You are currently browsing the monthly archive for April 2008.
How does Cong. Peter Roskam “support” our troops? By insinuating they’re a bunch of sex-crazed horndogs who must be nannied over lest they give in to temptations of the X-rated variety.
And there’s something in it for you too, dear taxpayers: a complete waste of the Pentagon’s time and our tax dollars as military brass are commanded to search and destroy pin-ups and videos instead of, oh say, our enemies.
What’s next? Banning government-issue condoms? Mandating abstinence for unmarried troops and the calendar method for those who are married?
What’s the difference between Cong. “Porno Pete” Roskam’s nanny-state attitude and the House of Saud’s regulations for US troops manning bases in Saudi Arabia in the 90s? At least King Saud let the guys have Victoria Secret catalogs (though not much else).
Can you imagine Rep. Roskam walking in to give a pep talk at the local armory before the next National Guard deployment? …”Don’t go fight yon terrorists, men. Fight the nudie rags instead. It’s not Hezbollah we’re after — it’s Hollywood! You just might get warts on your hands if you don’t listen to my dire warnings to avoid the girlie magazines.”
Perhaps instead of being so worried about oversexed troops, Porno Pete Roskam ought to be quite a bit more concerned about the rapists staffing the war profiteering contractors hired by the White House. So much for any Republican claims of “family values” given that they continue to let those atrocities go on.
Say, aren’t there more important things going on? Something about a recession? And exorbitant gas costs? And what’s this war thingy we keep hearing about? And healthcare for uninsured kids? And the White House spying on Americans … what’s that all about?
Oh, wait. Raunchy Roskam apparently couldn’t give two shakes about work-a-day folks, agrees in principle with Sen. McCain on keeping our troops in Iraq for 100 years in spite of reality on the ground, has voted against our children multiple times (and lied about why), and he favors shredding our Constitution’s Bill of Rights. Nevermind.
Then again, the media seems to have recently discovered that black folks have … preachers! Maybe Rep. Roskam will take care of that “problem” too.
Oops. DeSmog blogger Richard Littlemore reports that nearly 10% (and counting…) of the Heartland Institute’s list of “500 scientists” who supposedly dispute climate change are quite surprised and shocked to find themselves on such a list considering their scientific research has led them to conclude the opposite — that the climate is changing and that it is due, at least in part, to human activity.
The Heartland Institute is fairly well-known as a conservative- and corporate-funded ‘think tank’ designed to promote conservative partisan platforms (in other words, propagandize ‘conservative’ views). To the point, among other backers, Exxon had funded Heartland to the tune of nearly $800,000 in recent years and execs with Amoco and Exxon have also served on the Heartland Institute Board of Directors.
Mr. Littlemore had a hunch that Heartland’s “list” of 500 scientists wasn’t on the up and up so he started emailing the people listed. He’s been getting plenty of feedback about Heartland’s use of so many people’s names with at least 45 telling him directly they’re name was used without permission and falsely since they actually disagree with the Dorothys chirping ‘there’s no such thing as climate change, there’s no such thing as climate change…’
Here is just one note Mr. Littlemore was cc’ed on:
I have NO doubts ..the recent changes in global climate ARE man-induced. I insist that you immediately remove my name from this list since I did not give you permission to put it there.
Dr. Gregory Cutter, Professor, Department of Ocean, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Old Dominion University
Why did the conservatives at Heartland feel a need to lie and, in so doing, mock these scientists? Disgraceful.
The only people who ought to be doubtful here? The folks on the receiving end of Heartland’s propagandist fallacies.
The pioneering late Mayor Harold Washington is a political hero to ArchPundit and as such he has been respectfully recognizing the 25th anniversary of his swearing in as Chicago’s first black mayor.
His most recent post on the topic reveals his own personal experiences growing up in a variety of American locales — some with overt and systemic racism prevalent, some with it more subdued and hidden — and also plays off the famous Molly Ivins quote:
Once you figure out they are lying to you about race, you start to question everything.
True enough today as it was when first she wrote it.
Arch’s other posts on the topic include:
I’ll be “copying and pasting” more later on a related note…
Some folks need to grow up. This is a publicity stunt, nothing more. If these pictures covering up most of the celebrity’s body are somehow “nude photos” we’ve got a heckuvalot more nude beaches in this country than anyone apparently realized — one-piece swimsuits are more “revealing” for the pervs out there concerned about such things.
Say, isn’t there some trouble brewing with the economy? And what’s this I hear about some war going on?
And how about all those war-profiteering generals who were paid to propagandize in favor of the war on national TV for years, even though they personally and privately saw the war going fubar almost from the get-go?
Shh, there’s some underage club-hopping rich girl celebrity showing off her spine: Priorities.
If you’re easily offended — Fran Eaton 
— by unintentionally hilarious, x-rated graphic designers gone wild don’t click through….
Not a good way to start a campaign, before the campaign really even gets started…
And this after all but stealing the Obama’08 look for Ozinga’08. No wonder this candidate hyped as a “self-funder” wants to cut his losses to just $350k.
The 11th district is currently open as incumbent Republican Jerry “Most Corrupt Politicians” Weller is retiring at the end of his term. The GOP nomination is also open after primary winner Tim Baldermann decided he didn’t want to raise any money. Conservative partisans have been peeing in their pants fretting that Democratic State Senator Debbie Halvorson may have a free pass at the Congressional seat.
–
Update: Rich Miller posts from his secret location that the comments to ArchPundit blog which came from “ozmail.ozinga.com” were from Mr. Ozinga’s business. A quick Google search did not find any official “Ozinga’08″ webite yet.
Federal regulations, as I understand them, do not allow a business to provide in-kind help to candidates so “Brian,” the commenter at ArchPundit, ought to be careful about those FEC laws. (I’m not a lawyer so I could be wrong on the rules regarding in-kind donations from businesses.)
The way I read “Brian’s” comment, he may simply be interested in defending the business’ reputation against the allegations of shenanigans the media has been reporting.
But if his intent was to promote or defend Ozinga the presumptive candidate … well, another Republican candidate, dairy and ice cream magnate Jim Oberweis in his US Senate run, found out the hard way all about the FEC’s strict rules barring use of corporate assets to assist a Federal campaign.
As my poodle pal Archpundit and several others noted many moons ago, there are plenty of reasonable items on which the State House could move to impeach Gov. Rod Blagojevich — not the least of which were the guv’s direct circumventions of the Legislature to implement his programs, without Lege approval for the fund moves he made.
Fast forward to this month, and Prairie State denizens are being treated to new allegations of corruption regarding Public Official A, his campaign fund, and pay-to-play politics whereby large donors were rewarded with state jobs.
We’ve also been unwilling audience members for a legislative kabuki theater between the House and Senate over a recall amendment which would allow voters to “recall” a sitting statewide officer. The House passed such a bill but the Senate put a hostile sponsor on it and bottled it up.
I’ve said over and over that I’m no fan of recall. For one thing, the California example turned into a circus fueled by partisan funding (it doesn’t matter which partisan side of the aisle — it was still an expensive, distracting, debilitating circus). For another, our state has a more formal recall measure: It’s called impeachment. And some independent Dem House members are in fact moving toward that option.
Whatever the personality politics involved, the main intent of the House recall bill that is now tabled in the Senate is to allow citizens to have a say in removing a Constitutional officer. Fair enough.
But why not work on a bill that would allow regular citizens vote to force the House and Senate to hold
impeachment proceedings? Or put a matter of impeachment directly to the State Supreme Court?
That would give citizens the right to have a direct say in the process, but uses an already existing Constitutional measure to do so.
Want an additional filter on it? Make it dependent on receiving a majority or supermajority of lege districts instead of just a straight-up popular vote…
But enough of the reactionary “recall” stuff. That’s a Pandora’s Box that our state has lived without since 1818 and as bad as our current governor is he’s no reason to open it up now.
Want to give the people a say?
Let us vote to have the lege debate Articles of Impeachment.
Welcome to kindergarten…
- John “Poopy Head” Ruskin compares a journalist — Rich Miller — who covers Springfield and other Illinois political matters to Ted Kaczynski, the Unabomber. Why? Because Miller posted a few facts that put the lie to the spin being promoted by a comrade of Ruskin’s. In his role as a reporter, Miller has gone after Dems, GOPs and even Greens with equal aplomb when they fib, flop or go flakey, as Sen. Steve Rauschenberger has been doing of late in his anti-Obama zeal. This isn’t the first time the pseudonymous Ruskin has flailed around spewing crap instead of keeping his bizarre inanities to himself… (What’s that? There’s a financial stake for the denizens of Illinois Review to prop up the head of the United Republican Fund, an organization that so many of them also help operate? Go figure…)
- Jill “Likes Sex Ed” Stanek once compared an incumbent, duly elected State Senator to a porn star and, when called out for her depravity, upped the ante by continuing to make a fool of herself. Why? Because said State Senator was advocating for a vaccine that former nurse Stanek didn’t like. Instead of rational debate, are porn references really how Jill would rather get her jollies?
- Lee “Wets His Pants” Newcom recently claimed a Democratic candidate for Congress was “aiding terrorists” even though she’s not even in Congress. Why? Because he has nothing better to do at his day job working for the citizens of McLean County, apparently. Or perhaps it’s because he has no valid explanation for why he would choose to trample on our Constitution instead of upholding our rights.
And an honorable dunce cap mention must go to ilgopnet.com’s Warner Todd “Has a Problem Alright” Huston, for comparing a duly elected, incumbent Congresswoman to a brutal African dictator simply because she wants folks to be able to eat their dinner in peace.
Someone calling out your comrades on their lies? Call ‘em a Unabomber!
Upset that a legislator is advocating potentially life-saving medicine? Compare her to a porn star and ask about her sex life.
A legislator running for Congress from the party you oppose? Squeal like a stuck pig that they’re “aiding terrorists” even though they’re not even in office (yet) and they don’t even know any terrorists in the first place … all while trying to hide from the fact that you want to literally rip out parts of the Bill of Rights.
Crabby because a Democratic Congresswoman is sitting in a seat you thought should go to a Republican? Claim that some innocuous legislative proposal is akin to the dictatorial policies of a madman.
Congrats conservative partisans, with each passing day you seem wont to gleefully dig your own vacuous holes of irrelevance that much deeper. It used to be that the conservative philosophy had some meaning. Now that Pres. Bush has implemented many conservative policies and they’re failing miseable, those scales are falling from people’s eyes and all the con partisans have left are their insults and self-pity.
At least you guys are good at comedy, even if unintentionally so.
(And, Ruskin, if it’s Miller time it’s MGD for me — though lately I’ve been reaching for a nice cold Berghoff. …Woof.)
Update: “A Republican Committeeman in Aurora, IL” makes the same points in a much more forgiving manner…
If we spent a lot less time on this sort of stuff and more time on facts and logical arguments I think we would be in better shape. You don’t save too many people preaching the same message to choir.
If you think his facts or analysis is wrong provide reasons not cute little things about ’secret locations’.
By spending “a lot less time on this sort of stuff” I take it to mean OneMan isn’t a fan of calling people “poodles”. I tend to find that sort of dysfunctionally juvenile crap hysterically funny, however, and (obviously) enjoy going toe to toe with that sticks-and-stones crowd. Somebody’s gotta do it or “Ruskin” might get an ego as big as his (poopy) head.
I wouldn’t be surprised if the thin-skinned “Ruskin” up and calls OneMan a Nazi just for pointing out the obvious.
Rich Miller posts a “this just in” covering some goings on with “Public Official A“:
In or about July 2003, Rezko asked the defendant to make an additional $50,000 contribution to the campaign of Public Official A. The defendant agreed to contribute the same amount as he had previously, namely $25,000. The defendant made this contribution on or about July 25, 2005 by check payable to Public Official A’s campaign. The defendant gave this check to Rezko. Thereafter, the defendant had a conversation with Public Official A at a large fund-raising event at Navy Pier.
During this conversation, Public Official A told defendant that he had been a good supporter, indicated that Public Official A was aware that the defendant had made another substantial donation to Public Official A’s campaign, and told the defendant that Public Official A understood that the defendant would be joining Public Official A’s administration. The defendant responded that he was considering taking a position, and Public Official A stated that it had better be a job where the defendant could make some money.
(emphasis original to Rich)
Holy crap what a selfish, maniacal prick “Public Official A” is.
The implications are obvious: US Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald now has at least one piece of very direct, very compelling evidence that “Public Official A” was literally providing state jobs in recognition of campaign contributions.
With the guilty plea of Ali Ata, a significant donor to POA’s campaign fund and subsequently the recipient of a job in POA’s administration, US Atty Fitzgerald has 1 of the 3 players involved in just that one case.
The other players are Antoin Rezko, on trial now, and Public Official A.
Should Rezko be found guilty, US Atty Fitzgerald will very likely offer a reduced jail sentence in exchange for testimony against Public Official A — and Fitz will have 2 of the 3 players involved as he puts the 3rd, Public Official A, on trial.
Ladies and gentlemen, your so-not-liberal-they-look-like-conservative-propagandists media in action…
To the public, these men [retired military brass] are members of a familiar fraternity, presented thousands of times on television and radio as “military analysts” whose long service has equipped them to give authoritative and unfettered judgments about the post-Sept. 11 world.
Hidden behind that appearance of objectivity, though, is a Pentagon information apparatus that has used those analysts in a campaign to generate favorable news coverage of the administration’s wartime performance, an examination by The New York Times has found.
The effort, which began with the buildup to the Iraq war and continues, has sought to exploit ideological and military allegiances and a powerful financial dynamic: Most of the analysts have ties to military contractors vested in the very war policies they are asked to assess on air.
Those business relationships are hardly ever disclosed to the viewers, and sometimes not even to the networks. But collectively, the men on the plane and several dozen other military analysts represent more than 150 military contractors either as lobbyists, executives, board members or consultants.
The companies include defense heavyweights but also scores of smaller companies, all part of a vast assemblage of contractors scrambling for billions in military business generated by the administration’s war on terror.
Records and interviews show how the Bush administration has used its control over access and information in an effort to transform the analysts into a kind of media Trojan horse — an instrument intended to shape terrorism coverage from inside the major networks.
Hmmm… Billions of dollars for the military-industrial complex dangled like cheese on a trap? Check. Feigning objectivity while manipulating the media for positive political points and potential self-indulgent profits? Check. Controlling access to information rather than being open and honest? Check.
Heckuva job, disinformation services. Heckuva job.
It’s not like the Bush administration has ever played the media for tools or wasted billions on unethical war profiteers, have they?
Are those crickets I hear chirping instead of media conglomerates owning up to their ineptitude?
Thought so.
That’s right, Obama will help you with whatever you need. (In fact, I’m almost 100% positive Obama has been helping people since at least kindergarten.)
