29
Aug
When I was in college, I had a frat brother who was the queerest human male on this planet. He wasn’t just gay, he was flaming. He loved being gay and flaunted it excessively and publicly. This guy was about six feet four inches and probably in the neighborhood of about three hundred pounds. Now, I wasn’t the least bit gay, or even the least bit curious, so it was loads of fun for me to watch this guy harass the life out of young preppy frat wannabes at the local bars. Because of this, I had to associate with him in public. I enjoyed the carnival show, and he tended to run with a very, very, physical and rough crowd, so I was pretty safe physically. It almost never led to anything as he would usually just drink himself into a stupor and pass out. Because of his extremely aggressive and overt nature, I learned a lot about the gay community whether I wanted to or not. If I walked into a bar and a shot of tequila was brought to me, I was the object of some gay man’s desire. If I accepted, I was expected to at the very least meet the person and acknowledge their advance. It was always my friend, so I always accepted. There were other signals and cues that my friend made me aware of, and I saw them in practice fairly often as he generally would be able to single out the gay guys out of the hundreds of drunk people in any bar. I live in rural Kentucky, gay guys for the most didn’t make it that obvious then. My friend however, could single them out in a heartbeat. One thing I was never made aware of by him or any of his bunch was tap, tap, tap in a stall. Now, according to Michael at Gayorbit.com, every gay guy knows this. Some guys in the comments claim they didn’t know it, but others assure them they are just out of touch or not practicing enough. Now, this kinda bothers me. The average duration it takes for me to take a good pee is about fifteen to twenty seconds or so. I’m just not one of those people that goes on and on. Addititonally, I’m a fidgety pee’r. I just don’t like standing still for any reason at all. Often, I will tap my foot. In the duration of an average pee, I can easily see that being tap, tap, tap. Am I being lewd? Would I have been arrested in Minnesota? Are a lot of gay guys po’d at me because I sent a signal and walked away? Sheez. I will never tap my foot in a stall again. Ever. Guaranteed. And if I am lost in thought or drunk or something and accidentally do tap my foot to the perfect rhythm and get busted for being lewd, I’m fighting it all the way to the Supreme Court. Being bored and having rhythm doesn’t prove I’m gay and they’d have no other evidence to prove otherwise.
This is nuts. Larry Craig is probably a victim in this case. However, because he did the stupidest legal move you can by being his own attorney and pleading guilty, he’s in a world of hurt and it’s his fault. But, the ramifications of this situation are pretty unnerving to me. I usually could care less if someone’s occupying the stall next to me. Now, chances are it’s either a gay guy cruising or a cop or both. I think from now on I’ll just wait till it’s empty.
28
Aug
I’m not really a member of the porkbusters’ club. I don’t agree with a lot of what some people define as pork. Using a very narrowly defined criteria that automatically defines something as waste doesn’t work. I’ve pointed that out here several times. However, every now and then, some things just scream pork. Take this one as an example:
Ohhhh kayyy. I guess this would fall under “education”? Do we really need to glorify prisoners? I’m all for bringing home the bacon, but don’t be stupid about it.
I like what a candidate for Congress had to say in 2006 about pork: “I’ll support legislative rules changes to ensure that proposed federal spending is subjected to a competitive awards process that values national necessity over political gain.”
Wanna guess who that candidate was? Do you need more than one try?
Now, the thing that really gets me all uppity here is that Nancy Boyda was part of the 2006 revolt. She was what Nancy Pelosi said was the answer to the Republican culture of corruption and greed. She was part of the logic some people felt that voting incumbants out guarantees a change for the better. She lied to you all in 2006 and you all bought it hook, line, and sinker because you bought the rhetoric that was spoonfed by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid to the media.
Now, she’s there. She represents Kansas. She’s proven she’s part of Nancy’s Culture of Corruption by telling voters one thing and immediately doing otherwise. She’s proven she’s part of Nancy’s culture of greed because apparently bringing home the money and doling it out is more important than her word. But, this is where it’s gonna get different. You all voted her in, she’s yours. I don’t expect you all to just throw her out because she lied to every voter in her district. I actually expect most people in her district will remain ignorant of how greedy and unscrupulous she looks right now. And, the ones that do care enough to research what she’s doing I don’t expect to just throw her out either. What I do hope for is people will look much more closely at her opposition. Whether it be the Democrat Primary or the general election. Look at who’s running. If it’s some convict busted for trying to have sex in public airline stalls, she’s the best you’ve got. If it’s someome with impeccible credentials, vote for them. But, just don’t listen to crap from CBS, Nancy Pelosi, and the like to tell you what to do. From what I can tell so far, that advice hasn’t done you all any good. And, considering the seniority in the House you all lost to get this shining star of Pelosi’s Culture of Corruption and Greed, you probably lost a lot of legitimate funding and probably some better hidden pork as well.
I pretty much figured this would happen a lot sooner than I did find it. Jeff Fecke at Shakesville ponders:
That was the setup, a writer responds with:
…I can understand a certain amount of glee that yet another Republican has been caught out on his hypocrisy. But I think the incident, as described in MB’s post, is entrapment and pretty ridiculous, considering that nothing sexual happened. And yes, it’s blatantly homophobic.
I don’t really consider this a homophobic issue in the least. If he had been busted soliciting a female prostitute for public sex I’d have the same opinion. US Senators and Cognressman merit a different level of legal scrutiny in my opinion because these are the people that make the laws we all have to live by. If they have no respect for those laws, why should anyone else? And, I see the inverse happening as well, if people have no respect for those laws, why should a Senator? My guess is Craig is waiting this out right now to see if it just blows over as so many other indescretions have. If the media fight turns into a homophobe issue as opposed to a Craig-breaking-the-law issue, he will have won and proven my point. A lot of people are also curious as to why there was even a cop in the bathroom in the first place. According to another answer there, and the one I expected, was apparently this was a problem in that particular bathroom. Now, I’m all for individual rights and stuff, but I have a four year old boy. Do I need to say more? All I ask, whether straight or gay, or even if you’ve got a thing doing it yourself, is keep it where it’s appropriate. That’s all. Public restrooms mean all kinds of people will be there. That includes kids.
Bottom line, this ain’t a homophobe issue. It’s an issue of stupidity and disrespect for anyone else who might have wondered in there. That’s the very last qualities I think Idaho expects from their Senator.
NOTES:
- Shakesville seems to be a good read. I like Fecke’s style. He seems to do as I do and look at things from more than one angle at the same time. My article here implies Fecke might be making the case for the homophobe card, he’s not. Not at all. But, he acknowledges those issues could be raised. And, that is a very valid point. )
- H/T James Joyner again. I’m sure that makes his day.
I’m not going to try to interpret James’s post, just read it.
27
Aug
In case you haven’t seen the news or watched ANY tv at all, Idaho US Senator Larry Craig got busted for making gay advances in a Minnesota restroom stall. Pretty nutty stuff there. He pleaded no contest and will face a fine among other thins I assume. His bigger problem will be keeping his job. Some of the pundits I respect most have already written him off before next year’s election. Can’t say I disagree with them. Now, before everyone gets all partisan, Idaho’s a very strong Republican state. His replacement will be a Republican. Secondly, Craig’s voting record pretty much distinguished him as a moderate moreso than anything else. What will happen when Craig is replaced is he most likely will be replaced by a stronger conservative.
So, all the liberal Democrats better watch what they wish for in the future. In the big scheme of things, the US Senate probably just got a little more conservative. I’m not sure that’s a good thing, but since the Progressives seem to think they’re running the show in DC, it probably is right now.
27
Aug
Alberto Gonzales was one of the architects of The Patriot Act. He was also the legal mastermind in keeping it afloat. He did this initially more or less discretely. However, in November 2004 Bush nominated him to be the next Attorney General. That’s when his work with The Patriot Act came front and center. And, several Democrats took aim at him because of that. For the next nearly three years, they would not stop. Simple acts such as firing staff became political witch hunts. No matter the issue, Gonzales sat right squarely in front of the media and partisan firing squads and took the hits. I could someone tiring of that pretty quick considering the money he could make in the private sector. When Karl Rove left, I could see that pretty much leaving Gonzales as the only target left for those that so resented The Patriot Act and Bush in general. This is a smart move on Gonzales’ part. Logical timing as well. He’ll make millions in the private sector without having to deal with idiot politicians and biased media. And, since the next Attorney General won’t have the Patriot Act hanging around their neck, those Democrats won’t have an easy label to hang the next person with.
But, I’m sure they’ll think of something.
Quickie update:
Nancy Pelosi didn’t waste any time chiming in:
From Harry Reid:
From Pat Leahy:
Under this Attorney General and this President, the Department of Justice suffered a severe crisis of leadership that allowed our justice system to be corrupted by political influence. It is a shame, and it is the Justice Department, the American people and the dedicated professionals of our law enforcement community who have suffered most from it.
The obligations of the Justice Department and its leaders are to the Constitution, the rule of law and the American people, not to the political considerations of this or any White House. The Attorney General’s resignation reinforces what Congress and the American people already know — that no Justice Department should be allowed to become a political arm of the White House, whether occupied by a Republican or a Democrat.
The troubling evidence revealed about this massive breach is a lesson to those in the future who hold these high offices, so that law enforcement is never subverted in this way again. I hope the Attorney General’s decision will be a step toward getting to the truth about the level of political influence this White House wields over the Department of Justice and toward reconstituting its leadership so that the American people can renew their faith in its role as our leading law enforcement agency.
So far, those are just the Democrats who have seen fit to publicly trash Gonzales BEFORE he’s even officially resigned. I thought they’d have the tact to at least wait till after it was official. I bet Leahy’s particulay po’d. He never could prove Gonzales did anything wrong, and now he’ll never get the chance.
Just gotta wonder tho how the Democrats’ ceaseless trashing of the US’s most visible Latin-American will play out. My guess is not too well.
YET ANOTHER QUICKIE UPDATE:
The best discussions so far regarding Gonzales and the AG position I think are at Captain’s Quarters and Volokh. Both mention Michael Chertoff replacing Gonzales, CQ dismisses it with Paul Clement the likely successor. The reason I like CQ is because we seem to think a lot alike on a lot of issues. This is yet another. Realistically whoever takes Gonzales’s position will be there barely enough time to get their policies and procedures in place. But, they be under fierce scrutiny and personal attacks from Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi from day one. I see this as a lose-lose situation for whoever takes it. Unless, of course, they’ve already been under that gun. Paul Clement has. He has nothing to lose and nothing really to gain by being the acting Attorney General until next November except a place in the history books. From what I have read, he has endeared himself to the forces that have persecuted Gonzales so I don’t see him taking the heat Gonzales did. My bet is with CQ, my bet is on Clement to “act” for a year and lay low in the spotlight. If a Republican wins next November, then take the nomination. If not, quietly step aside at the appropriate time. Just my two cents, but it does sound logical. ( This is our government, logic has nothing to do with it, I know. )
In 2000, George W. Bush won the electoral college. He however, lost the popular vote. The election was so close that Al Gore challenged one state in an effort to change the outcome of the election. The only reason it was that close was because Gore focused on a hand full of huge electoral prizes and won most of them. Bush carried about 70% of the states, but that didn’t matter, most were small electoral prizes. Gore’s strategy I felt cheated most of America. It was smart mathematically, but nevertheless allows a candidate to ignore most of America and focus primarily on California, New York, and Texas. One vote more than the other candidate in those states and you got the whole prize. The entire representation of that state. That just ain’t right. Now, Republicans are sponsoring a change to the California electoral college that will dole out electoral votes based on the percentage of votes received. This is a win-win for all of America in my opinion. First of all, it forces Democrat candidates to work California as hard, if not harder, than they ever had to before. Most popular Democrat candidates could take California for granted, it’s just that urban, and that Democrat because of it. Now, taking Los Angeles will not guarantee 55 electoral votes. They’ll have to work all of California. It’s a win for the smaller states in the rest of the country as well. If the Democrat candidate knows they’re not going to get a 20 something electoral vote bonus for one extra vote in California, they’ll attempt to make up those votes elsewhere. That will force them to recognize the Idaho’s and Alaska’s.
I like this plan a lot. I have argued that the electoral college was designed with a purpose. A purpose I agree with. However, the sheer size and disproportionate population shifts have kind of undermined the college’s intent. Proportional college allotments will return it to it’s original intent. How a state assigns their college is up to them. So, it’s all within the intent of the Founding Fathers. This is a good plan California, I hope you all take it seriously. And, I think all states should follow their lead.
This is precious. Since Joyner published this very publicly, and I’m sure doesn’t want it kept secret, I’m just gonna post the whole thing here:
Matt Stoler is leading the charge for the Netroots to root out the “Bush Dogs” from the Democratic Party, purging it of the impure traitors who do not buy into every jot and tittle of the Progressive Agenda.
We’ve been working to identify the group of conservative Democrats in the House who are holding back progressives from being able to effectively govern. These are concentrated in two main caucuses, the Blue Dog Caucus and the New Democrat caucuses. Blue Dogs consider themselves heirs to the Southern conservative wing of the party, and tend to vote for socially restrictive policies and a hawkish foreign policy. The New Democrats tend to be more partisan, but often are key to passing important pieces of right-wing legislation, such as the Bankruptcy Bill. In the last few years, these two caucuses have expanded their numbers, and the Blue Dogs have become the swing vote in the House allowing for effective conservative control of the Congress. We want to put a stop to the embrace of conservative values among House Democrats, and make sure that when Democrats are elected, they act like Democrats.
[…]
The first step in stopping this behavior is to identify the people engaging in it and offer up criticism. There are a few reasons for this. One, many of these members feel no pressure to vote correctly or uphold progressive values. Criticism is the signal they are relying on to let them know when they err. Two, some of these members may need to face a primary challenge, and it’s useful for potential primary challengers to know that there is criticism of these members. Three, other members considering joining the Bush Dog caucus may be dissuaded if they know there will be criticism. Four, candidates running for office will finally have a signal on how they should talk about being good Democrats that are willing to take tough votes.
He has identified 38 House Democrats who must conform to the Netroots Agenda . . . or else: Jason Altmire, PA-04; Brian Baird, WA-03 (he didn’t vote for FISA, but he just switched his position and now supports the surge); John Barrow, GA-12; Melissa Bean, IL-08; Dan Boren, OK-02; Leonard Boswell, IA-03; Alan Boyd, FL-02; Chris Carney, PA-10; Ben Chandler, KY-06; Jim Cooper, TN-05; Jim Costa, CA-20; Bud Cramer, AL-05; Henry Cuellar, TX-28; Lamar Davis, TN-04; Joe Donnelly, IN-02; Chet Edwards, TX-17; Brad Ellsworth, IN-08; Bob Etheridge, NC-02; Bart Gordon, TN-06; Stephanie Herseth, SD-AL; Baron Hill, IN-09; Nick Lampson, TX-22; Dan Lipinski, IL-03; Jim Marshall, GA-08; Jim Matheson, UT-02; Mike McIntyre, NC-07; Charlie Melancon, LA-03; Colin Peterson, MN-07; Earl Pomeroy, ND-AL
Ciro Rodriguez, TX-23; Mike Ross, AR-04; John Salazar, CO-03; Heath Shuler, NC-11; Vic Snyder, AR-02; Zack Space, OH-18; John Tanner, TN-08; Gene Taylor, MS-04; Tim Walz, MN-01; and Charlie Wilson, OH-06.
FireDogLake, DailyKos, Glenn Greenwald, and MyDD have joined this fine movement. I’m sure, before long, the list of Traitors to the Cause will expand well beyond this original 38.This “scares the hell” out of some moderate-left folks like Michael van der Galien, who worry about chilling effects on free speech and free thought.
And some on the Right are giddy about this idea, too. For example, Michael Goldfarb is crowing at the Weekly Standard about how the Netroots are “doing the work of the NRCC” (National Republican Congressional Committee) for them.
While the numbers are constantly in flux because of deaths, retirements, prison sentences and whatnot, the Democrats won 233 seats last November, to 202 for the Republicans. That means the Republicans need to hold all their current seats plus gain 16 of the Democratic seats to retake the majority next year. That’s an uphill fight, given the party’s current popularity, but not inconceivable.
It would sure help, though, if the 38 most moderate Members were replaced by True Blue, Netroots Approved Progressives. What better way to stem to tide than have Al Franken-style liberals running in places like Alabama, Georgia, Tennessee, Kentucky, Florida, Utah, North Carolina, Texas, Mississippi, and Louisiana?
So, sure, Republicans love this idea. But getting distracted by that sort of thing is short-sighted thinking.
Look, what’s the point of winning a majority if your party’s most ideological members aren’t one hundred percent happy, one hundred percent of the time? It’s far better to lose the majority by insisting on ideological purity and then building from there with Pure Progressives. It’s worked nicely for the Libertarians, why not the Democrats?
So, march on brave Netroots soldiers. March on in your quest for the Holy Grail.
I’m just gonna sum this one up quickly and simply since it’s a Saturday. When the Progressives take over, it will last two years and the Republicans will have the majority. The 38 identified as traitors and interfering with Joyner’s quest for the Holy Grail are the only hope they’ve got in staying in control. Here’s a reality check for Joyner, Nancy Pelosi is not a traitor according to him. She has led according to his Netroots agenda, according to them. What part of 18% favorable rating does he not understand? How many Libertarians are in office? What has Al Franken ever won?
I have said it before, and it’s proven here again. Either the Progressives have one hell of a sense of humor or they are Nutroots totally disattached with reality.
I tend to usually believe the latter.
82 minutes.
Lindsay Lohan copped a plea for seven misdemeanor charges and got ten days. She was busted stoned out of her gourd and carrying drugs while harassing another driver. She gets ten days.
Paris Hilton got busted for wrecking a car and got forty-five days. She only had to serve 23 of course. However, that is more than double the time Nicole AND Lindsay have to serve COMBINED.
Where was Rocky Delgadillo this time?
Where are all the media saying these two need to taught a lesson?
Something ain’t right in California.
24
Aug
Several times in this campaign, Hillary Clinton has cited her failed health care reform agenda of the early nineties. She acknowledges it didn’t work too well, and thinks she knows why ( blaming it on that vast health care industry lobby groups ). I blamed it on lousy reforms of 1993. Just when I thought she had learned her lesson, we get this:
Hillary’s last effort was a disaster. We’re still paying for it in bucketloads. The other candidates tossed the issue out there as they do all issues. Most often when that happens nothing ever really becomes of it as they come to realize the enormity and complexity of the problem. In Hillary’s case, she has a history of meddling in this issue and making the problem worse. My gut instinct is it’s because she’s a lawyer and politician and not a health care provider. Regardless of why, she’s the last person we need meddling in this issue again, people just can’t afford her “reforms”. If you want statistics and all that stuff, follow my links, I’ve gone into all kinds of details before. For now, you’ll just have to understand that I come from this issue as a health care provider. And as a health care provider, I want to be able to provide the most services to the most people that I can. I make the same money either way. What Hillary’s “reforms” did was make it so that a lot of people lost services. That’s why I don’t trust her now. That’s why I doubt I ever will on this issue.
Once he gets through with his legal wranglings over this, maybe he can figure out a better way to assure luggage gets to where its going. This should be easy for him, he’s on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.
What I really can’t wait to see is if Filner is held legally responsible for his actions or how long it takes him to get those people he accosted fired. Although some of what occurred was apparently caught on tape, Filner’s staff so far are denying it happened.
What I am certainly not expecting at all is for Nancy Pelosi to cite Bob Filner as being yet another example of Democrats’ underlying culture of corruption.
