Juvenile delinquent found guilty of breaking and entering

Local authorities announced today that Goldie Lawks, 17, has been found guilty on one count each of breaking and entering and property damage. The charges stemmed from Ms. Lawks’ unlawful entry to the Baer residence on  the morning of February 19th, during which Ms. Lawks reportedly damaged at least one piece of the victims’ furniture.

Republican Party officials have pointed to the case as a damning indictment of President Obama’s policies, suggesting that the President is ‘soft on crime’. Newt Gingrich in particular was vocal, promising to make lowering crime rates the centerpiece of his campaign. When it was pointed out to Mr. Gingrich that his campaign has no centerpieces, only far-rightpieces, and that he really just needs to shut up and go away, he vowed to stay in the race “all the way to Tampa” just to prove his limitless ability to get on people’s nerves.

A third charge of petty larceny did not succeed; the Baers also accused Ms. Lawks of stealing food during her visit, but forensic evidence was deemed inconclusive.

Read Full Post »

A better incentive to serve

Considering the increasingly obvious phenomenon that the officials we elect to represent us are largely unable or unwilling to do so, I would like to propose the following legislation. In keeping with the cockamamie names often bestowed upon Acts of Congress, I hereby present the Compulsory Limits on Earnings, Assets and Numerous Ulteriors Pending Year End Reporting Act, otherwise known as the CLEANUPYER Act.

—

Be it resolved that:

a. Upon election to office, an officeholder’s assets shall be placed in a savings account and will lose or gain funds at the end of the officeholder’s term according to the following principles:

1. For each percentage point gain in the median household income during the officeholder’s term, there will be a corresponding percentage point increase in the saved funds; and
2. For each percentage point drop in unemployment,  there will be a corresponding percentage point increase in the saved funds; and
3. For each percentage point increase in the high school graduation rate,  there will be a corresponding percentage point increase in the saved funds; and
4. The reverse case of all of the above will lead to a corresponding decrease in the saved funds, and;
5. For each ‘earmark’ requested by an officeholder, there will be a percentage point decrease in the saved funds, and;
6. Should Congress declare war and the President execute same, there will be a percentage point decrease in the saved funds for every 3 months of the war’s duration; and
7. Should any legislature adopt this Act, the officeholders voting ‘aye’ will receive a twenty-five point increase in the saved funds in addition to the above provisions.

b. Elected officials shall receive a stipend not to exceed twice the median income of their constituents.

c. Elected officials shall for a period of one year after leaving office be ineligible to take positions with either lobbying firms or industries which have directly benefited from legislation enacted during their term of office.

d. On election day, prospective officeholders will report to a neutral area to await results, refusing contact from lobbyists or other parties which may seek to influence forthcoming legislation.

e. In addition to the existing reporting of campaign contributions, any unaffiliated entity will also disclose the sources of its funding.

—

It is my fervent hope that there will one day be a government which would pass this Act. Perhaps then I would even begin to trust my government.

Read Full Post »

An open letter to the 2012 GOP candidates

Dear Sirs,

Now that the only one of you with any decency has departed the race, I feel compelled to make the following assertions to you:

• I will support keeping government out of our boardrooms the day you support keeping it out of our bedrooms.
• I will believe in corporate personhood the day you make corporations subject to all the restrictions and penalties imposed by law as well as the benefits conferred by it – up to and including the death penalty. Speaking of which…
•  I will believe that you are pro-life the day you vote to repeal not only Roe v. Wade, but also the death penalty and the Second Amendment. I will believe you are pro-life when you stop trying to gut the EPA and start trying to gut Halliburton Corp. I will believe you are pro-life when you stop saying “Kill America’s enemies” like a brainwashed jihadi.
• I will believe you are pro-family the day you do something which benefits all America’s families rather than merely the ones you personally find acceptable.
• I will believe that you are protecting the institution of marriage when a committed couple of 30 years can finally get married for love but Kim Kardashian can’t do it to get a headline.
• I will believe that you support the free market when you stop rigging it in favor of your campaign donors.
• I will believe that you want to rein in government spending when the Department Of Defense has to publicly disclose all of its accounting.
• I will believe that you are in favor of individuals’ freedom when you begin to not only respect but insist upon the separation of church and state.
• I will believe that your party is worthy of governing when it is no longer (by its own admission!) prioritizing defeating the opposition over bettering the lives of Americans.
• Last but by no means least, I will consider voting for you when you stop telling me what’s bad about the other guy and start telling me what’s good about you – assuming there’s anything to tell.

President Obama is far from perfect, but as things currently stand, he is still head and shoulders above all of you.

Read Full Post »

Farewell, Senator Stevens

The political news out of Alaska is a lot less amusing today than usual.

A small plane carrying former Senator Ted Stevens (R) and seven others has crashed near the town of Dillingham. A family friend has confirmed that the 86-year-old senator, who served in public office for 60 years, was among the dead.

I never liked Stevens much as a politician; I disagreed with most of his political positions and was no fan of most of his budget appropriations. However, it is still saddening to hear of his passing.

Also, it is always disconcerting to hear of a plane accident causing the death of a public figure; there have been far too many of these for it to be a statistical accident.

Let’s hope that for all of the online mockery surrounding his ‘series of tubes’ comment, the media attempts to treat him with some respect and dignity, for the sake of the friends and loved ones he left behind.

Let us also hope that his former colleagues on both sides of the partisan divide can lay aside the politics of the moment and honor his memory rather than tarnishing it.

Last but not least, let us hope that those who passed along with him are not forgotten.

Read Full Post »

Fear vs. Appeasement

Like many of you, I have been following the doings of the Obama administration and the 111th United States Congress with considerable despondency.

While the ‘politics of hope’ message inspired a great many people, it’s easy to say that sort of thing when one is campaigning, but very difficult to get it done.

This is especially true, I believe, for the left-leaning end of the political spectrum, where part of the ethos is the willingness to include a variety of viewpoints, to reach compromises and generally to try to “make nice” with as many people as possible.

At this point, however, the Republican opposition has become increasingly obstructionist and stubborn, often seemingly to the point of opposing much-needed common-sense legislation for no other reason than it having been put forth by a Democrat.

But there was a filibuster-proof Senate super-majority, wasn’t there? The Dems were going to be able to cram through any measure they wanted.

Here’s the problem. A super-majority requires party unity. Party unity is hard to come by when you’re including lots of differing views under one big tent. This is especially true when among the differing views include folks such as Joe Lieberman, representing the minor and unofficial “Whatever It Takes to Benefit Joe Lieberman” party, and Ben Nelson, representing the larger but similarly unofficial “I’m Only a Democrat Because That Made Me Electable” party.

Obama himself is similarly handcuffed by this process due to the separation of powers. By the time something makes it to his desk, it’s hardly worth his time to read it.

So scratch party unity. But the message should still be compelling, yes?

Yeah, well.

The right-siders, whether Cheney or Limbaugh, Palin or Steele, have been very good at the art of the five-second soundbite. Remember the “death panels”? The “socialist agenda”?

The Republican message, starting back in the Bush years, has been one of fear. Be afraid that the terrorists will attack your city next. Be afraid that Obama will allow doctors to kill your grandmother. Be afraid that the Democrats will tax you into poverty.

The Democratic message, from most quarters at least, has been, “Hey, that’s not true, quit being so mean. Incidentally, I still respect your right to say it even though I disagree with you, but I still think you’re being unnecessarily mean about it. Perhaps we can meet somewhere in the middle. Or possibly even slightly toward your end from the middle.”

Which of those is the more compelling message?

In this country, most of us grow up with the overarching societal concepts of divine judgment and knee-jerk patriotism, two notions which have been blended together very skillfully by the religious right. As such, being “un-American” is as much a sin as any violation of the Ten Commandments and a charge gleefully thrown at any so-called liberal to whom it will stick. “Socialist”, recalling as it does notions of Russia and Eastern Europe, has much the same effect.

So if you’re even remotely undecided, are you more likely to vote for the people who tell you you’re hell-bound if you don’t, or for the people without the balls to stand up to them?

No wonder the Democrats have gotten nothing done.

Want hope? Want change? Let’s see some real leadership from Reid and Pelosi, or a change in leadership if those two can’t get it done. Let’s see Team Blue get their own soundbites own there, show the Republicans a little backbone. Let’s see the insightful and incisive puncturing of the over-inflated rhetoric. Why are you appeasing the people who have screwed you over time after time after time?

Read Full Post »

Was it a collective hallucination?!

First Dana Perino, then Mary Matalin… and now Rudy Giuliani?

Today on Good Morning America, Giuliani said:

“We had no domestic attacks under Bush; we’ve had one under Obama.”

Let me revisit the first half of this comment.

“We had no domestic attacks under Bush”

Is there anyone out there reading this blog who has forgotten that the following small matter ever took place?

Anyone remember the guy who was supposedly such a big hero for his handling of that particular crisis? The guy who subsequently got an honorary knighthood from Queen Elizabeth II? You know, that Giuliani fella?

In Mein Kampf, Adolf Hitler wrote that people will more readily accept a big lie [“Große Lüge“] than a small one, because “they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously.”

Is this what the GOP is reduced to now? It seems unlikely that three prominent conservative figures could coincidentally make the same colossal mistake within a short period of time.

Or – and here is the still more sinister idea – is this an implication that 9/11 was not in fact a terrorist attack? The conspiracy theories have been flying since about 9/12/2001, suggesting that it was an inside job of some kind. Could it be that a big reveal is on the way, and certain out-of-power figures are going to become the fall guys for it?

Giuliani surprised a few people by announcing that he would not run for any office in 2010. Is he intentionally distancing himself? Will he storm back into the 2012 field like a knight in shining armor to save his party?

Something a little odd is afoot.

Read Full Post »

Thinning the 2012 field

So, as all the world now knows, South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford has become the latest politician publicly revealed as being unable to keep it in his pants.

It’s no secret, especially in these troubled times, that people in positions of power have stressful jobs and sometimes need to get away from their day-to-day lives. However, this doesn’t necessarily extend so far as to simply disappear without a word to your family or your staff as to where the hell you might be. That’s irresponsible at best, and criminally negligent at worst.

The fact that he was in Argentina having an affair, though sensationalized by the media, is very much secondary to the dereliction of duty we saw there.

Also, Governor? Don’t blab about family values and the Ten Commandments while you’re screwing around. That kind of hypocrisy will come back to bite you in the ass.

Which brings me to 2012.

Sanford was considered to be a contender for the Republican nomination. I think he can probably kiss that prospect goodbye.

We’ve already seen John Ensign fall victim to the same issue, Bobby Jindal firmly stick his foot in his mouth on (among other things) volcano monitoring, Newt Gingrich get blasted for calling Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor a racist, Rick Perry suggest that his state secede from the Union….

Things don’t looks so good for the GOP in 2012. Romney and Barbour are certainly prospects, but for how long?

Did they all get together at the party convention last year, shake a Magic 8-ball and say “OK, in April *point* YOU get to screw it up, and *shake* here’s how. In May, it’s *point* YOUR turn, and you’ll do it *shake* like this…”

Next, we’ll find incriminating pictures of Sarah Palin with HER hot Argentinian mistress.

Actually, I’d pay good money to see that.

NOTE: I know that there has been no shortage of Democrats with blanketeering issues (Clinton, Edwards, Spitzer etc.) – but they’re not the ones in the news right now.

Read Full Post »

Damn Specter stealing my thunder

Oh, sure. I put up a politics-related post, and some misfit senator has to go and make a party switch. Way to go, Arlen Specter. Thanks for ensuring that you’re the only political thing anyone wants to read about on a day when I posted about something entirely else.

Aw, who am I kidding? It’s pretty sweet. The Senate has another Democrat. Admittedly, it’s a guy who was the Dems’ easiest target when they needed to win a vote from across the aisle, but it serves to send the message that the Republican Party is increasingly becoming a minority party simply due to their incessant attempts to play to the hysterical far-right base.

This switch doesn’t mean that much in terms of the actual votes. Sure, the Republicans don’t really have the option to threaten a filibuster any more (especially if/when Coleman runs out of options and Franken finally gets seated), but Specter and the other more moderate Senators on both sides will still be voting their consciences rather than sticking to the party line. Otherwise, nobody would actually give a flying fuck about Senator Nelson other than his Nebraska constituents.

What this means, perhaps crucially, is that in 2010, when Specter is up for re-election, he will probably get the Democratic party nomination and beat Pat Toomey handily. Had he stayed Republican, Toomey would probably have beaten him out in the primary and the Senate would have lost a longtime voice of reason. (NB: by ‘reason’, I mean an intelligent, level-headed moderate. I don’t always agree with Specter, but I don’t hold with extreme ideologues on either side.)

Despite the general inclination to vote his conscience, though… in order to consolidate his position as a Democrat, Specter may throw his backing behind some of the more crucial reforms of the Obama agenda which he otherwise might not have; this would make it all the more likely that he gets the nod in ’10.

So welcome to the party of Yes, Arlen Specter. Good to have you.

Now if we could just get Norm Coleman to FREAKING QUIT ALREADY. YOU LOST. GET OVER IT.

Read Full Post »

One more teabag joke, for the road

As the sun sets on one of the most amusing double-entendre-fests ever to grace cable news, we should perhaps ask one question: was it worth it?

Did the teabagging work?

I think we have definitely seen a stiffening of the Republican Party’s resolve. There was some question over whether they could keep it up, but they took a potentially hairy issue and found an innovative way to come to grips with it.

I think ultimately the teabagging phenomenon is a symptom of a deeper malaise affecting the party as a whole. Michael Steele in particular needs to be a lot more rigid. Some days it seems he wants to have it both ways, other days it’s like he doesn’t want it at all. Mind you, to be fair, he has to contend for the head job with Rush Limbaugh, and you just know Limbaugh has to be a bear to be up against.

OK, done now. For real.

Read Full Post »