The Skeptical Optimist: The second law of thermodynamics isn't all it's cracked up to be
Hydrogen from Water using Gallium w/ non useful energy
Friday, August 31, 2007
Thursday, August 30, 2007
Wednesday, August 29, 2007
Patterico’s Pontifications � Huang v. Hsu — 1996 v. 2008: Question — Will Hillary’s Rivals Attack Her While Her Husband Got a Pass?
Patterico’s Pontifications � Huang v. Hsu — 1996 v. 2008: Question — Will Hillary’s Rivals Attack Her While Her Husband Got a Pass?
Huang v. Hsu — 1996 v. 2008: Question — Will Hillary’s Rivals Attack Her While Her Husband Got a Pass?
[Posted by WLS]
The blogosphere is starting to buzz a little bit over Hillary’s “John Huang”. Articles in yesterday’s WSJ, a follow-up today, and even a piece in the LAT have got to have the Clinton camp worried about what to say about Norman Hsu.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118826947048110677.html?mod=Politics-and-Policy
http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB118835199704811801.html?mod=blog
John Fund at the WSJ has now posted a entry at the sites Political Diary that he made available to Powerline.
As a refresher, recall from 1996:
Bill Clinton benefitted from the political largesse of the Lippo Group, owned by the ruling Riady and Suharto families from Indonesia.
John Huang was a formerly the head of US Operations for the Lippo Group, controlled by the Riady family of Indonesia, before being named a mid-level Commerce Dept. official in the Clinton Admin. He enjoyed enormous access to the WH for such a mid-level employee. As a DNC fundraiser in 1996, he raised $3.4 million for the party and the Clinton re-election effort — mostly from the Aisan-American community. Huang had been hired in the early 1980s by the Riady Family-owned “Worthern Banking Group” in Little Rock.
Huang took a 50% pay cut to join the Clinton Admin in 1993, but the blow was softened by a $750,000 severance package from the Lippo Group. Among the dubious contributions obtained by Mr. Huang was $200,000 donated by an Indonesian gardner, who later had to return to Indonesia to avoid testifying in the Senate investigation into 1996 fundraising practices. Charlie Trie was the Arkansas restaurantuer and generous financial contributor who received wire transfers of hundreds of thousands of dollars from the Bank of China, but mysteriously relocated to Bejing when subpoenas started to roll out.
Now Hillary has the ubiquitous Mr. Hsu.
As reported by the WSJ, Mr. Hsu — a wanted felon and fugitive from justice for a fraud conviction in California — has raised more than $1 million already for Hillary’s campaign, including more than $45,000 from the Paw family in San Francisco, who have contributed more than $200,000 to various Democrat candidates and organizations through Mr. Hsu.
Mr. Paw is a mail carrier, earning $49,000 a year. He donated $4600.
His wife is a homemaker. She donated $4600.
Their four adult children have various occupations — one is an executive at a mutual fund, while another is a local high school “attendance liason”. All donated $4600.
The recently refinanced their 1200 square foot house near SF Airport for $270,000.
What else they all have in common is that their contributions closely track the contributions made by Mr. Hsu to the same candidates and organizations.
The question is whether Hillary’s rivals on the Demo crowd will want to make an issue of this.
Bill got a pass in 1996 because he had no challenger, and the key facts didn’t come out until after the 1996 election.
Now such pass for Hillary.
FORGOTTEN PROPHETS: Hot Sex
FORGOTTEN PROPHETS: Hot Sex
Senator Larry E. Craig is a conservative Idaho Republican who has on a number of occasions voted against redefining "marriage" to include same-sex couples. He seems to believe that marriage is between one man and one woman at a time. He also seems to believe that marriage includes soliciting strange men in public toilets for sexual activity. He was arrested in June in a Minneapolis airport commode for just this proposition, and pled guilty to disorderly conduct. Now he's on TV recanting his plea. Hm. Every time I'm charged with a crime, I plead not guilty. To do otherwise would be perjury.
Similar charges have followed him throughout his quarter-century Congressional career. In 1982 he was accused of feeling up boy pages or somesuch. A Boise paper has just published a six month investigation of his alleged sexual inclinations. "I am not gay," says the Senator. Well, he should know.
Remember bill clinton? Wagging his chubby at us and saying ... ahem ... wagging his chubby finger at us and saying with stern assurance, "I did not have sex with that woman, Monica Lowinsky"? Remember? Indeed, clinton did not have sex with that woman, as he equivocatingly redefined the meaning of the word sex in his head. Sex is intercourse, of course. He did not have intercourse with that woman. See? And there was no relationship with her. Truly. Because it depends on what the meaning of was was ... is is. Git it? There is no relationship [right now, at this very moment that I'm giving testimony] with that woman. When we're allowed to have secret definitions in our heads, we never have to lie out loud.
Is Sen. Larry E. Craig gay? Who the hell cares. I don't. I suppose his wife does, but she would have made her bargain with that devil long ago. We can only imagine the, uh, conversations that will be going on behind their closed doors. But we, we certainly need not care in the least about whether or not Craig is gay. We do need to care about whether he sucks the dicks of strange men in public toilets. It's not just that it's unhygienic, it's illegal. I myself have been known to engage in questionable behavior in public toilets. I once didn't wash my hands after urinating. I know, I'm dirty. But it was a long time ago, and I've grown up since then. I was six at the time. As for Craig, he looks to be in his 70s ... oh, he's only 62 ... hasn't been living clean, evidently.
Craig tapped his foot repeatedly outside the cop's stall, which means Let's have sexual relations in gay subcultural non-verbal argot. He ran his hand along the bottom of the partition, which means I want to fellate you. (Oh, the things I know.) That, as stated, would be unhygienic. But none of us are likely to come into intimate contact with him, say, kissing him, so we need not concern ourselves with his oral hygiene. Likewise, we need not concern ourselves with the apparent disconnect between his private -- or rather, public toilet -- inclinations and his public voting record in the Senate. Public policies such as gay marriage should have little to do with the bus station exploits of glory hole fetishists. The former has to do with principle and the values that one aspires to. The latter has to do with the darkest urges of a man's tormented spirit.
No, the idea that Craig is a hypocritical cocksucker is meaningless. We all have our flaws. We hope that they remain private. And that's the problem. Craig's judgment. His judgment. Judgment. If we require anything of our leaders, it must be that they display some sort of wisdom. There must be some indication of growth, over a span of, say, 25 years. Feeling up pretty page boys in 1982, and getting away with it, is one thing. But it's another millennium, and the behavior is unchanged. The behavior of getting caught. Aren't there bars for this sort of thing? -- where such conduct might even be legal? It's just stupid.
Craig likes weeners. Well, so do a lot of women. I like my own weener. Nothing wrong with liking weeners. And I'm at the point in my life when I don't have to worry about the legal conduct of other people. Tonight as I was rolling, there was a lot of chatter from some fellas about sex. Specifically, about two guys with one woman. Lots of debate -- you wouldn't do it even if she was really hot? ... you just know that somehow swords are going to cross ... that sort of thing. Really inappropriate. Frankly, it was a bit sickening. I have never had the slightest interest at all in sex involving more than two people, no matter the genders involved. It seems to be increasingly acceptable nowadays for guys to admit that they like watching lesbians. Yuck. Absolutely yuck. I honestly do not see the slightest difference between gay sex with men and gay sex with women. But I don't have to worry about it, any of it -- menages, or gay sex, or any of it. I'd prefer not to know about it, but if I do, I don't need to worry. The worst that would happen is that I'd lose respect for someone I like.
Yes, I do have a point. Hardly any sex should be made public. Talk is inappropriate enough, under most circumstances. Acting on it is unacceptable. And that's where Senator Craig is a hypocrite. So what if he's homosexual. That's between him and his wife, and God. So what if he makes an equivocal distinction in his head, about the difference between homosexual, which is a behavior, and gay, which is a political and social philosophy. Craig is a hypocrite not for these things. He is a hypocrite because he makes laws about social policy on the Senate floor, yet he breaks similar laws in public toilets. That sexual sin is taken into the body, and is therefore more damaging, more dishonoring -- that's a personal matter. Alcoholism or drug abuse is likewise damaging to the body and the character and the mind. God cares about these things, so that strangers don't have to.
Men can fall. Men can fail. We might meet such failures with forgiveness, when we see repentance. But repentance isn't a feeling. It's a behavior, of turning away from the troublesome act. In the absence of such change, forgiveness of consequences is inappropriate. Who will change, without consequences? But the senator's soul is not our affair. His judgment is, and he has demonstrated criminal judgment. He will resign. Of course he will. In private life his fetish will be a matter for local law enforcement, and we need have no feeling about it. It will not affect us, any more than the countless other anonymous sexual encounters that take place between lonely and self-loathing people in parking lots and under park bushes and in vomit-smelling alleyways.
Why does sex have to be so hard? Without temptation, we'd all be good. With it, we can at least tell who has good judgment.
Senator Larry E. Craig is a conservative Idaho Republican who has on a number of occasions voted against redefining "marriage" to include same-sex couples. He seems to believe that marriage is between one man and one woman at a time. He also seems to believe that marriage includes soliciting strange men in public toilets for sexual activity. He was arrested in June in a Minneapolis airport commode for just this proposition, and pled guilty to disorderly conduct. Now he's on TV recanting his plea. Hm. Every time I'm charged with a crime, I plead not guilty. To do otherwise would be perjury.
Similar charges have followed him throughout his quarter-century Congressional career. In 1982 he was accused of feeling up boy pages or somesuch. A Boise paper has just published a six month investigation of his alleged sexual inclinations. "I am not gay," says the Senator. Well, he should know.
Remember bill clinton? Wagging his chubby at us and saying ... ahem ... wagging his chubby finger at us and saying with stern assurance, "I did not have sex with that woman, Monica Lowinsky"? Remember? Indeed, clinton did not have sex with that woman, as he equivocatingly redefined the meaning of the word sex in his head. Sex is intercourse, of course. He did not have intercourse with that woman. See? And there was no relationship with her. Truly. Because it depends on what the meaning of was was ... is is. Git it? There is no relationship [right now, at this very moment that I'm giving testimony] with that woman. When we're allowed to have secret definitions in our heads, we never have to lie out loud.
Is Sen. Larry E. Craig gay? Who the hell cares. I don't. I suppose his wife does, but she would have made her bargain with that devil long ago. We can only imagine the, uh, conversations that will be going on behind their closed doors. But we, we certainly need not care in the least about whether or not Craig is gay. We do need to care about whether he sucks the dicks of strange men in public toilets. It's not just that it's unhygienic, it's illegal. I myself have been known to engage in questionable behavior in public toilets. I once didn't wash my hands after urinating. I know, I'm dirty. But it was a long time ago, and I've grown up since then. I was six at the time. As for Craig, he looks to be in his 70s ... oh, he's only 62 ... hasn't been living clean, evidently.
Craig tapped his foot repeatedly outside the cop's stall, which means Let's have sexual relations in gay subcultural non-verbal argot. He ran his hand along the bottom of the partition, which means I want to fellate you. (Oh, the things I know.) That, as stated, would be unhygienic. But none of us are likely to come into intimate contact with him, say, kissing him, so we need not concern ourselves with his oral hygiene. Likewise, we need not concern ourselves with the apparent disconnect between his private -- or rather, public toilet -- inclinations and his public voting record in the Senate. Public policies such as gay marriage should have little to do with the bus station exploits of glory hole fetishists. The former has to do with principle and the values that one aspires to. The latter has to do with the darkest urges of a man's tormented spirit.
No, the idea that Craig is a hypocritical cocksucker is meaningless. We all have our flaws. We hope that they remain private. And that's the problem. Craig's judgment. His judgment. Judgment. If we require anything of our leaders, it must be that they display some sort of wisdom. There must be some indication of growth, over a span of, say, 25 years. Feeling up pretty page boys in 1982, and getting away with it, is one thing. But it's another millennium, and the behavior is unchanged. The behavior of getting caught. Aren't there bars for this sort of thing? -- where such conduct might even be legal? It's just stupid.
Craig likes weeners. Well, so do a lot of women. I like my own weener. Nothing wrong with liking weeners. And I'm at the point in my life when I don't have to worry about the legal conduct of other people. Tonight as I was rolling, there was a lot of chatter from some fellas about sex. Specifically, about two guys with one woman. Lots of debate -- you wouldn't do it even if she was really hot? ... you just know that somehow swords are going to cross ... that sort of thing. Really inappropriate. Frankly, it was a bit sickening. I have never had the slightest interest at all in sex involving more than two people, no matter the genders involved. It seems to be increasingly acceptable nowadays for guys to admit that they like watching lesbians. Yuck. Absolutely yuck. I honestly do not see the slightest difference between gay sex with men and gay sex with women. But I don't have to worry about it, any of it -- menages, or gay sex, or any of it. I'd prefer not to know about it, but if I do, I don't need to worry. The worst that would happen is that I'd lose respect for someone I like.
Yes, I do have a point. Hardly any sex should be made public. Talk is inappropriate enough, under most circumstances. Acting on it is unacceptable. And that's where Senator Craig is a hypocrite. So what if he's homosexual. That's between him and his wife, and God. So what if he makes an equivocal distinction in his head, about the difference between homosexual, which is a behavior, and gay, which is a political and social philosophy. Craig is a hypocrite not for these things. He is a hypocrite because he makes laws about social policy on the Senate floor, yet he breaks similar laws in public toilets. That sexual sin is taken into the body, and is therefore more damaging, more dishonoring -- that's a personal matter. Alcoholism or drug abuse is likewise damaging to the body and the character and the mind. God cares about these things, so that strangers don't have to.
Men can fall. Men can fail. We might meet such failures with forgiveness, when we see repentance. But repentance isn't a feeling. It's a behavior, of turning away from the troublesome act. In the absence of such change, forgiveness of consequences is inappropriate. Who will change, without consequences? But the senator's soul is not our affair. His judgment is, and he has demonstrated criminal judgment. He will resign. Of course he will. In private life his fetish will be a matter for local law enforcement, and we need have no feeling about it. It will not affect us, any more than the countless other anonymous sexual encounters that take place between lonely and self-loathing people in parking lots and under park bushes and in vomit-smelling alleyways.
Why does sex have to be so hard? Without temptation, we'd all be good. With it, we can at least tell who has good judgment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
