Another Reason To Be Grateful for Your Taxes

Tim Cavanaugh | April 12, 2006

In case the government hasn't already given you enough reasons to smile, here's one more reason to be happy as fill out Ye Olde 1040: You're helping defray Rep. John Conyers' babysitting and campaigning costs. Comment stalwart Mo informs us that two former staffers have filed ethics complaints against the soft-spoken Michigan Democrat, charging that he had one (a legal adviser) watch his kids at odd hours and the other (chief of staff at Conyers' downriver office) work as a nanny and housesitter. The two also claim they and other staffers were assigned local campaigning duties on House staff time.

The best news of all? Collegial scumbaggery is not dead on the Hill:

Melanie Sloan, who once worked for the congressman herself, says she is not surprised about the allegations or about the apparent lack of response from the House ethics committee.

Sloan now heads the liberal watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. In the case of ethics, she said neither conservatives nor liberals on Capitol Hill are held accountable.

"That's because there's an ethics truce, " Sloan said. "Both parties will deny this, but there is in fact a truce that's been in existence since 1998. And under the terms of the truce nobody will file a complaint against a member of the other party."

Recent Conyers hits: Ohio conspiracy literature and the great Bush impeachment freakout.

Comments

Larry A|4.13.06 @ 3:38AM|#

IOW when everyone lives in glass houses, no one wants to start throwing stones.

R C Dean|4.13.06 @ 7:12AM|#

Culture of corruption, anyone?

spaced|4.13.06 @ 8:21AM|#

it's not like this is remotely suprising, and it's pretty mild by corruption standards. i think though that such a problem is inevitable in any system of democracy involving a representative format...

|4.13.06 @ 8:22AM|#

Hmmm... let's see here... Conyers uses a couple of aides to aide him with aiding his kids while he's aiding America... Delay launders cash into the Texas mid-census redistricting scam and then into the election coffers of Texas GOPhers so they can hold a majority in the by watering down minority districts and disenfranchising them.... hmmm...

Oh yeah, Conyers is a crook, alright - and I'm an idiot.

JMJ

|4.13.06 @ 8:30AM|#

Conyers uses a couple of aides to aide him with aiding his kids while he's aiding America...

Oh god, why didn't we consider the sacrifices this great man is making? Ethics rules shouldn't apply to wonderful Democrats who only care about making life better for us.

Oh yeah, Conyers is a crook, alright - and I'm an idiot.

I agree 100%.

|4.13.06 @ 8:34AM|#

That's true, Jersey-Baby, that's true!

Way to go! (cuz "Selbsterkenntnis ist der erste Schritt zur Besserung," as the Krauts use to say)

|4.13.06 @ 8:45AM|#

"Oh yeah, Conyers is a crook, alright - and I'm an idiot."

Also agreed. This must be a first: Jersey starting out the morning with a valid statement. Wacky!

Though, I too have a hard time getting worked up into too much of a tussle over this. Yes, technically, it's wrong, but, I find it hard to swallow that THIS is "illegal", but the Good Senator Don Young of Alaska taking federal tax dollars and spending it on bridges to nowhere, that's simply "in bad taste", but still legal. Somewhere, our priorities got mixed way the fuck up.

|4.13.06 @ 8:49AM|#

Everyone, JMJ is just a troll on this blog. I wouldn't take 'em so seriously. Good one, I was fooled. In the future JMJ, when trolling it is good not to be against everything lest you be found out. Better luck on the next blog.

If you are serious, it is a good point that it is very hypocritical for 'pubs to get all taken aback by Dems corruption. However I think if you read enough here (this is all assuming you are not the troll I think you are) you will find few friends of either party. If you are truly wanting to trash Republicans and do some high quality trolling perhaps National Review would be a better location for you.

At any rate, just trying to help.

Dave|4.13.06 @ 8:55AM|#

If you are serious, it is a good point that it is very hypocritical for 'pubs to get all taken aback by Dems corruption.

As I've tried explaining to many people, the fact that "the other party does it" doesn't make it OK, it just means we're going to need a longer wall.

Thomas Paine's Goiter|4.13.06 @ 8:56AM|#

Oh yeah, Conyers is a crook, alright - and I'm an idiot.

Finally, after all of those posts, you got something right!

Good job!

Thomas Paine's Goiter|4.13.06 @ 9:09AM|#

Gotta love the Conyers staffers working on Conyers' wife's campaign while on congressional salary.

Good one.

|4.13.06 @ 9:22AM|#

Everyone, JMJ is just a troll on this blog.
No kidding?

I wouldn't take 'em so seriously. Good one, I was fooled.
Not me. 'Tis trivially easy to troll in that fashion - just parrot the silliest crap from the MSM.

|4.13.06 @ 9:30AM|#

Oh yeah, Conyers is a crook, alright - and I'm an idiot.

I've been lurking here and posting very infrequently since day one. Has there ever been a more succinct or truer post here?

|4.13.06 @ 9:45AM|#

what exactly is a troll? And what does troling mean?

|4.13.06 @ 10:03AM|#

Emme,

I troll is someone who comes onto a blog and deliberately says crazy stuff to stir up trouble. A good example would be someone going onto a Beatles fan blog and saying John Lennon sucked.

First fews posts I thought he MIGHT have been legit but when someone disagrees with everything and goes completely against the grain of all that others are saying, it is a giant red flag.

As trolls go JMJ was pretty good, my hat is off to him / her.

|4.13.06 @ 10:45AM|#

Thank you, AL. I don't consider myself a "troll" but I do like a healthy debate. As for parroting the MSM - wow - I only hear that one about me here!

JMJ

|4.13.06 @ 11:16AM|#

First fews posts I thought he MIGHT have been legit but when someone disagrees with everything and goes completely against the grain of all that others are saying, it is a giant red flag.

I don't think JMJ is a troll....just a die hard liberal looking for a debate.

Why would it be surprising that a liberal disagrees with everything he reads here? This site is quite anti-liberal.

You can think its trollish that a liberal would even bother to post here knowing that they will never see eye to eye, but from the perspective of a poster, what's the point of posting in an echo chamber? Many people want to engage opposing viewpoints, not hear a bunch of "yeahs" or "me too"s.

|4.13.06 @ 11:37AM|#

Tom I agree with you for the most part. But this site is equally anti-conservative. That is why it is libertarian. I know it fits JMJs worldview better if everyone that passed economics is also a racist and a homophobe and believes that the war in Iraq is one of liberation. If he lurked more and trolled less he might find a lot of folks here agree with him on many things.

I still think he is a troll for the sake of trolling. HI JMJ, we know ya'll are standing right there but gonna talk 'bout ya'll anyway. (added the Southern Accent pieces since that is the way JMJ appearantly sees all of us South of Mason Dixon line).

|4.13.06 @ 11:39AM|#

Many people want to engage opposing viewpoints, not hear a bunch of "yeahs" or "me too"s

Yeah!

|4.13.06 @ 11:45AM|#

Me too!

|4.13.06 @ 12:03PM|#

Thanks Tom - yes, I just love a good debate and the Libers are my latest quest. The Cons are terrible. They'll ban you in a heartbeat if you say anything they don't like. I've been banned from every Con site you could think of. The Christians, surprisingly enough, even the right wing ones, are pretty cool about letting in debate. They're fun too. The thing I'm really surprised about on this site is how you all are okay with such a different viewpoint. Yes, AL, Libertarians and Liberals do have a lot in common, but we differ on a lot too. That's what makes this so much fun. I've also been utterly surprised to hear people saying that I'm for a "police state" or that I'm parroting the "MSM!" It's like "Wow! No one's ever said that about me before!" It's fascinating!

Thanks guys! I'm having a lot of fun and I'm learning a ton about Libertarianism on the grass-roots level.

JMJ

|4.13.06 @ 1:09PM|#

AL, I would just like to compliment you on your handling of this thread. Kudos!

|4.13.06 @ 1:30PM|#

linguist,

Thank you, glad to know that you for one support your new Lurker Masters. LOL

|4.13.06 @ 1:44PM|#

"I think that I would be a Libertarian if most of them would understand that life is roughly half luck and half what you make of it and that we are all in it together. ;)"

Amigo that is what a Libertarian is!

I too hate corporations because I view them in the same light as governments. But generally the protectionist laws you speak of never hurt the corporation but small businesspeople, the individual, and usually help the large corp squeaze the small ones out of business because they can not keep up with the regulations.

That is one of the problems in France. Go try to start a business there. You can't without so much regulation and whatnot and then you make a bad judgement and hire the wrong person and you have to pay a fee to fire them. What that does is keep small folks out and only the larger employers in. The small businessperson / entrepreneur can not compete.

If you think you are sticking it to the Big Corp with massive regulations you are totally wrong. (IMHO) Why do you think Corps give money to both sides of the isle? Big Corps are bad huh? Yeah I can go with that. I hate self professed libertarians who claim IBM or GM is goning to be more benevolent than the government. It is not so. But they would be in worse shape with a free market as I see it.

Again, my opinion. Still disagree with your assessment of GOP folks. I take it to heart because my folks are still die hard GOP and not racist. So basically you are taking a swipe at my Mom and that pisses me off. But I will give you a pass and hope that if you hang out here long enough your "liberal tolerance and open mindedness" will apply to all groups of folks. It's a hard jump. I know I had to make it too.

fyodor|4.13.06 @ 1:46PM|#

I think that I would be a Libertarian if most of them would understand that life is roughly half luck and half what you make of it and that we are all in it together. ;)

Does the emoticon at the end mean you don't mean any of that? Because those sure are common misconceptions about libertoids. FWIW, our belief in liberty is not predicated on some mystical sense of absoulute just deserts (sp?). In fact, if you include all the people in the world in your selection, I'd say luck has a lot MORE to do with one's station and success in life than what you've personally done right or wrong, if you're counting the luck of where and when you're born. How can the bad luck of being born in the middle of a famine be compared to any of the decisions made by those in the Western world? And of course we're all in this together. Until the Escape Vessels come to take my kind away (see subgenius.com), we're all stuck with each other on this rock, no two ways around it. But neither of these acknowledgements say anything about statism versus individualism. If it's not obvious why, ask and I'll explain further...

lunchstealer|4.13.06 @ 2:06PM|#

I don't think JMJ is a troll....just a die hard liberal looking for a debate.

Why would it be surprising that a liberal disagrees with everything he reads here? This site is quite anti-liberal.

You can think its trollish that a liberal would even bother to post here knowing that they will never see eye to eye, but from the perspective of a poster, what's the point of posting in an echo chamber? Many people want to engage opposing viewpoints, not hear a bunch of "yeahs" or "me too"s.

He might not have meant to be a troll when he first came here, but he's certainly morphed into it. Most of his posts are openly hostile and full of would-be zingers drawn straight from the talking points of the 'progressive' movement which don't necessarily fit here.

In the Kentucky gay-rights thread he just kinda tossed in a non-sequitur comparing the Lewinski scandal to the Plame scandal. Why even go there? There's plenty to discuss on-topic, without having to detour into some tedious bush-is-worse-than-clinton thing.

Since probably most of the posters agreed with 90% of JMJ's beliefs on the subject, (the state shouldn't discriminate based on sexuality) he could have actually engaged them on the one point of contention that he really has with them, which is whether ANY institution, private or public, has a right to exclude some individuals based on that institution's religious beliefs. That's an interesting subject, and on topic.

Throwing random plamegate-vs-cigargate bombs, or Iraq-was-dumb accusations (lots of us think so too!) doesn't seem like he's trying to learn from us, and find out how libertarians think, but just to stir up the hornets' nest. How is that different from a troll?

|4.13.06 @ 2:15PM|#

You can think its trollish that a liberal would even bother to post here

JMJ's denied playing a liberal. His role is a "progressive". Just FYI.

Tim Cavanaugh|4.13.06 @ 2:16PM|#

Thanks Tom - yes, I just love a good debate and the Libers are my latest quest.

Your style of engagement makes me skeptical of this, and we've already got joe to represent the left using non-troll tactics. But if you're serious about this, I'd suggest getting a few books out of the library and giving them at least a cursory glance: Free To Choose by Milton Friedman; The Open Society And Its Enemies by Karl Popper; The Road to Serfdom by FA Hayek; Why Government Stopped Working by Jonathan Rauch... You don't need to agree, but you need more than exclamation points to make what you obviously think are zingers against libertarianism. I don't mean this as an insult, just an observation: You have no idea what you're talking about, and your coming here to pop off corkers against libertarianism is like my going to a Sanskrit discussion board to criticize the regulars' use of the pluterperfect. Your problem isn't that you disagree with the majority here; it's that you bring nothing to the table.

|4.13.06 @ 2:20PM|#

Oops.

|4.13.06 @ 3:04PM|#

Could any of you please provide some evidence of rascism from conservatives?

I think the conservatives have been more tolerant than liberals of those that differ with them, especially with regards to ideas but also with regards to race.

Look at how liberals flip out and attack viciously any black Republican. You all know the examples, are there any coming from conservatives?

fyodor|4.13.06 @ 3:43PM|#

AND THE HAND OF TIM STEPPED IN!!!

|4.13.06 @ 8:23PM|#

This site is quite anti-liberal.

That's news to me! My impression is that most of the articles' authors, and the commenters, are semi-reformed liberals, a la "A libertarian is a Republican who likes to smoke pot," but from the other direction. But that makes it more interesting.

Until the Escape Vessels come to take my kind away

You can't get on until you pay your $30, but if you pay your $30, you're not a Real SubGenius.
Dilemma, conundrum, or ... ?