An example of the broken ethics investigation process in Congress: Watchdogs lack bite, to benefit of both parties. U.S. Rep. Mike Ferguson, a New Jersey Republican, in 2003 paid a $210,000 fine, the largest ever for a sitting member of Congress, to the Federal Election Commission. Ferguson, R-7th District., during his 2000 campaign had taken $525,000 from his parents, violating a statute limiting contributions from individuals to $1,000. The settlement allowed Ferguson to claim he had not deliberately broken the federal law. The matter prompted no reaction from the House ethics panel, and Ferguson was re-elected in 2004.
Why wasn't the largest ever FEC fine for a sitting member of Congress investigated by its own ethics committee? More
10:25:26 PM
permalink10:25:26 PM
Party Over Country, Over Self, Over Everything That's Holy Fact-esque
Who's the most pathetic example of the most tragic and despicable Republican on Earth? A) John McCain (see Shakespeare's Sister, who makes a good case) or B) Colin
Powell, who, refused to resign in protest over the rush to BushCo's War
in Iraq although he knew that the rationale for the war was built on
lies...More
1:00:46 AM
permalink1:00:46 AM
. . . the easiest, of course, being to make a completely moronic,
asinine excuse for a completely inexcusable bit of behavior on the part
of a conservative. As usual, we've found our poster children in the asshats at Power Line:More
An example of the broken ethics investigation process in Congress: Watchdogs lack bite, to benefit of both parties. U.S. Rep. Mike
Ferguson, a New Jersey Republican, in 2003 paid a $210,000 fine, the
largest ever for a sitting member of Congress, to the Federal Election
Commission. Ferguson, R-7th District., during his 2000 campaign had
taken $525,000 from his parents, violating a statute limiting
contributions from individuals to $1,000.
The settlement allowed Ferguson to claim he had not deliberately broken the federal law. The matter prompted no reaction from the House ethics panel, and Ferguson was re-elected in 2004.
Why wasn't the largest ever FEC fine for a sitting member of Congress investigated by its own ethics committee? More
The 37th Annual Phi Delta Kappa/Gallup Poll of the Public's Attitudes Toward the Public Schools indicates that between a 65-80% majority agrees that: Charter and private schools should not be funded at the expense of the public school system, that they would rather see schools improved than students transferred out of them and don't think the testing regimes now in place fully measure the performance of their schools.
Interestingly, while the "nation's schools" got low marks, "schools in the community" were well thought of by 69% of parents.
Yet again, another Republican policy is proving unpopular and their hatred for a public institution, in this case public schools, has been proved to be outside the mainstream. The majority of public opinion on any of the questions asked would represent a solid election victory. If only there was a party who shared the public's sensibilities on this issue and was willing to make skillful use of this in a political campaign, they might be able to make some serious gains in the upcoming mid-term elections.
"If there were two sides to every issue, the Republicans would have an opposition party." - Bill Maher
10:13:45 AM
permalink10:13:45 AM
Don’t pretend you support the military. You don’t. You just support the war…. [S]ave the lectures on patriotism and who wants us to lose the war. You do. You aren’t serving. — Steve Gilliard I wonder how many young Republicans realize that their personal decision to support the war, but stay home themselves, is stacking up to bury them under an avalanche of public contempt? Probably none of them. We criticize this Republican President as living in a bubble, but I think the pampering and attention and money and connections YRs are getting from Republican insiders is building an even thicker bubble around them.
They’ll be casualties themselves — not in the sense of joining the 1,800 dead and 13,000 wounded Americans they sent to fight for them. But they’ll discover that even their own despicable definition of “combat” has casualties. They’ll find themselves dumped, on the outside, irrelevant and shunned.
The “Yellow Elephant” meme started as a prank, but lately it seems to have touched some deeper feelings about the kind of people who get us into wars. And as soon as the Republican elites get wind of this, they’ll drop these YRs like a live grenade. They’ll be casualties without blood, without risk, and without honor.
10:09:42 AM
permalink10:09:42 AM
The award for the most disappointing response has to go to some of the organizations that really ought not choose this moment to be ambiguous about what Robertson said. I'm talking of course about Pat's political and spiritual allies, the organizations that claim to stand for traditional American values. From The New York Times:
Some of Mr. Robertson's allies distanced themselves from his comments. The Rev. Rob Schenck, president of the National Clergy Council, released a statement saying Mr. Robertson should "immediately apologize, retract his statement and clarify what the Bible and Christianity teaches about the permissibility of taking human life outside of law."
The Rev. Richard Cizik of the National Association of Evangelicals saidhe and "most evangelical leaders" would disassociate themselves from such "unfortunate and particularly irresponsible" comments.
"It complicates circumstances for foreign missionaries and Christian aid workers overseas who are already perceived, wrongly, especially by leftists and other leaders, as collaborators with
U.S. intelligence agencies," Mr. Cizik added.
But other conservative Christian organizations remained silent, with leaders at the Traditional Values Coalition, the Family Research Council and the Christian Coalition saying they were too busy to comment.
The obvious parallels here are the Islamic clerics who don't condemn assassination fatwas or terrorism in rapid or clear enough terms for many Americans, but let's step back and give them a bit more credit than that. These folks have indicated they had other priorities. (they're busy...busy, busy...busy preachers...oh, oh...well, you know). What could be more important for such influential spiritual leaders than defending our values by condemning Robertson's blood-thirsty call for murder? Let's look and see, shall we?
The Traditional Values Coalition's frequently updated website reserves it's top spot today for an article titled "Of Liberals, Toads, And Growing Up In Middle America" and although it lists close to a dozen pieces on Roberts, there's no mention of Robertson. Top billing on the Family Research Council's website was reserved for "XXX Internet Domain Not Safer for Kids," and what kept the Christian Coalition
so busy were news stories ranging from "Christian Doc: Parents Must Combat Media Vanity With Biblical Truth" to "California Court Declares One Child Can Have Two Moms."
That last story broke more or less the same time the Robertson story did. Conclusion: Liberals, porn, gay parents, and vanity are more pressing issues than murdering elected officials. Not only more pressing, but so incredibly pressing that despite the fact each of these organizations had made countless statements about each of these issues over the years, they couldn't interrupt that flow of thought long enough to say one way or the other whether Jesus wants us to kill Chavez...whether Jesus would even have an opinion about that.
There is most definitely something foul rotting in the hearts and minds of these people.
1. "These are extraordinary times, historic times. We've seen the fall of brutal tyrants. We're seeing the rise of democracy in the Middle East. We're seeing women take their rightful place in societies that were once incredibly oppressive and closed. We're seeing the power and appeal of liberty in every single culture. And we're proud once again -- this nation is proud -- to advance the cause of human rights and human freedom." (Dear Leader, March 12, 2004)
2. "Across the country, a steady clampdown on women's rights has been going unreported and unchecked by the government. Islamic terrorism is killing and injuring Iraqi women daily, employing among other weapons, acid attacks ... This is all the outcome of the occupation of Iraq. This has been pursued under the name of liberation, but what we actually see is women increasingly losing their freedom, while political Islamists feel free to terrorise them. The Islamicists pour into this invaded, so-called Muslim land in order, they say, to liberate it; but in reality, neither the US nor the Islamists are our liberators. They both really fight for power and influence in Iraq and in the region." (The Independent, August 15, 2005)
3. "Islam will be "the main source" of Iraq's law and parliament will observe religious principles, negotiators said on Saturday after what some called a major turn in talks on the constitution and a shift in the U.S. position. If agreed by Monday's parliamentary deadline, it would appear to be a major concession to Islamist leaders from the Shi'ite Muslim majority and sit uneasily with U.S. insistence on the primacy of democracy and human rights in the new Iraq." (Reuters, August 20th, 2005)
"Red-State Serbian Jewish atheist liberal PhD student with Thesis-writing block and severe blogorrhea trying to understand US politics by making strange connections between science, religion, brain, language and sex."
10:50:38 PM
permalink10:50:38 PM
Here's something you can try at home: First, read this article from the Paper of Record regarding the so-called "theory" of Intelligent Design (note that ID is not a "theory" at all, in the sense that the word is properly used, but never mind that for now). Then read this article from The Onion (hat tip to
TPM, BTW) about the theory of Intelligent Falling, and how it explains gaps and inconsistencies in the traditional, presently embattled theory of gravity.
Now, then - explain to me exactly how anyone can determine which of these articles is an intentional joke, and which is merely unintentionally ridiculous. I submit that it is impossible, and furthermore that the impossibility can be soundly established by experiment.
10:50:19 PM
permalink10:50:19 PM
Earlier this evening I saw a commercial showing a man on a gray rock cliff. The camera panned back, and words were superimposed over the image: "Wolverine can move a mountain." More of the hillside is shown, and you can see other hills and valleys. The text goes away for a moment, so you can see the complete scene before the word "Wolverine" comes up again, with a picture of the Wolverine work boot beside it.
The complete scene, unless I'm quite mistaken, is a strip mine.
Yes, Wolverine can move a mountain.
10:49:00 PM
permalink10:49:00 PM
