You are currently browsing the monthly archive for November 2007.
Yesterday I wrote about the sort of supporters Congressional candidate Mark Pera is attracting in his effort to oust incumbent Dan “annointed son” Lipinski from his Congressional fiefdom seat.
To be fair, I should also note the kind of support Rep. Lipinski has managed to attract (or rather, the kind of support the Lipinski family name seems able to attract), as seen in this Fox News segment.
The Pera campaign notes that one piece of information is missing from that Fox News report: Neither Lipinski the Elder nor the Younger bothered to circulate any petitions whatsoever for the reelection campaign. While certainly incumbents tend to be busy people, so are challengers (usually). Getting out and gathering a few John Hancocks for your own campaign is the least a candidate can do. And, really, talking with constituents is something every incumbent ought to be doing anyway, just to keep tabs on the interests of the people they’re charged with representing.
(Disclosures: I have friends who are working for the Pera campaign.)
Tom Toles takes his own WaPo to task for running a front-page story dedicated to rumors about Barack Obama.
Priceless.
This was not an article about debunking the rumors lies; it was an article rehashing and repeating the already debunked rumors and explaining how his foes are repeating the rumors lies. Nowhere in the article did the reporter mention that these “rumors” are actually “lies” (though he did admit they are “falsehoods” in his subsequent excuse-making explanation). Nowhere in the article did he bother to mention other news outlets had independently researched the “rumors” and found them to be “lies” … let alone that all of that news work demonstrating the “rumors’” fallacy was done months ago.
Say… what happened to that (not really) liberal media?!? I’m sure the conservo-partisans over at Newsbusters.crap are all over this junior high-level rumor mongering on the front page of one of our nation’s premier newspapers.
Greg Sargent gets the last word:
…the problem here is that WaPo, and not just Obama, should have “denied the accuracy” of the Obama-is-a-Muslim nonsense. The Obama Muslim smear is based on lies, not “rumors.” [WaPo reporter Perry] Bacon in his [explanatory] statement above calls the Obama Muslim smears “falsehoods.” But they aren’t identified as such in the piece. That’s what everyone is yelling about.
(h/t IMGoph)
The DNC lists the wild-eyed, got-caught-doing-the-deed spin from cross-dresser and serial adulterer Rudy Giuliani. The GOP hopes you’ll ignore Rudy’s own “revolving Wheel o’ Excuses” (h/t Kagro X):
NEWEST: IT WAS THE COPS! “I HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE HANDLING OF THEIR RECORDS. Giuliani was asked: “They say the report says you took trips to the Hampton’s, expensed the cost of your police detail to obscure city offices. One, that is true? If so, is it appropriate? Referring to his security detail, he said “They put in their records. They handled them in the way they handled them. I had nothing to do with the handling of their records. They were handled as far as I know perfectly appropriately.” [Debate, 11/28/07]
REALITY: Giuliani’s Office Refused Auditors Document Requests. But in 2002, writing to newly elected Mayor Michael Bloomberg, the City’s Comptroller wrote that “The Mayor’s Office refused to provide my auditors with supporting documentation for the payments” under investigation. [1/24/02 letter]
REALITY: Team Giuliani Keeps Changing Their Answers.
EARLIER THEY TRIED THESE ANSWERS
TRY THIS: “SECURITY.” In 2001 and 2002, when city auditors questioned the expenses, the mayor’s office refused to provide the documents, citing “security.” [Politico.com, 11/28/07]
TRY THIS: “ACCOUNTING.” Speaking with the Politico, which broke the story, “A Giuliani aide…denied that the unorthodox billing practices were aimed at hiding the expenses, citing ‘accounting.’” [Politico.com, 11/28/07]
TRY THIS: “COMMON PRACTICE.” Denying charges to the CBS Evening News, the Giuliani campaign said “this is common practice.” [CBS Evening News, 11/28/07]TRY THIS “HE DID EVERYTHING APPROPRIATE.” Campaign surrogate Congressman Peter King told ABC: “The mayor did absolutely nothing improper, he did everything appropriate, the NYPD did everything appropriate. And even if you read the story carefully it does not say the mayor billed anyone for anything. But again, Mayor Giuliani and his staff, city hall will give a definitive answer. But I can assure you now that everything was done properly and there is absolutely nothing to it.” ["Political Radar," ABCNews.com, 11/28/07]
TRY THIS: “LEGITIMATE EXPENSES,” “FACT OF LIFE” The evening the story broke, top Giuliani aide Tony Carbonetti told the Associated Press that “these were all legitimate expenses incurred in protecting the mayor, and his police detail covered him wherever he went, 24/7.” He continued to say “You just do what you do and the police go with you. That’s just a fact of life when you’re the mayor of New York.” [Associated Press, 11/28/07]
TRY THIS: WE’LL INVESTIGATE. Carbonetti then told reporters in the same time period “that he has ordered an investigation, and “he does not know why the charges were accounted for” in this way. He continued to say “I first learned the fact of this today,” and while he had “heard about something like this a few days ago” he “was told it was being handled.” ["The Trail," WashingtonPost.com, 11/28/07]
“He did everything appropriate?” Leaving the city you are leading, in the wake of 9/11, (not too mention leaving your wife) to run off for an affair with your mistress in the Hamptons … and charging the tab to the taxpayers … is not appropriate. (This coming from the party that found Clinton’s affair so inappropriate they tried to impeach him for it. While I agree the act and the obfuscation were despicable, he never billed the taxpayers for it.)
Matt Jerzyk puts it succinctly:
The bottom line is that Giuliani was using public money while he was sneaking off to have an affair. Then he tried to cover it up.
Real Presidential.
A few weeks back, Rich Miller talked about the support which the Pera campaign for Congress (among others) is receiving from bloggers. That support is certainly having an effect as it helps Pera raise funds and national awareness about the upcoming Feb. 5th Democratic primary in Illinois. But, the day when bloggers can bring voters out to the polls is likely still a long way off. The effect still seems to be more of a momentum-changing thing rather than a GOTV thing.
What can get voters out to the polls is grassroots support. As such, this new ad truly speaks for itself as Iraq War vet Trevor Montgomery explains why he has literally dropped everything to support Mark Pera’s primary campaign.
Mark Halperin’s not exactly a shining example of journamalism, but he’s reporting that then-Mayor Rudy Giuliani may have tried hiding costs associated for possible Hamptons love romps with his then-mistress (now-wife) Judith Nathan: Giuliani Used Little-Known Agencies to Bill NYC Taxpayers for Hamptons Visits.
I wonder if that sort of fuzzy math comes with satin sheets and mirrored ceilings…
And this is a guy at the front of the pack for the “party of moral values”? Seems like they’ve lost their moral compass. Maybe it’s at the bottom of Long Island Sound.
As frequent Illinois Reason visitor DWLawson noted, he and I have been engaging in conversation regarding our Constitution’s Second Amendment and, specifically, how to treat the word “infringe”.
Basically, due to the phrase “shall not be infringed” he sees no room for any sort of regulation regarding, “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.“
On the other hand, I find that “in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity” we as a society must be able to regulate and supervise the rights and privileges we have provided for ourselves, lest those rights and privileges become overly abused. We do this by regulating speech despite the language found in the First Amendment — guarding against harm by outlawing fraud, libel, slander, incitement, etc.
The Constitution, in essence, conflicts with itself. Domestic tranquility and the like cannot be provided for in an onslaught of gun violence, yet the Second Amendment provides for a right to bear arms.
To Dave, the solution to this conundrum lies in reacting to those who would abuse guns (and thus shatter “domestic tranquility” by causing violence with their guns) by locking them up and/or shooting them in self-defense. His answer is more guns as a deterrant (“Don’t dare aim your gun at me because you don’t know if I’m Quick Draw McGraw or not”) combined with enforcement of existing murder, manslaughter and battery laws.
I’d rather be proactive in the theory that if we as a society see a given abuse happening routinely and often, we ought to take steps to prevent that abuse (in this case, misuse of guns) from continuing. My solution involves regulating and supervising guns, while still allowing for our right to bear arms.
To Dave, this means I’m a “statist” — wanting to cede power held by the people to the state. That’s an odd way of thinking about it, since it is we the people who instruct the state what to do through our Constitutional rights and obligations (not just voting, though that is an essential part of it). The problem for folks like Dave is that when they lose in the democratic republican process (little-l and little-r), they see it as the end of the world and begin constructing hyperboles and conspiracies in order to cope with the fact they lost an election or a legislative vote.
So now you know the two sides we’re coming from.
Dave posted a run-down of his view of our conversation at his blog, “We Are the Militia.” Please read it before continuing here.
In addition to my earlier replies in comments on this blog (here and here), following is a more complete reply to his commentary about what he ultimately labels my “twisted logic” (not that I don’t find his own parsing and imaginary boundaries to also be based on “twisted logic”, let alone short-sightedness and a host of other choice words).
I understand Dave’s premises perfectly well, I simply disagree. Whereas he equivocates on what should or should not be considered “arms” under 2A, I think it’s clear that 2A is designed to include all arms. Whereas he believes the phrasing of the Second Amendment does not allow for any legislation regarding those arms whatsoever (at least not the arms he thinks the Founders intended), I believe there is room — in order to maintain the general welfare — for the people to supervise arms through reasonable legislation.
A few other points to consider…
Let’s start with his essay’s end: an interesting analogy that he recites, which commenters to his blog seem to think is valid.
So it seems the “infringe” is accurately defined as “encroach”.
Imagine this analogy (h/t to 45superman for the analogy).
Rob and I have adjoining properties. My fence “encroaches” on his property two feet, thus taking part of his yard.
According to Rob, that’s ok, because he still has plenty of yard left.
So how much encroachment is necessary before Rob has had enough and demands I move the fence? Would I have to take his entire yard?
By Rob’s twisted logic, since I have not taken his entire yard, I have not encroached on his property.
Chicago and Cook County Ordinances significantly restrict the type of arms that residents can own. Dan’s SB1007 and SB16 both would extend restrictions to the entire state.
Before his friends run around using this yard analogy (they already are) they may take care to realize it’s apples to oranges. You can’t encroach on property you don’t own. As point of fact, several commenters at this blog and others admitted they did not yet own the sort of weapons Sen. Kotowski’s legislation was designed to regulate, but that they were hoping to run out and buy them before the legislation went into effect. Again, you can’t encroach on property you don’t own, even if you plan to buy it soon.
Even at that, the grandfathering clauses enshrined in the legislation allowed Dave (should he already own the weapons) to continue to own them so long as they bought them before the law went into effect. Again, the analogy fails because it does not reflect reality.
Earlier in his remarks, Dave repeated two annoying lies.
First, he writes:
Statists such as Mayor Daley and Dan “the Ban” Kowtowski feel that only the police and military should have guns.
(…Odd that Dave would claim such given the NRA’s front group NSSF sent out a false mailer in Kotowski’s district claiming he wanted to take guns away from even the military.) This is akin to Dave and his comrades’ claims that Sen. Kotowski would take guns away from people; that he is somehow a “gun grabber”.
As I noted, his proposed legislation allows citizens who already own the weapons to keep them. That Dave would lie about that simply means he’s bought into the ISRA’s spin (they produce the spin to try and keep sympathizers like Dave in the fold).
His second lie is more disturbing because it demonstrates an utter lack of respect for honesty. Dave wrote:
Dan also likes to send the storm troopers to the houses of those that lawfully voice their dissent with his attempts to violate the U.S. Constitution.
The police are hardly “storm troopers” (with all the Nazi connotations I’m sure Dave intended, since his comrades have also used the phrase with precisely that meaning). They were conducting an investigation into alleged death threats (1, 2, and 3) as Dave and everyone who has followed the issue well knows. Or, does Dave not think the message “I have a gun. I’m coming to kill you,” is not an apparent death threat?
The only (only) person who has come forward to protest such a visit by detectives is one Mr. Tom Warchol, who outed his own anonymity some time ago by going on NRA Radio’s “Cam & Company” show. Though he and the ISRA have repeatedly asserted his message to Sen. Kotowski was ‘not threatening‘, neither he nor the ISRA have ever publicly posted the contents of his original message in one of the ISRA’s common press releases.
Perhaps his comments to Sen. Kotowski were benign and even “utterly cordial” (as Mr. Hoffman puts it), but without seeing the message we can’t judge it.
And since we cannot judge it for ourselves, we must review what is already known about Mr. Warchol. For that, I turn to Kurt “45 Superman” Hoffman who explained that Mr. Warchol made a whopper of an exaggeration (intentionally or not) during his NRA Radio interview, claiming his own State Senator (Pam Altoff, R-Crystal Lake) told him the state police visited 500 homes in the course of their investigation into alleged death threats against Sen. Kotowski. In fact, she said nothing of the kind to him. What she actually told him was that Sen. Kotowski received about 500 messages from pro-gun advocates.
Big difference.
As I’ve remarked before, I don’t take issue with the folks who think differently on 2A than I do. We are each entitled to our opinions and have the right to voice and defend those opinions. On election day we can take concrete action to reflect those opinions. Every other day we can write and speak and debate to voice those opinions.
What I do take issue with, however, are the lies the pro-2A gang continuously try to spread in order to smear Sen. Kotowski.
In that light, I am no “apologist” as Dave claims. What is there to apologize for since I’m simply explaining my beliefs and defending a guy from lies being spread about him? I’m pointing out the truths that Dave and others routinely choose to ignore — as he has done yet again with his latest blogpost. No need for me to apologize the actions of Dave and others.
Finally, thanks for the compliments Dave; right back at you.
Paul Richardson posted in this morning’s Capital Fax Morning Shorts about 14th CD Republican Congressional candidate Chris Lauzen “winning” something called the Ben Franklin Award from a group known as the 60 Plus Association. 60+ is a self-declared “non-partisan” organization pitching itself as “the conservative alternative to the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP).”
In reality, this “non-partisan” group can’t seem to get enough photos of Pres. George Bush up on their homepage. And, they’ve been labeled a Big Pharma front group in the past because most of their funding appears to be derived from pharmaceutical companies, not individual citizen members. In return, the group routinely advocates for the conservative partisan, Big Business side in any debates about health care, prescription drugs, social security, and more.
In fact, according to an AARP investigation the 60 Plus Association and other Big Pharma front groups had listed absolutely zero funds from membership dues on their tax forms as of 2001. That strongly implies they have few, if any, actual members. Go figure.
If getting funding from a major player in the political arena and advocating only one political philosophy in all matters (rather than encouraging bipartisanship and compromise, as AARP does) is what passes for “non-partisan”, then George Bush’s friends at the 60 Plus Association are about as non-partisan as Daily Kos or Illinois Review…
In other words, they’re only non-partisan in the strictest definition of the word since they are not directly affiliated with or funded by a political party. 60 Plus’ admitted bias toward conservative platforms, however, does reveal them to be partisan in more commonly accepted definitions of the word. Indeed, both their Pres. James Martin and honorary chair, Ret. Congressman Roger Zion (R-IN), are staunch advocates for “the conservative cause”.
It’s little surprise the highly partisan conservatives at the 60 Plus Association would give their meaningless award to a fellow anti-tax conservative such as Chris Lauzen.
That they named their MacGuffin trophy after Ben Franklin is demeaning to his legacy of forthrightness and intellectual curiosity and Mr. Lauzen ought to refuse to accept it.
If not, what’s next for Lauzen? A photo op bus tour of Potemkin villages in the 14th?
(Sorta cross-posted as a comment over CapFax’s Morning Shorts.)
What’re you thankful for this Thanksgiving? I’m thankful most of all for my wonderful family and friends and all the blessings we’re able to share.
This blog has from time to time discussed Andy Schlafly and his conserv-o-partisan “Conservapedia”, which is mislabeled as “The Trustworthy Encyclopedia”. In reality, this work of fiction gives rational, honest conservatives everywhere a black eye by promoting some of the more silly “rhetoric” (if it can be called that) on the Internets.
Interestingly, nine of the ten most popular topics at Andy-Boy’s conservative wiki (trailing only the main page in popularity) deal with issues which one might think are not on the top of most folks’ gaydar radar but apparently are mighty important matters for social conservatives.
From the Conservapedia “Statistics” page:
Most viewed pages
- Main Page [1,912,012]
- Homosexuality [1,583,882]
- Homosexuality and Hepatitis [517,345]
- Homosexuality and Promiscuity [421,055]
- Gay Bowel Syndrome [393,822]
- Homosexuality and Parasites [388,470]
- Homosexuality and Domestic Violence [373,149]
- Homosexuality and Gonorrhea [331,665]
- Homosexuality and Mental Health [292,657]
- Homosexual Agenda [270,376]
Why are cons so fascinated by teh gay? What is it that they find so appealling? Recall that curiosity killed the cat, so it’s a good thing the Republicans (conservatives included) are represented by elephants.
That said, what the heck is “gay bowel syndrome” and why does Andy Schlafly’s Conservapedia find it so … alluring … that it’s in the Top 5?
Suitable for framing…
Be sure to keep all this info quiet from Petey LaBarbera lest he find himself lost in ‘research’.
(h/t Cheers & Jeers and Graham)
Did you know that if you put unpopped popcorn kernels in the turkey they’ll pop while it’s roasting and you’ll have instant popcorn stuffing?
Hilariously, that apparently was one of the few goofball remarks that Illinois Review contributors failed to post in their Day of Doody.
Archpundit takes the Review gang to task by highlighting such gems as Jill Stanek linking (in all seriousness) to kooky claims that Terry Schiavo was fully aware despite having nearly half her brain literally and sadly being liquified and George Dienhart rambling on about what he believes are qualifications for being considered anti-American, including opposing Pres. Bush’s failing NCLB of all things. (Arch also points out Fran Eaton’s two-faced regurgitation of anti-Bob Creamer points. I’ll have more on that in a bit.)
But while you’re passing the popcorn and cracking up over the Ill Reviewers’ inanities, don’t forget to read their best Alfred E. Neuman impression in the whiney comments from Ms. Stanek and Mr. Dienhart who, unfortunately for them, don’t read what they write and link to…
These people want to be considered serious? (Worse, anyone actually takes them seriously?)
It’s ok, though. I hear Bill Clinton made them do it… perhaps by using his sax appeal.
(As an aside, good thing Ron Paul fan C-Rock hasn’t tracked down George Dienhart’s anti-Paul squeel. He might find a new blog to enjoy. 
…I do find it really bizarre that Paul supporters were calling uber-conservative Mr. Dienhart “lefty”. So much in-fighting, so many kilobytes in which to do it.)
Talk about dumping a stinking, steaming load on our vets… Via Carpetbagger Report:
When Jordan Fox was serving in Iraq, his mother helped organize Operation Pittsburgh Pride, which sends thousands of care packages to U.S. troops from his hometown, which prompted a personal “thank you” from the White House. When Fox was seriously injured in Iraq, the president sent what appeared to be personal note, expressing his concerns to the Fox family.
But more recently, Fox received a different piece of correspondence from the Bush administration.
The U.S. Military is demanding that thousands of wounded service personnel give back signing bonuses because they are unable to serve out their commitments.
To get people to sign up, the military gives enlistment bonuses up to $30,000 in some cases.
Now men and women who have lost arms, legs, eyesight, hearing and can no longer serve are being ordered to pay some of that money back.
[...] Last week, the Pentagon sent him a bill: Fox owed the government nearly $3,000 of his signing bonus.
Is this sort of spit-in-a-vet’s-face attitude what Republicans mean by “smaller government” and “saving tax dollars”? What are they so fond of saying? That’s right: “It’s your money!”
To that shortsighted greediness I say no thank you. Without our armed forces serving honorably and loyally there would be no America in which to earn your money. Without each of us contributing our fair share to invest in our country there would be no armed forces, especially not the caliber of personnel by whom we are blessed to be defended.
Those brave and stalwart Americans (including several in my family) who choose to serve our country and sacrifice themselves in defense of our Constitution deserve our utmost respect and admiration — not harassment by the Rumsfeld-Cheney-Gates collection agency.
At least the Democrats, contrary to the cons’ lying spin, offer our veterans the dignity they deserve in light of their sacrifices. Again, from Carpetbagger:
For what it’s worth, Fox’s congressman, Democrat Jason Altmire, has introduced a bill to prohibit the Bush administration from asking the troops for refunds.
[...] “Hard as it may be to believe, the Department of Defense has been denying injured servicemen and women the bonuses that they qualified for,” Mr. Altmire said.
He said he drafted the legislation after hearing “outrageous” examples of bonuses being denied…. Mr. Altmire’s legislation, the Veterans Guaranteed Bonus Act, would require the Defense Department to pay bonuses in full within 30 days to veterans discharged because of combat-related wounds.
You can call your Congressman to demand they support Rep. Altmire’s Veterans Guaranteed Bonus Act via the Capitol Switchboard at (202) 224-3121 or directly by searching this directory. And, here are some tips on how best to present your support for our troops and Rep. Altmire’s proposal when calling.
(h/t Army veteran Kos)
UPDATE: In comments at the Carpetbagger Report thread, Olo points out the Bush Pentagon has been doing this to Iraq War vets for years.
One particular story comes via the book Purple Hearts: Back from Iraq by Nia Berman, which was published in 2004. Author Nia Berman recounts, among other soldiers’ stories, the details of Army veteran Tyson Johnson’s ordeal with the Pentagon demanding a return of his signing bonus since “he didn’t fulfill his contract because he was wounded.”
(h/t Stephen Handwerk at We the People! Mr. Handwerk also includes a list of additional linked stories — at the end of his WTP! column — about several other wounded vets being pestered to return their signing bonuses. Where the heck is the supposedly-but-not-really “liberal” media on these stories about how the Republicans choose to “cutback on tax dollars”?!)
Rep. David Obey (D-WI) tells Pres. Bush who to call for a good time:
“Let me repeat,” said Obey, “the money [Bush recently requested for Iraq] has already been provided by the House of Representatives. If the president wants that $50 billion released, all he has to do is to call the Senate Republican leader, Mitch McConnell, and ask him to stop blocking it. That phone number is (202) 224-2541, in case anybody’s interested.”
[...] “I would be happy to provide them with the entire $200 billion that they’ve requested for the remainder of the year — of next year, I should say — if the administration accepted these modest and reasonable conditions.”
That’s the problem with blocking upper-down-votes by filibustering common sense legislation… Too bad for the Republican President that it’s the Republicans in the Senate doing the obstructionalism. (And, again, notice how the Senate Repubs dropped the “nuclear option” like a moldy apple and decided to leave filibustering well enough alone? Gee, seems like that decision was made just about a year ago.)
Now if only Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid would actually force the Republicans to commit to a real filibuster instead of a double-dog-dare with ketchup on top pseudo filibuster.
(h/t Huffington Post)
Republican college-dropout Steve “silver spoon elitist” Greenberg officially opened his 8th district hq yesterday and the Northwest Herald was on the beat covering his platitudes:
“We are going to make a stand here in this district,” said Steve Greenberg, one of three Republicans vying for the party nomination. “We are going to send a message to Washington, to Springfield, that Republicans are alive in Illinois.”
[...] Greenberg told a group of about 50 supporters that the only pork he liked was the barbecued meat on which audience members were munching. He chided Democratic leadership in Washington for pork-barrel spending decisions and endorsed benchmarking every department funded through the federal budget.
He also took jabs at state leaders who redirected federal earmarks to help fund construction projects and at what he called Cook County’s “idiocracy” for its reliance on the collar counties’ fiscal support.
“We’re going to put a stake in the ground, and we’re going to send a message,” Greenberg said [...]
Zzzz zzzz zzzz… Take a stand… Send a message… Barbecued meat… Stake in the ground…
The funny thing about “chiding” Dems for “pork-barrel spending” is that they have at least been more honest about it by describing what the spending was for (the Republicans tended to hide that information behind procedural cloaks when they were in control). No, it’s not yet perfectly open and transparent but it’s far better than the hypocritical partisans like Mr. Greenberg keep bleeting about given the elephants’ own history of smoked-pork-and-mirrors and bacon-wrapped duplicity.
Moreover, it was the now-former Republican majority that skyrocketed our nation’s debt. In fact, the Republicans spent with such reckless abandon that they were forced to raise the Federal debt ceiling (akin to a credit card limit) not once but twice in recent years.
And Mr. Greenberg thinks we’ll trust him enough to give the Repubs the power to do that again? Our debt-holders in China, Saudi Arabia and Russia are clapping their hands with excitement at the prospect of more GOP-inspired debt.
Even his griping about Federal spending on construction projects here at home is bogus. Illinois sends more money into the Federal coffers than it gets back — it’s called “red-state welfare“. If our taxes are our investments in our communities, our state and our nation, why wouldn’t Mr. Greenberg be advocating for more equitability rather than cutting our communities off at their knees?
Another bit of Greenberg silliness that the compass-toting NW Herald chose to overlook? Mr. Greenberg “said he favored continued support of the troops in Iraq and securing U.S. borders against illegal immigrants.”
Both those tasks cost gobs of pork money, with one estimate placing the hidden costs of the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars (odd that Mr. Greenberg doesn’t mention supporting our troops in the former home of al Qaida) at nearly $1.6 trillion-with-a-T. But perhaps pork for Republican donors and allies in the military-industrial complex is ok in Mr. Greenberg’s mind. And current estimates of $2.2 billion-with-a-B for a wall that would cover only one-third of our Mexican border already put that project in the realm of complete waste of taxpayer’s money. Show me a 12-foot wall and I’ll show you a 15-foot ladder (or a good pick and shovel set) … not to mention the other 1300 miles of border that would not be walled off.
Finally, why is a guy running in a district that is mainly in McHenry and Lake Counties yelling about Cook County? What does Todd Stroger have to do with Washington, DC?
So many weak cliches and distractions … so few proposals to arm Taiwan with nukes “deeply thought out plans” backed by “knowledgeable people”.
(PS “Surrenderlicans” — incumbent Rep. Melissa Bean has been “supporting the troops” for that matter.)
Upon losing an FEC complaint which he originally announced with all the hoopla of a Dancing With the Stars promo claiming that the progressive Daily Kos blog was a political entity rather than the media outlet it is, conserv-o-partisan John “Myopic and Fuzzy” Bambenek got on his high horse and threatened to take the issue to Federal court so he could shoot spitballs there instead.
Far from the “brilliant timing” his packlike friends extolled, quite a few folks more logical than they pointed out his filing was completely without merit since the FEC had already decided the issue with a position exactly contrary to Mr. Bambenek’s complaint. Perhaps that was why the FEC slammed the door shut on Mr. Bambenek by dismissing his claim in record time. He lost his case in such a spectacular fireball of idiocy that the normally staid FEC chastised the guy for even wasting their time by typing up the complaint in the first place.
Still others — including this site — also explained just how Mr. Bambenek’s very same complaint against the progressive blog Daily Kos could also be made against just about every other political blog in existence in America, notably that of Mr. Bambenek’s friends at the conservative Illinois Review blog (where he himself has also occasionally posted). Thus, was his goofy short-sighted hypocrisy exposed in addition to his complete and utter lack of understanding of FEC guidelines.
Turns out Mr. Bambenek’s still a dork (and I say that with all the respect due someone of his intellectual caliber) since he’s now proven to be all talk and no action by letting the appeals filing deadline pass. Maybe he was too busy picking out his frozen turkee, but at least he finally listened to all the astute people in the room by not bothering to continue chasing his own little hypocritical windmill.
Why anyone continues to give this guy a forum for his fatuousness is unclear.
[Update: As noted in comments by journalist Rich Miller, Mr. Rick Pearson is a political reporter for the Chicago Tribune while Mr. Rich Pearson is a lobbyist for the Illinois State Rifle Association and a columnist in gun enthusiast publications. This blogpost is about the ISRA's Rich Pearson.]
The Illinois State Rifle Association’s Rick Rich Pearson has a column in Adventure Sports Online magazine (PDF version here or HTML conversion here) which has very little to do with outdoor adventure sports and a whole lot to do with ranting about politics from the international to the local.
Mr. Pearson starts out discussing the strife in Burma, throws in a brief history lesson about WWII alliances, gives his spin on the UN and Laura Bush, and goes on to cover the Turks in Armenia in the nineteen-teens; all under the prism of his opposition to reasonable gun supervision. Mr. Pearson brings it all home by stretching (and I mean ssttrreettcchhiinngg) in his conclusion to highlight a fellow who appears to really enjoy the heat of spotlights — Mr. Tom Warchol of Illinois — and rail against Mr. Pearson’s favorite nemesis, legislative workhorse State Sen. Dan Kotowski.
On Wednesday, October 10th, 2007, the House of Foreign Relations Committee approved a resolution labeling the murder of 1.5 million Armenians by Turks in 1915 as genocide. The Turks are upset the White House is not happy about this resolution and the White House is not happy about the resolution. Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, stated the resolution was “highly destabilizing” to U.S. government in the Middle East. Maybe so, but it points out what happens when a population is disarmed. In short, the Turks promised the Armenians protection – instead they disarmed them and slaughtered them. Would the UN have saved the Armenians? No! The UN’s official position is that the right of self-defense is not a human right.
Undoubtedly, the UN would have drawn a strong letter of protest. That would have shown the Turks. The moral of these disasters is to never, ever give up our Second Amendment rights!!! But this is Illinois 2007 – we are in the heart of the U.S. Oh, yeah. We are safe. But just let people write letters to an Illinois Senator and in return they receive visits from the State Police. That is exactly what happened to Tom Warchol and his wife Joanne when they sent faxes to Senator Dan Kotowski.
The earlier paragraphs of that disjointed Pearson rant are just as illogical. One wonders if Mr. Pearson sees black helicopters too…
Unsurprisingly, Mr. Warchol himself is an apparent ISRA sympathizer and ally of Mr. Pearson’s efforts at the ISRA lobbying against reasonable weapons supervision. For those unfamiliar with Mr. Pearson’s shrill paranoia about Sen. Kotowski, Mr. Pearson sent out press release after press release over the past year, including statements about the Illinois State Police’s investigation into threats that Sen. Kotowski’s office staff did receive.
It is unclear from the June 18th, 2007 ISRA press release whether the “ISRA member” who was complaining about a visit from the State Police was in fact Mr. Warchol, but Mr. Warchol certainly inserted himself into the issue by appearing on the NRA’s webcast radio program “Cam & Company”. In that radio interview, Mr. Warchol ‘exaggerated’ by saying that his own State Senator (Pam Althoff, R-Crystal Lake) had told him the police visited 500 homes. What actually happened was that the police had visited some of the homes from among the 500 contacts (letters, faxes, emails and phone calls) that Sen. Kotowski’s office received. The investigators visited those people in the process of building their case — attempting to decide if any crime had been committed and, if so, who might be guilty of such a crime.
First off, there’s a huge difference between Mr. Warchol’s claim that “the police visited 500 homes” and the reality that the police were simply contacting some people from among the 500 pieces of correspondence Sen. Kotowski’s office received on the issue of gun supervision (see “Update 7“). So we know Mr. Warchol has a flair for exaggeration in the heat of the moment.
Second, Mr. Warchol and the ISRA do not appear to have made Mr. Warchol’s letter to Sen. Kotowski public. Google searches of the ISRA website in particular and the Internet in general have turned up nothing. (I’m sure Sen. Kotowski’s critics will quickly correct me if I’m wrong, and I’ll gladly post the contents of Mr. Warchol’s letter should they do so.) Without seeing the contents of his letter, it is impossible for the public to judge Mr. Warchol’s correspondence to the Senator for themselves. Though, again, we do know Mr. Warchol has a penchant for hyperbole.
Third, as has been explained by rational people time and again, it makes perfect sense that the police would talk with people involved in a given matter even if they are not the people under investigation. Certainly this is happening now in Bolingbrook as the police talk with families and friends of the missing and dead wives of Bolingbrook Police Sgt. Drew Peterson just as it has happened in every other police investigation in the history of police investigations. Detectives try to gather as much information as they can til they get to the bottom of the matter.
Finally, entitling his column with the threatening lingo “Drawing a Bead” is an obvious double-standard given Mr. Pearson’s past harping on Father Michael Pfleger’s use of the equally heated rhetoric advocating that a gun shop owner’s store be “snuffed out”. Both phrases, in their proper context, have clearly benign meanings. But that Mr. Pearson would choose to screech about the one (trying to claim Fr. Pfleger wanted the gun shop owner killed) while doing the same thing himself only magnifies his hypocrisy.
From this latest rant which includes just about everything but a kitchen sink, it’s crystal clear that Mr. Pearson’s fetish with Sen. Kotowski is truly devolving into the bizarre. His hypocrisy and Mr. Warchol’s flair for embellishment do their “advocacy work” promoting free love for weapons no favors. No wonder so many gun enthusiasts — collectors, hunters, marksmen, etc. — denounce the ISRA and its followers’ routine goofy extremism.
Sidenote: Retiring State Rep. Carolyn Krause’s (R) most recent Legislative Update newsletter arrived in mailboxes in recent days. Rep. Krause’s 66th district covers the western half of Sen. Kotowski’s 33rd district.
In her update, we learn the results of her most recent unscientific constituent poll. One of the more interesting results was that citizens in the district prefer stronger gun supervision at a rate of 80% for to 20% against. This is precisely why Sen. Kotowski, among his many other legislative efforts in other important areas, also works so diligently on public safety measures. His constituents demand nothing less.
Disclosures: As I’ve often noted, I proudly and gladly volunteer for Sen. Kotowski’s campaign efforts.
–
UPDATE 2: MT asked for the wording of the above mentioned survey question from Rep. Carolyn Krause’s 2007 legislative update mailer. The question was:
“11. Should the state ban the sale of assault weapons?”
And the unscientific response was:
“80% Yes, 20% No”
Click the thumbnail image for a scan (440kb JPEG) of the interior of Rep. Krause’s legislative mailer, with the survey at the bottom. The referenced question is the last one in the survey.
