Grand Rapids....come for the churches, stay for the Nascar and Deer Hunting.
Tuesday, January 17, 2006
INCONSEQUENTIAL????
I was looking through the news online today and ran across this:
House Republicans Unveil New Ethics Plan
WASHINGTON - House Republicans moved to seize the initiative for ethics reform Tuesday with a comprehensive package of changes, including the banning of privately sponsored travel like that arranged by convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff. The package also includes a virtual ban on gifts, except for inconsequential items like baseball caps.....
The story goes on and on about the sweeping reforms that are being introduced etc. etc. etc...but I kept coming back to this one phrase: "inconsequential items like baseball caps."
It struck me as odd. I mean, I just don't see a lot of members of our congress wearing baseball caps. A fez? fedora? nice little panama while on the golf course? sure, I can see those. I just don't see a lot of baseball caps in the crowd when I'm watching C-SPAN. Plus, you reach a point in your life where, for most people, baseball caps just don't look right.
Why not "inconsequential items like jackets" or "inconsequential items like bumper stickers" or even "inconsequential items like McDonalds Gift Certificates?" Why not "inconsequential items like berets?"
WHY BASEBALL CAPS?
Then I got to thinking...what if? What if this is one of those things that gets shuffled right under the nose of the public. That sort of technicality that provides room for "plausible deniability"
So I did a little digging on the web, and I found this:
Ha! and they thought they could put one over on me.
Name: Jonathan Home: Grand Rapids, Michigan, United States About Me: Just a guy who trying to eek out a living as a graphic designer in SW Michigan. See my complete profile
Name: Jonathan
Excellent muckraking!
Send this to The Daily Show!
This story needs broke!