` If I understand this correctly, it basically consists of a scolding... ...besides Rangel having to pay the taxes he didn't... ...which is the least he could do... ...since - you know - they do jail people for tax evasion. So... they don't even whack his knuckles with a ruler like the nuns used to do to us when we'd get out of hand back in my days as a wee laddie in Catholic grade school ? I mean - a big fuss is being made over the fact that he has to listen to somebody tell him he's been a bad boy ?!?! Fuck me. I say shoot the bastard and be done with it, then get the next scum-sucker in the dock ! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Speaking of farts I think part of it is a matter of perspective. To us, it might not seem like much. But, then, I think of some of the things that mortify my aunt, or even my mother. No, really, my mother can't even say the word, "fart". That provided some astounding hilarity for us at a pub in Edinburgh. It was, in the end, just the booth, but at the same time my mother—who was not accustomed to drinking cider—happened to burp quietly, and thus change her posture, there was this flatulent noise. Being a few pints into lunch, and in a merry mood, the words were out of my mouth so quickly. "Did you just fart?" I asked incredulously. You would have thought I stood up and started wanking at the table by the expression on her face. And, of course, as my brother and I teased her about not even being able to say the word, a friend nearly fell over laughing. So, you know, it's a matter of perspective. Jenny Marx would have slain my mother by her flatulence. Anyway, speaking of farts, a bit about Rep. Rangel: One threatened fellow lawmakers with a pistol. Two others assaulted their colleagues with canes, an old weapon of choice on Capitol Hill. In the heat of slavery and secession debates, some raised insults to an art form. A few took bribes or flirted with treason. Two offenders had sex with Congressional pages. In the genteel parliamentary history of the House of Representatives there lurk rowdy days of rough-and-tumble brawls, beatings, chokings, fistfights, upended hairpieces, stentorian demands for apologies unheeded and a lot of sneaky conduct and foul-mouth talk. Some did nothing bad, or almost nothing. But they all wound up where Representative Charles B. Rangel, a Democrat from Harlem, is expected to find himself this week: in the well of the House, facing the shame of formal censure. The choreographed mortification ritual has played out more than a score of times since 1832. Convicted by peers, the transgressor — all have been men — stands before the assembled members and a packed gallery of spectators and reporters as the speaker reads the rebuke. “What it’s saying is you’ve brought disgrace to the House of Representatives, you’ve discredited the institution that you serve in,” said Ilona Nickels, an author and expert on Congressional affairs. “You have impugned the integrity of our proceedings. You’re a disgraceful person. And you’re going to stand there in the well of the House and we’re going to read these charges against you and we’re going to, in essence, say, ‘Shame on you.’ It doesn’t really help your résumé, or your obit for that matter.” It is also a moment of truth, not for the fainthearted. (McFadden) Rep. Thomas Blanton (D-TX) faced censure in 1921, after entering a letter deemed profane into the Congressional Record. Robert McFadden, reviewing the history of censure for The New York Times, notes that "by today's standards [it] was relatively mild stuff". Nonetheless, after hearing his censure read out, Blanton fled the House chamber, collapsed in the hallway, and eventually trudged back to his office, weeping openly. In 1842, Rep. Joshua Giddings (W-OH), faced censure for introducing a resolution asserting the rights of slaves who revolted at sea; he was later re-elected. The first censure, according to McFadden, went to Rep. William Stanberry (?—OH) faced censure after suggesting that the Speaker of the House Andrew Stevenson (D-VA) neglected his duties while dwelling on a future White House run. Perhaps the most infamous censure would be that of Reps. Preston Brooks and Laurence Kiett (D-SC), in the wake of the former's crippling assault of Sen. Charles Sumner on the floor of the U.S. Senate. Rep. Brooks beat Sumner with a cane while Rep. Kiett held other senators at bay with a pistol. Brooks resigned after avoiding expulsion, and Kiett resigned in protest of his censure; both were re-elected. In 1890, the House Democratic caucus joined Rep. William Bynum (D-IN) as a gesture of solidarity during is censure for calling a Republican colleague a tyrant. It's hard to say what effect censure really has in the twenty-first century. To the one, Rangel's ethics troubles were common knowledge at the time of his re-election earlier this month, which he won with over eighty percent of the vote. Rangel apologized to his supporters after his conviction, and likened the outcome to being "left for dead in North Korea". But after enduring Speaker Pelosi's reading of the censure, he described the vote as "very, very political". He also said that he felt good about the situation despite the outcome: "A lot of it has to do with the fact that I know in my heart that I am not going to be judged by this Congress, but I am going to be judged by my life." Nonetheless, history will record his censure much the same way certain achievements in the sports world will always be remembered with an asterisk: Mark McGwire will always be remembered as a lying steroid user; and Rep. Charles Rangel will always be remembered as corrupt at worst, or incompetent at best. Quite clearly, despite the support shown him by fellow Democrats as he exited the chamber, the ethics conviction and resulting censure stung. And perhaps that's not enough for many, but he joins an infamous list of transgressors convicted of bribery, selling West Point appointments, thuggery, and sex offenses. Perhaps if there was only one offense involved, instead of eleven convictions out of thirteen charges, he might hold his head up and truly count himself among those whose censures were unquestionably motivated by petty politics. ____________________ Notes: McFadden, Robert. "House Censure: Humbling to Some, but Not All". The New York Times. November 30, 2010; page A26. NYTimes.com. December 2, 2010. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/30/nyregion/30censure.html McAuliff, Michael. "Rep. Charles Rangel offers apology to supporters for ethics shenanigans". New York Daily News. November 23, 2010. NYDailyNews.com. December 2, 2010. http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2010/11/23/2010-11-23_charlie_finally_shows_hes_sorry.html Margasak, Larry and Laurie Kellman. "Veteran Rep. Rangel censured by House for ethics misconduct, says vote was 'very political'". Los Angeles Times. December 2, 2010. LATimes.com. December 2, 2010. http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/politics/wire/sns-ap-us-rangel,0,3860231.story
