Bipartisanship, My Fat Fanny

Another entrant in the parade of Bush appointees meant to take down the government offices to which they’re appointed: Mary Beth Buchanan, Bush’s new appointee to head the Office on Violence Against Women. From Jessica:

Buchanan’s claims to fame?

She’s an enthusiastic cheerleader of the Patriot Act. (It preserves civil liberties, she says!)

She spent $12 million on “Operation Pipe Dreams,” taking down 55 people for selling bongs. This included actor Tommy Chong–in the courtroom, Buchanan introduced his fictional pot-smoking characters as evidence of his “frivolous” attitude towards drug laws.

She’s an anti-obscenity crusader, prosecuting people for written stories on the internet and going after any and all porn. (Don’t get me wrong, I’m not a fan of violent porn and the like, but Buchanan strikes me as more interested in enforcing morality than the law.) The legal director for the Pittsburgh ACLU once called Buchanan “the vanguard of [former U.S. Attorney General John] Ashcroft’s attempt to impose his morality on others.” Yikes.

So basically, this sucks. I can see it now…VAWA funds being diverted to conservative anti-obscenity groups under the rhetoric of protecting women. I am completely freaked out.

Orwell had nothing on this guy.

Similar Posts (automatically generated):

4 comments for “Bipartisanship, My Fat Fanny

  1. Dianne
    November 30, 2006 at 9:30 am

    $12 million for 55 convictions? For that much money she could have set them all up for life in the Netherlands where their habit could have been tolerated and no trouble to anyone and she could have gone after people doing actual dangerous things. Like, say, imbibing that completely legal mind altering subtance known as alchohol and driving.

  2. November 30, 2006 at 12:35 pm

    Why would the federal government even have an office with that name?

    Isn’t violence against women (and everyone else) already illegal in every state?

    VAWA funds being diverted to conservative anti-obscenity groups under the rhetoric of protecting women.

    Who cares? Wasn’t this money destined to be wasted anyway?

  3. James B. Cozad
    November 30, 2006 at 1:13 pm

    A democratic controlled congress controls the purse strings so, a least in this instance, there may be an effective response to the bonehead government.

  4. November 30, 2006 at 6:30 pm

    Troll alert.

Comments are closed.