You are here: Home / 2007 / June / Archives for 22nd

Prezelski vs. Paton

June 22, 2007 By 10 Comments

Just when you thought that legislators had put the session to bed without incident, things got really exciting at the State Capitol.

On the last day of session, the State House put forth an amendment on a bill that allowed the Dems to go on the record in their support for restoring voting rights to convicted rapists, child molesters and murderers. (Before it got to the floor, Democrats were successful in getting it through the Government Committee).

After the bill failed to pass the full house and several ACLU-lovin’ Democrats had put their fingerprints all over it, Democrat Tom Prezelski confronted Republican Jonathan Paton in the hallway over comments he made on the floor of the House.

Seeing he was confronted with the truth, Prezelski lost it. According to witnesses, he “lunged” at National Guardsman 1st Lieutenant, Paton.

The Republic’s Amanda Crawford reported the incident on her blog. Meanwhile the Capitol Times Legislative Report gave their take on what happened after the incident:

End-of-session dramatics was provided courtesy of Prezelski and Paton. After COW debate of S1623 (elections; manual audits; penalties) during which Paton argued against a provision — later stripped from the bill — that would have restored the voting rights of felons, Prezelksi confronted him in the hallway outside the members’ lounge. A witness told our reporter Prezelski was upset at Paton’s assertion that violent felons and sexual criminals should never have their rights restored. The argument was brief, but reportedly Prezelski “lunged” at Paton and was held back by Dem Counsel David Gass, while Ulmer ushered Paton away.
 
Ulmer and McGuire were the only lawmakers who witnessed the altercation. Others who were nearby say McGuire was upset at Prezelski, calling him “immature” and not deserving of her respect. Later, McGuire refused to speak with reporters, saying only, “I am now officially on ‘probation’”, pantomiming air quotes around the last word. Meanwhile, Ulmer apparently tried to downplay the incident, telling reporters “nothing happened” and “there is no story here.” She did concede there had been an argument that became heated, but she adamantly denied that Prezelski ever made a move toward Paton or that he had to be restrained.
 
When reporters went to Prezelski for comment, he became indignant about the questions he was asked. He stomped away from reporters after this brief exchange:

TP: Was it Paton that ran to the press?

Reporter #1: It wasn’t him.

Reporter #2: Can you clarify what happened?

TP: I think he misrepresented a bill that he was defending. He used some inflammatory language and accused Democrats of harboring criminals, and I don’t think that’s useful, and it had nothing to do with what the bill was about. And he knew that.

Reporter #2: So, did you physically threaten him?

TP: (raised voice) No, I did not physically threaten him. No, that’s ridiculous.

Reporter #2: So, what happened?

Reporter #3: We have witnesses that said that you lunged at him.

TP: I did not physically threaten him.

Reporter #2: Did you lunge at him?

TP: No, I did not lunge at him.

Reporter #2: So, what happened?

TP: No. This is stupid. I did not physically threaten him. Gosh, this is …

Reporter #2: Can you explain what happened?

TP: Did that guy tell you that? No, this is stupid. I’m not going to talk to you guys if you’re going to make shit up and listen to people who are making sh*t up. That’s stupid.

Incidentally, Tom Prezelski is the brother of Ted Prezelski, liberal activist blogger of, Rum Romanism and Rebellion. Seriously, we couldn’t have made this stuff up!

I guess one could say that Prezelski is the new Burnell-Smith

Filed Under: Crime and Punishment, Freedom of Speech, Government, Human Condition

Crisis in Confidence

June 22, 2007 By Leave a Comment

Amazing stuff from the latest Gallup poll.

 

Opinions

Only 14% percent of the people have have “a great deal of” confidence in Congress or “quite a lot, which is the lowest ever.  A lot of the blame lies with the political elite’s failure to deliver (social security reform) or to listen to the overwhelming majority of Americans (“comprehensive” immigration reform), but more blame rests on the media and Hollywood elites. 

We are fed a non-stop diet of government corruption, business greed, a sense of entitlement and a belief that you have the right to never be offended.  I doubt a day goes by without the US and European media criticizing our democratic institutions in general, America in particular or the Republican Party in detail.

Yet a large majority of Americans tend to reject that perception.  Afterall, confidence levels in the media are lower than President Bush’s approval ratings.

Notice also that the groups that complain the least, the military and church, do much better than the constant whiners, Congress and the media.

The great Tony Blair lays out the problems with the media in the Wall Street Journal.

Second, attacking motive is far more potent than attacking judgment. It is not enough for someone to make an error. It has to be venal. Conspiratorial. Watergate was a great piece of journalism, but there is a Ph.D. thesis all on its own to examine the consequences for journalism of standing one conspiracy up. What creates cynicism is not mistakes; it is allegations of misconduct. But misconduct is what has impact.

A brave German discusses the “big lie” of anti-Americanism held European media elites. 

As far as Hollywood goes, I for one would pay a lot of money to see a movie where US government agents, Christians or big business were portrayed positively and were not part of some grand conspiracy to subvert our freedoms.

Filed Under: Media

Oh, that liberal media

June 22, 2007 By Leave a Comment

MSNBC reports that about 90% of political donations from reporters and editors go to Democrats and liberal causes. 

But no worry, the Democrats, err “journalists”, assure us there’s no such thing as a liberal bias.  As a writer for the New Yorker explains it:

“I believe very much that writers have to be aware of conflicts of interest in all sorts of situations. Probably there should be a rule against it. But there’s a rule against murder. If someone had murdered Hitler–a journalist interviewing him had murdered him–the world would be a better place. I only feel good, as a citizen, about getting rid of George Bush, who has been the most destructive president in my lifetime. I certainly don’t regret it.”

Filed Under: Media