July 23rd, 2005

fashionable

Greed for power.

Only a few scant years after significant popular pressure forced our nation's politicians to accept campaign finance reform laws, numerous Republican lawmakers, facing scandals and decreasing success at fundraising, are trying to pass legislation designed to gut campaign finance limits. Leading the charge? None other than Tom DeLay.

The proposed legislation would remove all caps on how much money an individual can donate to political parties, allowing a single donor to potentially donate nearly twenty times more than previously allowed by existing caps.

The legislation also would allow political-action committees to donate $15,000 to a House candidate every two years, up from $10,000, and would allow PACs to contribute $25,000 to a political party every two years, up from $15,000. These limits would rise with inflation.

How do the Republican backers of this legislation defend their actions?

"The other side wants to bring more regulation; we want to bring more freedom." - Mike Pence (R-Ind.)

Yes, in the name of freedom, we must oppose the will of the American public in order to guarantee the right of the very, very rich to buy candidates and elections!

Prohibiting huge corrupting contributions was what the McCain-Feingold law of 2002 was all about. The law would be effectively gutted / circumvented if this bill ever went into effect.

How do others view the legislation?
"Disasterous".... "A joke".... "I see no way it would get a majority." - Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.)

"I will not support the [Pence-Wynn] bill. I think the McCain approach ... is the correct way to go." - Rep. Mike Castle (R-Del.)

"It is a mistake for my party to want to push this legislation, and I hope they don't." - Rep. Christopher Shays (R-Ct.)

And those are just statements from some of the Republicans who oppose it. This thing is an albatross with a broken wing. It ain't gonna fly! So, the question to be asked is, if it's avaricious, inane, undemocratic, and corrupt, why do it at all? Are they really *THAT* desperate?

I guess any scandal is better for the Republicans than more talk about Rove!
fashionable

Worst fears confirmed.

Scotland Yard is apologizing for the death of the man who was shot five times and killed after a pursuit by plainclothed police officers on the London Underground Thursday. Apparently, he was unconnected to the terrorist bombing incidents. Infact, he was a Brazilian!

How awful. This kind of thing damages relations between the British government and its Islamic community, whose cooperation they'll need if they're going to fight against the risk of domestic terrorism.

It was only a few days ago when I talked about the best quote in response to the original bombing being from Ken Livingstone. Well, this time he's got the worst quote:

"This tragedy has added another victim to the toll of deaths for which the terrorists bear responsibility."

Um... Ken?! Don't you think his death might've had something to do with the fact that the police unloaded five bullets into him at point blank range, rather than arresting him? Or how about the mayor who signed off on the unconditional use of lethal force? Or perhaps the Prime Minister who pissed off the Islamic terrorists by helping invade and occupy Iraq?

I'm not saying the terrorists weren't partially responsible, but realistically, they're no higher than third on the list for this fiasco. Stop blaming the terrorists for government violations of people's rights, 'k?! One does not justify the other... *especially* when police go around popping civilians.

The only good thing that could possibly come of this mess would be if they were to use the incidents to create another season of "Prime Suspect". Where's Jane Tennison when you need her?!