April 30, 2007

Copeland Cap Update

My research paper into the Copeland Cap, the Tennessee state constitution's limit on the growth of the state budget, has been extensively updated. The new version of Spending Spree: The Bipartisan Assault That is Killing The Constitutional Cap on the Growth of Tennessee's State Budget is online at that link. Also, be sure to read my most recent related blog post, Spending Spree: How the Tennessee Legislature Drives up Taxes By Ignoring the Copeland Cap.

This Is Important

I posted an important post late Friday regarding the Tennessee state budget and the ongoing debate over whether the state can "afford" to cut the sales tax on food. Scroll down, or just click this link to read it: Spending Spree: How the Tennessee Legislature Drives up Taxes By Ignoring the Copeland Cap

YouTubing the General Assembly

The Monday Nashville City Paper takes a look at how constant video coverage of the state legislature is affecting the way business gets done...

With the principle of open government in mind, this year, the General Assembly has live, streaming video via its Web site of every House and Senate floor session as well as each committee and subcommittee meeting. In addition, after the meeting or floor session is concluded, a video archive of that event is kept on the General Assembly's Web site. As a result, no matter if a reporter or a television camera was in the room, a video record was made. And that video record causes some lawmakers, like Black, to be on guard against saying something regretful.

That's because if something slips or an embarrassing moment occurs, the General Assembly's video stream feeds allow willing bloggers, enterprising reporters and crafty campaign strategists to capitalize on that video.

One person who's tuning in often is Ben Cunningham, the founder of Tennessee Tax Revolt. Cunningham uses the legislature's video streaming to keep a close eye on lawmakers and which bills are being discussed. He also uses software to splice short, 30-second or so clips from a two-hour committee meeting to post on his blog or on the Web site www.YouTube.com.

Cunningham said the Legislature's video streaming is "revolutionary" and noted that, because sessions and committee meetings are video-recorded, "there's a record there that the citizens can go back to any time now."

Googling State Government

Google plans to announce today that it is working with officials in state government in Arizona, California, Utah and Virginia to make sure all the public information they have online is easily accessible through the company's search engine...

As part of a voluntary public-private sector partnership, Google has been helping technology managers in Arizona, California, Utah and Virginia remove technical barriers that prevent the search giant from adding information to its index. Some state government documents are hidden behind design elements of the Web site or, more commonly, in a database that a search engine's crawlers can't access, said J.L. Needham, manager of public sector content partnerships at Google.

April 27, 2007

Spending Spree: How the Tennessee Legislature Drives up Taxes By Ignoring the Copeland Cap

Here's video of the Tuesday press conference at which Tennessee House Minority Leader Jason Mumpower, R-Bristol, and House Minority Caucus Chairman Glen Casada, R-Franklin, discussing how Tennessee's budget is rising much faster than Tennessean's personal income, and why, with the state seeing huge revenue surpluses pile up, it's time to reduce the state's sales tax on food. VolunteerVoters.com had the press release that accompanied the press conference.

Mumpower and Casada are on the right track. Tennessee state government's spending growth is not supposed to outpace personal income growth in the state, under a provision in the state constitution called the Copeland Cap, except the legislature uses a loophole to increase spending faster almost every year.

One minor quibble with the charts Mumpower and Casada showed: the spending chart shows total state spending, including federal dollars, while the Copeland Cap only caps the growth of spending from state tax dollars. Still, spending today from state tax dollars is about $3.2 billion higher than it should be based on the cap.

That's because, starting with the 1984-85 fiscal year budget, the legislature has exceeded the Copeland Cap a dozen times, under a succession of Republican and Democratic governors. You can look it up. (Copeland was approved by voters in 1978 and took effect in 1979. The legislature voted to exceed it twice during the 1999-2000 fiscal year.)

Exceeding the Copeland Cap
Fiscal Year, Amount
1984-1985, $396.1 million
1985-1986, $58 million
1986-1987, $100 million
1988-1989, $101 million
1989-1990, $74 million
1991-1992, $703.1 million
1992-1993, $450 million
1996-1997, $55 million
1999-2000, $189 million
1999-2000, $81 million
2002-2003, $771 million
2003-2004, $275 million
Total: $3,253.2 billion

If the legislature had never broken the Copeland Cap, today's state budget could be $3.25 billion lower than it currently is, and taxes could be lower for all Tennesseans who eat food or buy things.

How much lower? A lot lower. The state's 6 percent sales tax on food is projected to bring in $465 million in FY 2007-08, while the state's overall sales tax of 7 percent other than on food is projected to bring in about $6.33 billion. If the legislature had never broken the Copeland Cap, the state this year could have had a balanced budget with zero food tax and an overall state sales tax of just 4 cents on the dollar.

What was the state sales tax rate in 1984, before the state legislature began exceeding the Copeland Cap - and passed a one-cent increase to fund it? 4.5 cents.

(I posted historical info on increases in the state's sales taxes here.)

And if we had lower overall sales tax rate and no tax on groceries, Tennessee's retailers - especially in the border counties - would be magnets for out-of-state shoppers, bringing more money into Tennessee's economy and more revenue into the state treasury. Meanwhile, Tennesseans would have more money left in their pockets to spend on other things - boosting the economy - or to save for a house, or a car or their children's college educations.

Instead, the legislature has repeatedly busted the Copeland Cap, a fiscal path that has undeniably lead directly to Tennessee having one of the highest state sales taxes in the country and a high sales tax on food. And the Bredesen administration is asking the legislature to again exceed the Copeland Cap.

It's time to reverse course and stop heading in the direction of higher taxes. Mumpower and Casada are on the right track.

Shop Your Way to a Cleaner Planet

Over at Ecotality today: Reduce Your Carbon Footprint: Shop at Kohl's.

April 26, 2007

Looking for Oklahoma Bloggers

I'm looking to compile a list of Oklahoma center-right political bloggers. If you are know of a good one, please leave the URL in the comments. If you are one, please leave your name, URL and email address - it won't be published. Thanks.

Welcome to Nashville Mr. DelGiorno

Blogger Michael Bates of Tulsa, Oklahoma, has an interesting post on Michael DelGiorno, the newest talk host on Nashville's WWTN radio. Bates also wrote a lengthy farewell to DelGiorno, who spent 17 years in Tulsa media, for Urban Tulsa Weekly, and says "politics and public dialogue in Tulsa are better off for Michael DelGiorno's tenure here." Read the whole article if you are interested in what the Nashville radio audience can expect from DelGiorno.

Tennessean Editorial Slams "Use" Tax

A stunning and excellent editorial today from The Tennessean, which has come out against the state's "use" tax - the sales tax the state imposes on out-of-state purchases. You read that right - The Tennessean has come out against the use tax.

Among the problems with the use tax, as described by the Tennessean editorial:
overall, the use tax has problems:

It is, in fact, an end run, contradicting decisions by the Supreme Court and Congress. Though it goes by another name, the use tax is a sales tax.

The notion that a state should be entitled to revenue for a good or service to which it did not contribute any resources goes against the notion of free enterprise.

The Tennessean that enforcement of the tax "is clearly disproportionate," as the tax is technically owed on all purchases from out of state, but the state only focuses its enforcement efforts on big-ticket items. Indeed, says the editorial, "most consumers are unaware of the use tax, and the whopping 12 percent interest penalty for late payment."

One weakness in the editorial: it recycles the very flawed prediction from University of Tennessee economists who estimated that Tennessee will lose $335 million in sales taxes due to Internet commerce in 2008. But all in all a very good - and completely surprising - editorial from The Tennessean.

The paper today also publishes an op-ed on the use tax by Ben Cunningham of Tennessee Tax Revolt, but also an op-ed by Dr. Bill Fox, the UT economist who is the lead author of all those flawed forecasts and who is a tireless cheerleader for higher taxes and a state income tax. Fox's argument this time is that applying state sales taxes to out-of-state purchases is good for the state's economy.

April 25, 2007

Actually Factually Factual Facts

Over at Ecotality today, I tweak the true-believer treehuggers a bit with a handful of posts including Industrialization = Cleanliness, which explores why most of the 25 cleanest cities in the world are located in wealthy and industrialized democracies.

Also, if you believe America's CO2 emissions are the chief cause of global warming, well, I got some bad news for ya: China is about to become the world's largest cause of global warming thanks to their red-hot economy. Meanwhile, carbon emissions from the American economy are not growing nearly as fast as the economy itself is growing - because our industries and vehicles are less polluting today than 15 years ago. It's all in this post.

Sparking the most discussion at Ecotality today is my post Myths That Drive Us, which looks at a recent Max Schulz column on a poll showing that most Americans are ignorant of the basic facts about energy and warning that public ignorance raises the risk of politicians making bad policy. The ensuing discussion in the comments is rather enlightening as to the rather low regard for facts some on the enviro left have.

And finally - a look at new technology from New Zealand that can turn carbon monoxide (bad) into ethanol (good) - and new technology being developed right here in Tennessee at Oak Ridge that can use nuclear waste (bad) to make nuclear power (good).

April 24, 2007

TVA: Green Power Demand Rising

Tennessee Valley Authority spokesman Gilbert Francis says, "The AP story that shows TVA’s green power use going down is absolutely wrong." After speaking with Francis by phone, I have thoroughly re-written this post from yesterday to reflect accurate information. I have also made the same edits to the identical story as posted on the Ecotality blog. I chose to re-write the post rather than leave the inaccurate post and add a "correction" to it for two reasons. First, the original post had multiple inaccuracies because I was working from the foundation of a completely inaccurate AP story. Second, unlike a printed publication, the digital medium allows for correcting the original article.

Is Fred Thompson Pro-Life?

A video of Fred Thompson answering a question about abortion policy during a televised debate during his 1992 Senate campaign has surfaced on YouTube and is being portrayed as proof that Thompson once was "pro-choice" on abortion, but those who think that's what it shows are simplistic in their analysis.

The key phrase in Thompson's answer is this one: "I do not believe that the federal government ought to be involved in that process." That sentence is the summary of all he says next, and shows he is opposed to Roe v. Wade, which represented the federalization of what had been a state-level issue.

He then says he is opposed to federal funding for abortion and supports the states' right to regulate abortion - both are federalist and pro-life positions - and he opposes the federal government criminalizing abortion. Again, a federalist answer.

Thompson's entire answer is a very "federalist" - he believes abortion policy should be a matter for states rather than the federal government.

His answer also fits within the mainstream pro-life platform. Most pro-lifers do not favor making criminals of women who have abortions, and the pro-life push to overturn Roe v. Wade would merely return the issue of abortion to a state-level issue.

And, finally, Thompson's voting record in 8 years in the Senate is solidly pro-life.

Who Lost the Web?

Robert Cox says the American Right is losing the web. I think he's right about the Wikipedia angle, but wrong about the online fundraising angle. Read the whole thing.

April 23, 2007

Sheryl Crow Solves Global Warming

Click the image to learn Cheryl Crow's plan to wipe away global warming...

How Green is My Tennessee Valley Authority?

The Tennessee Valley Authority, the big government-owned utility that provides electricity to 158 retail power distributors across a large swath of the southeastern United States, isn't selling as much "green" power as it has the capacity to produce.

UPDATE: I have received clarifying information from TVA spokesman Gilbert Francis and am extensively updating this post. Francis: "The AP story that shows TVA's green power use going down is absolutely wrong."

Last week, representing the Ecotality blog, I emailed TVA's news media contacts and asked for data about its Green Power Switch and Generation Partners programs. TVA provided me the data - and also apparently issued a press release which resulted in an AP story out today.

TVA's power-service area covers 80,000 square miles in the southeastern United States, including almost all of Tennessee and parts of Mississippi, Kentucky, Alabama, Georgia, North Carolina, and Virginia. In all, TVA power serves more than 8.7 million customers.

Green Power Switch is a TVA program which allows customers of participating power distributors to purchase blocks of "green" power generated from wind or methane, for an extra $4 per 150-kilowatt-hour block. Green Power Switch is offered by 98 of TVA's 158 power distributors across a broad area of the southern United States.

Generation Partners is a TVA program which allows customers of participating power distributors to sell back to TVA any "green" power they generate from their own solar panels or wind-turbines.

In the AP story today TVA spokesman Gilbert Francis says TVA sold 69 percent of its green power from March 2006 to February 2007.

According to numbers Francis provided me via email late last week, the Green Power Switch program currently has 9,845 residential customers and 484 commercial customers - that's less than one percent of the 8.7 million total residential and commercial cusomters served by TVA (through its distributors). Francis says TVA currently sells 45,747 blocks of green power per month. Those 45,747 blocks of green power equal 6,862,050 kilowatt-hours, or 6.86 megawatt-hours.

Francis says TVA's maximum generation capacity for Green Power Switch is 37.5 megawatts, and "less than 1 percent of TVA's power generation capacity is green power."

(A megawatt or kilowatt is not the same as a megawatt-hour or a kilowatt-hour. A kilowatt-hour is a unit of energy equivalent to one kilowatt of power expended for one hour of time. So, while Green Power Switch's maximum power generation capacity is 37.5 megawatts, at any given time it often is less than that due to cloud cover affecting solar, lack of wind for the wind turbines, etc.) The bottom line is that TVA's green power customers currently purchase about 69 percent of the "green" power that TVA generates.

"The participation in Green Power Switch is going up," Francis said. "It is growing over time."

The AP story says TVA "used to sell more renewable energy than it could produce, but now that situation has reversed." Francis explained that in the beginning there was more demand for green power than TVA had generating capacity, but recently TVA's green power production capacity increased with the addition of 15 more wind turbines at its Buffalo Mountain wind energy farm.

I also sought data on TVA's Generation Partners program - which allows customers to sell "green" power to TVA. Francis said TVA's maximum power production capacity from its Generation Partners is 0.18 megawatts. TVA's total power production capacity from all sources - hydroelectric plants, nuclear plants, coal-fired power plants and "green" sources - is almost 35,000 megawatts.

Update: The largest single purchaser of "green power" from TVA is Middle Tennessee State University, buying 55,000 blocks - 8.25 megawatt-hours - annually. The figure comes from a story in Sidelines, the MTSU campus newspaper, which was reporting how students at the University of Memphis has followed MTSU's lead in endorsing a new student fee that would pay for renewable energy and other environmental projects Also, the Knoxville News Sentinel reports that students at the University of Chattanooga have likewise voted to pay an additional fee to buy "green power" from TVA, to fund recyling efforts on campus and to pay to install energy-efficient lightbulbs.

Charging students an extra fee to pay for installing energy-efficient lightbulbs - compact flourescent lightbulbs, no doubt - is clever way to use rising environmental concerns to rip off students. CFLs will save the university money over time - probably a lot of money given the sheer number of lightbulbs on a university campus. No university should charge its students an extra fee to do something that not only is good for the environment but will save the university money too.

Profiling Campfield 2

The Knoxville News Sentinel profiles state Rep. Stacey Campfield a day after Nashville's The Tennessean newspaper did the same. Campfield's blog gets a mention.

Gored: How Modern Environmentalism's God Punishes the Poor of Pascua Lama, Chile

Over halfway through the excellent documentary Mine Your Own Business there's a fascinating revelation: environmentalists fighting a proposed gold mine high in the Andes mountains on the border between Chile and Argentina are being supported in their fight against Toronto-based Barrick Gold by local landowners for a reason that has little to do with protecting the environment - and everything to do with intentionally keep the poor people of Pascua Lama, Chile, poor.

According to locals including a community activist in the poor village of Pascua Lama, the landowners' opposition to the project stems from their opposition to the higher wages Barrick will pay - the landowners prefer their local workforce be willing to work cheap.

I was reminded of that fact as I read this story from the April 18 issue of Embassy, a Canadian foreign-policy weekly magazine, which reports that "the world's most famous environmental activist, former U.S. vice-president Al Gore, has forced" Barrick Gold, one of Canada's largest mining companies, "to abandon its attempts to sponsor an environmental conference at which Mr. Gore is scheduled to speak."

And why did Gore force conference organizers to return Barrick's $50,000 sponsorship funding? Because of the Pascua Lama mine project. A U.S.-based environmental NGO convinced Gore to use his leverage to force Barrick to withdraw from funding the environmental conference.

[Mining Watch Canada research coordinator Catherine Coumans] said when environment and mining activists learned that Mr. Gore was to speak at an event sponsored by Barrick Gold, they lost no time explaining the Pascua Lama situation to him.

"Because [the issue in Chile] is about glaciers, the link is too close," Ms. Coumans said. "Al Gore's whole presentation started off with showing the dramatic loss of glaciers through global warming. And the mine that Barrick is proposing is going to damage glaciers."

Ms. Coumans accused the company of trying to piggyback on Mr. Gore's reputation as a crusader for the environment. "And, of course, Al Gore is just about God as far as the environmental movement goes right now. And to have Barrick's logo stuck on a poster with Al Gore's name on it, the association would look good for Barrick."

Although an anti-mining activist in the film - who lives London and had never visited Pascua Lama - alleged the project would require the removal of three entire glaciers, a Barrick spokesperson in MYOB says the mining project would disturb just one percent of the glaciers.

Gore clearly didn't get all the facts, and made a symbolic move because, well, because "Al Gore is just about God as far as the environmental movement goes right now."

But he's not an all-knowing, all-caring god.

The Pascua Lama project would provide 5,500 construction jobs and 1,700 permanent mining jobs for the impoverished village. More than 27,000 people have applied for jobs at the mine, which would pay wages double that the the local poor can earn doing manual farm labor on the rich landowners' vast farms, according to the MYOB documentary.

By taking sides against Barrick Gold and against the Pascua Lama project, Al Gore stood firmly against thousands of poor Chileans having a chance to escape poverty.

April 22, 2007

Gore for President?

Is Al Gore getting ready to run for president? The London Sunday Telegraph thinks so. [Hat tip: Joe Gandelman.]

Profiling Campfield

The Tennessean profiles state Rep. Stacey Campfield in a piece that focuses not on his blog but, rather, on how the Republican legislator is "not afraid to speak his piece" even though his legislation routinely gets killed by the majority Democrats.

April 21, 2007

Blogging for Dollars...and Other New-Media Stuff

Blogger & Podcaster is a new magazine about, well, you can guess. On the mag's home page, click the cover image to read the premiere issue free online. Also, the Boston Globe recently published a story about blogging for dollars. Also in the new-media space today, PBase.com, a photo-sharing site similar to Flickr but geared more toward the professional and serious-amateur photographer, publishes a a quarterly magazine that can be downloaded from the website here.

Tracking the Islamic Bomb

The Spectator's Melanie Phillips interviews the U.S. Air Force intelligence specialist who found Saddam's WMD bunkers. What? You didn't know that we'd found Saddam's WMD bunkers? There's a reason for that...

The Republicans won't touch this because it would reveal the incompetence of the Bush administration in failing to neutralise the danger of Iraqi WMD. The Democrats won't touch it because it would show President Bush was right to invade Iraq in the first place. It is an axis of embarrassment.

April 20, 2007

Cycling Corker

If you're into cycling, especially for commuting, Brian Arner has what sounds like good news out of Sen. Bob Corker's office. I didn't know Corker was an avid cyclist. Now that I do know that, I have a suggestion for Corker: Start an annual cycling event in Tennessee that combines elements of the RAGBRAI and the Fred Thompson Celebrity Skeet Shoot.

Virginia Tech

Matthew Ingram at WebProNews.com looks at how citizen journalism covered the Virginia Tech massacre.

As horrific as the circumstances at Virginia Tech were, as a journalist it was fascinating to watch the information about the shootings filter out through the students and faculty at the college, by way cellphones and webcams, blogs and Facebook accounts, Flickr photos and LiveJournal updates. The Wikipedia page was updated minute by minute (the page of edits makes for interesting reading). Another example of "crowdsourcing" the news.

Trunk Show

Lots of new stuff at ElephantBiz.com since I last posted a Trunk Show update here at BillHobbs.com more than two weeks ago. About five dozen new posts, including these recent ones:

Public Financing of Presidential Campaigns is on Life Support
Romney's Ace in the Hole
Online Fundraising Hype
The Cancer Question
Rudy Down as Fred Rises
An Interview with Ron Paul

And, of course, multiple editions of The Daily Fred.

April 18, 2007

Scrap the Net?

Is it time to scrap the Internet?

Settlement

Nashville City Paper reports on the settlement of the Coble/JL Kirk case in which JL Kirk Associates threatened to sue Nashville blogger Katherine Coble because she criticized them on her blog.

April 17, 2007

Gore's Solar Panels: Bad Investment, So-So Environmentally, Good Politics

As the Zoning Appeals Board of the Nashville sub-city of Belle Meade considers Al Gore's request for a conditional-use permit to install solar panels on the roof of his mansion during its meeting Tuesday night (April 17), I thought I'd take a look at the economics of solar power for the home of perhaps the world's leading advocate for increased use of renewable energy sources as a way to combat global warming and the suspected role of mankind's carbon dioxide emissions in it.

So I went to FindSolar.com, a website promoted by the U.S. Department of Energy, and ran the "solar estimator" on Gore's house.

Based on Gore's average monthly electric power usage from Nashville Electric Service in 2006 of 18,400 kilowatt-hours (kWh) - a figure we know from public records first revealed by the Tennessee Center for Policy Research - and also based on the solar estimator's knowledge of the average amount of sun that hits the Nashville area - calculates Gore would need 8,700 square feet of solar panels in order to generate 50 percent of his home's electicity usage over the course of a year.

Never mind that Gore's home, a multi-story mansion of around 10,000 square feet, doesn't have 8,700 square feet of roof space. We're dealing in a hypothetical here...

FindSolar.com calculates the cost of such a system would be around $781,000 - although Gore would qualify for a $2,000 federal tax credit, lowering his cost to just $779,000. FindSolar says such a system could be financed over 30 years at 5 percent interest for a monthly payment of $4,193.

FindSolar.com also estimates that an 8,700 square-foot solar system, costing more than three quarters of a million dollars in cash, would increase Gore's property value by $152,560 and save Gore $320,083 in utility savings over the 25-year expected life of the solar panels.

It would take Gore 37 years to "break even" (assuming the solar panels lasted that long), according to FindSolar.com.

The upside: It would prevent the emission of 2,263 tons of carbon into the atmosphere, at a cost after utility-bill savings and increased property values, of around $306,000, not counting interest if he financed the solar panels. That's around $135 per ton of carbon not emitted.

The CarbonNeutral Company - the carbon-offsets seller from which Gore's Generation Investment Management firm buys carbon offsets for Gore and for the company's employees - sells carbon offsets at a rate of $18.40 per metric ton of carbon emissions, according to research by the Tufts University Climate Initiative.

At that price, for $303,000 Gore could by "carbon offsets" to "offset" 16,467 tons of carbon emissions - 7.2 times what the solar panels would save.

Clearly, of course, Gore isn't going to put 8,700 square feet of solar panels on the roof of his mansion. The roof isn't that big. But it hardly matters how many square feet of solar panels he installs. Carbon offsets would be cheaper. And if he purchased those carbon offsets from a company that invests most of their money in building wind power farms - or even building solar energy farms in far-sunnier locales like, say, Arizona - he would be doing more to reduce carbon emissions.

So much for the hypothetical. Now for the reality. While the hypothetical 8,700-square-foot solar array would generate 110,400 kWh of power per year, Gore's actual solar panels, if approved, will generate about 6,264 kWh per year, Gore spokeswoman Kalee Kreider told The Tennessean in early April.

Using the FindSolar calculator, we learn that a photovoltaic solar system to generate 6,264 kWh per year would cost $45,000, or $43,000 after the federal tax credit, and would increase the property value by $8,240 while saving Gore an estimated $17,288 on his electric bill over 25 years. It will still take 37 years to "break even" on the deal, and the solar panels would reduce carbon emissions by just 128 tons - at a cost of $17,472 (cost minus utility-bill savings and property value increase). That's still about $135 spent per ton of carbon reduction - for that price via the CarbonNeutral Company, Gore could offset nearly 950 tons of carbon emissions - 7.4 times as much carbon reduction.

He could do even better at some carbon offsets sellers that charge less - and especially if he went with some of the not-for-profit carbon offsets sellers that invest a higher percentage of their gross sales revenue in actual carbon-reducing or carbon-offsetting projects than the for-profit CarbonNeutral Company does.

Economically, Gore's solar panels are a bad investment.

Environmentally, Gore could do more for the environment by purchasing carbon offsets from reputable not-for-profit seller of offsets that spends most of their revenue on actual carbon-reducing projects.

Politically, though, Gore pretty much has to put the solar panels on his roof.

Wednesday April 18 Update: Gore's request for a conditional-use permit for solar panels was approved Tuesday night.

The Useless Use Tax

Today's edition of The Tennessean has three stories on the state's "use" tax, the sales tax-equivalent that the state levies on items that individuals and businesses buy from merchants in other states and bring into Tennessee - or order by phone or Internet and have shipped in. If you buy something in, say, Texas, and bring it into Tennessee - or order something over the Internet and have it shipped in, you are supposed to pay Tennessee's sales tax on it. If the online retailer doesn't charge you the tax, you're supposed to contact the Department of Revenue and pay the the identical "use" tax on your purchase. Few people actually do that.

You can read the main story, and see links to the sidebars, here. Yet in all that copy The Tennessean missed the real story, which is this: The wild scare-mongering predictions that economists at the University of Tennessee were making just a few years ago of huge amounts of lost revenue due to online sales - predictions made to help prop up the push for a state income tax - have turned out to be wrong.

In this story today, The Tennessean mentions a 2004 study by economists at the University of Tennessee Center for Business and Economic Research which asserted that Tennessee will lose an estimated $612.5 million in 2008 on uncollected use taxes from Internet, catalog and other "remote" sales including $335.7 million lost on sales over the Internet.

The number is, most assuredly, bunk, as $335 million in unpaid sales taxes would equate to the average Tennessee family of four spending nearly $3,600 per year online.

The 2004 study from UT was merely one in a string of studies that the UT economists, primarily Dr. Bill Fox, had issued on the subject of Internet sales and "lost" tax revenue in recent years. In 2002, Dr. Fox and the UT-CBER issued a report claiming Tennessee was losing $300 million a year in sales tax revenue because of online sales.

The assertion was easily debunked:

Then, in late 2003, a study by the Direct Marketing Association was published that contradicted and criticized the series of University of Tennessee studies forecasting sales tax revenue losses due to e-commerce. The DMA said those UT studies confused different types of online transactions and relied on fuzzy numbers and wildly-exaggerated estimates to arrive at its inflated figure.

The amount of potential revenue that cash-strapped states are missing out on has been grossly overstated, says Peter Johnson, a DMA economist. "The Internet is not creating a massive leak in state coffers."

Why is UT's much-higher - and much-hyped - estimate wrong? UT's studies used sales estimates compiled by Forrester Research at the height of the dot-com bubble, while the DMA used actual sales figures compiled by the Commerce Department and relied on a more conservative growth estimate, the report said.

One other factor: Increasingly, online purchases are made at the websites of national retailers who have stores or other facilities in the state and who, therefore, collect the state's sales tax.

In July 2004, Dr. Fox began to climb down from his previous sky-high estimates of revenue losses from online sales. The mainstream media missed it, but I documented it here. In 2001, Fox and the UT-CBER forecast states would lose a combined $45.2 billion in 2006. But by 2004, Fox and the UT economists had reduced their projection for 2006 to combined losses of $19.2 billion. The 2004 report - which is the one The Tennessean referenced today - still relied on estimates from Forrester Research, as did his earlier forecasts, rather than actual e-commerce data from the U.S. Census Bureau - data which has proven to be more accurate. But the Tennessean neither spotted Fox's climb-down in 2004, and didn't report the DMA study's criticisms back then either - and still continues to use the highly dubious $300 million figure.

When Dr. Fox and the UT economists use actual data rather than Forrester Research estimates, you can take their numbers seriously. Until then, neither their reports nor the media coverage of them that ignores contradictory research should be taken seriously.

Today's package of Tennessean stories also raises another question about the "use" tax - a question of fairness.

As The Tennessean reveals today, the state does not collect the tax uniformly nor have a method for doing so. That makes the tax random and unfair and, as I see it, potentially a violation of the equal protection clause of the U.S. constitution.

Unlike the sales tax, which is collected automatically by merchants on every sale, the state has no uniform pro-active method for collecting the use tax from all Tennesseans who owe it. Why doesn't the state collect it from everyone? They can't. As The Tennessean reported today:

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that companies aren't required to collect the tax on Internet and catalog sales except in states where they have a store or other facility. That leaves states with the task of trying to collect the tax directly from consumers. Online sales aren't reported to anyone, so states don't have an easy way to discover who has purchased goods online.

The tax is unfair, impossible to collect, generates very little revenue for the state, and is less and less relevant as more and more e-commerce is transacted at the websites of national retailers that have a physical presence in the state and, therefore, collect the sales tax. With Tennessee now running routine large revenue surpluses - this fiscal year's surplus is likely to top $350 million - the "use" tax on personal purchases is something the state could easily do without.

Coble Case Settled

JL Kirk Associates has backed down and won't be suing blogger Katherine Coble after all. The link goes to Coble's final post explaining the settlement. The blogosphere owes a huge "thank you" to attorney Ron Coleman of Bragar, Wexler & Eagel, who represented Coble on behalf of the Media Bloggers Association. Coleman also blogs about things legal at Likelihood of Confusion. For the Cobles the case is over. But for JL Kirk Associates the ripple effects of their decision to threaten a blogger who criticized them are just beginning.

April 16, 2007

Floyd Landis Update

If you've wondered what happened to Floyd Landis, the American who won the 2006 Tour de France only to have his victory undermined by a single suspicious drug test (by the same French lab that has a checkered and scandalous history of mishandling samples and misreporting results), well, ESPN has the latest. The story has several sidebars. I believe Landis is innocent and as long as the source of any test that says otherwise is that same French lab, I will continue to do so.

Suing a Blogger: Sixth Update

The Nashville City Paper covers the story of the blogger and the company that threatened to sue her, giving yet more bad publicity to JL Kirk Associates. Among the quoted: Media Bloggers Association general counsel Ron Coleman, who is representing Coble pro bono and tells the City Paper that a settlement in the case is near.

One minor correction to the City Paper's story: The incident didn't just "set the Nashville blogosphere ablaze," it went global with bloggers around the world writing about JL Kirk's lawsuit threat - and the clueless attorney who made it - and digging into JL Kirk's business practices and history, with unflattering results.

Meanwhile, WKRN blogger Brittney Gilbert at NashvilleIsTalking.com writes today that the story of how JL Kirk blew itself up in the blogosphere is now her number one example of how clueless companies can be about the PR impact of blogs.

I have never seen a move as ham-handed and wrong-headed as the one made by JL Kirk Associates and their attorney(s). I have sat back and watched in sheer amazement as this transparent and completely obvious attempt to bully a blogger has backfired a thousand times, over and over and over again. It's been fantastic and fascinating to watch.

There was nothing in Coble's account that even closely resembles libel or "false and defamatory statements." Not unless you think a negative film or restaurant review counts as the the same. This company chose to take an age old route to getting what they wanted - they used their money to obtain the brawn of an attorney to threaten the one thing that scares the life out of most people. A lawsuit was never this company's intent, if I had to guess. They just wanted to bully a blogger into taking down speech that made them look bad. Instead they set off a firestorm of fury from bloggers all across the web who take their right to tell the truth about negative corporate experiences very seriously. More seriously than even I guessed. And rightly so, because self-publishers on the web - your average, everyday citizen - no longer need to bend to the will of the ones with the most might. Bloggers no longer need to buy ink by the barrel. The ink is free.

Not only is the ink free, but so are those using it. Free to warn others about what they think is a shady business or uncooperative legislator. No longer are newspapers and television stations the only people with a platform. Through the wonder that is the tubes, a blogger with under a thousand readers a day can bring a company to its knees, especially when that company attempts to roll over an individual's First Amendment rights.

Background posts:
Suing a Blogger - April 11, 2007
Suing a Blogger: Second Update - April 12, 2007
Suing a Blogger: Third Update - April 12, 2007
Suing a Blogger: Fourth Update - April 13, 2007
Suing a Blogger: Fifth Update - April 14, 2007
Doppelganger - April 15, 2007
Movin' On Up - April 16, 2007
Lessons Learned? - April 16, 2007

Tuesday April 17 Update: JL Kirk Associates has backed down and won't be suing blogger Katherine Coble after all. The link goes to Coble's final post explaining the settlement. The blogosphere owes a huge "thank you" to attorney Ron Coleman of Bragar, Wexler & Eagel, who represented Coble on behalf of the Media Bloggers Association. Coleman also blogs about things legal at Likelihood of Confusion. For the Cobles the case is over. But for JL Kirk Associates the ripple effects of their decision to threaten a blogger who criticized them are just beginning...

Lessons Learned?

The anonymous blogger at WebConnectConsulting.com is correct in his assessment of how JL Kirk Associates blundered in threating to sue a blogger over a critical blog post:

If you have a small business and you are not participating in a discussion with your customers, your prospective customers, and the online society at large, you are not prepared for what could happen to your business. If your first reaction is legal, you are living in the wrong century. The 71,000,000 bloggers are vocal and active. They are fast to close ranks against attackers, especially non-blogging attackers. Citizen journalism and advocacy is truly liberating, and repressive nineteenth century legal weapons will fail to stamp out negative information from a dispersed target.

Is Solar Worth It?

The New York Times and the San Francisco Chronicle had stories this weekend that presented opposite views of the economics of residential solar power. While the NYT says solar power "makes no economic sense" for the average homeowner, the San Francisco Chronicle says "the economic benefits are impossible to ignore."

Who is right? Maybe both papers...

Movin' On Up

Law professor/blogger Glenn Reynolds reports that his Libel in the Blogosphere paper became a much more popular download at the Social Science Research Network website in the wake of the Katherine Coble / JL Kirk / King & Ballow affair last week. (Background here) I'm more interested in the PR lessons to be drawn from the event than the legal lessons, but I recommend Reynolds' paper.

April 15, 2007

Doppelganger

Tim Warner at Mother Tongue Annoyances finds a number of surprising similiarities between JL Kirk Associates and the Bernard Haldane company. (Background on this story here.)

April 14, 2007

Suing A Blogger: Fifth Update

WKRN's Brittney Gilbert reports on the saga of JL Kirk Associates, a critical blogger, and a lawsuit threat that backfired big time. Also, "S-Town Mike" at Enclave has more on JL Kirk Associates' new-found online fame.

And it's not good fame: the story, and the controversy over JL Kirk Associates threatening to sue Coble for writing critically of the company on her blog has surfaced other bloggers with similar experiences and first-hand criticisms of the company. Even worse, people who before this week had never heard of JL Kirk Associates now only have a bad impression of the company. People like Billy Hollis at QandO, who wrote:

I don't know squat about JL Kirk, or about their law firm King & Ballow. But I can say with some confidence that neither of them has a clue just how information is spread in the world today.

For many firms in the service industry, their reputation is the single most important asset they have. And how do most modern people assess reputation? By Internet searching, primarily Google. You can literally destroy your own company overnight by doing something really stupid, if the results of that stupidity will be one of the first things that show up on Google when a search of your company name is done. It looks like JL Kirk has just done this.

Net lag generally refers to the failure of traditional businesses to understand the dynamics of the blogosphere*. Net lag was on huge display in the Kirk/Coble/King & Ballow case this week.

Why It's Dumb to Sue or Threaten To Sue Bloggers

Had JL Kirk Associates ignored Coble's blog post (or, better yet, responded positively to her criticisms), Coble's initial critical post would have been read by, statistically speaking, virtually nobody. (No offense intended, Kat!) By threatening to sue her, JL Kirk Associates assured that the post would be read by thousands, and pushed the story to the "top of the charts" on Google, where it will live on for years.

Silence Is Deadly
A final thought: As the blog storm of criticism exploded around JL Kirk Associates this week, the company did not appear to respond. Perhaps that's because JL Kirk Associates was lawyered-up and the lawyers were telling the company's execs and staffers to not respond to the blogs. But the underlying reason is why JL Kirk Associates took the lawyer route in the first place and it is this: JL Kirk Associates doesn't maintain a presence in the blogosphere.

Neither its CEO nor any of its "career management" staffers maintain blogs where they discuss career search issues, or how their particular industry or company works. With no blogosphere presence or experience, no company is equipped to handle a blog storm like the one JL Kirk Associates kicked off last week with its ill-advised decision to threaten to sue a blogger.

Not having an understanding of the dynamics of the blogosphere, and not having an active, engaged presence in the blogosphere, hobbled JL Kirk Associates - as it would hobble any company faced with a similar situation. Without an active blog presence, any company wanting to respond to criticism like the critical post JL Kirk Associates found on Coble's blog has limited options: Post a hasty response in the bloggers' comments section, or hire a lawyer and try to intimidate the blogger.

JL Kirk Associates did both. And blew themselves up in the blogosphere.

Other business executives should take a lesson from the JL Kirk Associates debacle: Develop a presence in the blogosphere now, before you need it. Because once you need it, it's too late.

If you're a business executive who wants to prepare for the blogosphere, I'd be happy to help.

I'd even be willing to consult with the executives at JL Kirk Associates. I won't even ask for my whole fee up-front.

Background posts:
Suing a Blogger - April 11, 2007
Suing a Blogger: Second Update - April 12, 2007
Suing a Blogger: Third Update - April 12, 2007
Suing a Blogger: Fourth Update - April 13, 2007

Update: *A commenter points out the technical roots of the term "net lag." Also in the comments, some very good analysis of why JL Kirk Associates threatened Coble. It has to do with search engine optimization and JL Kirk's Internet-based customer-recruitment model.

Update: James Robertson has some comments and a great podcast about PR in the era of blogs.

Definitive Fred

Stephen F. Hayes of The Weekly Standard spent four hours with Fred Thompson and wrote what may well be the definitive piece on the possible presidential candidate.

By the end of the conversation, two unexpected realities had emerged. If he joins the race for the Republican nomination, and if he campaigns the same way he spoke to me last week, Fred Thompson, a mild-mannered, slow-talking southern gentleman, will run as the politically aggressive conservative that George W. Bush hasn't been for four years. And the actor in the race could well be the most authentic personality in the field.

Cavuto writes about Fred's entourage when Thompson appeared on Cavuto's show last week:

One final footnote on Fred Thompson. It's a little thing, but it struck me and my executive producer Gary Schreier as we greeted him this week: He came alone.

Alone -- no handlers, no enablers, no key people, no any people.

Just Fred, by himself.

And Gary and I are thinking, hey this guy is tracking sometimes second in GOP polls for president.

For president! Of the United States!!

And we're looking for his entourage, his hangers-on, you know, the guy who holds his briefcase.

Another, his cell phone, still another his coat.

Someone who polices his words, advises him on statements to the press.

Nope. No briefcase guy. Or cell phone dude. No policy wonk or statement checker.

No people at all.

Get this: I had more people than he had people.

Which tells you something about Fred, I guess: The image things that seem to matter to others don't much matter to Fred.

Surely, I'm thinking to myself, this will all change if he runs for president. Even the loserest of candidates has loser lemmings. Lots of them!

But I wonder: Maybe Fred would be the guy who puts less stock in handlers and more in himself.

He'd be different, that's for sure. His people weren't saying that --- Fred was. Before he shook my hand after our interview and walked out of this building... alone.

April 13, 2007

Legal Blogging

Ronald Coleman, the lawyer representing Media Bloggers Association member Katherine Coble in the dispute with JL Kirk Associates, has a blog, Likelihood of Confusion. It's going on my blogroll.

Still Growin'

Tennessee's tax revenue surplus surged another $69.2 million in March - twice what it would take to cutting the sales tax rate on food by half a cent next year. The surplus now stands at $185 million with four months left to go in revenue collections for the 2006-07 fiscal year. Here's the press release and data from the Tennessee Department of Finance & Administration.

The press release from F&A spins the big monthly surplus as possible the result of some large corporations paying their quarterly franchise taxes - due in April - early, but I doubt it. The Department of Revenue - and, therefore, F&A - would already know if that was the case. F&A is just trying to play down the surging size of the surplus for political reasons. But in the end - the end of the fiscal year - it won't matter. Tennessee will, in all probability, have raked in another $300 million to $450 million in surplus tax revenue - that's extra tax money the state doesn't need to pay for this year's budget.

Eight months into the fiscal year, this year's revenue surplus already 70 percent larger than last year's $108.8 million surplus after the first eight months of fiscal year 2005-06 - and the state ended fiscal year 2005-06 with a surplus of $411.2 million.

Reducing the state's sales tax on food even one cent would cost the state just $78 million, an amount not much larger than the surplus revenue the state collected just in March.

Suing a Blogger: Fourth Update

Ripples from the threat of a lawsuit against Nashville blogger Katherine Coble over a blog post she wrote critical of JL Kirk Associates, a "career search" firm that tried to get her and her husband to pay nearly $4,500 up front before the company would try to find her husband a new job, continue across the blogosphere with Technorati now finding the case mentioned on more than 175 blogs (and Google's blog search finding more than 225).

David St. Lawrence writes that, by its actions in the Coble case, law firm King & Ballow "demonstrated a total cluelessness of the dynamics of an informed marketplace."

The lesson here is that a complaint from a customer is an indication that something is wrong with your service. Fix the problem. Don't try to intimidate the customer, especially if the customer is a blogger! The problem won't blow over and by the time all is said and done your organization's entire history will be public knowledge and the embarrassing details will be available on the Internet for years and years.

King & Ballow gave JL Kirk Associates terrible strategic advice because King & Ballow - like probably most law firms - don't understand the dynamics of an informed marketplace. And JL Kirk Associates listened to the advice because it, like most business, didn't understand either.

April 12, 2007

Signs of Progress

As seen in front of Al Gore's Lynwood Boulevard mansion in Nashville's posh Belle Meade neighborhod this afternoon. I wonder if Gore himself will be at the zoning board meeting to make the case for why he should be allowed to put solar panels on his house.

A helpful reader provided a link to the Belle Meade Board of Zoning Appeals meeting agenda.

No details on the size of the solar panels, how much power they'll generate, or whether or not they'll be tied into the grid via a "net metering" arrangement so Gore can sell excess power to the grid. Tennessee is not a mandatory "net metering" state, though the local electric utility that serves Gore’s house does offer the option for customers who generate their own power.

Nashville Electric Service, which distributes Tennessee Valley Authority power, allows customers to sign up for TVA’s "Generation Partners" program, which buys customer-generated "green" power (from solar panels or wind turbines) at a rate of 15 cents per kilowatt hour.

No word if Gore himself will be at the zoning board meeting to make the case for why he should be allowed to put solar panels on his house.

For all the grief - I believe deserved - that I and others have given Gore for his use of "carbon offsets" to pretend to be "carbon neutral" rather than actually personally living the he preaches that others should live, it’s good to see him trying to "walk the walk" with solar panels.

Suing A Blogger: Third Update

Katherine Coble, the Nashville blogger threatened with a lawsuit, now has legal representation, arranged by the Media Bloggers Association. (For background, see the two prior posts.) If you're a blogger and you're not a member of the MBA ... you should be.

Suing a Blogger Update

With the fallout continuing for Nashville law firm King & Ballow and the Nashville office of the "career search experts" firm JL Kirk Associates over the law firm's ill-advised decision to threaten a blogger with a libel suit because she wrote something critical of the consulting firm, now might be a good time for me to mention that I do consulting work for business clients with blog problems.

I possess a rather unique mix of experience in journalism, blogging and media relations, and any company looking to cope with what it believes to be false or false and defamatory information published on some blog somewhere would be smarter to pay my consulting fee to help them understand the right way to address the situation than they would be to pay King & Ballow or some other law firm's inflated law fees to fire off a demand letter making threats that will, almost with a certainty, generate severe blowback and damage the company's reputation far worse than the blog post that initially offended them.

I do consulting work for business clients on these kinds of new-media relations. Do not think for one second that tradtional media relations will work in the blogosphere. It doesn't. It can't because traditional media relations is designed for a media architecture that is 180 degrees different than the way the blogosphere is constructed. And the truth is that, as far as I can tell, there isn't a single public relations/media relations/government relations firm in Nashville that truly understands how the blogosphere works. Some pretend they do, but they don't. And because they don't, most of their clients don't, either.

King & Ballow would never have sent that threatening "demand letter" to a big newspaper or TV station. The firm has a near-perfect winning record in libel lawsuits in all likelihood because when it goes up against deep-pocketed plaintiffs it only brings libel cases it knows or strongly believes it can win. They have no real case against Katherine Coble and suing would only open up JL Kirk Associates to a potentially embarrassing discovery process and drain the client's bank account to pay King & Ballow's hefty legal fees. But if King & Ballow had sent such a demand letter to a local media outlet, you can bet that the matter would have been handled quietly, between lawyers, and probably never have been mentioned in the pages of the newspaper or on the TV news.

Not so, the blogosphere. Coble got the demand letter because King & Ballow and JL Kirk Associates perceived her to be a weak opponent who would easily cave. What they failed to understand is that behind every blogger stands an army of more than 71 million bloggers, a tribe that is growing fast, a tribe that includes many lawyers and legal experts and media experts in its ranks - and roughly 71 million or so passionate believers in freedom of speech.

And the tribe react to attacks lightning-quick. The threat made against Katherine Coble is seen by the tribe as a threat against every blogger, and when that threat is based on false claims of libel, well, them's fighting words.

By sending that demand letter to Katherine Coble, King & Ballow did more damage to JL Kirk Associates' reputation than Coble's blog post ever did - and JL Kirk Associates paid them to do it.

If you're a business owner or executive facing a blog problem, don't call your lawyer. At least not yet. Don't let a small problem get King & Ballooned into lasting damage to your company's reputation. Contact me. When it comes to blogs, most lawyers don't know what they're doing.

Now, on to today's updates on the Coble Case:

Lawyer and blogger Rob Huddleston says "this is a real blunder by King & Ballow."

Yes, the practice of issuing demand letters as a way of getting what a client wants without having to resort to actual litigation is widely used. However, you can't treat every case the same. You need to know when something is going to be attractive to media - local, state, or (in this case) global. This goes for civil suits (as the one being threatened against Kat), criminal suits, and even juvenile cases (because the media can request access on certain hearings there, too). If this case is going to make the media take notice (taking into account that mainstream sources oftentimes are agitated to action by bloggers), then you have to be perfect in your actions.

King & Ballow were not perfect here. Not by a long shot. They ignored the relevant federal case law regarding libel, opinions as free speech, truth as an absolute defense, and 1st Amendment litigation in general. And surely they knew (or should have known) that Kat would take this public. Anyone familiar with Kat's writings (and you have to assume that the associate who wrote this letter at King & Ballow would be so familiar, having referred to specific posts of the blog) knows that she doesn't take crap from anyone. They should have known that she would expand this conflict, and the public relations blowback against JL Kirk and King & Ballow would be more than significant.

However, the real culprit here is JL Kirk & Associates. They should have let sleeping dogs lie.

Update: Jay Bush reminds us that the anti-blogger legislation proposed in the state House earlier this year which the Tennessee blogosphere soon beat to death would have altered Coble's legal rights.

The Woodson bill stated that a blogger would have two days from the date of notice to remove defamatory statements from their blog. Failure to remove defamatory statements would create a "presumption of malice intent." While the legislation appeared to have been aimed at protecting public officials, who have a higher burden to prove defamation, Sen. Woodson had described it as "related to encouraging web-site owners to remove knowingly defamatory statements against individuals from their web-site."

Update: Paul Chenoweth writes that the Coble Case demonstrates that there is "a wide gap in understanding of the power that personal (or volunteer) journalism is having in the world of consumer/public relations" between "a company who resorted to the delivery of a certified letter (snail mail) and a customer who is well versed in the art of electronic communications."

Update: Newscoma is keeping a running list of blogs writing about the Coble Case.

Update: The Media Bloggers Association is now working on the Coble case. That's good news for Kat Coble, bad news for the other side. Full disclosure: I'm a founding board member of the Media Bloggers Association and handle some of their media relations work.

April 11, 2007

Suing a Blogger

Big, powerful law firms like Nashville's King & Ballow really ought to hire someone with journalistic and new media experience to advise them on how to handle clients who complain about things published by bloggers. Then they wouldn't do stupid things like issue threats of libel suits that they can't win against bloggers who, it turns out, have lots of friends willing to make the law firm and its client look bad for it..

That thought occurred to me as I read that Nashville blogger Katherine Coble is being threatened by the powerful Nashville law firm King & Ballow with a libel lawsuit unless she removes from her blog something she wrote that offended one of the law firm's clients. King & Ballow sent Coble a "demand letter" demanding she take down a post she published. K&B and the client - the headhunter firm JL Kirk Associates - are already getting blowback - and it's only going to get worse as word of the case spreads throughout the blogosphere.

Someone at King & Ballow and someone at JL Kirk Associates should, right this minute, go Google "Warren Kremer Paino Advertising" and "Lance Dutson" and see how WKPA's frivolous and baseless libel/defamation lawsuit against a blogger worked out. (Short version: They soon dropped it, but not before coverage by a zillion blogs and news media coverage made them look like blithering idiots bent on squelching free speech.)

NashvilleIsTalking.com has a great chronological recap of the story so far, including a link to the original post.

If I were advising King & Ballow and JL Kirk Associates at this point, charging them only slightly less per hour than King & Ballow charged JL Kirk Associates to have a paralegal or lawyer hack together that demand letter, I'd tell King & Ballow and JL Kirk Associates that now that they have threatened to sue Coble, the entire contents of the original post and all subsequent posts have become items of news interest.

That's not good news for King & Ballow or JL Kirk Associates because it means that I and the rest of the world's 71 million bloggers are perfectly free to republish them in their entirety in the course of reporting on this story. I could, for example, make a copy of Coble's web page and upload it like this. Or I could make a PDF file of Coble's web page and upload it like this. See? Those are objects of news coverage and I have a complete right to republish them as illustrations of my story. In fact, republishing them whole is crucial to properly covering this story as only by reading the whole post can one see what Coble wrote in context and judge for themselves whether JL Kirk Associates has been wronged or if King & Ballow is blowing some king-sized smoke.

It would only takes one journalist blogger - like, me, for example - to republish Coble's blog post. (Check!) And it would only take one journalist blogger who has connections to organizations like the Media Bloggers Association and often is linked by big blogs like Instapundit - someone like, me, for example - to turn this story this huge deal in the blogosphere. (Didn't have to - someone else did!) And it would only take a few dozen other bloggers linking to it to push it up into the top 10 results when someone searches Google for "King & Ballow" or "JL Kirk Associates." (Happening!)

That's why, by threatening to sue Coble, King & Ballow and JL Kirk Associates have made it MORE likely that the comments that King & Ballow and JL Kirk & Associates don't like will be read by lots more people than it otherwise would have, and will be republished countless times on the Internet in more places than JL Kirk Associates can possibly afford to pay King & Ballow to threaten to sue.

To summarize, K&B is asserting on behalf of its client that some of the info in Coble's original post are false and defamatory. The demand letter also says some of the comments that Coble's readers' posted on her blog are false and defamatory - though recent case law appears to protect bloggers from legal liability for words written by their readers. (You'd think the fine lawyers at K&B would know that.)

Coble is on safe legal ground if the things she wrote are either true or are expressed as opinion, and it is clear from her post that she is describing her perspective, feelings and emotions - that is, her opinion of the event. Coble even began her post by stating that it is a write-up of "our experiences" with JL Kirk Associates, another way of saying that what follows is her perceptions and her opinions of what took place.

As for whether King & Ballow actually will sue Coble, I have my doubts. Law firms often send threatening letters hoping to get results without going to court, and this may be what they're trying to accomplish here. Law firms make money by representing clients - demand letters involve billable hours - and law firms make money by suing targets with deep pockets. The Cobles aren't deep pockets - there's simply no money for King & Ballow or JL Kirk Associates in suing Katherine Coble - and there are only high legal fees and more bad publicity for JL Kirk Associates. A quick Google search of "JL Kirk Associates" shows they don't need that.

There's also a lot of downside risk for JL Kirk Associates. One of their complaints, according to the King & Ballow demand letter, is that Coble implied that the fee they asked the Cobles to pay was based on the amount of the Coble's tax refund. (Coble wrote that the amount they were asked to pay "neatly" coincided with their tax refund, "which is a matter of public record.")

If King & Ballow proceeds with a lawsuit, the rules of discovery mean that Coble's defense team would immediately be able to demand and get access to all JL Kirk Associates documents internal regarding how they determine what fees to charge customers. I doubt JL Kirk Associates wants that information made public - even if Coble's suspicions are unfounded. (And that information would be made public - the blogosphere would see to it.)

Of the other three complaints in the King & Ballow letter, the first alleges a factual error in Coble's blog post - but my cursory Google search found plenty of evidence that Coble's statement was true or at least that she had reason to believe it was true. The second and third complaints involve statements of opinion made by Coble, and opinion is protected speech.

What Coble needs right now is a blog-savvy lawyer to write a response letter to King & Ballow, and if you are that lawyer I'd encourage you to do so for free or for a very low fee. Do that and you'll be a hero to the blogosphere, and probably get lots of nice mentions in lots of blog posts.

As for JL Kirk Associates, if I was in the job market - and, as it turns out, I am - I wouldn't use them. Not because of what Katherine Coble wrote, nor because of what I found about them via Google, but because they and their law firm decided that threatening to sue a blogger to squelch criticism was a better business tactic than addressing problems that may exist with how they do business.

Update: Bad news for JL Kirk Associates: Instapundit is on the story. He thinks at least part of the demand letter "suggests a lack of familiarity with federal law on the subject."

Update: Newscoma says the blogosphere doesn't like bullies, and she's got links to lots of bloggers weighing in on the story.

Update: As of around 6:45 p.m. today, Technorati found 30 posts mentioning JL Kirk Associates. Google's blogs search tool found 30 as well. Bet on both numbers to rise. (Click the links to see if I'm right!) Updating the Update: As of midnight, the tally is 53 on Technorati 47 on Google Blogs.

Update: Say Uncle wonders if JL Kirk Associates knows what a stupid move they made.

Update: Silfray Hraka says the question now is: "At what point does the owner of JL Kirk & Associates realize his business is now worthless?"

Update:: The answer would be right about now, courtesy of Bob Krumm.

Memo to King & Ballow: Cut your losses now. Advise JL Jirk Associates to drop the lawsuit threat. It's killig whatever was left of their good reputation - and you don't need the collateral damage.

Thursday April 12 Updates
7 a.m.: Technorati 76, Google Blogs 87. Memo to JL Kirk Associates: This thing is exploding across the 'net. By lunchtime more than 100 blogs will be writing about this. Cut your losses now! Call off your attack dog!

Captain's Quarters considers the facts of the case. Memo to King & Ballow and JL Kirk Associates: CQ is a very widely read blog!

Sean Braisted digs up the Better Business Bureau file on JL Kirk Associates in Nashville. It's kinda thick.

9:30 a.m.: .: Technorati 91, Google Blogs 117.

Further updates in a new post here...

Fred Thompson Cancer Update

Fred Thompson announced today he was diagnosed more than two years ago with indolent non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. What's that mean? It means he's running for president. Details at ElephantBiz.com.

Does Sen. Wilder Employ Illegals?

ACK has the latest information on the growing controversy over whether state Sen. John Wilder, the octogenarian former lieutenant governor, implicitly admitted to hiring illegal immigrants while speaking on the Senate floor yesterday, including video of Wilder's statement.

Kleinheder:

I have always thought of our nation's dependence on illegal labor was "Slavery 2.0" but the picture of an octogenarian West Tennessee cotton farmer possibility employing illegals is simply too rich, just too rich.

Why the rest of the media has, so far, ignored the Wilder/illegals story is a mystery. It ought to be the lead story. It's more important than Pacman Jones or a fire at Johnny Cash's former house, But one of the state's best-known lawmakers should not be able to imply in a speech on the Senate floor that he's a law-breaker when it comes to illegal-immigration laws and get a free pass from the media - or federal investigators.

If most of the media doesn't care about whether Wilder's cotton business may well be employing illegals - and exploiting them with 12-hour shifts and seven-day work weeks, here's hoping that, at the least, federal immigration authorities are or soon will. A raid of Sen. Wilder's operations seems to be in order here.

And if Sen. Wilder's business operations are found to employ illegals as a matter of routine and intentional neglect of verifying his employees' legal status, he ought to be hounded out of the senate. If breaking federal and state laws is not a violation of Senate ethics rules, it is certainly a violation of the public trust.

April 10, 2007

Lawmaker Admits He Might Break Laws

Did state Sen. John Wilder, the octogenarian former lieutenant governor, implicitly admit to hiring illegal immigrants while speaking on the Senate floor today? you be the judge: ACK has the audio. By the way, at the very least the feds ought to immediately launch an investigation of Sen. Wilder's business operations to verify that he does or doesn't employ illegals.

300

I'm quite late in getting around to it, but Darren Duvall has a very interesting review and historical, political and cultural analysis of the movie 300.

Can Blogging Help You Get A Job?

For some people, the answer is yes.

My Own Horn

Toot!

April 9, 2007

Political Segregation

I heard the following story promo on NPR this morning: "African-American women who are Democrats face a dilemma in the presidential race: Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama."

Now, on the plus side, NPR, one of the anchors of the liberal media, tacitly admits that not all African-American women are Democrats.

On the negative side, though, NPR seems to stereotype African-American women who are Democrats as able to vote based solely on race or gender, rather than important things like ... issues. Hence, NPR thinks they have a "dilemma" of voting for the woman or the black guy.

The possibility that some African-American women who are Democrats might be backing former Sen. John Edwards, or New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson or any of the other candidates currently seeking the nomination seems to escape NPR.

My mind is still trying to figure out how NPR would do the story if Condi Rice was running for the Republican nomination...

April 8, 2007

Easter: The Tomb is Still Empty

After the Sabbath, at dawn on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to look at the tomb.

There was a violent earthquake, for an angel of the Lord came down from heaven and, going to the tomb, rolled back the stone and sat on it. His appearance was like lightning, and his clothes were white as snow. The guards were so afraid of him that they shook and became like dead men.

The angel said to the women, "Do not be afraid, for I know that you are looking for Jesus, who was crucified. He is not here; he has risen, just as he said. Come and see the place where he lay. Then go quickly and tell his disciples: 'He has risen from the dead and is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him.' Now I have told you."

So the women hurried away from the tomb, afraid yet filled with joy, and ran to tell his disciples. Suddenly Jesus met them. "Greetings," he said. They came to him, clasped his feet and worshiped him. Then Jesus said to them, "Do not be afraid. Go and tell my brothers to go to Galilee; there they will see me."

While the women were on their way, some of the guards went into the city and reported to the chief priests everything that had happened. When the chief priests had met with the elders and devised a plan, they gave the soldiers a large sum of money, telling them, "You are to say, 'His disciples came during the night and stole him away while we were asleep.' If this report gets to the governor, we will satisfy him and keep you out of trouble." So the soldiers took the money and did as they were instructed. And this story has been widely circulated among the Jews to this very day.

Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."

Salvation and eternal life: The free gift from God to all who believe. The best things in life really are free.

Happy Easter!

April 6, 2007

Good Friday

Easter Sunday is my favorite Sunday of the year. It's spring, so the weather and the scenery is usually pretty nice, but that's not why. It's