the Weekly on Main Street anymore...

Sources told the Hartford Courant (the Weekly's papa paper) that Galante gave $8,000 to Boughton's People over Politics PAC in eight separate thousand-dollar donations—a grand being the legal limit for an individual—through friends, family and employees in October 2003, with promises of favors or reimbursement. Boughton told the Courant, "I was absolutely unaware that there was anything wrong with any donations."

People over Politics only received a total of eight donations of $1,000 in that reporting period.

Four checks are from the family of Paul Dinardo, Galante's brother-in-law and a longtime employee of his trash business, who got 21 months in prison in September for conspiracy to inflate hauling prices through extortion and threats. He gave $1,000. So did his father Anthony Dinardo, the father-in-law of James Galante and a resident of Putnam County, N.Y., where Automated Waste's operations stretched. The other Dinardos were Paul's brother Robert, a Danbury police officer, and his wife, Jackie, a teacher and guidance counselor in the city's public schools.

I think this reporter can hear the timebomb tick also...watch as he slices Boughton's twisted logic to shreds.

If People over Politics got $8,000 from Galante, the trash magnate provided about one-third of the $24,287 the PAC raised in 2003 and half of the $15,750 from "individuals," as opposed to business or organizations. The PAC listed $9,750 as its total contributions from individuals from Oct. 24 to Dec. 31, meaning, without that $8,000, People over Politics would have collected $1,750 from actual people. Of the eight $1,000 donations, six arrived on Oct. 26 and the other two on Oct. 23 and Oct. 30.

So no one at People over Politics thought it strange that individuals bolstered their cash stash by $8,000 within eight days, with half of it coming from the heavily Galante-connected Dinardo family in a city like Danbury, where the political and business establishments are small enough that everyone knows everyone? (Boughton certainly knew Galante, who hauled the city's trash and owned its minor-league hockey team.)

Remember how I talked about the mainstream media reading this site...

And as HatCityBLOG pointed out, this was not the first time the same group of people stuffed Boughton's piggybank. Within a five-day period in January 2003, Walkovich, Seri, Paul DiNardo and his wife (Galante's sister) all gave $1,000 to his reelection fund, as did Maria Rullo, of New Fairfield, who pled guilty to tax fraud in July in a case related to United States v. Ianniello, aka Matthew "Matty the Horse" Ianniello of the Genovese family, which has alleged ties to...James Galante.

As for Mayor Mark, he's still peddling the same lame excuse that no one is buying.

"We get thousands of checks from thousands of people and we just wouldn't have any way of knowing something like that is happening."

So Mark wants the voters of Danbury to believe that eight 1,000 donations coming within days of each other ON TWO SEPARATE OCCASIONS didn't seem the least bit strange?

---

Columnist Stan Smith, 10.24.07:

---

The more I look at Mayor Boughton's re-election finance reports, the more I feel like someone is in a bit of serious trouble once the Galante case gets underway.

...in fact, if the last honest man in Danbury wins re-election, everyone should keep an eye on who becomes the next Council President (read the charter and learn about the city's chain in command).

As reader scan over the finance reports and wonder what the hell is going on, writers, such as Stan Smith of the Hartford Courant, are beginning to question the honesty of Mr. "People over Politics."

James Galante doesn't need me to speak for him.

But I'm having a hard time believing that if indeed the Danbury trash magnate funneled $40,000 in illegal political contributions, as the state contends, the recipient politicians had no idea what Galante was up to.

Sen. Louis DeLuca of Woodbury and Sen. David Cappiello and Mayor Mark Boughton of Danbury all say they had no idea - none - that Galante allegedly was funneling his cash their way through employees, friends and relatives.

But bundlers generally aren't exactly shy about letting the political candidate know what they've done for them. The chief bundlers gain clout and access with politicians because they have demonstrated the ability to raise money - the lifeblood of campaigns.

There's actually legal bundling, when people raise money from others; and there's illegal bundling, when contributors are using their own money.

"The whole art of bundling is to make sure you get credit for it," said Andy Sauer, executive director of Common Cause, the community action group. "I am someone who believes that whenever any campaign contributor is trying to gain favor with any elected official, the way they maximize their influence is by bundling."

So, if we're to believe this latest case against Galante, he went to great lengths to contribute to politician campaigns, but never let the public officials know he was hooking them up.

Maybe. But it doesn't pass my smell test.

---

Nov 1 2007:

---

One thing people haven't talked about is why hasn't Mayor "People over Politics" coughed up the 8,000 in illegal campaign contributions he received from James Galante yet?

State Senator David Cappiello stepped up to the plate and did the right thing, what about the last honest man?

Sen. Joe Lieberman is the fourth and most prominent elected official to be tied into the scheme that got local trash tycoon James Galante charged with violating state campaign finance laws. A records review by the Hartford Courant indicates that Galante bundled $14,000, bypassing legal limits, to Lieberman's 2004 presidential bid through the friends and family of employees. (Lieberman hasn't been charged with any wrongdoing.)

Meanwhile, State Sen. Louis DeLuca is under intense pressure to resign due to FBI recordings of him asking Galante to send someone to threaten his grandson-in-law. And Danbury mayor Mark Boughton continues to attest he could not have known a third of his PAC's 2003 intake came from Galante, who was well-connected in the city.

State Sen. David Cappiello looks most likely to emerge from this mess with half a halo.

"About five years ago, one of [Galante's] employees gave me a bunch of checks," says Cappiello, a Republican representing Danbury. "I thought it was strange and went to the authorities and they said it was clear."

Investigators would eventually determine that the $15,000 Galante associates gave to Cappiello's PAC was not "clear." Cappiello says he then split the money between the Red Cross, YMCA, St. Jude's Medical Center, Ability Beyond Disability and Newman's Own. He's washed his hands of Galante's money, but says, "When I met him, he seemed like a nice guy, genuinely concerned about Danbury and I'm not sure all of that was a front... He did give some $3 million to my district."

Well, if Cappiello can do it, should Boughton follow his lead? Heck, while Mark's at it, he should just confess to the April 2003 donations to his re-election campaign as well and also give those contributions over to charity.

It's only something a honest man would do right?

---

Remember, just follow the money trail and connect the dots.

Okay, now I'm getting nervous.

I'm feeling under the weather again and now, it's time to go see the doctor. I've had this horrible sinus infection for the last couple of weeks that I thought I could beat by simply taking it easy and downing a handful of pills (I'm not a big fan of doctors).

For the most part, I feel better than I did a few weeks ago but every once in a while I become overwhelmed with a tremendous headache and suddenly loose all of my energy. Today, I was out covering the Portuguese festival when suddenly, I became so weak that I had to sit down or else I would have passed out from the throbbing pain in my head. Since my wife is now totally pissed off that I didn't see a doctor in the first place, I'm going to get checked out before things get worse.

Obviously, once again, posts on this site will be on the light side while I deal with this nonsense but at this point, if I don't take care of myself, being sick is the last thing I have to worry about as my wife is going to tear me to pieces.

I hate being sick...

UPDATE: Forgot the mention that the comment section is down. The service I use is experiencing problems which is why people's comments are not appearing on the site.

What can I tell ya...everything is falling apart today.