Rangel's Wrangles

Longtime crook, Charlie Rangel, was finally "held accountable" after it was voted upon and found that he should be censured for a number of violations. It seems Mr. Rangel, who was responsible for crafting a LOT of the current tax laws and rules, felt that those rules didn't apply to him and his little villa he owns in the Dominican Republic. Shocking, I know. And Mr. Rangel really seems to enjoy that villa of his. Why, here's a photo of him enjoying himself now!

It doesn't get much easier for political cartoonists than that. But back to the crooked congressman. He was found guilty of eleven different violations. Naturally, there were ethics violations in there as well as his not paying taxes (which seems like it maybe should have warranted a criminal investigation, but because this is Congress, I guess they do things however they want). And since he has been found guilty, there is now a punishment. Can you guess what his punishment is? I would have thought that if you're found guilty of stuff like that that they just boot you out. Corrupt politicians in Congress are not what we need. Ever. But that's not what they do. No, they voted to censure him. Wait. What now?

That's right. Censure him. If you're wondering what a censure consists of, so was I. I was really hoping that there were going to be lions involved, but sadly, there will be no lions. Maybe if Siegfried and Roy were making the rules we'd get some lions, but unfortunately, they're not. According to Wikipedia (so take it for what it's worth), "After a motion to censure is passed, the chair (or the vice-president, if the presiding officer is being censured) addresses the censured member by name. He may say something to the effect of, "Brother F, you have been censured by vote of the assembly. A censure indicates the assembly's resentment of your conduct at meetings. A censure is a warning. It is the warning voice of suspension or expulsion. Please take due notice thereof and govern yourself accordingly." Wait. That's it?

That's it. Mr. Rangel will stand in the well of the Senate and they will read the charges that he has been found guilty of and then they will say that he has been censured. I'm pretty sure that he gets to say something, but I'm not sure if it's required, nor am I sure if he is required to apologize. (If it is a requirement that they apologize, that's a pretty stupid requirement, as it's not like the person would actually mean it or anything.) Then he can go back to whatever it is that he does. That's it. That seems like a slap on the wrist if you're asking me. They could have voted for expulsion. Now that I could have gotten behind.

I don't get this censure thing. And I can't imagine that it's going to have any effect on the man at this point. He's been a congressman for 20 terms. TWENTY. That's unbelievable. That's also forty years, which is also unbelievable. He represents the area in and around Harlem and I'm just guessing that, based on what he has been able to do for the community, they aren't really going to care about some censure. After all, all of these charges had already been brought against him when he went up for re-election just a couple of weeks ago and he won with something like 80% of the vote. His constituents don't care about censure. And while he acts like he cares, he doesn't.

I started wondering about this censure thing and why it doesn't happen more often, given how crooked I think a lot of the politicians in Congress actually are. I know it takes a ridiculous amount of time to look into these things, but I don't know why. I didn't find the answer to that and I perused the Innerwebs looking for answers, but I did find a fairly interesting statistic regarding censure. There have only been 22 other representatives who have been censured. Um, that's not very many if you take into account how long we've actually had a Congress.

Several folks were censured for "unparliamentary language". Now, I don't know what that consists of, but whatever it is, it sounds great! Very engaging! I sure would like to see a little bit more of it on C-SPAN. Those hearings are awfully boring. They need a little unparliamentary language to liven them up a little bit. (Hell, the Taiwanese lawmakers get into fisticuffs with each other all of the time!) A couple of folks assaulted some other lawmakers. The first guy censured was a one William Stanbery who, in 1932, "...was censured for insulting the Speaker of the House." I really want to know what he said. I also really want to know what he would have had to say about Nancy Pelosi. (I'm guessing that Botox would be a theme in his thoughts, should he have been able to share them.)

But here's the other thing I learned: A guy was censured in 1921 for the unparliamentary language. It wasn't until 1979 that the next guy was censured (only this guy apparently partook in mail and payroll fraud). Not only do I find it absolutely unbelievable that there have only been 23 (counting Mr. Rangel) members of Congress that have ever been censured, I find it incredible that they could go for almost sixty years in between. Between the 1832 and that guy in 1921, there were 19 censured congressmen. Since 1921? FOUR. The last one was in 1983!

You cannot possibly tell me that there hasn't been a single crooked politician since 1983! And mind you, the two most recent censures were for "...sexual misconduct with a House page." You're telling me that everyone else has played by the rules this entire time?! Oh, please! Is anyone surprised that politicians are on the take? Is anyone surprised that they do the crooked stuff that we all know that they do? If there aren't any penalties for them other than being told in front of their peers that they've been caught and then they get sent back to work, why would they follow the rules when there is so much money to be made and power to be had?!

We need more censures. Who's up next? A one Maxine Waters looks to be on the docket for being investigated or charged or something along those lines next. Maybe we'll know how that one turns out in another sixty years or so. That would be about right, given the history of these sorts of things. I'd be willing to bet that Charlie Rangel not only runs for re-election next time, but that he wins as well. People never learn. And those that do are the ones who are getting away with stuff like Charlie Rangel did and does and probably will continue to in the future. We're so doomed.

::: Insert unparliamentary language here:::

Sphere: Related Content

Hair Raising Photos of Phil Spector

I don't know much about Phil Spector. I know he's a music producer guy who worked with a bunch of talented musicians over the years. I know that he's prone to drink a lot and then get a little violent and a little gun-ish. And I know that he was on trial for the second time for the murder of some chick back in 2003. The first trial ended in a hung jury. This time he wasn't quite as fortunate, as the jury came back yesterday with a guilty verdict against him for second degree murder. They also found him guilty of illegally discharging a firearm. Duh.

Now, since I didn't know much about Phil Spector or the crime that he had been on trial for, I figured I'd do a little research on the man. I didn't get too far with that before I realized that there was something not quite right with this guy. It's a little hard to put your finger on at first, but you'll find that when you look at him that you can't stop thinking that there's something odd about this guy. If only it were something that could be nailed down or just a little more obvious. Or, perhaps if only it were something that you could put a hat on. Behold! The many faces and styles of a one Phil Spector!

That's nice. Is he always so photogenic?


Huh. Seems to be. Yep.

Am I the only one who thinks that he sort of resembles Marcia Clark (from the OJ trial days of yore)? He kinda does. Look and compare the two. Behold!

My God, it's like they were separated at birth. But maybe it's just the blonde hair. Here he is again.

And again, please compare. Behold!

Nope. It's not just the blonde. Those two are one and the same. And it's not like one of them wears it well or anything. It's not a good look for either of them.

He appears to be quite fond of and a master of the disheveled look.

Not to mention the gaseous and confused look.

This look is sort of like Al Capone meets Steven Tyler.

The profile view of a paranoid looking individual who has a least a touch of mental illness going on. How many times do you think the trial had to be stopped due to rambling? I'm guessing more than once.

And my personal favorite. It's like he was going for Tina Turner in drag, but lost interest after the hair.

Here he is after the verdict was read. Clearly he was not expecting to be found guilty.

And finally, what is likely to be the last photo we see of Phil Spector in a long, long time. His booking mugshot after the guilty verdict. Behold!

He's going to be wearing that surprised look for a while, I have the feeling.

Sphere: Related Content

OJ - Finally Going To Jail

For the 127th time, yet another example of what makes me absolutely insane about the current state of the news reporting media. The overly arrogant and wrongly acquitted double murderer, OJ Simpson, was sentenced yesterday, basically for being OJ.

No, not because everyone knows he killed two people and got away with it. "Being OJ" refers to his attitude that he has flaunted ever since his acquittal. His arrogance, his aloofness, his oh-so-casual-yet-oh-so-not attitude that he displayed whenever he was in public (which was quite often, considering he was golfing every day whilst looking for "the real killers"). Those things compose the "being OJ" category. After all, that's what compelled him to go busting into a hotel room in Vegas with a bunch of moronic, career criminal thugs in an attempt to get "his stuff back". Yeah, you can't really do that. If someone has your stuff and they're not supposed to have it, common sense dictates that you go to the cops, not to your posse. (Then again, common sense also dictates that you do not nearly lop off the heads of your ex-wife and her friend in the courtyard of her condo either.)

As you may or may not care to acknowledge (because, please, hasn't this man taken up enough of our time as it is?), OJ was found guilty of every freaking charge that was filed against him in relation to this unsuccessful, borderline-IQ-masterminded, property-recovery mission. Yesterday was the glorious sentencing! After reading numerous different accounts and publications from a variety of major media news reporting sources and outlets, I don't have a freaking clue as to how long he was sentenced for.

Everything is different. And not just a little different. Different-different! Maybe I should add them all up and then find the average. Here's what I know (or don't know. I don't even know if I know or not. How sad is that? Thanks a lot, media guys. You're a big help.):

• New York Times - OJ Simpson is sentenced to at least 9 years in prison.
• Associated Content - OJ Simpson sentenced to at 15 years. (Eligible for parole in six.)
• About.com - OJ Simpson sentenced to 16 years in prison. Eligible for parole after 7 1/2 years.
• Associated Press - OJ Simpson sentenced to at least 15 years in prison.
• Los Angeles Times - Simpson is sentenced to at least 6 years in prison.
• E! Online - OJ Simpson sentenced to 15 years. Eligible for parole in nine.
• Fox News - OJ Simpson sentenced to Up to 33 Years in Prison.
• McClatchy Washington Bureau - Simpson gets 18 Years "I'm sorry for all of it, " he says.
• New York Daily News - Simpson headed to prison for up to 21 years.
• About - News & Issues - OJ Simpson sentenced to 17 years in prison
• Examiner.com - OJ Simpson sentenced to 18 years in Prison
• Pro Football Weekly - Simpson receives 15-year prison sentence. Eligible for parole after five.
• San Jose Mercury News - Judge sentences Simpson to maximum of 33 years in prison. Simpson eligible for parole in nine years.
• The Associated Press (yes, again!) - OJ sentenced to as much as 33 years.
• The Press Association - OJ Simpson sentenced to a minimum of 18 years.
• People Magazine - OJ Simpson sentenced to 17 1/2 years.
• MSNBC.com - OJ Simpson sentenced to long term

What the hell, media guys? Nine. Fifteen. Sixteen. At least fifteen. Fifteen. Up to thirty three. Eighteen. Up to twenty one. Seventeen. A minimum of eighteen. Seventeen and a half. Long term? (Way to take a stand there, MSNBC.) It's not like half of them reported 14 years and the other half reported 13 years. No. Between nine years and up to thirty three years, that's a span of 24 years! You can't even make an educated guess as to what his sentence was when you have such a broad range of choices.

The Press Association wins the award for the worst reporting of this topic with this account of the situation: "O.J. Simpson on Friday was sentenced to a minimum of 18 years by a Nevada judge. The 61-year-old will be eligible for parole after serving five years and faces a minimum prison term of six years." What the hell, Press Association? What the hell is that?

I think there should have just been a standard headline for just this one time. It could read: " If you care, he's going to jail for a long time." Oh, of course I could be more witty, punny, pithy even, but after at least 13 years of having to see that jackass and his smug face in the news every other week, I'm saving pithy for those deserving of pithy. A lot of media outlets must have felt just a bit of that same sentiment, as some crammed the OJ "news" into the headlines with other stories. We have:

• Auto deal in works....Rest of TARP funds may be used...OJ behind bars
• Simpson sentenced...More home debt troubles...Bush defends Iraq war
• Judge shoots down NFL...Simpson heads to jail...Seahawks lose
• Unemployment soaring....Record foreclosures...Simpson's sentence
• OJ gets 15 years..."Shocking" job cuts...Ticketed in labor....

I'm not sure who is more pathetic, OJ Simpson or the folks over there at USA Today and what they were calling "Instant Analysis on OJ Simpson's Sentencing." I kid you not, this is what USA Today is passing off as "legal analysis" from a "legal analyst" these days: "With sentencing complete for O.J. Simpson, here are some of the instant reactions from ESPN's legal analyst, Lester Munson:

• -- "The judge was very angry with O.J. Simpson, that was very clear." And when Simpson tried to explain his actions during the robbery, "He took a terrible risk . . . I don't think that did him any good at all."

(Since when does identifying 'anger', an emotion that most people who are not lawyers are, in fact, familiar with, qualify as 'legal analysis? And if something is "very clear", isn't it thereby unnecessary to state that which is "very clear"? At the very least, leave the "very clear" out, even if you feel so compelled to point out what "angry" looks like. Perhaps USA Today should have had Big Bird do his legal analysis. It seems to be on about that level.)

• -- On the judge's comment that she began the trial wondering whether Simpson was arrogant or ignorant, and "Now I know the answer, it's both.": "It was not a big surprise for her to say that. She's a judge who has a flair for the dramatic. It was no accident that she said that. She was using notes."

(Wow. A judge not accidentally speaking. Amazing! Of course she has notes! And again with the restating of the obvious "It was not a big surprise...." From what I can tell, my cat could do better legal analysis than this and I don't even have a cat.

• - Summing up, on Simpson: "I'm not so sure how he went so far wrong here. He has lawyers at his disposal. He is not totally stupid. He somehow went totally off course here."

That is where the guy becomes completely discredited in my book because OJ is totally stupid. If nearly lopping off the heads of two people 13 years ago and then getting miraculously acquitted of the crimes doesn't persuade you to live the life of a law abiding saint but rather that of a smug, condescending, self-righteous a-hole who continues to have run-ins with the law, then yes, you ARE totally stupid. Explain to me how ANY of OJ's behaviors since he "allegedly" murdered those two people are NOT totally stupid! Oh, you can't, because they are totally stupid. And so is he. Man, how do I get a job as a USA Today "legal analyst"? Seems pretty cush to me. Just sit around and state the obvious. End every analysis with "Water? Still wet. Back to you." It would be my dream job

Before OJ was sentenced, he was allowed to make a statement. And he made a statement alright. The statement that he spoke out loud and the statement that his statement made about himself. To quote the great Bugs Bunny, "What a maroon." As he stood there with tears in his eyes and a snot bubble in his throat, he ended up sounding like a little kid who was trying to get out of being punished for something he had been caught doing. He thought that he was trying to make himself sound remorseful and that it was no big deal to anyone who was actually involved, so why should it be a big deal to the State of Nevada? The thing was that his rationale was a bit ramble-y and off topic-y. It was also nothing less than completely pathetic. (Not so tough without your knife, are you?) He threw in things like:

• "In the past, as we know, as you heard on the tape, Mike Gilbert tried to set me up in a porn video, tricked me into a room with hidden cameras and they still wrote in the newspaper and tabloids, they still had cover stories that OJ did it even though there was no porn video. Even though I didn't participate in it."

(Was he just talking about porn? Did he mention a porn video? Porn? How did porn get thrown into this? I mean, bravo, Nevada court system! Bravo! But seriously. Porn?)

• "I think 'Hey Mike.' I yelled at him. And I think 'Hey' just like I yelled at Bruce and Beardsley and I've forgiven them. We've talked about it, Beardsley and I the next day, and, uh, Bruce and I hugged, have talked about it."

You hugged?! Oh, my dear Lord, now I have heard everything. You hugged. Oh, my God. Did he expect the judge to get up and yell, "I'm convinced! You're normal and caring! Bailiff! Release this gentleman and get me a mint julep! Or something like that!" Are you kidding me?

• "My family knew what we were doing. And I don't want to hurt Bruce. I didn't want to hurt any of these guys. I know these guys. These guys have eaten in my home. I've done book reports with their kids. I've sung to their mothers when they were sick."

So he's a sick mother singer AND a book reporter doer! Fab-ulous! What does that have to do with anything? Oh, right. Nothing.

• "I just wanted my personal things and I realize that was stupid of me. I'm sorry. I didn't mean to steal anything from anybody and I didn't know I was doing anything illegal."

Didn't know he was doing anything illegal? See? Again, my point. Totally stupid.

The folks over at the AP have the entire statement of ramble posted if you're interested. There's about five minutes of video of the ramble below. Somewhere right around the 1:00 mark is when the inexplicable mention of porn arises. And I'll say this: If it wasn't OJ, I wouldn't believe that someone would have actually had the balls to stand up there and play the victim. But because it is OJ, I'm not surprised. He has thought that he was invincible and untouchable for the majority of his life and that sense of self entitlement and self importance only became greater after his acquittal of not one, but two murders. There is no one on the face of this earth who ever has thought or who currently does think more of OJ than he thinks of himself. He is a legend in his own mind. And he's going to have a lot of time to hang out with that legend as he sits in his little cell for....(I forgot we still haven't pinned down an exact sentence)....a while. For a while he'll be doing that.

And please, someone tell me what is up with the dude in the background there.

It's karma. And I've decided that karma is short and has sharp teeth. That's why if you're not careful, it's so easy for karma to bite you in the ass. I believe it was someone wise (or a fortune cookie) that pointed out that karma, while often referred to as being "a bitch", was really not a bitch, but was rather, a virgin. If karma was a bitch, it'd be too easy.

Double murderer finally sentenced to prison. No one cares. Back to you

Sphere: Related Content

Welcome back, Hans!

Hans Reiser, you A-hole, what have you been doing with yourself? What have you been up to? It's been a while, hasn't it? What...like...six...seven months now? How's tricks? Oh! That's right! You're serving 15 years to life for killing your wife, Nina and then blaming it on the " former KGB, "Russian mafia groups in California" - or, more likely, 'the techno-geek S&M crowd of Silicon Valley.' " That's right! It's all coming back to me now! Man, that was one of the more amusing trials I've followed in a while. And the sketch artist that provided illustrations throughout the trial? He was brilliant in his depictions! Yeah, that's right. Good times....

Oh! And then didn't your lawyer have his closing arguments revolve around the assertion that you, you murderous, lying, weasel you, that you could be compared to the oddest of all odd ducks, the platypus? Wasn't that coined the "Duck-Billed Defense" by some? OK, by me? Yes, I believe it was! Yeah, that didn't work out so well for you, did it? Nah, it sure didn't. How's that cell treating you? Plenty of time to think? And to file appeals. Wait. What?

The folks over there at SFGate tell us that Hans, with plenty of time on his hans (sorry. Hands. Plenty of time on his hands!), " is trying to appeal his conviction and sentence on the grounds of ineffective assistance from his lead attorney." All of this, of course, comes after his being convicted in April of the murder of his wife, Nina. It also comes after when he led authorities to Nina Reiser's remains in July, and it comes after August when he admitted that he had strangled her at his Oakland hills home in September 2006 before burying her body a half a mile away near Redwood Regional Park. Appeal away, you psychotic platypus, you. Appeal away.

One would think that coming up with grounds for an appeal for something that you've not only been convicted of, but that you've admitted to and produced a body, well, would be difficult. Right up until he produced the body, I'd say his best chances might have been 50-50. But coming up with grounds for an appeal after producing the body? Those grounds I'd say would be right around slim to none, and slim just left the building.

The grounds for appeal that Hans has concocted seem to center around the effectiveness (and the sanity) of his attorney, Mr. William duBois. Mr. duBois and Hans did not exactly become BFFs during the trial. To quote from closing arguments when he was questioning why Hans' wife would marry him, he stated, "It couldn't have been out of love that she married Hans Reiser. I can't see anybody loving Hans Reiser." He also debunked physical attraction by saying, "He has to be one of the least attractive people you can imagine."

Hans has apparently decided that the only logical explanation for remarks such as those (among other things) is that Mr. duBois suffers from "oxytocin excess as described in an article in the Scientific American this year." Oh, really?

Really! "I gave him the article, and he seemed to agree that it was a bit. He mentioned resisting an addiction to revenge novels consistent with the article and seemed to feel it was a fit. Persons with oxytocin excess enjoy betraying others." (Translation: Persons convicted of murder who don't like being in jail very much enjoy filing appeals.)

Hans rambled on with, "Mr. duBois has an extraordinary facility for engendering trust in others and extraordinary people skills. (This is consistent with high oxytocin.) He also very apparently gets a charge from duping and betraying juries who trust him. In this case, I believe that the attraction of duping and betraying me exceeded the attraction of duping and betraying a jury, due to my unique personal characteristics." Once again, there is Hans' ego shining bright enough to light up an entire room cell! Because Hans is so different, that means everything is different. Up is down. Black is white. (Too bad jailed wasn't free, eh?) I guess you shouldn't have made yourself all dupe-a-licious there, Hans.

"I ask that his oxytocin levels be tested, and if they are consistent with the article, that he be found to have provided ineffective assistance of counsel that has permanently and irremediably destroyed my ability to obtain a fair trial and negotiate post conviction." Hans, sweetie, your inability to negotiate post conviction is largely due, in part, to your admitting to killing your wife and leading authorities to her body that you buried in a hillside not far from your home! I'd say that takes a bit of precedence over any imaginary conditions you'd like to believe that Mr. duBois is suffering from.

"One of my flaws is that I seem to attract people like him. He has much in common with persons I was in conflict with during my divorce and identified with them to an extent that I biased him against me enough that he wanted to betray me. He hates me. He is delusional in his insistence on believing what he wants to believe, and I needed an attorney who was objective enough for me to trust him. He biased his jury selection in part on Chinese astrology."

If you didn't follow his trial, trust me when I say that the above composition is classic Hans Reiser prose. It amazes me how he can phrase it so that it appears that he is the one who is the victim to all of these horrible people that he lets into his life, only to see them dupe and betray, time and time again. ::::sigh:::: And wouldn't you think that the "Chinese astrology" comment would warrant more than just that sentence. It comes out of nowhere and that is exactly where his explanation of it is. Nowhere.

"Mr. duBois claims in his most recent letter to me that I am delusional. I believe I have a right to have both of us examined in that regard. It is a logical necessity that either I am delusional, or he is delusional. Either one is grounds for a new trial. Mr. duBois is not being light hearted in his remark that I am delusional. In matters pertaining to me, he is not sane." Finally! Something I agree with! That is correct, either Mr. duBois OR Hans is delusional. Yep, one of them most certainly is. But in matters pertaining to you, Hans? You're sane as can be. And while killing your wife is a crazy thing to do, there's a whole lot of different kinds of crazy out there and the sane kind of crazy is your kind.

Hans then goes on to say that he wishes to hold the State of California to the offer it made of a 3 year sentence. He neglects to mention that the offer was made to him in the form of a plea bargain that was contingent upon his pleading guilty. He also neglects to mention that he rejected that plea bargain because he felt he would be able to be found not guilty by a jury. Too bad that all of the duping and betraying was going on, otherwise I'm sure that would have worked out just like he had thought it would! Shame.

The judge promptly rejected his appeal, basically stating that Hans was all appealed out. He also stated that his appeal was filed too late. (The untimely filing notation might seem a bit unnecessary. But given how frustrating Hans was during the trial, it's completely justifiable.) Yep, it's all just a bit too late. And from here on out, anything filed between now and 2018 (the earliest he would be able to be paroled) will be just a little bit early. That seems like some pretty just irony right there.

Below is a video of Hans making a statement during his sentencing. Mr. duBois is seated next to Hans, who has the look of a shackled mad scientist. Upon being asked if Hans would like to make a statement, Mr. duBois replied, "Probably." He then advises Hans that it would be in his best interest to "be brief" and "succinct".

Sphere: Related Content