Penguins on the freeway—that must have been an interesting sight. A truck overturned in Texas, releasing the animals, and several were taken out by passing cars.
The good news is that there was also an octopus in the truck, and it came through the accident unharmed. I’d kind of like to know the details of that one.
CNN is also reporting some roadkill in Connecticut. I never cared for the sanctimonious git so I’m less concerned about that one.
It sounds eerily similar to the movie Madagascar. How do we know the penguins didn’t cause the accident themselves as an escape tactic?
“How do we know the penguins didn’t cause the accident themselves as an escape tactic?”
Dunno, I kinda suspect the octopus, unless of course the penguins that died were really martyrs for a yet to be revealed cause…nitrogen narcosis, rapture of the deep!
I think I know why you support Ned Lamont, PZ. A scion of a wealthy family, up to the eyeballs in inherited weath, with no history of elected office, gets bored and decides to buy himself a Senate seat….hmmm, that sounds familiar. But, of course, it’s more familiar to you. :-)
Let’s hope that if Lamont is elected, he doesn’t get bored again half way through his term, like Senator Tar-jay. But what is it with the Democratic Party electing the idle wealthy? And you keep doing it, so you must like the results.
No, I’m not at all enthused about Lamont, which is why I haven’t said much about that election here. I think we keep getting these rich guys because the DLC is a nest of incompetent, tired hacks who won’t support real progressives, so the only people who stand a chance of cracking the two party lock are the independently wealthy. And I think that’s very bad for us.
I only supported Lamont (as much as a guy in Minnesota with no direct stake in the race can do so) because I despise Holy Joe Lieberman.
That’s exactly it. In our corrupt system of buying elections, where incumbents are guaranteed boatloads of cash from those who want continued favors after the election, it’s pretty much the case that ONLY a rich guy could possibly have the resources to knock off an incumbent. The blame for that does not only lie with the Democratic Party, though a big part of it of course has to go to both party establishments, who, let’s face it, like things that way.
“A scion of a wealthy family, up to the eyeballs in inherited weath, with no history of elected office, gets bored and decides to buy himself a Senate seat….hmmm, that sounds familiar. “
Are you serious? The actually believe Dems have a monopoly on that? You could just as well have been describing George W. Bush
Neither party has a monopoly on it, though the Democrats in the Senate are considerably wealthier on average than the Republicans. However, one party is consistently portrayed as the party of the rich, which is a little discordant when you consider the elected representatives of the other party are actually richer. In fact, so-called Campaign FInance Reform, in making it more difficult to finance a campaign by contributions, has in fact made it easier for those with inherited wealth to buy office. As Lamont has been doing.
Actually, I’m quite happy that both our senators In Nebraska (one R, one D) came from comparatively modest beginnings.
I’m a lot more concerned with whose interests they represent when in office than in how much personal wealth they have. On that the record is very clear. While the Dems are far too solicitous of the wealthy and big business (see the appalling number of Dem votes for the disgusting bankruptcy bill) they’re totally and hopelessly outclassed in that department by the Repubs, who might as well call themselves the Plutocratic party.
There is the interesting fact that the independently wealthy can afford to do as they politically please, beholden to no one but the voters.
But we still come back to the parable of Mouseland….
Gerard,
Don’t take this as a defense of the Dems finances, but when one calls the the Republicans the “party of the rich” one is not talking about their personal lives, but about policy. I guess that they are more precisely the party for the rich, though they have tactically extended their tent (often with some distaste) to include the woefully ignorant and often poor religious right, among other bigots.
Is this even controversial? Republicans, as far as I know, are proud of being pro-corporate and anti-taxes for the wealthy (inheritance, capital gains), and against welfare, universal health care and government programs in general (drown it in a bathtub and and the invisible hand and so forth).
Though I do admire that Chuck Hagel from time to time. He’s the only Republican I know of in the Senate with the integrity to not act like the legislative branch is the tool and cheerleading squad of the executive branch, particularly in the face of the sleazy executive power-grab of recent years.
Don’t like corporations and wealthy individuals buying elections?
In California we’re voting on Prop 89 in November. This would enable folks to run for office with public financing, and would limit the buying of elections in other ways. Public financing, or Clean Money, is in place in Arizona, Maine and Connecticut as well. You should give it a try in Minnesota.
But what is it with the Democratic Party electing the idle wealthy?
You say this as a supporter of *George Bush*? That’s wildly hypocritical.