6/16/2005 09:27:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Jeff Simpson asks about the title of this blog, so here is a bit of a history lesson for y'all.
In 1884, New York Democratic Governor Grover "Grover the Good" Cleveland was running against Maine Republican Senator James "Blaine from Maine" Blaine. The race was supposed to be tight in New York state, where the Tammany Hall machine was less than enthusiastic about supporting the reform Governor.
The Religious Bureau of the Republican National Committee had a get together where a preacher named Dr. Samuel D. Burchard spoke and said:
Burchard was summarizing three "bugaboos" that got the Republican "base vote" riled about the Democrats:
We are Republicans, and don't propose to leave our party and identify ourselves with the party whose antecedents have been rum, Romanism, and rebellion. We are loyal to our flag.
- Rum: Prohibition was the great moral issue of the day, and it divided both major parties. However, then as now, it was easy to tag the Democrats as wrong on a "values" issue. Cleveland had been pounded throughout the campaign for fathering a child out of wedlock, so any charge of moral terpitude tended to stick.
- Romanism: There were growing throngs of immigrants from Ireland, Southern and Eastern Europe. Since many of these immigrants shared a Catholic background, then considered a dangerous foreign ideology, it became easy to tag them as not quite American. Many of these voters formed the base of the Democratic urban machines.
- Rebellion: The Republicans were still waving the bloody shirt twenty years after the civil war. Understandable, really.
Cleveland narrowly carried New York and won the presidency. Some people say that Buchard's comments alienated many and helped motivate more Catholics to go to the polls, I doubt it. Cleveland's victory in New York probably had more to do with former Kansas Governor John P. St. John (I love that name), who was running as a Prohibition candidate. St. John was irked at Blaine for various reasons and put a great deal of effort in New York to cut into Blaine's support. What Burchard's comments did was indicate that the Republicans were slowly becoming out of touch with the electorate, bashing a growing immigrant population and waving the bloody shirt wasn't going to win elections anymore.
Some of Nixon's people tried to create an updated version: Acid, Amnesty and Abortion. I suggest this to Jeff as the name of his blog...
I'll leave it up to y'all to find any parallels to the modern day. I have to get back to setting our nation's youth straight.
|W|P|111894143982432969|W|P|Our Three R's|W|Pfirstname.lastname@example.org/16/2005 09:47:00 PM|W|P|Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Well we should start remembering that Republicans have been doing the same damn thing for over a hundred years...And if you know thy enemy....6/17/2005 11:58:00 AM|W|P|
Long live the Roman Rum Rebellion!6/14/2005 09:16:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Michael Bryan, Grand Pooh-bah of the excellent Blog for Arizona, has added me to his blogroll. I've known Mike since 1992, when he made a run for State House on the West side (I bet he thinks no one remembers...). He later told me he wished he ran a better race so he could tell Fife where to stick it. His tag line for me on his blogroll says that I blog "like a mad dog on anti-freeze." I don't quite know what that means. He also refers to me as "leftist, yet rational." Geez...I don't think I've ever been refered to as a leftist...I suppose that says a lot about where political dialogue has gone in this country.
They are doing a series of stories on Morning Edition about governors who are in states with legislatures controlled by the other party. This morning's story was on Don Carcieri, Governor of Rhode Island. Carcieri is part of a movement by many Republican Governors, Arnold Schwartzenegger most prominently, to slash benefits and pay of public employees.
The argument of Carcieri and the others is interesting: you all are struggling with your low pay, while some pampered state employee gets their health paid for and a great pension. It is very easy to see how this argument could fly among working folks struggling to pay the rent.
The question I have is this, why do private sector employees get such low pay and benefits compared to public employees? Well, it could have something to do with the lack of unionization in the private sector these days. Around 9% of private sector employees are unionized, whereas 37% of public sector employees are unionized. I don't have the stats on it, but I am willing to bet that a unionized private sector employee gets similar pay and benefits to the public sector employee. (NB-There is an excellent article in The American Prospect about Schwartzenegger's battles with the unions)
So, why is union membership so low? Probably because these same Republicans have been doing all they can to strip the union movement of the right to organize, and their allies in the business community have been doing what they can to convince employees that somehow wages will be lower if they unionize. So, they do what they can to make sure that no union is in place to fight for pay and benefits, then they point to the one place where people can organize and complain about the money they are making.
Makes you wonder if it was all planned...|W|P|111876783921827081|W|P|The Reviews Are In...|W|Pemail@example.com/14/2005 04:24:00 PM|W|P|6/14/2005 07:10:00 PM|W|P|
I am obviously missing an important reference, because I have no idea why there would be even one Rum, Romanism and Rebellion blog, let alone two.
Kindly explain.6/14/2005 07:19:00 PM|W|P|Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|People like sugar.
Oh and there is an active plan by the various employers to prevent employees from benefiting from the perks the employers get from their associations.6/15/2005 06:25:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Dear anonymous-
The 84% stat is probably based on exit polling. I found that CNN still had their exit polling data from the 2004 election. The trouble with this is that it is in reverse, they are telling you that 78% of Evangelicals voted for Bush, rather than what percentage of Bush voters are Evangelicals. But, I think they give some other percentages there so some multiplication can give you some truer percentages.
What also is probably necessary is some "cross-tabs" I haven't found any of that on the internet. You may want to go ahead and write to the Daily Show and see what poll they got that stat from and go from there.
Here is the CNN Data:
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html6/21/2005 11:38:00 AM|W|P|6/12/2005 07:25:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|I spoke with Katie Bolger today, she noticed that I did not link to Karin Uhlich's website. I could say that I didn't because I don't live in her ward, or I could admit that I didn't know her URL.
There is another Rum, Romanism and Rebellion site. Go figure. They even use the same template I do. They have been up for a while. The two people that do it seem a bit more conservative than I am. I hope the fact that there are two of us will not be a problem. If it is, the only way to settle these matters will be ritual combat.
I read in this morning's Republic that Debra "Xena" Brimhall has been acquitted of charges stemming from an incident that occurred at last year's Country Thunder Festival. One of the few privileges that state legislators enjoy here is a sort of immunity from some traffic violations when a legislator is on the way to the capitol. Debra, or some facsimile (she claimed it wasn't her), tried to get out of the ticket by claiming that she was a legislator an couldn't get a ticket. This brought up three problems:
In the end, she claimed that she wasn't at the festival, because she's a "rocker." I would poke fun at this, but she was seen at a recent Stan Ridgway show in Phoenix. This makes her not only a rocker, but a very discerning one.
Brimhall was a rather unique legislator. She once was told to put her shoes on during a session, but refused to because she loved the feel of the new carpet on her bare feet. There was talk about changing the legislature's rather lax dress code because of the sometimes bizarre way she would dress. Once, I was up there to watch a session. She took to the microphone durring a vote and rambled. Finally she looked up to the tote board and said, "I'm going to keep talking until more of you vote yes." It didn't work. I was sitting next to a lobbyist who told me that she often does this. As we know, being an oddball has never been a barrier to serving in the Arizona legislature. Brimhall is planning on running for the State House again, this time from Mesa.
Some say that Brimhall's first election was due to people being angry that Polly Rosenbaum was no longer really living in the district. Rosenbaum was a long time (really long time...she had served since the 1940's) legislator from Globe, but there was grousing from her opponents that she was really living in Phoenix. Her defeat probably had more to do with opposition to Clinton's environmental policies, it was 1994.
This brings me to my other topic (I bet you were wondering about that title). Sens. Karen Johnson and Linda Gray are planning to leave the Phoenix area and run in Greater Arizona. Johnson is planning to run against Bill Kopinicki (R-Safford) because Kopinicki is not sufficiently right-wing for her tastes (we know how liberal Safford is, right?). Gray is planning to move to Prescott, supposedly because she is retiring, but she is going to run for the legislature from up there.
Johnson has been in the house before, and her bouncing back and forth probably violates the spirit of the term-limit law. Heck, I think the term-limits should be trashed anyway, so I can't complain too much. I'm not sure that they can actually move out of town without resigning their seats. I mean, how can they file to run from another town, while they are representing someplace else? Hopefully someone will bring this up.
There is a certain arrogance here. That somehow, you can just pick up and move and that the voters there should appreciate it. What the heck does Karen Johnson know about the voters in Eastern Arizona? I think she assumes that since they are conservatives, that they will love her. What she doesn't appreciate is that Kopinicki votes the way he does for a reason. Yeah, his constituents are conservative, but there are needs that people in rural Arizona have, and Johnson is opposed to helping them out with them.
Rural Republicans that have marched in lockstep with the East Valley crowd have had very short legislative careers (Barbara Blewster, Gail Griffin). The reason for this is simple: the rural areas of the state are actually quite dependent on state programs. The largest employer in many of these towns is a state prison, a state transportation yard or some other sort of state facility. They are often dependent on the state for health care or agricultural services. One of the issues that Marsha Arzberger was able to use against Griffin was her vote to close the health clinics in her district. Griffin voted this way because the East Valley leadership didn't see any need for those clinics; Mesa didn't need them.
Unless someone changes the number of districts in this state, we could soon have a situation where no rural community will truly be represented by an actual rural resident. I guess Johnson and Gray want to see that sooner rather than later.|W|P|111863403579546408|W|P|Pack Your Carpetbags!|W|Pfirstname.lastname@example.org/13/2005 04:26:00 PM|W|P|Michael|W|P|Ted, great blog!6/13/2005 07:27:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Does this mean I'm on your blogroll now?6/11/2005 09:35:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|I haven't been so good about checking the lefty blogs this week. I fell out of the habit of checking Daily Kos. With this available to me, what is the incentive to post a diary on there? Well, I suppose because more people will read it.
There are some folks on there who are rather doctrinaire. One guy wrote me because I didn't understand the full nature and agenda of the corporate media conspiracy. When everyone seemed to be talking about what a great guy George Galloway was, I said, wait a sec, this guy is trouble. I wrote about some of the race baiting and Warsaw Pact justifying things that went on during his campaign to regain a seat in parliament. I was amazed at the vitriol of some of the replies, some e-mailed to me off of the board. One guy told me not to hold his past against him. This was about stuff that went on three weeks before. If a Republican engaged in the campaign tactics this guy did, Kossacks would be livid. But, since he's a lefty, I guess that's okay. Its amazing to see these guys accuse me of apostasy, when they supposedly don't believe in such things.
That said, there were some little incidents this week that are worth talking about. On Thursday, Sen. Harry Reid and Gov. Howard Dean held a photo-op and press conference in Reid's office. Wonkette (my sweet Ana Marie!) has an excellent account of the incident, and you can find the video of it on Dem Bloggers. Huffington Post has a rather short description of the event, but I'm linking to it because sometimes she links back...
Anyhow, our Highly Proffessional Washington Press Corps couldn't think of anything to ask except about whether or not Dean has said things that are a bit out of bounds. Yeah, good job fellas, news flash: Howard Dean is a Hothead! Stop the presses!
At some point, Brian Wilson (the other, much cooler, and now it seems more sane Brian Wilson is pictured) of Fox News asked Dean if he hated white Christians. Dean blew off the question. Then, he asked again. One reporter, seeing he had no credential, said "who are you?" Wilson, in his most professional manner, said "who the fuck are you?" Apparently this continued into the hallway afterward.
If I were Dean, I would have said "No, I don't hate White Christians, just you...", but I'm not as measured and calm as Dr. Dean.
Wilson is not some fringy blogger or talk show host, he's supposedly a journalist. I'm assuming that his mom and dad paid good money to send him to journalism school, he should do better than this. Any employee of any professional organization that acts this way in public while on duty would get his ass fired. I guess Fox News is not a professional organization. Of course, his colleagues aren't that much better. With all that is going on, you folks couldn't find anything substantive to ask about?
Senator Durbin later wondered aloud why the rest of the reporters would let this uncredentialed "moose" run the event. Wilson said that he isn't a moose, but a gazelle. Nice to have no shame, eh Brian?
Some jackass named Fred Jackson with American Family Radio is alleging that Los Angeles Mayor-elect Antonio Villaraigosa was elected by illegal aliens. I wondered how long it would take for this to be out there. Out here, racist morons have claimed that Raúl Grijalva, Ed Pastor and even Mo Udall were elected by "illegals." My brother has even heard the cannard that Gov. Napolitano was elected by throngs of the undocumented. What's worse is he hears this from Republican legislators. One Republican candidate in Cochise county claimed after the 2000 election that Marsha Arzberger won with the votes of illegal aliens living in Douglas. Of course, if you suspect every latino you meet of just having jumped over the fence, it would be natural to assume that any candidate with latino support was elected by illegals. And, this would make you, in border parlance, a baboso.
MSNBC, not learning from what happened with Michael Savage, has brought a man named Jay Severin on board to be a panelist on Tucker Carlson's new show. Severin has called for the execution of Michael Dukakis, refered to Hillary Clinton a "bitch" and justified date rape. And these boneheads in the press get mad at what Howard Dean says?|W|P|111850972034241948|W|P|Not So Good Vibrations|W|Pemail@example.com/12/2005 02:54:00 AM|W|P|Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|About Dean and the other people getting away with that stuff:
- Florence (the location of the festival) was not on Debra's way to the capitol.
- The legislature was not in session
- Debra hadn't been a member of the legislature for two years.
When it comes to the parties there are two standards: One is that the Republicans will be crooks no matter what so if they actually do not act like criminals then we can just ignore it or even when they DO act like criminals they are not killing anyone...ah hell we just do not care about it! The other is the Democrats should be innocent little angels who never do anything more then act kittens. Blind kittens. So when we have one who does fight back the press is shocked. Like you would be if a kitten suddenly turned into a lion that was pissed off and not going to take it anymore.
Something like that.6/10/2005 04:02:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|I was going to write a long rant about the problems with presidential primaries. I realized that it was way way too long...I think even my most loyal readers would not suffer through it. I'll put it up later when I can figure out how to make it short.
Anyhoo...the Pima County Nucleus Club last night featured a panel of legislators: Sen. Gabrielle Giffords, Rep. Phil Lopes, Rep.
Ted Tom Prezelski, Rep. Dave Bradley and Rep. Ted Downing. There wasn't a lot of complaining about the session. Usually these sorts of panel discussions are dominated by whinging by one or two newbies who naïvely thought that they would change the world by serving as a Tucson Democrat in the Arizona Legislature.
This crew is experienced, at least by post-term limit standards, and they have not become totally cynical. Well...give them another couple of sessions banging their head against the brick wall also known as the East Valley delegation.
Giffords, who I've known for more than two decades, started the discussion. In the past, I've been frustrated by her tendency to slip into lege-speak. Gabby, I love you, but it's irritating. She did not do it this time, her talk was down to earth. She gave a great overview of the session, which was more furstration than accomplishment. She refered to the Democratic Senate Caucus as the "Dirty Dozen." This begs the question: Which one is Telly Savalas? Which one is Trini López?
Next was Lopes (thank God Rep. Linda López didn't show, it would have been too confusing for the Anglos to sort the Portuguese from the Spanish). Lopes talked about the accomplishments, which were more in the negative. Lopes believed that the governor's veto of the private school tax credit was because the house members had managed to put pressure on her. He also described the moments where Democrats were able to turn back some of the more gawdawful legilation. He also talked about how hard it is to keep the caucus together, particularly when members confuse their own personal agendas with the good of the caucus. I feel that Lopes has done an excellent job. He has been very willing to go out into the public and explain what the Democrats are doing. He is a far cry from one former Democratic leader who told the press in his early interviews that he didn't think party identification was important.
Prezelski, Bradley and Downing were each able to point to small victories here and there. Prezelski was proud of a bill he shepherded regarding off-reservation public housing for Native Americans. He got a laugh when he said, "I know some of you will be shocked about this, but some of the Republicans are racist." Bradley gave an articlate argument about morality, and how it to him means helping the least among us. It's the sort of values argument I'd like to see more of our national Democrats making. Downing was good; he took some nice shots at the Republicans. His talk was thankfully free of some of the "I'm the only one that cares" self-promotion that rubs some the wrong way. He has promised to keep pursuing the paper ballot issue.
One interesting moment came when the moderator, Steve Emerine, introduced Karen Ulich, Democratic candidate for City Council. He said that everyone needs to support her. I hope this means that Steve and his friends will not be raising money for her Republican opponent as they have in the past.|W|P|111844920045024172|W|P|Nucleus Club Meeting|W|Pfirstname.lastname@example.org/07/2005 08:17:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P| Writing this page is always a bit harder than my other page. On that one, I can do whatever I want. On this one, I actually have to put some sort of thought into it. Well, not always much thought, but thought none the less.
I was thinking about the Gospel reading that I heard in church on Sunday. Probably the same one you heard if they use the same calendar. It was from the Gospel of Matthew, Chapter 9. Matthew is enjoying a meal with his friends, who are various low-lifes and tax collecters. Jesus walks in, and Matthew gives up the life with these friends to follow Him. Of course, those Pharisees don't like this one bit, and tell Jesus's followers that he shouldn't be running around with these sorts of people. (Notice how they don't bother to go to Jesus with this complaint? Kind of like some employers I have.) Jesus responds by saying that he did not come to save the righteous, but the sinner.
This made me think about the problems I have with some in the evangelical community. I don't want to trash anyone's faith. As a matter of fact, a co-worker of mine is a very strong evangelical (and who takes those inconvienient "love thy neighbor" things seriously) and we probably talk about religion too much for co-workers. What I have trouble with are the people that use their faith as an excuse to parade around claiming they are more righteous than the next guy, the ones who use their religion as an excuse to dislike the people they weren't inclined to like in the first place. The challenge isn't to love and serve people who you like, and are just like you. The real challenge we are called to is to seek out those who are n't like us, and serve them. I read things like this in the Gospels and I wonder if many of the conservative christian leaders would be with Jesus, or with the Pharisees.
Anyhoo...that's today's rant.|W|P|111815806874856454|W|P|Sunday's Gospel|W|Pemail@example.com/12/2005 02:45:00 AM|W|P|Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|On my flights (I am scared to death of flying and spend most each flight I get on praying to God to let me land and repeating my favorite Psalm) to Detroit this past weekend I actually prayed for God to allow me to forgive the Republicans (Especially the ones like Bush) for what they do. It was the first time I seriously meant it and when I got of the plane I remembered that I still need to want to forgive them because ultimately they are all of God's creatures even if they do violate Matthew 6:5, because as Jesus once said "forgive them Lord, they know not what they do." That and because one should never ask God for anything that you will not do when out of danger.6/03/2005 09:27:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|When Harry Reid got selected as Democratic Leader, I kept reading the Washington Pundits go on about how dry and colorless he is. This from people who think that Tucker Carlson is vibrant.
I never quite got this. He has a led a fascinating life. The guy was raised by a mother who washed clothes for prostitutes, was played by Tom Smothers in the movie Casino, and at one point got into a fight with LaToya Jackson's ex. Geez, I could never had said any of those things about Dennis DeConcini.
Anyhow, check out the interview with him in the new issue of Rolling Stone. Money quote:
Eric Bates: You've called Bush a loser.
Senator Reid: And a liar.
Bates: You apologized for the loser comment.
Reid: But never for the liar, have I?
And to think there were people in the party that thought he didn't have any fight in him.|W|P|111781700878032514|W|P|Why I love Harry Reid|W|Pfirstname.lastname@example.org/11/2005 09:21:00 PM|W|P|Jami|W|P|nice. it was a mistake for fox or whoever to paint reid as dull. he can only impress us after that. and does every time, in my experience.6/02/2005 10:59:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|It was officially announced yesterday that Councilmember Carol West has officially changed from being a Democrat to an independent. This move probably shouldn't effect any of the day to day activities of the council, since it is not organized on a partisan basis. The only thing it may do is allow West to be more open about her support for Republicans Fred Ronstadt and Kathleen Dunbar. There had already been griping from at least one council candidate that she had been helping Ronstadt.
I have no personal problems with Carol West. She seems like a very nice woman and we always have pleasant conversations. However, she threw in with the Republicans on the council; she threw in big with them. She didn't act as a moderate, someone who both sides could go to and would provide a swing vote. She acted only as a fourth vote for whatever Rondstadt, Dunbar and Walkup wanted. A responsible moderate would be someone who would vote against the more extreme positions, keep Fred and Kathleen honest. She was just a rubber-stamp. Even on issues where it should have been easy for a Democrat to vote yes, like asking Kinder-Morgan to build in a new place so gasoline wouldn't rain down on neighborhoods, she took the "All Businessmen Can Do What They Want and Damn the Residents" Republican side.
A few years ago, there was an attempted settlement with Eller Media over the ongoing billboard lawsuits. The settlement was deeply flawed, and it prompted me to send faxes to several council members (I didn't bother with Fred). I recieved calls from a couple of members, including West. The calls from the other council members would be questions about the settlement and what I thought of this or that. First question from West was, "How did you know about this?" I told her I had some sources. Why was that the question, rather than the substance of the fax?
By the way, the deal was killed, not by West being a swing vote, but by Bob Walkup telling Ronstadt what a horrible idea it was.
The dearth of coverage of this has been interesting. It got covered in the Tucson Citizen, but didn't make it into C. J. Karamargin's weekly column or the Star. It also did not make the Tucson Weekly's political columns. Either the local media realizes that Carol hadn't been working with the Democrats for a long time, or once again, they don't give a rat's ass about local politics.
I liked Carol's husband Neil, who did a great deal of work for the local party. It looks like I'm going to get his slot on the State Committee.|W|P|111773736289788246|W|P|West Quits Party|W|Pemail@example.com/01/2005 08:26:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|A friend at work recieved an e-mail off of a list of homeschoolers he is on:
This starts today. Save your gas receipts! It's a 10 cents per gallon
rebate. (Mark checked this out...it's not me passing on an urban legend :)
Forward to anyone who uses gas!
SAVE THOSE GAS RECEIPTS FROM MEMORIAL DAY THRU LABOR DAY 2005! The legislature has just passed a bill to rebate us (in ARIZONA) for some
of the tax we pay on gas at the pump. Save all receipts to get the
rebate. here is the info below. In case you can't connect from the
link below go to www.azleg.state.az.us and SEARCH for bill number 2781.
The basic provisions are:
Provisions Motor Vehicle Fuel purchased between May 30, 2005
through September 5, 2005 will be eligible for a partial rebate of
motor vehicle fuel taxes. Consumers will apply to the ADOT for the
rebate. Rebate set at ten cents per gallon not to exceed $200 per
consumer. ADOT will pay the rebate from the state general fund.
Consumers will be able to apply for the rebate from September 6, 2005
through June 6, 2006. See full bill here:
http://www.azleg.state.az.us/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/47leg/1r/summ Sounds good. The only trouble is, the bill never made it to hearing. It was introduced late in the session, with great fanfare. Once folks started looking at it, they realized it was totally unworkable. Anyone remember alt-fuels?
I hope no motivation other than ignorance prompted the e-mail. There doesn't seem to be any way that someone could make money off of it, so "scam" is probably a strong word. I think of those e-mails claiming that people are trying to remove crosses from Arlington, changing the oath sworn at courts or taking religious references off of monuments. Its like the only purpose is to get people riled up, regardless of facts.|W|P|111768410332739506|W|P|Bad Bill Prompts e-Mail Scam|W|Pfirstname.lastname@example.org/07/2005 02:03:00 PM|W|P|6/01/2005 09:16:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Our Republican Friends in the legislature are now threatening to send the governor the exact same "school choice" bill she vetoed. Um...how exactly is that supposed to work? She's supposed to be all frightened of them? Bear in mind here, this isn't a veto override, its just them passing the damn bill over and over again until she, I guess, forgets that she's opposed to it.
I haven't seen polls yet, but unless there is a major backlash against her for this supposed "lying" that she did, I can't see them being anywhere close to victorious in this fight. I'm not sure how they can argue that she lied. If she did, it was the exact same lie that they themselves told the press and Democratic legislators.
It's never stops being funny, these big manly men in the Republican leadership, and Janet always wins the cojones contests.
I work with drop-outs, many of whom are in and out of the juvenile justice system. Its interesting when I ask why they got arrested. The reasons fall into a couple of different categories:
- Somebody snitched
- The cop was a jerk
- My PO "violated me"
Interesting thing is missing in all of those, a reason that goes along the lines of "I messed up..."
I thought of this yesterday when the news of the Supreme Court overturning Arthur Andersen's conviction hit. Various business publications have been making excuses for these guys, and complaining that the big bad government caused all of this. Um, excuse me? Arthur Andersen destroyed documents to cover up the whole Enron business, no disputing that, but the court found a problem with the jury instructions about who was culpable. No court found them "innocent" or "exhonerated" them. Hey, Wall Street Journal, I don't remember you ever looking at dropped charges and not guilty verdicts against Bill Clinton's friends as an "exhoneration." Maybe it's time for publications like Forbes and the Wall Street Journal to hold their corporate friends to the same sorts of legal standards that they expect poor people and liberal minded politicians to.
Ah, too much to expect today.|W|P|111764430660876371|W|P|Everybody Knows|W|Pemail@example.com/02/2005 12:44:00 AM|W|P|tucsonteresa|W|P|I really like the photo of the Governor. Is that how she takes care of Republicans? |W|P|damn, and I was just saving my receipts too. Bastards. |W|P|Boy, I'm curious, did anyone ever contact Daily Show? |W|P|Tedski! |W|P|Great site. Since you brought up percentages, can you find a legitimate news source/ census data/ demographic statistics that backs up the assertion on last night's The Daily Show that 84% of Republicans are in fact White Christians? I'm sure it is true, but I couldn't track down a site that had the data. |W|P|Thanks for the lesson, T-ski!