Sunday, October 29, 2006


while you're reading this article, you have two distinctly different reactions.

first, you'll snort with disbelieving laughter when you read things like:
Last year, Sensenbrenner became apoplectic when Democrats who wanted to hold a hearing on the Patriot Act invoked a little-known rule that required him to let them have one.
"Naturally, he scheduled it for something like 9 a.m. on a Friday when Congress wasn't in session, hoping that no one would show," recalls a Democratic staffer who attended the hearing. "But we got a pretty good turnout anyway."

Sensenbrenner kept trying to gavel the hearing to a close, but Democrats again pointed to the rules, which said they had a certain amount of time to examine their witnesses. When they refused to stop the proceedings, the chairman did something unprecedented: He simply picked up his gavel and walked out.

funny, huh? funny that our only check against authortarianism and executive excess, our congress, doesn't even respect the rules of our democracy.

then, after you're done choking on your disbelieving laughter, you'll start to get angry. very very angry. who do these people think they are??
It is clear that the same Congress that put a drooling child-chaser like Mark Foley in charge of a House caucus on child exploitation also named Cunningham, a man who can barely write his own name in the ground with a stick, to a similarly appropriate position. Ladies and gentlemen, we give you the former chairman of the House Subcommittee on Human Intelligence Analysis and Counterintelligence:
"As truth will come out and you will find out how liablest [sic] you have & will be. Not once did you list the positives. Education Man of the funding, jobs, Hiway [sic] funding, border security, Megans law my bill, Tuna Dolfin [sic] my bill...and every time you wanted an expert on the wars who did you call. No Marcus you write About how I died."
How liablest you have & will be? What the fuck does that even mean? This guy sat on the Appropriations Committee for years -- no wonder Congress couldn't pass any spending bills!

then, you'll feel a great big heave of disgust.
disgust at our pork-laden public officials, disgust at the ruins of our congress, disgust at our president for enabling these turdy, ignorant psychopaths and, especially, disgust at our craven mainstream media who can't seem to muster any muckraking instinct if their over-bloated lives depended on it. what the hell ever happened to 'the public's right to know'?!

it's a long article but it's worth every single pukey detail.

Rolling Stone : COVER STORY: Time to Go! Inside the Worst Congress Ever


jesus chick said...

where was rolling stone in 1864? actually, i have no idea what was going on in congress in 1864 - i just pulled that out of the air. was there a congress in 1864. . . anyway, what's unfortunate is that i really can't believe that this is the worst congress ever. ever ever? certainly i make no concessions for this administration but truly, this day and age brings new meaning to the phrase, "the best (or worst) is yet to come".
and . . . .just out of morbid curiosity, why haven't i heard anything about gerry studds from the media? i guess he's old news. which begs another phrase, "history repeats iteself". ah but i digress. . .

Anonymous said...

Please write the UN and commend them on their report on violence against women. The MRA’s are launching a negative barrage of emails to them because they enjoy violence against women and don’t understand why the UN would like to end it. Thanks!

ding said...

oh, jesus chick - i guess the fact that gerry is totally old and dead doesn't have anything to do with why i don't know anything about him. however, thanks to the wiki on the kos site, you all can read about him here.

and, he was censured for his misconduct, if that's supposed to mean anything.

as for whether this congress is the worst so far, constitutional and congressional scholars seem to think so. this congress has permanently shut down any prospect of bipartisan cooperation, has worked less than any other congressional session in history, has been the most constitutionally foolhardy and, yet, we're somehow supposed to believe that one gay guy back in the 80s is the equivalent?

at least studds was censured; hasterst has yet to rouse himself to do anything about foley, who quit before they could do anything to punish him for misconduct.

and, yes, we had a congress during 1864 - the 38th congress was during the civil war and the last two years of lincoln's presidency. (we've had congressional sessions since our first in 1789.)

ding said...

thanks for the tip.

i'm not too worried about the MRM moving the UN to their way of thinking. most of them can't express themselves without letting their utter hatred of women seep to the surface like an oil slick and military events in places like bosnia and the sudan have been enough in the public eye (though not really enough) that i really don't think the UN is going to say that, yes, violence against women is a fiction.

for more info on global women's work, folks can look here. or they can go here.

i'm loathe to go searching for what exactly the MRMers are petitioning for, but if you know, i'm momentarily curious.

Anonymous said...

They are upset that a report from the UN on violence in the world focused on women...they can't seem to grasp that violence does happen to men...but rarely for the mere fact that they are men.

ding said...

ah. i see. i'm at work now but i have thoughts on this...