United States Senate

Latest news on united states senate

Your Tax Dollars, Hard at... Something

I get visitors to this site from all over the world. Not a lot of visitors, mind you. But they come from all corners of the globe, and they're the best readers around. It's the quality of the clicks that matter, not the quantity. That's my stance. Until there's quantity. Then all bets are off. Obviously. In the meantime, the slow steady crawl of page hits allows me to see where people are coming from, and what they're seeing, and in many cases, what they came looking for. Through careful study and analysis, I've come to a firm and scientifically defensible conclusion: You people are freaks. Nah, I'm just kidding. Oh, don't get me wrong. There are freaks out there -- as I've documented several times in the past -- but mostly, I like to think that the people browsing by the site are just looking to kill a few minutes of time, and maybe grab a quick laugh or two. They're regular folks, whether from Paris, Texas or Paris, France, from Riyadh to Rio de Janiero, from Quebec to Canberra, and from everywhere in between. They're even, as I found out recently, from the United States government. Gulp. You may imagine, quite rightly, that when I first found hits from the Fed in my logs, I was a little worried. Who knows when the lawmakers will finally get around to passing some sort of anti-silliness law, or a bill outlawing the use of words like assmometer or flaccipointing? If not for the crippling economic situation, the half-dozen wars being fought, the recent election, baby-kissing photo ops, education, health care, billion-dollar bailouts, Social Security, welfare reform, special interest pandering, mall openings, urban rezoning, Constitutional amendments, media spinning, subcommittee meetings, foreign relations, union negotiations, environmental watchdogging and deciding what to buy Wolf Blitzer for Hanukkah, it'd be way up high on their to-do lists. Maybe even first. So it was with some trepidation that I clicked on an access log from last week indicating that a visitor from 'senate.gov' had made his or her honorable way to my little corner of the internets. And that trepidation trebled when I saw that specifically, the hit came from the office of the U.S. Senate Sergeant at Arms. It looked bad. It looked official. I had no freaking idea what a sergeant of arms is, or why the Senate would need one. So I looked it up on Wikipedia: "The Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper of the Senate is the law enforcer for the United States Senate. One of the chief roles of the Sergeant is to hold the gavel used at every session. The Sergeant can also request the attendance of absent Senators." He's a 'doorkeeper'. And his main duty is to hold a gavel and play truant officer for Senators playing hooky. Suddenly, I felt a lot less trepidatious. "With the architect of the Capitol and the House Sergeant at Arms, he serves on the Capitol Police Board, responsible for security around the building." Fine. I'd be concerned if I were blogging from the Capitol rotunda. From an unspecified location outside of Boston, I think I'm probably in the clear. Also. There's an architect on the Capitol Police Board? Seriously? Pfffft. Rent-a-cops.) "The Sergeant at Arms of the Senate can arrest any person upon their violating Senate rules (including the President of the United States)." Uh-oh. That whole 'flaccipointing' thing could conceivably violate Senate rules somehow. There's no way shit like that is covered in Roberts' Rules of Order. Maybe I'd better see what this person came looking for: grammar lesson your and you're Well. That takes a load off. Here I'm worried about being court-martialed -- or sworn in and court-martialed, or enlisted and court-martialed, or whatever they'd have to do to make me eligible -- and it's just some high-ranking government official searching for a basic rule of grammar taught to children in the third grade. That's... um, comforting. Sort of. The question is, was it more or less comforting than the visit I had today, also from the office of the Senate Sergeant at Arms, who found my Simpsons quotes page by searching: "you, sir, have the boorish manners of a Yalie" simpsons I suppose that sort of thing would come in handy on the job, when you catch a couple of truant freshman Senators hanging out at the ice cream shop when they're supposed to be voting. You'd think a 'Sergeant at Arms' would be using tougher language, though -- maybe he should be searching for Full Metal Jacket quotes, if he really wants to make an impression. I suppose you're not allowed to call elected officials 'maggot pukes', though. Not actually in the Senate building, anyway. Only in the newspapers, I guess. (It's remarkable, by the way, how much the U.S. Senate Sergeant of Arms' office gets around the web. I don't know what the size of the staff is like, but a quick search reveals several other posts like the one you're reading, reporting visits from the same folks. Of course, given the subject matter around this place, I ascribe little significance to a couple of chance visits from the legislative branch. Many of the sites above are political in nature, and prefer to think of the visits as much more targeted and meaningful. My guess? If they knew the truth, they'd be sadly flaccipointed.) As troubling as the experience with Sgt. Senate was, there was one other gubment-related log item of note in recent days. This one came from, of all places, the domain belonging to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. And what, pray, were the good folks on the appeals board searching for, perhaps to assist in a ruling on some worthy veteran's case?: photographs of women who go commando Now, possibly they're talking about the military sort of commando. Maybe they're after pictures of camouflaged ladies, to compare to an alleged commando lady pleading her case to the court. There's a chance it's all on the up-and-up. Only... no. I don't think so. If you're in the military, and you have to Google for pics of 'women who go commando', I'm pretty sure it's not the good sort of 'commando'. (Depending on your views on underpants. And special forces personnel. And possibly whe'er the twain should meet.) At any rate, it's been an eye-opening experience to catch a glimpse of the browsing habits of supposedly-serious government officials. I suppose they're people, too, just like the rest of the internet crowd -- curious, bored, horny types looking to the web to brighten their days. Sometimes in the form of pantiless women, evidently. And who hasn't been there, am I right? But I'm not sure it helps me sleep any easier at night, knowing these elected officeholders are just as fragile, just as forgetful, and just as freaky as the rest of us. When it comes to learning about how these governmental gavelholders and Army appellate agents get their online jollies, one of their own policies leaps to mind: Don't ask. And don't tell. Freaks.

Attacking Media Matters, O'Reilly falsely claimed he said "Coleman's victory was certified by the state ... which is absolutely true" -- but it's not

On the November 20 broadcast of The Radio Factor, host Bill O'Reilly attacked Media Matters for America for highlighting comments he made during the November 18 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, when he falsely claimed Sen. Norm Coleman (R) "was certified the winner" in his Minnesota Senate race against Democratic challenger Al Franken. On November 20, O'Reilly claimed: "[W]e said the other day that, in Minnesota, that the election commission had certified the election and that -- what's his name -- Coleman, the senator, had won by 215 votes." Calling Media Matters "the most dishonest website in the country," he further stated: "So, what I said was, Coleman's victory was certified by the state because it was. He had 215 more votes, which is absolutely true. Absolutely true. OK? Rock solid; in stone. That's what they did." In fact, as Media Matters noted when O'Reilly made the false claim earlier, the Minnesota State Canvassing Board did not certify "Coleman's victory"; nor did it certify "the election." Rather, the board signed a statement on November 18 declaring that "[e]xcept for the offices of U.S. senator, state senator District 16, state representative Districts 12b and 16a, the candidates who received the highest number of votes cast for each office voted on in more than one county is hereby declared 'elected.' " Moreover, contrary to O'Reilly's claim that he said "the election commission had certified the election," Minnesota election law states that "[i]f a recount is undertaken by a canvassing board" in elections including those for U.S. senator, "no certificate of election shall be prepared or delivered until after the recount is completed." Minnesota law states in relevant part: 204C.40 CERTIFICATES OF ELECTION. Subdivision 1.Preparation; method of delivery. The county auditor shall prepare an election certificate for every county candidate declared elected by the county canvassing board, and the secretary of state shall prepare a certificate for every state and federal candidate declared elected by either a county canvassing board or the State Canvassing Board. Except as otherwise provided in this section, the secretary of state or county auditor, as appropriate, shall deliver an election certificate on demand to the elected candidate. In an election for United States representative, the secretary of state shall deliver the original election certificate to the chief clerk of the United States House of Representatives. In an election for United States senator, the governor shall prepare an original certificate of election, countersigned by the secretary of state, and deliver it to the secretary of the United States Senate. In an election for state representative or state senator, the secretary of state shall deliver the original election certificate to the chief clerk of the house or the secretary of the senate. The chief clerk of the house or the secretary of the senate shall give a copy of the certificate to the representative-elect or senator-elect. Upon taking the oath of office, the representative or senator shall receive the original certificate of election. If a recount is undertaken by a canvassing board pursuant to section 204C.35, no certificate of election shall be prepared or delivered until after the recount is completed. In case of a contest, the court may invalidate and revoke the certificate as provided in chapter 209. Subd. 2.Time of issuance; certain offices. No certificate of election shall be issued until seven days after the canvassing board has declared the result of the election. In case of a contest, an election certificate shall not be issued until a court of proper jurisdiction has finally determined the contest. This subdivision shall not apply to candidates elected to the office of state senator or representative. In addition to several news outlets also reporting that the state canvassing board did not certify a winner in the Minnesota Senate race, The Associated Press reported on November 19 that "[t]he recount will be done in more than 100 sites across the state over the next 2 1/2 weeks. A month from now, the canvassing board will reconvene to rule on disputed ballots and certify the election." From the November 20 broadcast of Westwood One's The Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly: O'REILLY: We have a mandate here where we just simply want to give you the truth and the facts straight up. I mean, that's why we've been successful. We said the other day -- this is interesting, and you guys might learn a lesson from this -- we said the other day that, in Minnesota, that the election commission had certified the election and that -- what's his name -- Coleman, the senator, had won by 215 votes. All right? WIEHL: Right. O'REILLY: That's what we reported. WIEHL: Right. O'REILLY: Well, Media Matters, the most dishonest website in the country, because they purport to be watchdogs, but of course they only watch conservative people or people they don't like, or traditional people -- they don't watch the left -- they say, "Oh, O'Reilly lied because he said that the state of Minnesota certified Coleman's victory." OK. So, what I said was, Coleman's victory was certified by the state because it was. He had 215 more votes -- WIEHL: Sure. So that's a win. O'REILLY: -- which is absolutely true. WIEHL: Right. O'REILLY: Absolutely true. OK? Rock solid; in stone. That's what they did. But these despicable -- that's all I'm going to say. Just despicable. I could say a lot of other things, but I won't. These people take that, all right, put it on their website that O'Reilly lied by saying they certified a victory. They didn't use, in the state of Minnesota, a victory, 'cause there's a recount. All right? But, if you certify an election, where one guy has 215 more votes -- WIEHL: Right. O'REILLY: -- that's a win for Coleman, as it stands now. WIEHL: It could change. O'REILLY: And we said, there's going to be a recount. But when you listen to me, I'm going to tell you the truth and give you the facts. Those are going to be twisted and distorted by dishonest people like NBC News.