Brazil Seeing Extreme Cold Weather

Max has noted that the Farmer's Almanac is predicting a "bitterly cold" winter for the U.S. this year.

Well, Brazil has already received a taste of it. Every so often Rio Grande do Sul the southern most state in Brazil has a light snow fall. But, today residents of Caxias do Sul woke up to find an extreme weather condition for them--the ground was covered with snow. The soccer club there had a great time playing in it and even having snowball fights.

Brazil's winter is during our summer. So, we've been doubly warned.

Associated Press Reporter D'Oro Has Trouble Googling

Again, paid reporters show incompetence in researching what an amateur can find out in five minutes of research on the internet. This time it's Rachel D'Oro of the Associated Press.

Steve Gilbert at Sweetness & Light found that D'Oro's "independent investigator" Thomas Daniel isn't all that independent having contributed thousands of dollars to Democrats--and that's just from online public information.

It turns out D'Oro didn't look at the report that well either. She reports that Daniel's thinks Governor Palin has an unjust advantage over regular citizens in getting contributions for a legal trust fund.

"In his report, Daniel said his interpretation of the ethics act is consistent with common sense.

"An ordinary citizen facing legal charges is not likely to be able to generate donations to a legal defense fund, he wrote. 'In contrast, Governor Palin is able to generate donations because of the fact that she is a public official and a public figure. Were it not for the fact that she is governor and a national political figure, it is unlikely that many citizens would donate money to her legal defense fund.'"

Apparently D'Oro didn't read the whole report. She leaves out a big hole in Daniel's "common sense" argument. Daniels thinks Alaskan tax payers should pay Governor Palin's legal bills.

"I also recommend that she seek reimbursement from the state for the cost of defending the ethics complaints that have been dismissed."

Can "ordinary citizens facing legal charges" seek reimbursement from Alaskan taxpayers to pay for their legal bills? Don't think so. Actually, Palin's access to Alaska public funds is precisely due to her position as a "public official and a public figure."

Lots of legal funds have been set up for "ordinary citizens" and gotten contributions because of the facts of the case not the political notoriety of those facing huge legal bills. In Oregon we recently had such a case with a family being forced by the nutball Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife to spend huge sums in the case of Snowball the deer. But, as far as I know no one has suggested that they go to the state of Oregon to receive reimbursement from Oregon tax payers.

Poor Alaskans live in a state where a few fruitcake residents can run up millions of dollars of state debt easy as pie, an "independent investigator" thinks the state paying for legal bills for politicians is better than voluntary contributions, and no one in the legislature cares a twit to fix this. You get what you vote for.

H/T American Thinker and Conservatives4Palin

State's Incompetence Keeps Snowball-ing

From Oregonian reporter Jessica Bruder's State defies court order today:

They won't let the doe go.

Oregon Department of Justice officials announced Tuesday that they will defy a court order to return Snowball to her former keepers by the end of the day today.

. . . .

On Monday, Clackamas County Circuit Judge Eve L. Miller ordered the state to return Snowball within 48 hours to Jim Filipetti and Francesca Mantei.

Stephanie Soden, a spokeswoman for the Justice Department, said the state doesn't have to comply with Miller's order because state attorneys are in the process of appealing her decision.

"By filing the notice of appeal, that entitles the Department of Fish and Wildlife to an automatic stay of the judge's order," Soden said.

I wonder if that would have worked if Filipetti had said that to ODFW officials when they came to seize Snowball and Bucky. Or any of the rest of us when presented with a court order by the State of Oregon? I doubt it. But, the State can pick and choose which laws it obeys.

The Department of Justice spokeswoman went on to decry the possibility of setting a dangerous precedent:

Miller's decision could set a dangerous precedent, she [Stephanie Soden] said.

"We believe the implications of the ruling are broader than this one specific case," she said. "We believe it has the potential to impact numerous future cases, including criminal cases in which property is in the hands of someone who is not legally entitled to have it."

In cases that a district attorney decides not to prosecute, she suggested, the ruling might compel law enforcement agencies to return stolen property to thieves.

"I think right now prosecutors face dwindling resources, and they're not able to prosecute every case that comes across their desk," she said.

I guess defying a court order isn't setting a dangerous precedent. Not to mention seizing property under the guise of using it for evidence in a criminal case and then refusing to return it. If ODFW or the Department of Justice seize your car or wallet or anything else they say they want as evidence in a criminal case and decide not to use it, I guess they can just keep it.

The State's incompetence in this matter keeps Snowball-ing. And now seems to be morphing into malfeasance. Is there anybody with any sense at the helm of government in Oregon?