onwyrdshammer
onwyrdshammer
.:..:....... .:::::

April 2008
    1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30

Back March 14th, 2008 Forward
onwyrdshammer [userpic]
Pork, congress can't resist the old troff



From Hot Air it would appear that it's enough of an issue that all 3 remaining presidential candidates showed up to vote for a 1 year moratorium on pork (including Obama, who's wife got a nice raise after he threw some tax dollars her employer's way.) Despite their efforts, though, the vast majority of the Senate voted against a moratorium on earmarks. What's the point in being Senator if you can't get your own statue or an unneeded bridge named in your honor? This only makes congress look sleazier, and makes it harder to vote for them.

On the up side, I don't see any North Carolina senators on the list, so at least my state is doing it's part?

Named and shamed, the Senators who voted against:

Akaka (D-HI)Durbin (D-IL)Nelson (D-NE)
Baucus (D-MT)Feinstein (D-CA)Pryor (D-AR)
Bennett (R-UT)Gregg (R-NH)Reed (D-RI)
Biden (D-DE)Hagel (R-NE)Reid (D-NV)
Bingaman (D-NM)Harkin (D-IA)Roberts (R-KS)
Bond (R-MO)Hatch (R-UT)Rockefeller (D-WV)
Boxer (D-CA)Hutchison (R-TX)Salazar (D-CO)
Brown (D-OH)Inouye (D-HI)Sanders (I-VT)
Brownback (R-KS)Johnson (D-SD)Schumer (D-NY)
Bunning (R-KY)Kennedy (D-MA)Shelby (R-AL)
Byrd (D-WV)Kerry (D-MA)Smith (R-OR)
Cantwell (D-WA)Klobuchar (D-MN)Snowe (R-ME)
Cardin (D-MD)Kohl (D-WI)Specter (R-PA)
Carper (D-DE)Landrieu (D-LA)Stabenow (D-MI)
Casey (D-PA)Lautenberg (D-NJ)Stevens (R-AK)
Cochran (R-MS)Leahy (D-VT)Tester (D-MT)
Coleman (R-MN)Levin (D-MI)Vitter (R-LA)
Collins (R-ME)Lincoln (D-AR)Voinovich (R-OH)
Conrad (D-ND)Lugar (R-IN)Warner (R-VA)
Craig (R-ID)Menendez (D-NJ)Webb (D-VA)
Crapo (R-ID)Mikulski (D-MD)Whitehouse (D-RI)
Dodd (D-CT)Murkowski (R-AK)Wicker (R-MS)
Domenici (R-NM)Murray (D-WA)Wyden (D-OR)
Dorgan (D-ND)Nelson (D-FL)


if your senator was on this list, you should probably let them know you don't appreciate them putting getting themselves reelected (or personal enrichment, or using tax dollars to underhandedly get campaign contributions) ahead of the tax payer. It's your money they're allocating to things not in the national interest. It's your money, and your vote. It isn't about congresses right to set funding priorities. What this is about, is taking millions of dollars and transforming it into thousands of dollars for reelection campaigns, bridges with your name on it, and family members and friends being enriched at the expense of the rest of us. National taxes should go to national, not local interests, should seek the best value for the money (not no-compete contracts), and should not be beneficial to explicitly named entities.

Vote for people who will be responsible with your money. If you don't, you may find you don't have money for them to be responsible with. Ask Cuba.

onwyrdshammer [userpic]
guns and schools

from cnn
Oklahoma is among the first states to be cognizant of the fact that college students are supposed to be considered adults, and that when unsecured areas, that their personal safety is their own responsibility. Such responsibilities have no meaning without the rights to back them up.

The article's second sentance?

The measure was approved 65-36, despite opponents who said it made no sense following shootings at schools across the country.


it is the responsibility of news organizations to be informative, but I think the phrasing demonstrated the bias of the author. Opponents doesn't enumerate who particularly well, the only quote from the opponents is

"This has to be the craziest thing I have ever seen," said Rep. Ray McCarter, D-Marlow, one of several lawmakers who said the measure is opposed by college administrators.


well, from a bit of the old internet research, it would appear that Ray McCarter is a former teacher/administrator himself, and administrators of any stripe are usually against anything "disruptive" or "empowering." The anti-gun crowd of course thinks that the fewer guns there are, the safer we are. That is not actually accurate.

Opponents is a broad term, but some opinion more or less exists to be mocked. So the question becomes. Who opposes. It matters a great deal as to how much I value their opinion.

Back March 14th, 2008 Forward