Ok, got the WordPress software upgraded to 2.3 and my tags imported into the new system. As you can see my old theme no longer works for the moment so I will be correcting that shortly. In the meantime I will pick a substitute one and get it up and running.
Thank you for your patience during this period as I try to revive this thing.
Hey gang. Sorry of the really extended “vacation” from this blog. Unfortunately the constraints of real life imposed themselves on me and I had to stop writing for a time. Having to get a “real job” and graduating from college only to go right back again for a second degree really ate up my time but now I have managed to get some time back and even picked up some stuff that will allow me to give this site a complete overhaul. I do plan to resume writing regularly ASAP.
In the latest developments of the Rep. William Jefferson raid drama, several senior members of the US Department of Justice are prepared to resign if George W Bush orders them to return the materials seized in an FBI raid on Jefferson’s office. Among those who are prepared to leave are Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty, and FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III. In the wake of this, Bush’s decision to seal the evidence and relocate it to the Solicitor General’s office makes much more sense. Bush is pretty much off the hook because he did not know about the raid until after the FBI had begun to execute it.
I am both very angry and disappointed with Democrats on this one. Ever since things like Jack Abramoff came to light Democrats have been preaching about the "culture of corruption" that has permeated Washington, DC, under the solid twelve years of Republican majority in Congress and six years of a Republican Whitehouse. The Democratic National Committee even has a section of its website detailing this in The Corruption Files. With Jefferson, who will certainly face indictment over this, the Democrats had a chance to show the nation that they were different. With evidence as damning as the FBI had prior to the raid, you would expect Democrats to be lining up to demand Jefferson immediately resign from the house Ways & Means Committee, one of the most powerful ones, if not resign from Congress completely. Democrats could have shown the nation how they handle the bad apples in their party.
Along side my anger and disappointment of Democrats is astonishment at the response of Republican leaders. I would have expected House Speaker Dennis Hastert and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist to be openly laughing about this incident and using it to try and throw the "culture of corruption" talk back into the face of Democrats. Instead, worrying that their offices would be next, they attacked the Department of Justice and the FBI for executing a legal raid. Now members in both houses of Congress want some sort of procedure in place for any future raids. Excuse me? The FBI has been conducting an investigation of Jefferson for at least a year or so, delivered a subpoena to him for the materials they seized in the raid which was reported to the House of Representatives on September 15th, 2005, and finally obtained a judicial search warrant after Jefferson refused to comply with the subpoena for 247 days. I would say procedure was more than followed. Even more to the point, what was Jefferson doing during those 247 days? He had ample time to consult with lawyers attached to the House of Representatives, consult with members of the party and attorneys that they probably have available, or sought a private attorney to look into the subpoena.
I am going to go out on a limb here and say that, in the case of Representative William Jefferson (D-LA), the Congressional Black Caucus just needs to shut the fuck up. The group had an emergency meeting with House Minority Pelosi over her request to Rep. Jefferson, the focus of a bribery scandal that has resulted in the first raid on the office of a sitting member of US Congress ever, resign from his seat on the Ways & Means Committee. The Congressional Black Caucus has accused Pelosi of using a race-based double standard in asking him to resign.
In his refusal to step down, Jefferson noted Pelosi did not make the same request of individuals like Rep. Alan Mollohan (D-WV) who is facing ethics questions over earmarks obtained through his seat on the House Appropriations Committee. I fail to see how that has anywhere near the magnitude of what is happening to Jefferson. I think it is safe to say that, with evidence as damning as there is against Jefferson, Nancy Pelosi or her Republican counterpart would ask for the resignation of any member of their party regardless of their ethnicity.
The Congressional Black Caucus needs to dismiss the race issue and look at the facts of the case before blindly accusing Nancy Pelosi of racial discrimination. The FBI has video surveillance footage of Rep. Jefferson accepting a $100,000 cash bribe from a government informant. $90,000 of that bribe was later found wrapped in aluminum foil and then concealed in food containers in Jefferson’s freezer. Jefferson was also the subject of the first FBI raid on a sitting member of Congress’ office. That means both the executive branch and the judicial branch were in agreement that there was enough evidence of wrong-doing on the part of Rep. Jefferson that were grounds for the raid to go through. That looks a hell of a lot worse than mere questions over earmarks.
To make matters worse, and aide to the Congressional Black Caucus made some rather provocative statements:
"The African-American community, which overwhelmingly backs the Democratic Party, will not take this lightly. I hope she enjoys being minority leader."
We already have enough problems with leaders on both sides manufacturing some sort of "constitutional crisis" over the raid. We do not need the Congressional Black Caucus manufacturing a racial discrimination crisis on top of it. They would be better off grooming a candidate to replace Jefferson because this will be an issue in his re-election campaign.
With the release of her book, criticism of Mary Cheney has spiked with activists and blogs ripping her up one side and down the other for continuing to work with the Bush-Cheney campaign in spite of both George W Bush and her own father Dick Cheney declaring their support for a constitutional amendment forever barring her relationship from ever being recognized legally in the United States. While she faced this criticism for years, it has really heated up since the publication of her book Now It’s My Turn. I have largely stayed out of the debate because frankly I was getting sick of hearing about her. However I ran across an editorial in the Washington Blade writing by Kevin Naff, the Managing Editor stating how we should be more understanding of Mary. He states a few situations in his life that every gay person has probably had to deal with in some way or will have to in the future. But in all of the personal examples Kevin listed I failed to see one that would apply to Mary Cheney. Not bringing your boyfriend to family reunions to "avoid the stress", or having one person hang out in the lobby to get a hotel room to avoid the front desk commenting on there only being one bed, and other such things have nowhere near the magnitude or consequences as collaborating with someone who has openly declared war on you.
I beg to differ with Kevin over the issue of bashing Mary Cheney. Naff says that gay people should look to themselves before chastising her as many have in the wake of her new book. He agrees that gay rights activists were justified in their anger with Mary Cheney when she continued to work for the Bush-Cheney campaign when it was using the demonization of her sexuality and her relationship with Heather Poe to mobilize the rabid neo conservatives on the far fringe of the right wing. But in the end he excuses her because, according to her book, she did all for her father. I am sorry but that just does not cut it with me and several other people.
Kevin states that his parents supported Bush in 2000 and again in 2004, yet he still speaks to them. A lot of us probably do have family members who supported Bush. My brother voted for Bush as did my maternal grandmother and I am still speaking to them as well. Family is family, right? So what makes Mary Cheney any different? Easy, supporting Bush from the electorate is a more passive support. It is the vocalization of ones own values. Now whether or not we agree with those values is beside the point. In this country one is entitled to have and express whatever values they choose regardless of state or popular approval. When my brother and grandmother voted for George W Bush, they were making the statement "George W Bush is the candidate that represents me the most" which is what we all do when we vote. However what Mary Cheney did was allow herself to become a tool on which to force those values onto others which, besides being antithetical to the very principals upon which this nation was founded, is much more a heinous act. What Mary Cheney did was analogous to an African-American helping candidates who were in favor of passing the Jim Crow laws.
Another thing that makes Mary Cheney different is that she has also made a living off of her sexual orientation. In spite of her mother Lynne’s assertions during the 2000 election that her daughter "never declared such a thing" Mary Cheney was, as some activists have called her, a paid lesbian for the Coors Brewing Co. from 1994 to 2000. Her job was to improve the image of Coors to the gay and lesbian community and end a boycott of the brewery. While some insist on continuing the boycott because of some positions of the Coors family members and the activities of the Coors Foundation, which the brewer has repeatedly stated they have no connection with except for the Coors family founding both entities, Mary’s efforts were fairly successful. Coors Brewing Co. now has domestic partner benefits which began in 1995.
The other issue I have with Mary is how she blasts John Kerry and John Edwards for using her sexuality as a cheap political stunt but yet keeps her mouth shut when the entire party she is working for is using her relationship as an even more vile political tool and proclaiming her relationship along with every other same-sex relationship to be the herald of the end of western civilization. Just today John Aravosis posted on how the Family Research Council is using Mary Cheney and her relationship in a negative light in order to whore themselves out for money. How will she respond to this?
Powered by WordPress