First, let's take a look at this little item from the Globe:
US Senator Scott Brown took some ribbing after a liberal blog last month posted video of the Massachusetts Republican asking conservative billionaire David Koch for support in his next campaign-but Brown's request apparently worked.
Shortly after his conversation with Koch, Brown received a $2,500 donation to his campaign fund from Koch Industries through its political action committee, according to campaign finance reports made public yesterday.
Ah yes, that infamous beg from Scott Brown, the smarmy aside to David Koch, asking for the money to pull the wool over the eyes of those rubes in Massachusetts. And why is he worth the money to David Koch? Because he can, without shame, vote consistently against the environmental concerns of Massachusetts voters, and then come back to Massachusetts to do photo-ops like this:
Senator Scott Brown is taking a tour tomorrow of XL Hybrids, a Somerville-based company that converts standard gasoline engines into hybrids.
The tour will occur from 9 a.m. to 10 a.m.
Afterward, Brown will hold a press conference to discuss his proposed legislation for reducing energy costs.
Blah, blah, blah. Scott Brown proposing legislation is in the realm of “if a tree falls in a forest” philosophical discussion of reality. It's not going anywhere. Proposing legislation that goes nowhere is part of the game, it's what the Koch's want him to do. They want him to show up at a nifty enviro-friendly photo op, talk about legislation to “reduce energy costs” and then go back to Washington and do more of this:
Brown has marched in lockstep on this issue with fellow Republicans who are against government regulation across the board. Many congressional Republicans do not even acknowledge that greenhouse gases contribute to climate change and need to be curbed. […]
The bill Brown backed would also prohibit any improvement in auto fuel-efficiency standards after 2016. Advances in car mileage prompted by the fuel-efficiency standards that began in the '70s have been a rare success in this country's halting effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
It's the usual story with Scott Brown: smile for the camera, prance around in the spotlight, smile and bang his little cymbals to amuse the crowd. But it's becoming increasingly clear who Scott Brown's organ grinder is, who's cranking the tune Scott Brown dances to.
And it's not us.
Well that is a seriously large and impressive amount of money and I totally agree that it warrants your title that Koch industries are literally doing business as Scott Brown here in MA.
<
p>At least progressives can rail against the obvious dominance of such moneyed interests in our state in the hopes that maybe, someday, we can return to democracy.
I’m waiting for the media to cease being morally complicit in Brown’s protection of the criminal by refusing to name the pedophile, despite the common knowledge that pedophiles don’t limit themselves to a single victim.
<
p>Protecting criminals is more important than prtecting children? Yep: pedophiles are old enough to vote.
<
p>Otherwise:
<
p>”the government can give you nothing that it doesn’t take away, first”
<
p>”Government is the means by which the community regulates itself.” — James Maedison.
<
p>We the people are the govt. I’m tired of these “conservative” “patriots” who pretend to have the best interests of the country at heart while hating We the people.
<
p>I wish those who hate gov’t would stop running for election to it.
If so what makes you think the media know who that is?
My point is this:
<
p>1. Pedophilia is a criminal offense.
<
p>2. It is common knowledge that pedophiles don’t limit themselves to only one victim.
<
p>3. Brown is REFUSING to identify the criminal, thus is protecting the criminal, to the harm of the criminal’s other victims. Thus Brown is morally complicit in the predophile’s crimes, exactly as was Cardinal Law as result of his protecting pedophiles instead of protecting the victims.
<
p>4. The media’s refusal to press Brown on the matter until he names the criminal means the media are morally complicit with Brown in protecting the criminal, instead of concerning themselves with the pedophile’s victims.
<
p>Brown’s attitude actually doesn’t suprise in view of his party affiliation and electoral attitude. There was an incident on or near the Cape in which a 14-year-old girl was allegedly molested by a cop, while his superior was present. When that superior subsequently ran for local political office — as a Republican — Brown put in a fund-raising appearance in his behalf. When asked about him supporting the superior who did nothing to stop the molestation, Brown answered, “No one cares about the victims.”
<
p>I think we can assume Brown was speaking for himself: that he doesn’t care about the victims. And for the media which have been avoiding the issue in Brown’s behalf.
<
p>So questions are raised:
<
p>Why is Brown protecting the pedophile?
<
p>Is it because there wasn’t a pedophile, and he wasn’t molested?
Provide a citation, or apologize.
…I think Brown is within his rights to handle this at his pace in his way. It is not analogus to Cardinal Law as Law was the superior to the offending priests and the recipient of reports which he should have passed along.
…I would find the media’s hounding of Brown on something like this distasteful and voyueristic. As he is a public official I’d much rather have the media press him on some of the votes he has taken.
Since Brown is now a middle-age adult there’s a good chance the statute of limitations has run out on the crimes alleged to have been committed against him.