January 12, 2006

The Black Hole Of News

Like matter which encounters a black hole, some news stories are simply sucked in to where no light escapes, quickly slipping ove the event horizon into nothingness.

Such is this story of political corruption in Congress.

A former aide to Rep. William Jefferson, D-New Orleans, pleaded guilty Wednesday in federal court and has agreed to cooperate with an investigation into an alleged conspiracy to funnel money to the eight-term congressman and members of his family.

Brett Pfeffer, 37, told U.S. District Judge T.S. Ellis III that a congressman, identified in court only as "Representative A," lobbied high-ranking officials in Nigeria and Ghana to use technology developed by a small U.S.-based telecommunication company and pressed the Export-Import Bank of the United States to approve loan guarantees. In exchange, Pfeffer said, the congressman demanded a share of the new company created to facilitate the deal.

Unless I've gone deaf, I've missed the uproar over this case. I mean, after all, we have a sitting lawmaker, indictments and guilty pleas, spectacular accusations of criminality. This should be a lead story and be producing claims about a culture of corruption within the lawmaker's party -- expecially given other actions taken by the guy to cover his tracks.

Oh.

That's right.

That is a "D" in the party slot.

He's a Democrat.

Nothing to see here.

Move along.

It just isn't news to the MSM.

Posted by: Greg at 11:20 PM | Comments (16) | Add Comment
Post contains 240 words, total size 2 kb.

1 You right-wingers just aren't any good at moral relativism. To think that this tiny, though loathesome, deal is anything like Abramboff or DeLay is just silly. If the papers start making a huge deal out of every penny-ante crook of either party, we won't have room to report on missing white women.

Posted by: Dan at Fri Jan 13 00:32:38 2006 (aSKj6)

2 Exactly my point -- you leftists only think corruption is important when you can use it to your political advantage.

Oh, and nice use of the race card. Is that meant to intimate that you expect black politicians to be corrupt?

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Fri Jan 13 09:16:37 2006 (lx1ow)

3 The difference is in scope, not political advantage, RWR. And you seem to be nervous about race. The "missing white women" reference is to the fact that the traditional media tend to focus outrageous attention and resources on cases where white women turn up missing, like the runaway bride or the woman in Aruba.

Posted by: Dan at Fri Jan 13 12:20:18 2006 (aSKj6)

4 If you wish to deal with scope, consider the stinking cesspool of Democrat corruption that is Louisiana politics.

As for the media focus on white women, i'll have to agree -- we had a little girl the same age as Elizabeth Smart disappear at about the same time, and the MSM would not cover it. Why is it that the cesspool of liberalism that is teh MSM is so focused on white girls and won't give the time of day to "females of color"?

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Fri Jan 13 13:46:44 2006 (Ltue2)

5 Agreed - Louisianna politics needs some serious cleaning up, and I don't care what party goes to jail. I think it's awful, but it doesn't affect me quite as much as corruption in the US congress or in the republican-led Missouri house.

Glad to see your questioning as to why the "liberal" MSM doesn't behave in a liberal manner. Keep questioning your assumptions, and you may see that the "liberal" media are not quite as liberal as the right-wingers keep teliing you they are. They are, first and foremost, businesses designed to sell ad space.

Posted by: Dan at Fri Jan 13 17:08:17 2006 (aSKj6)

6 Actually, the liberal MSM is racist because liberalism it self is a racist movement. It is the conservative GOP, the real party of civil rights for its entire existance, that is the non-racist movement in this country.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Sat Jan 14 00:37:57 2006 (GCxtl)

7 OK, sure.

Posted by: Dan at Sat Jan 14 04:40:36 2006 (aSKj6)

8 If you agree, then when will you come over to the anti-racist side?

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Sat Jan 14 06:38:58 2006 (mGudT)

9 I was kidding, RWR. I don't believe that the Republicans are superior on race issues - I much prefer the Democrats policies. I don't see much point in engaging in discussion when the topic is this broad, though. If you want to believe that the Democrats are "racist", it's not going to do anybody any good for me to point out that the majority of rednecks with rebel flags vote Republican. We can call each other racist until we're blue in the face, but we won't change each others' minds, and we'll both be right. If you want to chat about a specific issue, though, bring it on.

Posted by: Dan at Sat Jan 14 11:10:22 2006 (aSKj6)

10 Gee -- more race baiting, in the form of "rednecks with rebel flags" rhetoric.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Sat Jan 14 11:32:58 2006 (43MZa)

11 Just an honest observation. Do you disagree with it?

Posted by: Dan at Sun Jan 15 03:51:57 2006 (aSKj6)

12 Only if you concede that a majority of wetbacks and welfare-cheats on crack vote Democrat.

Dou you take offense at the slurs in the previous sentence? Then perhaps you will understand my objection to your slur above.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Sun Jan 15 04:47:10 2006 (4Tg0D)

13 'Round here, redneck isn't a slur - those who it applies to view it as more of a badge. But, if you're sensitive to the term, then, sure, I'll tone it down. How does "Young white males with rebel flags on their vehicles" work?

Posted by: Dan at Sun Jan 15 11:15:50 2006 (aSKj6)

14 It certainly was a slur as you used it.

And given that the rebel flag is a multi-valent symble, I don't think you can presume racism as teh motive for its display.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Sun Jan 15 11:50:37 2006 (bMupf)

15 Racism or treason, one or the other. And either way, they're flying the flag of a bunch of losers, so it's hard to feel much respect for them.

Posted by: Dan at Sun Jan 15 15:51:46 2006 (aSKj6)

16 I'm surprised at your attitude, given that all the folks who actually fought under that banner -- for a cause you call racism and treason -- were considered to be good Democrats before teh war, good Democrats after teh war, and their party continues to be the party of racism and treason right up to the present day.

The GOP, on the other hand, has always been the party of patriotism and civil rights. We condemn and reject any racist KKK-type who attempts to infiltrate our party -- you make yours Senators and Supreme Court justices.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Sun Jan 15 16:17:27 2006 (Bpq1X)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
13kb generated in CPU 0.0059, elapsed 0.0154 seconds.
21 queries taking 0.0109 seconds, 45 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
[/posts]