Two former aides to Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) have alleged that he violated House ethics rules by requiring them to work on several local and state campaigns (including his wife’s campaigns) and to babysit, chauffeur, and tutor his kids.
There are articles about this in the Detroit Free Press back to 2003, but it hasn’t been addressed in Congress because the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct has been inoperable since January 2005. However, the committee “has since hired a staff director and a team of investigators. The committee is evaluating which investigations to pursue, including the Conyers matter.” So we might get some more news on these complaints soon.
From what I understand, the things that are alleged are not uncommon, but that doesn’t makes them right; they are in violation of House ethics rules. I’d be very disappointed if the accusations against Conyers were true.
Conyers Facing Ethics Complaints
Aborting Female Fetuses in India
Read Jill at Feministe and The Countess on the subject. They’re both great pieces. I don’t have anything to add to what they’ve said, although I’d be interested to hear your thoughts…
Illinois Rape Case Update
Judge Kerry Kennedy has backed off his threat to send a woman to jail for refusing the view the videotape of her attack and has refused to dismiss charges against the defendant.
The judge's action angered victims' rights advocates, and a group of lawyers worked overnight to prepare an argument to present to the judge this morning, according to Lyn Schollett, general counsel for the Springfield-based Illinois Coalition Against Sexual Assault.That’s the very good news.
"The court cannot knowingly inflict this kind of distress on a victim," Schollett said.
She said the group of attorneys argued in a legal pleading that making the woman watch the tape was an invasion of privacy under Illinois law and irrelevant to the case.
The bad news? The update article still contains the reference to an unrelated case in which the accuser recanted.
There is absolutely no purpose to the inclusion of a reference to 10-year-old case the details of which bear no resemblance whatsoever to the current case being prosecuted. Why in the name of all that’s holy does the integrity of a victim whose attack was videotaped by her rapists have to be undermined by the media?
That victims’ rights advocates had to intervene on behalf of an alleged victim to keep her out of jail, and that the media consistently peddles the assumption that any woman who reports a rape is to be presumed guilty of lying, are infuriating. That an accused rapist should be considered innocent until proven guilty does not mean that the victim should be considered a liar until proven otherwise. And this bullshit about revictimizing alleged rape victims by threatening them with jail if they don’t perform to an arbitrary standard needs to stop immediately.
Cartoon Protests Come to America
The Disgruntled Chemist and Comandante Agi attended a panel discussion hosted by the UC Irvine Campus Republicans last night, at which The Cartoons were on display. Muslim student union members came out to protest and clashed with right-wingers, which resulted in what Agi describes as “a clash of fundamenalisms.”
Check out Agi’s coverage here and here, and The Chemist’s coverage here (which links to full coverage at his place). All I can really say is sigh.
Contact Info
Per the post below…
Deanna Zandt at AlterNet’s got the contact info for the Cook County Court here, in case you’d like to let them know you don’t like the way they treat rape victims.
And if you’d like to send a comment to the Chicago Tribune’s Public Editor, go here. For a Letter to the Editor, go here. Email the author of the article, who saw fit to mention a rape where the victim recanted by clicking ">here.
I sent the following email:
Dear Mr. Barnum,
This morning I read your article about the alleged rape victim who is refusing to watch the video of her attack. I appreciate your giving attention to this story.
However, I was dismayed by your decision to reference a wholly unrelated rape case in which the victim recanted at the end of your article. It seems to serve no purpose other than to suggest that the alleged victim in this case is not being honest, which seems extremely inappropriate.
I stongly encourage you to remove the passage from the article and thusly remove the thinly veiled commentary on an alleged rape victim who has neither recanted nor been shown to have made false charges.
Best regards,
Melissa McEwan
Another Alleged Rape Victim Threatened with Jail
But unlike the previous story out of Oregon, it’s not because the woman is suspected of making a false allegation—it’s because she doesn’t want to watch the videotape of her rape in court.
The incident took place four years ago when the woman was 16. At a party at the home of the accused, who she didn’t know previously, she got drunk, threw up, and passed out. When she woke up the next morning, she was naked from the waist down with “vulgar words” scrawled on her abdomen and legs with a marker. According to prosecutors, the videotape shows two men having sex with her, and images of people spitting on her and writing on her while she was unconscious.
Four men were originally charged. Christopher Robbins was acquitted, as the videotape does not show him having sex with the woman; he says they had sex off-camera, but that it was consensual. Sonny Smith, who served as cameraman, pled guilty to child pornography and was sent to the Illinois Department of Corrections boot camp. The two other men, who are shown on the video having sex with the woman, both fled the country. Burim Berezi still remains at large; Adrian Missbrenner returned and is now the defendant in the ongoing case.
Now at issue is the woman’s unwillingness to watch the tape. Defense attorneys insist it’s part of the defendant’s “constitutional right to confrontation of a witness,” but the woman has testified that “she doesn't have any recollection or memory of the videotape incident at all,” so it’s rather unclear what purpose subjecting her to its viewing would serve. Nonetheless:
A Naperville woman who on Tuesday refused a judge's order to view a videotape of her alleged rape could be jailed on a contempt of court charge if she does not change her mind Wednesday, and the judge is considering a request to drop sexual assault charges against the Burr Ridge man on trial.This is just utter bullshit. If the woman has testified she doesn’t remember anything about the incident, then the video should be allowed to speak for itself—whether that hurts her or helps her. Why is the case predicated on her willingness to relive her attack and be asked questions about it she can’t possibly answer in front of a courtroom full of people? And, more importantly, why is she being threatened by having charges against the defendant dismissed and being put in jail herself if she doesn’t watch the tape? Does her reluctance to watch the tape somehow change what’s actually on the tape? If the tape shows men having sex with her while she’s unconscious, spitting on her, and writing on her body, her impressions of the tape matter a hell of a lot less than the jury’s.
"I am ordering you to answer these questions," Judge Kerry Kennedy told the woman after an hourlong recess to discuss her refusal. "The consequences are that you would be held in contempt of court, with incarceration possible. Are you still refusing?"
"Yes," she responded.
"I will give you overnight to think about this," Kennedy said. "Tomorrow, I will ask you again."
And why, pray tell, does the Chicago Tribune end this article with the following?
In another rape case in 1995, a woman who had accused then-U.S. Rep. Mel Reynolds of sexually abusing her when she was 16 was jailed for seven days after refusing to testify against him. She later recanted.What does that have to do with price of rice in China?! In the year 1995, Illinois had 4,313 cases of reported forced rape. In the year 2001 (which I believe is when the case described above actually happened), there were 5,618 reported incidents of criminal sexual assault in Illinois. But the most pertinent case to mention is a case where the victim recanted? In relation to a case where the attack was videotaped? Fucking ridiculous. Nice reporting.
Reynolds was convicted and sent to prison but was pardoned by President Bill Clinton after serving more than 2 years.
(Thanks to kate.d for the heads-up.)
UPDATE: LeMew turns his legal eye to the case here.
UPDATE2: After victims' rights advocates intervene, the judge has changed his mind.
Question of the Day
Suggested by PSoTD: What is your most artistic talent?
I can't draw worth a darn, and I couldn't act my way out of a paper bag. I'm a decent photographer and singer, and I can tap a little, but nothing to write home about. So I suppose mine would either be writing or composing (piano).
Caption This Photo: Something Wicked This Way Comes Edition
U.S. President George W. Bush (R) walks with Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove along the Colonnade of the West Wing of the White House February 28, 2006. REUTERS/Larry Downing
I’ve got an idea for dealing with the last three years of King George…
Following a 17th century recipe, one of the eight artisanal whisky producers on the tiny Scottish isle of Islay will produce a dozen barrels of 184-proof whisky, the company announced.Who's with me?
That's 92 percent alcohol, which is about as strong as whisky can get without being sold in a pharmacy.
"The first taste affects all the members of the body," a 1695 description of the elixir reads. "Two spoonfuls of this last liquor is a sufficient dose -- if any man should exceed this, it would presently stop his breath, and endanger his life."
The Bruichladdich distillery said it would install webcams so that customers thirsty with anticipation could watch the potentially lethal concoction come into being.
"If the distillery doesn't explode during the process," Bruichladdich added. (Link.)
A Tale of Two Headlines
Reality: Civil War Looms with 68 Killed in Baghdad
Bushworld: Bush Denies Iraq Headed for Civil War
Looks like Dear Leader may finally have met his match in the long-running game of If I Just Keep Saying It, That Makes It True.
What you need to understand, see, is that all I have to do is catapult the propaganda...
What? What's that?
They're catapulting bullet-riddled bodies into the streets?
Oh, heh heh, well, uh, didja'll hear that Dick shot a dude in the face?
Quote of the Day
“The president's skull is solid granite.”
— Sen. Conrad Burns (R-MT), quoted by the Havre Daily News, in reference to President Bush’s stubbornness. (Via Political Wire.)
Happy Birthday, Sam
My friend Sam—patient indulger of my endless questions and solicitations of his opinion, sublime writer, and general goofball—turned mumblemmphgrumble today. I have no idea what the actual number behind the mumblemmphgrumble is because he is worse than the worst stereotype of an age-shielding woman one could hope to conjure. And I suspect he would be even if it wasn’t fun to pretend that I give a shit what that number is and that I’m irritated he won’t tell me.
All I know is that he’s well older than I, the dodgy geezer.
Happy Birthday, Sam. That is all.
Nope, no weapons in here!
When Shakespeare's Sister emails me and says "Can you take this one? I'm seriously too pissed off to comment," you know it's gonna be a lulu.
Bush: Bin Laden Helped Me
Here we go. (Bolds mine)
WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- President Bush said his 2004 re-election victory over Sen. John Kerry was inadvertently aided by Osama bin Laden, The Washington Examiner newspaper reported Tuesday.
The al Qaeda leader had issued a taped diatribe against Bush the Friday before Americans went to the polls.
Bush said there were "enormous amounts of discussion" inside his campaign about the 15-minute tape, which he called "an interesting entry by our enemy" into the presidential race.
Bush's comments in the Washington newspaper were excerpts from the new book "Strategery" by Bill Sammon, a longtime White House correspondent.
"What does it mean? Is it going to help? Is it going to hurt?" Bush told Sammon of the bin Laden tapes.
"Anything that drops in at the end of a campaign that is not already decided creates all kinds of anxieties, because you're not sure of the effect.
"I thought it was going to help," Bush said.
"I thought it would help remind people that if bin Laden doesn't want Bush to be the president, something must be right with Bush."
So, in other words:
It was worth completely giving up on Bin Laden, because it helped him get re-elected. It was useful that Osama couldn't be found, because he could use him as a political tool and it helped him get re-elected. It was helpful that Bin Laden continues to be a threat, because it helped him get re-elected. He was grateful that his fearmongering techniques worked so well, and Bin Laden is still the monster under the bed, because it helped him get re-elected. He was overjoyed that his attempts to link Bin Laden and Saddam in the minds of Americans worked, because although we "caught" the wrong evildoer, it helped him get re-elected.
As long as Americans are still afraid of the boogeyman, "something must be right with Bush."
There you have it, folks. A "president" that's more concerned with elections and his political image than bringing Osama Bin Laden to justice. He was more concerned with the boost in the election than national security.
As for he victims of 9/11 and their grieving families? They didn't even enter his tiny little brain.
Just a reminder, America. George W. Bush doesn't give a good goddamn about you, your family and loved ones, your community, or your life.
George W. Bush is only concerned with George W. Bush. The rest of you can piss up a rope.
Now... where is that wacky Bin Laden? Nope, not under here!!!
(Any cross-posts under here? Nope! None there!)
Up, up and away.
Away being the operative term.
The Moderate Voice's Joe Gandelman points to an article in The Washington Times' Insight Magazine suggesting Cheney will retire after the midterm elections. Notes Joe:
This story qualifies as a classic message-sender/trial balloon story.Joe speculates that Cheney might even be sent packing on "doctor's orders" before the midterms. That's my notion, too. Cheney's abysmal approval ratings and his recent mishandling of his hunting accident, turning a mishap into a cover-up and a subsequent full-blown scandal, aren't doing the flailing Bush any favors. Before this trial balloon was even filled with someone's (cough*Rove*cough) hot air, the curious "discovery" of 250 pages of emails from Cheney's office relating to the Plame leak had me speculating that we were about to witness a partial coup.
Clearly, some faction within the White House is trying to send out a message to Cheney (Time to think about packing your bags and PLEASE take that shotgun with you when you go) or to Republicans (We may be going down in the polls so low now that weeds are starting to grow around us but if we Dump Dick we can reinvigorate the White House AND get a fresh-face in place who will then have a good chance to win in 2008).
But make no mistake about it: this isn't likely a story that was invented by a refugee from a tabloid. It's a send-em-a-message story...
Cheney may have self-selected himself into this administration, but I don't think any amount of determination on his part to stay can keep him from getting pushed out. I suspect it's just a matter of whether he goes quietly, or goes down kicking and screaming as the White House "discovers" other bits and pieces that may be of interest to one Mr. Patrick Fitzgerald.
(Crossposted at AlterNet PEEK.)
aggrieved idiots
How about a good example of the gene pool needing some chlorine?
Nine women from across the country have decided to put themselves out there to give us one. These women have filed a Federal Trade Commission complaint against RCA and Sony/BMG because they feel betrayed--betrayed!--their precious Clay Aiken might be--gasp!--gay. They also state that by “selling” Clay without disclosing his alleged sexuality, it was like selling them a defective product. No, seriously:
The nine-strong group, listing themselves as “aggrieved consumers” SUSAN J, PATRICIA A, JACQUELYN C, KAREN G, PHYLLIS S, CAROL M, KAREN G, KIM M and LINDA F, hail from all over America.
They allege that employees of RCA, Sony/BMG, and Aiken himself “engaged in collusion to prevent public disclosures they believed might be harmful to their product”.
The angry ladies go on to state, “This is tantamount to a manufacturer concealing information about a defective product. Therefore these actions were both unfair and deceptive to consumers.”
Just what do these women expect the FTC to do about it? Why:
[I]nvestigate the practices of the record companies, to invoke civil penalties where appropriate, and to enjoin the companies from violating the Federal Trade Commission Act.
All because the dream that Clay was really singing to her at the concert was dashed.
(so amusing, I just had to cross-post)
What is Richard Cohen smoking?
He’s obviously smoking something:
There are times when George Bush sorely disappoints. Just when you might expect him to issue a malapropian explanation, pander to his base or simply not have a clue about what he is talking about, he does something so right, so honest and, yes, so commendable, that -- as Arthur Miller put it in "Death of a Salesman" -- "attention must be paid." Pay attention to how he has refused to indulge anti-Arab sentiment over the Dubai ports deal.Cohen fundamentally misses several important points here. First of all, if irrational anti-Arab sentiment is fueling concerns over this deal, the Bush administration is the group of miscreants who ought to be accepting the lion’s share of the blame for it. Certainly anti-Arab sentiments existed in the US before 9/11, but since that day, the Bush administration has done everything in their power to stoke the flames of that particular ugliness, from “You’re with us or against us” to conflating the secular dictator Saddam at every turn with the religious fundamentalist leader Osama. Who was it that repeatedly invoked the strawman of the “brown-skinned people” who “some say” don’t want democracy? It was George Bush, that’s who. He’s the one who let this horse out of the gate, and he doesn’t deserve a modicum of credit for trying to close it after the horse he freed has trampled and shit all over the neighbor’s pasture.
Would that anyone could say the same about many of the deal's critics. Whatever their concerns may be, whatever their fears, they would not have had them, expressed them or seen them in print had the middle name of the United Arab Emirates been something else. After all, no one goes nuts over Germany, the country where some of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorists lived and attended school.
To overlook the xenophobic element in this controversy is to overlook the obvious. It is what propelled the squabble and what sustains it. Bush put his finger on it right away. "What I find interesting is that it's okay for a British company to manage some ports, but not okay for a company from a country that is a valuable ally in the war on terror," he said last week. "The UAE has been a valuable partner in fighting the war on terror." It is a long way from a terrorist haven.
Secondly, Germany and the UAE are not the same—and it’s not only because of the color of the skin of their peoples. “Some of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorists lived and attended school” in America, too, for god’s sake. But the UAE was one of only three countries which recognized as legitimate and had diplomatic ties to Afghanistan’s Taliban regime before 9/11. They severed ties with them two weeks after 9/11, even though they had been asked about ties to bin Laden years earlier. While those issues may or may not be reason for concern about the UAE’s relationship with America’s port security, they are clearly enough to create a discernible difference between Germany and the UAE—and to prompt concerns about higher scrutiny.
And let’s not forget that this deal was made with secret and atypical provisions and with a company who has ties to administration members. This administration has given us every reason to not trust them and take them at their word, especially when they operate in secret. Legitimate questions can be raised about the way the deal was made, irrespective of with whom the deal was made. The Bush administration’s history of secrecy and cronyism is enough on its own to raise eyebrows about this deal, without the race of the other half of the deal-maker factoring in at all.
I’ll let Drum make one last point:
[I]t's not exactly insane to be a little more cautious in turning over port operations to a company owned by the United Arab Emirates than to one owned by, say, the German government. Get a grip.Indeed.
As for why George Bush has defended the deal, one hardly has to resort to paeans to his open-minded humanity to figure this out. I don't think Bush is a bigot, but the reason he stuck to his guns on the port deal is because his first instinct is always to stick to his guns. When Bush is attacked, he attacks back, whether he knows anything about the issue at hand or not. Anyone who hasn't figured that out after five years of Bush watching really does need to go back to school, and not just for a refresher in elementary arithmetic.
Breaking…
The Supreme Court dealt a setback toy to abortion clinics in a two-decade-old legal fight over anti-abortion protests, ruling that federal extortion and racketeering laws cannot be used to ban demonstrations.
Anti-abortion groups brought the appeal after the 7th Circuit had asked a trial judge to determine whether a nationwide injunction could be supported by charges that protesters had made threats of violence absent a connection with robbery or extortion. (Link.)
I’ll post more as I find out about it. Thanks to Holly.
UPDATE: The WaPo has more. It looks like a bit of a mixed bag. Also see Pam for more commentary on the ruling.
Support the Troops: Irony Edition
Via T. Rex's Guide to Life by way of AMERICAblog, comes the link to this AP article headlined, bluntly, "Veterans May Face Health Care Cuts in 2008."
At least tens of thousands of veterans with non-critical medical issues could suffer delayed or even denied care in coming years to enable President Bush to meet his promise of cutting the deficit in half -- if the White House is serious about its proposed budget.T.Rex:
After an increase for next year, the Bush budget would turn current trends on their head. Even though the cost of providing medical care to veterans has been growing by leaps and bounds, White House budget documents assume a cutback in 2008 and further cuts thereafter.
And let's not forget that the Bush tax cuts would wipe out the deficit in and of themselves, so this is yet another example of Republicans, and President Bush, screwing soldiers and veterans for the sake of their rich friends.John in D.C.:
This is what happens when you have a president who launches wars of convenience on the wrong enemy without a plan for victory. You spend $300 billion the country doesn't have, then have to cut necessary services for patriotic Americans in order to pay for the failed war. Bush's mistakes come at a price.Not much I can add to that.
(Crossposted at AlterNet PEEK.)
