Still seeking to answer the question “Who’s going after Charlie Rangel,” I found this Washington Post article whose coverage agrees well with most of my carefully-assembled timeline. Glad to see someone’s on the story, even if I think they stop before asking the most important question.

From the article (and to fill in those who haven’t been following the story):

Rep. Charles B. Rangel (D-N.Y.), 78, addressing two visitors in his office near the House chamber, says he won’t cave in to Republicans and other critics who demand that he step aside as chairman of the powerful Ways and Means Committee until the ethics cloud surrounding him clears.  Read more 

The comments on this post are what make it most interesting, but in general it’s the kind of post that many of us have written, or read, or understood, many times in the past. It’s late and I need to go to bed, but I just have to share this one thought, one that always comes to mind when silly people who don’t understand how the drug trade works are talking.

Simply: who owns planes, big rig trucks, and large boats, in this country? Whatever your answer, if you’re reality-based, it’s not “cholos from the barrio” and “thugs in the hood.” No matter what propaganda you may believe about the overarching all-powerful nature of “gangs,” the simple truth is that without some kind of government help, there would be no illicit/illegal drug trade in this country. The Barrio isn’t filled with people who own planes that fly back and forth from Columbia; the military is. And the military leadership is mostly white. Same when it comes to fleets of boats and trucks- yes, there are black people who work on/with them, but not so many who own fleets of them, certainly not when compared to white people. White people in the Republican party, to be exact.

If you don’t like illicit drug use, or people who are addicted when you think they shouldn’t be, please don’t blame us (gay, brown, or poor people). We may be ’street level’ dealers and peddlers, but without rich, MIC/prison industrial complex types, there would be no illicit drugs in the United States. This is a matter of common sense, and I’d like to see more people accept this as they speak of these issues.

Hmmm. We’re having public meetings now on the subject of 9/11, um, “alternative scenarios” shall we say? And in North Carolina no less?

Hmmm. Possibly more interesting is what sounds like an entirely valid (statistically speaking) survey I had not heard of before:

A nationwide poll this summer by the Ohio University Scripps Survey Research Center found more than a third of the 1,010 adults surveyed said it is “very likely” or “somewhat likely” that the U.S. government either participated in the attacks of allowed them to happen.  Read more