![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
From Twitter 11-17-2010
Nov. 18th, 2010 02:02 amTweets copied by twittinesis.com
Nov. 18th, 2010
Busy, but this deserves attention.
Nov. 18th, 2010 01:30 pmEarlier this week Charles Rangel was convicted by the House Ethics Committee of unethical behavior in not reporting income on several rental houses, on holding four rent-controlled apartments in New York, and other financial corruption.
Today they recommended a sentence, to be voted up or down by the whole House: censure.
Imagine, if you will, a thief having been caught climbing out a window with a sack full of jewelry and a flatscreen TV under one arm. Now imagine that, after conviction, the judge recommended to the jury... that the thief be told, "You're a naughty, naughty boy," and then be released.
That's censure. And that's a joke. It's quite literally no punishment at all. It does no harm whatsoever to the political career of the convicted.
Last week, when I read that the Republicans intend to abolish the Ethics Committee altogether, I was annoyed. Obviously, I thought, Republicans are all in favor of corruption.
But now I've come round to their way of thinking. If you're not willing to punish a criminal, don't waste our time with the goddamn show trial. Don't pretend that you're not just as corrupt and greedy as the person you're investigating.
In fact, how about we abolish congressional investigations altogether? Can anyone name me one instance in the past twenty years where a congressional investigation has led to any policy being changed, any criminal being prosecuted, any net benefit to society whatsoever?
Because I sure can't think of any. Congressional inquiries have just become yet another opportunity for politicians to bloviate in front of cameras. It's a waste of time and money- and further an affront to the idea of the rule of law.
It's long since time we had an independent Justice Department- not one that serves solely at the pleasure of the President and takes his orders. Then maybe- MAYBE- we could get investigations AND prosecutions AND convictions AND punishments that amount to more than shaking a finger at a fat old rich man and saying, "Shame, shame, shame."
Today they recommended a sentence, to be voted up or down by the whole House: censure.
Imagine, if you will, a thief having been caught climbing out a window with a sack full of jewelry and a flatscreen TV under one arm. Now imagine that, after conviction, the judge recommended to the jury... that the thief be told, "You're a naughty, naughty boy," and then be released.
That's censure. And that's a joke. It's quite literally no punishment at all. It does no harm whatsoever to the political career of the convicted.
Last week, when I read that the Republicans intend to abolish the Ethics Committee altogether, I was annoyed. Obviously, I thought, Republicans are all in favor of corruption.
But now I've come round to their way of thinking. If you're not willing to punish a criminal, don't waste our time with the goddamn show trial. Don't pretend that you're not just as corrupt and greedy as the person you're investigating.
In fact, how about we abolish congressional investigations altogether? Can anyone name me one instance in the past twenty years where a congressional investigation has led to any policy being changed, any criminal being prosecuted, any net benefit to society whatsoever?
Because I sure can't think of any. Congressional inquiries have just become yet another opportunity for politicians to bloviate in front of cameras. It's a waste of time and money- and further an affront to the idea of the rule of law.
It's long since time we had an independent Justice Department- not one that serves solely at the pleasure of the President and takes his orders. Then maybe- MAYBE- we could get investigations AND prosecutions AND convictions AND punishments that amount to more than shaking a finger at a fat old rich man and saying, "Shame, shame, shame."
Busy, but this deserves attention.
Nov. 18th, 2010 01:30 pmEarlier this week Charles Rangel was convicted by the House Ethics Committee of unethical behavior in not reporting income on several rental houses, on holding four rent-controlled apartments in New York, and other financial corruption.
Today they recommended a sentence, to be voted up or down by the whole House: censure.
Imagine, if you will, a thief having been caught climbing out a window with a sack full of jewelry and a flatscreen TV under one arm. Now imagine that, after conviction, the judge recommended to the jury... that the thief be told, "You're a naughty, naughty boy," and then be released.
That's censure. And that's a joke. It's quite literally no punishment at all. It does no harm whatsoever to the political career of the convicted.
Last week, when I read that the Republicans intend to abolish the Ethics Committee altogether, I was annoyed. Obviously, I thought, Republicans are all in favor of corruption.
But now I've come round to their way of thinking. If you're not willing to punish a criminal, don't waste our time with the goddamn show trial. Don't pretend that you're not just as corrupt and greedy as the person you're investigating.
In fact, how about we abolish congressional investigations altogether? Can anyone name me one instance in the past twenty years where a congressional investigation has led to any policy being changed, any criminal being prosecuted, any net benefit to society whatsoever?
Because I sure can't think of any. Congressional inquiries have just become yet another opportunity for politicians to bloviate in front of cameras. It's a waste of time and money- and further an affront to the idea of the rule of law.
It's long since time we had an independent Justice Department- not one that serves solely at the pleasure of the President and takes his orders. Then maybe- MAYBE- we could get investigations AND prosecutions AND convictions AND punishments that amount to more than shaking a finger at a fat old rich man and saying, "Shame, shame, shame."
Today they recommended a sentence, to be voted up or down by the whole House: censure.
Imagine, if you will, a thief having been caught climbing out a window with a sack full of jewelry and a flatscreen TV under one arm. Now imagine that, after conviction, the judge recommended to the jury... that the thief be told, "You're a naughty, naughty boy," and then be released.
That's censure. And that's a joke. It's quite literally no punishment at all. It does no harm whatsoever to the political career of the convicted.
Last week, when I read that the Republicans intend to abolish the Ethics Committee altogether, I was annoyed. Obviously, I thought, Republicans are all in favor of corruption.
But now I've come round to their way of thinking. If you're not willing to punish a criminal, don't waste our time with the goddamn show trial. Don't pretend that you're not just as corrupt and greedy as the person you're investigating.
In fact, how about we abolish congressional investigations altogether? Can anyone name me one instance in the past twenty years where a congressional investigation has led to any policy being changed, any criminal being prosecuted, any net benefit to society whatsoever?
Because I sure can't think of any. Congressional inquiries have just become yet another opportunity for politicians to bloviate in front of cameras. It's a waste of time and money- and further an affront to the idea of the rule of law.
It's long since time we had an independent Justice Department- not one that serves solely at the pleasure of the President and takes his orders. Then maybe- MAYBE- we could get investigations AND prosecutions AND convictions AND punishments that amount to more than shaking a finger at a fat old rich man and saying, "Shame, shame, shame."
Rick Perry advocates for invading Mexico.
And if you read closely, you'll note that he also thinks the Army is a branch of law enforcement.
The collective stupidity of my state for re-electing this would-be Franco knows no bounds.
And if you read closely, you'll note that he also thinks the Army is a branch of law enforcement.
The collective stupidity of my state for re-electing this would-be Franco knows no bounds.
Rick Perry advocates for invading Mexico.
And if you read closely, you'll note that he also thinks the Army is a branch of law enforcement.
The collective stupidity of my state for re-electing this would-be Franco knows no bounds.
And if you read closely, you'll note that he also thinks the Army is a branch of law enforcement.
The collective stupidity of my state for re-electing this would-be Franco knows no bounds.
Einstein and Insanity, Again
Nov. 18th, 2010 06:58 pmOBAMA: Well, shuckee darn, looks like I kinda lost the mid-terms. Well, how about we have a nice bipartisan meeting and dinner to set the agenda for 2011 and find some nice bipartisan things we can do for the country?
SENATE MAJORITY LEADER-TO-BE MCCONNELL: We Republicans can't attend, because we're too busy having our own dinner where we're going to brag about how we're going to kick your ass in 2011.
OBAMA: Oh, well, I'm sure that's very important, and nothing at all to suggest that you might be less than cooperative with me in running the country.
... yes, that last bit is accurate, or at least accurate from his spokespersons:
This has gone well beyond failure to learn from experience. This is into either-delusional-or-crooked territory. Obama just appears incapable of recognizing that the Republican Party is at war with him, and damn the collateral damage, and that he needs to start fighting back...
... no, I'll be briefer. Obama just appears incapable, full stop.
(For example, incapable of scheduling a "bipartisan" meeting on a night when the Federalist Society is NOT having its annual dinner... dumbass.)
SENATE MAJORITY LEADER-TO-BE MCCONNELL: We Republicans can't attend, because we're too busy having our own dinner where we're going to brag about how we're going to kick your ass in 2011.
OBAMA: Oh, well, I'm sure that's very important, and nothing at all to suggest that you might be less than cooperative with me in running the country.
... yes, that last bit is accurate, or at least accurate from his spokespersons:
Obama spokesmen have generally avoided portraying the move as a deliberate brush-off by Republicans.An official statement from the White House ascribed the dinner's move to Nov. 30 to "scheduling conflicts," and White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs told reporters in an off-camera briefing on Thursday, "Sen. McConnell does not make it a regular practice of showing us his daily schedule. ... Again, we are looking forward to sitting down with leaders on both sides on November 30."
This has gone well beyond failure to learn from experience. This is into either-delusional-or-crooked territory. Obama just appears incapable of recognizing that the Republican Party is at war with him, and damn the collateral damage, and that he needs to start fighting back...
... no, I'll be briefer. Obama just appears incapable, full stop.
(For example, incapable of scheduling a "bipartisan" meeting on a night when the Federalist Society is NOT having its annual dinner... dumbass.)
Einstein and Insanity, Again
Nov. 18th, 2010 06:58 pmOBAMA: Well, shuckee darn, looks like I kinda lost the mid-terms. Well, how about we have a nice bipartisan meeting and dinner to set the agenda for 2011 and find some nice bipartisan things we can do for the country?
SENATE MAJORITY LEADER-TO-BE MCCONNELL: We Republicans can't attend, because we're too busy having our own dinner where we're going to brag about how we're going to kick your ass in 2011.
OBAMA: Oh, well, I'm sure that's very important, and nothing at all to suggest that you might be less than cooperative with me in running the country.
... yes, that last bit is accurate, or at least accurate from his spokespersons:
This has gone well beyond failure to learn from experience. This is into either-delusional-or-crooked territory. Obama just appears incapable of recognizing that the Republican Party is at war with him, and damn the collateral damage, and that he needs to start fighting back...
... no, I'll be briefer. Obama just appears incapable, full stop.
(For example, incapable of scheduling a "bipartisan" meeting on a night when the Federalist Society is NOT having its annual dinner... dumbass.)
SENATE MAJORITY LEADER-TO-BE MCCONNELL: We Republicans can't attend, because we're too busy having our own dinner where we're going to brag about how we're going to kick your ass in 2011.
OBAMA: Oh, well, I'm sure that's very important, and nothing at all to suggest that you might be less than cooperative with me in running the country.
... yes, that last bit is accurate, or at least accurate from his spokespersons:
Obama spokesmen have generally avoided portraying the move as a deliberate brush-off by Republicans.An official statement from the White House ascribed the dinner's move to Nov. 30 to "scheduling conflicts," and White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs told reporters in an off-camera briefing on Thursday, "Sen. McConnell does not make it a regular practice of showing us his daily schedule. ... Again, we are looking forward to sitting down with leaders on both sides on November 30."
This has gone well beyond failure to learn from experience. This is into either-delusional-or-crooked territory. Obama just appears incapable of recognizing that the Republican Party is at war with him, and damn the collateral damage, and that he needs to start fighting back...
... no, I'll be briefer. Obama just appears incapable, full stop.
(For example, incapable of scheduling a "bipartisan" meeting on a night when the Federalist Society is NOT having its annual dinner... dumbass.)