A place to rant about politics, the media, and especially the electorate. Much like alcohol, the electorate is both the cause of, and the solution to, all of America's problems.

Location: Seattle, Washington

Tuesday, January 31, 2006

Where'd these people come from?

My little site-statistics thingamabob is telling me that there are actually people looking at this blog. I guess that means I should write something... Sigh.

Sunday, January 15, 2006

Shorter WSJ:


States' rights! States' rights? What? There aren't any dirty rotten negroes involved? It's a big business thing?

Federal government! Federal government!

Monday, January 09, 2006

Beyond a reasonable doubt?

Ahh... to be a black man in Iowa...

A man was sentenced to 25 years in prison on sexual abuse and burglary charges, despite the victim recanting her allegation...

... The woman testified at trial for the prosecution, but returned the following day as a defense witness and minimized the burglary saying Anderson had a key to her home.

The woman also testified that Anderson didn't assault her.

She testified that she and Anderson had an argument the day before and that police exaggerated details of the incident.

Can somebody - anybody - please answer the following specific question: How is it UNreasonable to doubt the guilt of a defendant when the alleged victim testifies in his defense?

Note: I couldn't find and pictures of the defendant via a web search. I assume he's black because (a) his name, and (b) you almost have to be black for a jury to return a beyond-a-reasonable-doubt conviction in this sort of situation.

Jack who?

From USA Today, so much for the "Jack who?" defense...

Contrary to their headline, there is nothing at all controversial about Abramoff. All sides agree (belatedly on the republican side, but whatever) that Jack is a lying, thieving sonofabitch. The USA Today headline is thus nothing more than another idiotic attempt to appear "fair and balanced" - at least to dumbass republican voters. A more correct headline would be something like "Lobbyist felon had close contact with Bush team".

A few more items, in case anyone is still not up to speed:

(1) The Abramoff crime scandal is a REPUBLICAN crime scandal (clip from Crooks & Liars). Abramoff is one of the primary architects of the "culture of corruption" we've heard bandied about. Don't let anyone lie and tell you otherwise. To the best of anyone's knowledge (any people have been looking hard), Abramoff never gave a dime to a Democrat.

(2) 200 contacts with the bush administration? I wish I knew what the greatest number of contacts was, so that I knew where to place this fact.

(3) I wonder how many republicans will go down on charges before republican voters take their heads out of their asses.

(4) Another republican talking point is that the current republican Congress is no worse that the Democratic Congress before Newt's "velvet revolution". First, what the hell kind of defense is that? From the perspective of the people putting this point out there, it's like saying you're no worse than a murderer. Great defense - sheesh.

Moreover, even if it were true that the Democrats of 10+ years ago were that bad, notice that it took them 40+ years to get that way. Republicans started off that bad from the get-go, and achieved indictment fame after only about 10 years.

(5) There's a lot of talk from republicans trying to cover their asses about "lobbying reform". That's approximately the least relevant thing in the world - don't fall for it. Not that lobbyists aren't oftentimes sleazy folks - they are. But the problem with Abramoff was quid-pro-quo (tit-for-tat) stuff. Without the quo (tat) side, Abramoff is nothing but a tit. The real problem is simple: republican officeholders are criminals. If Abramoff had not been around, the criminals would have found another outlet for their criminal instincts. The solution is equally simple, theoretically at least: get rid of all Congressional criminals. At the moment that means republicans, but in general it could include Democrats as well.

We'll see what happens though, as to which republican voters care more about: not being ruled by criminals, or protecting their various bigotries. They can't have both.