Cassandra over at Delaware Liberal mentioned something about the State GOP and sockpuppets, and I had a brain-flash.
Instead of known, identifiable State Legislators spending our tax money and/or funding their retirements in private, smoke-filled back rooms, and not letting us know what they’re doing, why don’t we have anonymous legislators who must conduct all State business on the internet for all to see? That way, all the ego is removed, and we get to see how our tax money is being spent and how the state is managed. And this is great for the Legislators. They don’t have to face personal criticism because we don’t know who they are. And its great for the tax payers because the lobbyists of special interests don’t know who to bribe.
Brilliant.
Posted by Intercourse in General at 9:35 AM PDT
4 Comments | Gimme some more »
“As boating season approaches, the Bush administration wants to enlist the country’s 80 million recreational boaters to help reduce the chances that a small boat could deliver a nuclear or radiological bomb somewhere along the country’s 95,000 miles of coastline and inland waterways.” LINK.
Oh good. 80 million drunk rednecks looking for an excuse to show a little bravado, but with absolutely no training and limited intelligence. Speaking of which, does the State of Texas allow this guy to operate a motor vehicle on public roads?
Posted by Intercourse in General at 7:24 AM PDT
6 Comments | Gimme some more »
Ever seen a racoon with a broken back? Half dead meat, half razor-honed, finely tuned six-pack of chainsaws. Yes, its Hillary.
Posted by Intercourse in General at 10:53 AM PDT
Talk dirty to me »
Today’s editorial by wRONg in the NJ regarding Copeland and Lee reached a high point: “I haven’t seen Republicans this upbeat since their own Donna Lee Williams decided not seek re-election as insurance commissioner.”
More good news. Rumors of Donna Lee hovering around the Gene gReed Insurance Commissioner campaign carry as much weight as her left thigh. Has one of the embarrasments of the GOP switched sides?
Posted by Intercourse in General at 9:52 AM PDT
4 Comments | Gimme some more »
Its tough raising money for political races. I heard from a guy in Texas that a fundraiser there isn’t considered successful unless it lasts three days, raises hundreds of thousands of dollars, involves mutiple visits by the police and fire department, causes at least three divorces, and boosts the local legal community with several DUI’s. It ain’t so easy in Delaware. So what’s a candidate to do when corporations and special interests show up at the door step with fistfulls of “limit” checks? The problem here is that there is always an implied, and sometimes expressed, condition that “One day, I will ask you for a small favor.” The favor is always there, hanging over the head of the politician who listened to the Devil. And its more than money. Its support for the politician’s pet projects. Its dinners and sports tickets out-of-state.
So how does a politician say “No” to evil? He or she must stick to the campaign platform. We all hear from each and every candidate during the races that they’re for good government, for lower taxes, against unfair advantage of the well-heeled, yadayadayadayada. Some can say, “I can take lots of money from a special interest and still remain impartial and for the citizens.” Unfortunately, thousands of years of human history shows that this is simply not true. Campaign finance laws wouldn’t be there if influence peddling was not a problem.
So what’s the conclusion? If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and has feathers, its a well-funded sleazy politician who’s bought and paid for and screw the rest of you if it waddles to a win in November.
Posted by Intercourse in General at 9:22 AM PDT
6 Comments | Gimme some more »
… has been bumped off the News Journal.
Posted by Intercourse in General at 11:59 AM PDT
19 Comments | Gimme some more »
Hillary is in Memphis speaking about how much she admired and respected Dr. Martin Luther King’s work against racial injustice in the U.S. Yet, I’m confused. Didn’t she and her cohorts lambast the Rev. Wright for doing the same thing recently?
I’m sure its not because she’ll say and do anything to get what she wants, regardless of how hypocritical, false, or damaging to others.
Posted by Intercourse in General at 11:32 AM PDT
35 Comments | Gimme some more »
She’s on CNN saying “I’m used to being out-spent.” She has more excuses for losing than Bush on Iran. She less money because people aren’t giving her any. They’re not giving her any because she speaks out of both sides of her mouth so much she’s got lipstick on both ears. I expect her any day to say that the candidate with the least support is the better candidate.
Posted by Intercourse in General at 4:10 PM PDT
23 Comments | Gimme some more »
We’ve heard each others’ schpiel for a while now. So if we were a government instead of a bunch of disorganized geeks with an unliberal sprinkling of party panderers, who would you vote for as our Elected Servant?
I figure about four candidates, each needing a nomination and a second (from different people Mr. P) to qualify, and then we’ll do a poll to see who wins the election. The nominiee/candidate does not have to be a blogger. He/she can be anyone the nominee likes/respects, as long as a second (from a different person, Mr. P) is received. For instance, Lucifer has never blogged on the Delaware sites to my knowledge, however one of the GOP crowd who obviously respects his campaign practices could nominate the Devil.
You are encouraged to give a stump-speech on why you nominate or second a particular person. Hyperbole and false-flattery is more than welcome.
I’ll go first. I nominate Mat Marshall. He is amazingly articulate for a blogger his age (would that make him a ‘pre-pubic’ servant?). His posts generate interest and responses. He makes me feel less guilty that someone is doing some work around here. I agree with most of his positions. I don’t think he’ll hire his relatives. Do I hear a second? Any other nominations?
Posted by Intercourse in General at 2:36 PM PST
20 Comments | Gimme some more »
Do you give a lot of consideration to who your party wants you to vote for, or do you make up your own mind? If the former, do you bitch about lousy politicians even though you haven’t done anything about it? Do you defend your party’s elite by:
1) saying “Well, the other guys do it too”; or
2) ignore criticism about party members; or
3) rationalize behavior in order to show your loyalty to the power brokers supporting lousy politicians; or
4) otherwise burying your head in the sand except when you need to pull it out to kiss ass?
In other words, are you a follower or a leader?
Posted by Intercourse in General at 11:53 AM PST
2 Comments | Gimme some more »
There have been a lot of posts about conflicts, self-dealing, nepotism, cronyism, and other activities that indicate that our legislators and other elected officials are perhaps not truly representing the interests of our fair State. The posts contain suggestions for controls to help avoid political activity that benefit a powerful few or related few. There has even been a suggestion that we create an elected office for an impartial observer to monitor and punish such behavior.
Lets throw that last suggestion away first. Making government bigger hasn’t solved anything yet. In addition, the ‘impartial official’ will have to go through the same political process as everyone else, making promises to those who participate in the political process. Lastly, a quick review of human history discloses few if any “impartial” people.
I think we’re trying to prove wrong Mark Twain’s saying about teaching a pig to sing: it frustrates you and annoys the pig. Our solution is not to bitch and moan; our solution is to become more involved in the process. An example of this approach working is the Kent County Levy Court. Prior to the last round of Levy Court elections, we had a group of Commissioners who pretty much rubber stamped rampant and uncontrolled development. Our solution was not to bitch and moan and demand disclosure of benefits to these old Commissioners for cozying up to developers; our solution was to organize and vote them the hell out, which we did.
We have another such opportunity facing us: the looming Democrat primary for Governor. Those of us in the party have been told that we should vote for the annoited candidate. We’ve essentially been told that we should not weigh the primary candidates on their respective merits but support who the party told us to support. My answer? NO. Markell has a remarkable business background attained solely by his own efforts, he is not tied tightly to the prior administration (in fact, its just the opposite), he does not appoint a committee everytime a poltical lobbyist demands stalling tactics, he articulates detailed, objective ideas for State improvement. In short, I am voting for who I believe is the better candidate to run the State. It seems more beneficial to get behind the good than to bitch about the bad. Go for it.
Posted by Intercourse in General at 9:52 AM PST
12 Comments | Gimme some more »
More and more people I speak to are making political choices based on the candidate, not the candidate’s party affiliation. It seems that the blind loyalty to the “party line”, which has given us both our State and Federal leader for the last eight years, is becoming extinct. Is this proof that we are getting smarter? The natural selection causes dumb candidates and those dumb enough to vote for them to disappear from the political landscape; and the only thing that these poor candidates have offered is to protect their organization, their party, in the face of reason and common sense.
I think there may be hope for us.
Posted by Intercourse in General at 2:44 PM PST
7 Comments | Gimme some more »
A post below takes the position that we should not bail-out mortgage defaults with our tax money. The reasoning in this post appears to be that we should not reward stupidity and greed. I agree. But the role of government, in which our politicians failed, is more than that. Not only should stupidity and greed not be rewarded, it should, where greed combined with foreknowledge is evident, be severly punished.
For example: if you decided to sell life insurance at $10 for a million in coverage, its pretty obvious you would sell a lot of insurance because the premium is a whole lot less than other companies offer. Or if you offered comprehensive health coverage for $30 a month, its pretty obvious you would sell a lot of health insurance. It is also obvious that you would not be able to pay any claims. At the end of the day, after paying youself a nice salary and nice bonus and nice commission from the thousands who flocked to buy insurance policies cheaper than all others, you say, “The company is broke! Too bad!”
Un unh. Like banks, insurance companies are monitored by the government to make sure that they don’t do exactly what is described above. Insurance companies who run what is essentially a Ponzi scheme are caught quickly (most times), and those who thought they could make a quick financial ‘hit’ are punished severly (some times). Those who put a lot of customer money in their pockets knowing that the financial promises they sell area bunch of lies should, and too seldom do, go to jail.
The ROLE OF GOVERNMENT is more than just refusing to give a break to sub-prime morgagees (thereby also giving a break to the professionals who offered these mortgages). The role of government is to hit the organizations who wrote these loans like the Giants’ defensive line in a bad mood. This is not only justified, but is required in order to reward the good behavior of banks who didn’t follow the greed, but maintained proper lending practices in the face of this current sub-prime greed rush. The banks who held the line, refusing to throw away proven statistical lending guidelines, were harassed by their shareholders who screamed that they were not making the short-term profits that the Ponzi schemers were showing. If we do not insist that the Federal Banking Commission and state banking departments punish these sub-prime wrong-doers we are essentially saying to the US banking industry that its ok to take outrageous and unjustified risks to the detriment of all except those who performed the wrong in the first place. Many individuals made a lot of money writing loans that all competent banking professionals knew were bad. If government does not punish these Boards of Directors who sold these loans, it has failed. Lets go beyond the idiocy of simply not rewarding these bad lenders; lets reward those banking professionals who refused to rape and plunder by getting rid of the lobbyist-protected thieves.
Posted by Intercourse in General at 2:06 PM PST
1 Comment | Gimme some more »
