In the quest to remove any and all obstacles and delays in the race for a woman (or girl) to get an abortion, people starting become aware that abusive men were coercing women against their will to get them. By bringing down the full force of constitutional law to make it not only constitutional to kill one’s unborn child, but to be able to do so as fast as possible, it made it possible for women to be abused in the process.
First, Planned Parenthood knows and knowingly covers up obvious cases of abuse. One study shows that Planned Parenthood and related organizations failed to report about a minimum of about 10,000 cases of child sex abuse in Illinois in the year 2000 alone. The law is clear that medical providers are required to report suspected cases of abuse. When authorities try to investigate child rape, they are thwarted by Planned Parenthood, who has a financial stake in the problem remaining unaddressed. Legally, this is called a “conflict of interest.”
Second, women are coerced to get abortions. I know this because I know women it has happened to. By eliminating even the most sensible restrictions such as parental notification (note that is not parental consent), a woman can be rushed to have an abortion and no questions will be asked. This is a boon to men who don’t want to pay child support, don’t want to “lose face” for having a child, or want to cover up for their crimes of impregnating a minor. Coerced abortions are a problem.
However, laws such as HB 5882 in Michigan are a profoundly bad idea. Instead of going after coerced abortions by preventing them, it makes it a crime for a man to even be involved in the decision-making process in any way except for complete deferral. It’s another attempt to separate men from children. “Constitutional” law says men have no say in the decision to get an abortion. This law says they aren’t even allowed to speak on the subject. Considering the current state of child support laws and custody laws, apparently the only thing men can contribute is their paycheck and all other effort is disallowed.
Sure, the law could catch men who engage in coercion. However, how such violations would ever be proven is a problem since it is entirely a “speech crime.” Further, “battered woman syndrome” suggests that women most in need of protection are least likely to seek help and the redress that such a law would allow. In short, more innocent men would be prosecuted than true domestic abusers who ought to be nailed to the wall.
The problem is not that there are no laws to punish coercion, there are. The problem is the weight of the Constitution being brought down to rush women through abortion mills without question. Planned Parenthood has no incentive to think twice about killing a child, abortion is a profit-center for them.
Taking the typical image the pro-abortion crowd likes to use, imagine an abused woman (or girl) who has an abusive boyfriend or family. She discovers she is pregnant and she knows her family or boyfriend will be livid once they discover the pregnancy. She is lonely, scared and has no place to turn. In come the knights in crimson-stained armor, Planned Parenthood. They pledge to help this young woman and bring her into their clinic. They abort the child and send her on her way. The problem is they send her right back into the abusive situation she came from. The problem wasn’t the child, the problem was the abusive relationships that remain unaddressed until the next time she gets pregnant and Planned Parenthood wants to make a buck.
It is the failure of “constitutional” law that leaves these women prey to abusive and coercive relationships. The solution is not more bad laws but to rethink the culture of drive-thru abortions.
John Bambenek is the Assistant Politics Editor for Blogcritics and is an academic professional for the University of Illinois. He is a syndicated columnist who blogs at Part-Time Pundit and the executive director of The Tumaini Foundation which helps AIDS orphans and other children in Tanzania to get an education.
He is the current owner of BlogSoldiers, a blog-only traffic exchange.
Said jcb @ 4:43 pm Comments (2) | Permalink
Think Progress is reporting that Air America radio will announce filing for bankruptcy protection on Friday according to three independent sources. The company has experienced financial difficulties throughout its tenure, continuing to request infusions of capital and suffering the loss of several high-profile hosts. Five employees were laid off Tuesday without severance.
The radio has had several controversies in its brief tenure including a funding scandal involving Evan Cohen. Air America Radio was funneled $875,000 dollars from Gloria Wise Boys and Girls Club, a not-for-profit, in the form of a “loan” to fund its operations. Due to of the less-than-ethical funding arrangement, Gloria Wise Boys and Girls Club has been disbanded.
In another incident, The Randi Rhodes Show aired a skit that could have been interpreted as advocating the execution of the President George W. Bush. Several of the shows have been accused as fostering bigotry against Christians, Catholics in particular, and have been seen as lowering the dignity of political debate.
In a comment on Think Progress on the matter:
The right wing is sure to seize on Air America’s financial woes as a sign that progressive talk radio is unpopular. In fact, Air America succeeded at creating something that didn’t exist: the progressive talk radio format.
However, the progressive talk radio format did exist with the variety of IndyMedia projects as well as Pacifica Radio. Air America, however, was the first radio that put through an entire slate of radio shows instead of syndicating individual shows. This has largely caused problems with their expansion as it required stations to pick up the entire network for 24 hours a day instead of the most popular shows.
Ratings have shown that Air America has never been able to compete with rival Rush Limbaugh. However, Air America has brought a new broadcast model into talk radio and has led to similar projects. For instance, Wide Awakes Radio is an internet-only talk radio broadcast station that focuses on conservative content.
Air America’s troubled past has finally caught up to them. Board shakeups, hosts leaving, and shady financing have all contributed to the demise of the station. Air America Radio has not returned calls for comment as of this writing.
John Bambenek is an academic professional for the University of Illinois. He is a columnist for the Daily Illini and blogs at Part-Time Pundit deep from the corn fields of Illinois.
Said jcb @ 12:55 pm Comments (1) | Permalink
The marriage between the Republicans and conservatives has been a loveless and unsatisfying marriage. The Republicans keep “stumbling home after midnight, smelling of booze and cheap perfume.” And it is time for the marriage to come to an end.
Conservatives Betrayed: How George W. Bush and Other Big Government Republicans Hijacked the Conservative Cause by Richard Viguerie thoroughly lists, more than any other resource I can think of, the balance of indiscretions the Republicans have visited upon conservatism under the Presidency of George W. Bush (and even before that election). The days of the Contract With America are long gone and replaced with what can only appear to be a very similar spending philosophy of Democrats.
The missing piece of the puzzle, however, is a social justice component (and I don’t mean that term in the typical regressive way). Only one sentence of the book makes mention of communities supporting their members but the fact is, there are times where people will need a helping hand from others. Disasters strike, illnesses drain life savings, people die, and so on. A political ideology that does not explicitly have a plan on how to handle those situations is one that leaves a large portion of the population as a captive audience to the left and big government. Big government may not effectively meet people’s needs, however many view it as “better than nothing”. Arguing against minimum wage laws makes good economic sense, but is politically meaningless when there is no response to the fact some people simply don’t earn enough for their families. The argument must seek to address this, and that comes by creating a living wage by reducing the cost of living (most of which comes in the form of taxation or increased cost of regulations passed down to the consumer).
Further, if an effective conservative movement is to be founded and empowered, it will take more than focusing on politics. Liberty is impossible unless it includes both political and economic liberty. Likewise, reform is impossible unless it includes both political and economic aspects. The book mentions Google and Yahoo as regressive-supporting companies. There needs to be conservative equivalents so people can vote with their pocketbooks. Arguing for conservative principles while supporting regressive causes (by using companies that are in the tank with regressive causes) is self-defeating, or at least self-impeding.
The book is exactly what it purports itself to be, a starting point and a moment to reflect. It is a quick read and should have nothing foreign for anyone moderately informed about politics. The disaffection of conservatives is a growing one and now, more than ever, is the opportunity to fight for the principles we believe in. Viguerie includes several steps to take to the field of battle which involves common people to run for office, or at least take effort to support conservatives over Republicans. It won’t be until common people run for office that we’ll have any real reform, or at least a return to some attempt at representing common people instead of the enfranchised elites.
In 2006, when only Congressional seats are up for grabs, conservatives have the chance to make it clear to Republicans that conservatism will win or lose elections for them, just as MoveOn has just proved that moderate and sensible Democrats like Joe Lieberman are not welcome in the Democratic Party. If conservatives engage the political system now, we can win. If we fall silent, we will become like Illinois, where all the potential leaders and talent flee the state and surrender it to the left. For now, Republicans have won only because of the incompetence of the Democrats; that will not be the case forever.
The question is: can we put principle above partisanship?
John Bambenek is an academic professional for the University of Illinois and a columnist for the Daily Illini and blogs at Part-Time Pundit deep from the corn fields of Illinois.
Said jcb @ 1:03 am Comments (1) | Permalink
A recent appellate court ruling has decided that it is illegal for companies to pay Hollywood for movies and then sanitize them of gratuitous nudity, over-the-top profanity, and puerile violence. For years, Hollywood has found ways to insert into otherwise coherent storylines scenes of nudity, sex, profanity, and violence.
In what seems like a simple compromise, a company would pay for the video, sanitize the content for those who request that service, and then sell the video to the consumer. In these cases, Hollywood gets paid for the price of the movie.
That apparently is not enough.
Said jcb @ 9:05 pm Comments (0) | Permalink
Once again the media and the left has gone wild with the idea that the present spied on Americans (when he really didn’t). The latest media-concocted conspiracy is another attempt to make a run at a President while they have no ideas to counter him. They don’t present any ideas in how to fight the war on terror (except the Doctrine of Preemptive Surrender), yet they continue to attack the way the President is doing it. This works for now in the opinion polls, but come election time they will be routed if they can’t manage to enunciate a platform and policy that has substance.
Said jcb @ 12:26 pm Comments (0) | Permalink
The various groups that support illegal immigration are arranging a general strike and economic boycott for April 10th. The plan to walk out of schools and refuse to go into work. Additionally they will transact no business that day and protest instead. They are protesting the current iteration of the law because it does not provide an easy enough path to citizenship and includes plans to build a border wall.
Law-abiding Americans are encouraged to hold off voluntary business so that it can take place on April 10th and to avoid wearing anything white (their “symbol” for the day).
Said jcb @ 4:35 pm Comments (1) | Permalink
The judiciary has been characterized as what should be the weakest branch of government and for good cause. When a judge pronounces broad and sweeping judgments about what is or is not a “right” it bypasses democracy and establishes juristocracy. Such governments cannot be considered free.
An enormous amount of trust is placed in judges. This can be seen in the Alito confirmation that is feared to “tilt the country to the right”. This language largely means that the Democrats are afraid that Alito is not going to vote the Democrat party line in court cases. But that’s not the real issue. Why does a judge have the power to tilt the country to the right or the left? What happened to the legislature being able to write laws and courts applying them?
The problem with courts setting the laws largely revolves around how cases are decided. For each case there are two and generally only two sides. In cases involving civil rights and such you have the party who feels they have been harmed and you have the government. The judgment of the court based upon the statements of the single individual (or group) harmed and the statements of the judge can have an effect on the entirety of the population without any contribution or participation on their part. This is largely why the opinion that lawyers don’t “write the law” is largely irresponsible as it tries to dissolve any argument that lawyers might have some moral responsibility.
Take Roe v Wade which had on one side Norma McCorvey and on the other side the state of Texas. The Supreme Court created abortion on demand as the law of the land based on the arguments of those parties. Amicus briefs are fine, but they don’t rise to the same level as courtroom participation. Not only did no other interested parties get to participate, a national law was created without as much as a vote of the American people.
Lobbyists and special interests may be a dirty thing in the legislature, but at least for each issue there tends to be at least two groups that oppose each other vying for influence. In a courtroom, there is no one to speak for the desires of the varied opinions of the hundreds of millions of Americans who may be effected by a judicial injunction telling the government what laws they can pass, what laws they cannot pass, what they must set their tax rate at, what they must fund projects with, and a wide variety of issues that, until recently, were seen as part of the political process, not the judicial process.
Constitutional law has largely become a joke. It can no longer be considered that the practical exercise of constitutional law is based on the Constitution. When the Constitution was signed, representatives of the people were there representing their constituents. When a judge signs an injunction that significantly modifies or changes the agreement that was made, who does he represent? He wasn’t voted into office by anyone. He doesn’t represent anyone. He simply makes the laws, and the unbridled power allows for rampant misinterpretations of the law and constitution.
Crossposted from Part-Time Pundit by John Bambenek.
If the left is afraid of Alito as a Supreme Court justice it is because they have created a system that gives judges far too much power. If gay marriage should be law of the land, there is a process to do it. When people desired desegregation, they passed laws and constitutional amendments. Running into court to impose radically new social and legal norms is the refuge of those who wish to impose tyranny.
Lastly, some would argue there wouldn’t be a Brown v Board of Education without an activist court. Activist courts may sometimes get things right and do what is best for society. But for every Brown v Board there is a Dred Scott. And when they get it wrong, you can’t just vote the bums out.
Said jcb @ 7:00 pm Comments (0) | Permalink
Time Magazine apparently has an exclusive that there exists pictures with President Bush and Jack Abramoff together. Skipping past the irrelevancy of what these pictures are supposed to present, there is one immediate thing that comes to mind.
TIME has seen five photographs of Abramoff and the President that suggest a level of contact between them that Bush’s aides have downplayed. While TIME’s source refused to provide the pictures for publication…
Rathergate of fond memory provided what should have been a valuable lesson to the media to make sure they don’t use forged documents to try to prove a partisan point. However, the lesson they have learned is to provide less visibility and accountability, not more. If the pictures never make it to the public, then they can’t be refuted. This comes from an industry supposedly trying to expose truth, and instead they are concealing it.
There is one important question that any hack journalist would have asked when a resource showed but refused to disclose pictures such as these: why? That question goes unaddressed in the piece. There is no mention of how the source got them, even in general terms, why the source is hiding them, or why the reporters think they are legitimate. Apparently the public is supposed to just “trust” them. The media has become so afraid of bloggers and the public that they are afraid to give them any information which could be used to refute them. The only reason not to provide the pictures from Time’s perspective is because they can be easily refuted, despite the fact they are irrelevant anyway (the President is in thousands of pictures every year, that doesn’t mean that every photo-op is with his closest friends).
Cases of media bias are clear cut, such as the AP Style Guide clearly suggesting using anti-abortion instead of pro-life in order to push “abortion rights” and use pro-choice approved propaganda terms. In this case, the Democrats are trying to push the point that Republicans and only Republicans have corruption problems.
They are desperately trying to stick Abramoff to Bush to use as a template in the 2008 elections conveniently forgetting record-breaking corruption of a certain previous Democrat administration. In short, the Democrat party platform has become, ”We can’t beat them so let’s try to indict them”.
And it appears that Time Magazine is playing along.
Said jcb @ 7:27 pm Comments (5) | Permalink
The US’s EIA chief has said we can’t get by without Iranian oil. Can we get buy with a nuclear crater that used to be Tel Aviv?
War with Iran may be ugly and require some real sacrifice from the citizens, but if the alternative is sitting on our thumbs when Iran vaporizes Tel Aviv and tells us that they’ve got a nuke pointed at Paris if anyone does anything, then I think I can handle walking to work.
Said jcb @ 8:33 am Comments (1) | Permalink
I’ve been taking another break from blogging lately. You can tell by the almost non-existent amount of posts over at my blog. Part of this has been from the holidays, another part being sick, but mostly being sick of politics. I’m tired of the last 5 years of Bush’s presidency with “the latest scandal” being introduced mostly being smoke in mirrors. The moral of the story of any “scandal” is just wait two weeks until the truth comes out. Remember Rathergate? (Fake but accurate). Or the criminal charges against Tom Delay? You know it can’t be good when after six grand juries, the first charge gets thrown out for not really being a crime. The NSA wiretaps spying on Americans? Oh wait, it was data mining of calls to Al Qaeda. This is largely political discourse lately, and it bores me. That’s not to say it isn’t necessary, but the investment of the left to continually discover a new scandal and have it blow up in their faces is old.
Lately, we’ve gotten to Abramoff, and instead of using this opportunity to get some more corruption out of politics (with something like term limits, or Gingrich’s suggestion of no DC fund-raising) it’s nothing more than another political crapshoot, with the parties not focusing on the corruption but how to best obtain and maintain political power. This is directed at both parties because they are so willing to go on the attack instead of enunciating a platform people can rally around. Sure, the GOP has done some of that but when is the last time you heard a politician talking about Social Security reform? Fair tax? Both sides have left policy discussion on the table to mud wrestle. And I’m bored.
I might write more in the near future, but hopefully less of what I’m against and more what I’m for. This is the converstaion that is necessary, the discussion of policies and ideas. And it’s clear the Left really isn’t up for it.
Said jcb @ 10:44 pm Comments (0) | Permalink
After Katrina, one of the blog posts that was making the rounds was tribes. It’s essentially a societal commentary written during the aftermath and political blood-letting that took place.
I remembered this article in the recent debate on the eavesdropping that the government is apparently doing in the course of the War on Terror. Politicians are taking turns pointing fingers, and apparently the New York Times timed the release not for the soonest possible dissemination of the information, but to shill a book that’s coming out and try to sink the Patriot Act. (Yes, they are just that unpatriotic that they can’t even vote for a law called the Patriot Act).
Particularly, that the pink tribes out there still don’t believe there is a war on. They believe that they can still blame 9/11 on us and that all we need to do to win the War on Terror is “understand” our enemies and “raise awareness” (read as surrender).
First things first, who cares if the government is listening to phone calls? There are complaints that warrants haven’t been issued. Let me get this straight, a warrant issued by a star chambers court (FISA court) where only the government gets to present a case, all the proceedings are sealed, and the judge hearing the case is appointed by the administration is safe and protects civil liberties, but a policy reviewed by the Administration every 90 days to make sure it’s actually targeting bad guys is not? Would you trust a closed court that did not allow for the accused to present a defense an adequate way to try criminal offenses? Didn’t think so. The whole process is cloak-and-dagger to being with, how is this news?
I have a cell phone; that means everyone within about 25 miles can hear what I say on it. That’s right, you can listen in to the occasional suggestive comment I make to my wife. I don’t call phone sex lines, I don’t buy drugs, and I’m not trying to score some hookers. You listen to my phone calls and about the most you’ll get out of it is that I love my wife. Scandalous! I figure most people are the same way. Innocence rarely utters shrill shrieks.
That should not be read to mean that I think the man should be in the business of listening to everyone’s phone calls, but that there are some phone calls I’d like the government to listen in on. Particularly the ones that say when and where the next terrorist strike is going to happen.
However, the pink tribes have once again mounted the ramparts against the sheepdogs. It’s not the wolves that are dangerous; it’s the sheepdogs that protect us. Cops don’t protect us from criminals, they intimidate minorities. Soldiers aren’t defenders of freedom; they are indentured baby-killers. In short, the perpetrators are the victims and the defenders are the perpetrators. If we would only disarm, then we can all live in peace, and joy, any light.
For every victory the United States achieves, there are those who would choose to then lay blame. “We must learn from our mistakes!” The Iraqis just voted for their first constitutional government, instead of celebrating this event we are mourning our “failure”.
After 9/11 and in fact during Hurricane Katrina, I tried various ways to get involved. I made several phone calls, was turned down, and moved on. I didn’t feel good about it because I knew I could have done something. I learned more than peeling potatoes in the military and, if nothing else, I have proven that I’m a darn good crisis manager. That’s the difference between the greys and the pinks. I wanted to get involve and helped. The pink wanted to blame FEMA.
The culture war is little more than this: will we do it ourselves, or will we hold out our hands and wait for someone else to do it for us. There is the constant drumbeat from the left, “you can’t do it” (aka affirmative action), “you can’t trust others to do it” (aka the fight against faith-based initiatives), and so on.
The facts are these, no one ever was known for being able to find the best government welfare programs. Stories of success in history are of people who fought, strived, failed, but got up and succeeded. These are the people we celebrate.
Before we give in to pessimism, despair, and finger-pointed, how about we at least figure out if the powers were misused first. Maybe we should wait to kick around the sheepdogs until we figure out if they did wrong. How about, for a change, we not assume every evil motivation simple by the fact that someone somewhere has another opinion? Instead of the raging pink brigade telling us everything that’s wrong, how about they contribute something that helps things get better instead of telling us who is to blame?
Said jcb @ 2:32 pm Comments (12) | Permalink
Crosspost from Part-Time Pundit
If one is looking for a reason that the United States cannot nor should not pull out of Iraq, they only need to look to neighboring Iran. After flagrantly developing nuclear weapons in full site of the world, all the international community will do is send delegations. When the president of Iran suggests that the “tumor” of Israel be wiped off the map, all they international community did was send delegations. Now, when the Iranian president suggests all Jews be expelled back to Europe, there will be the usual hang wringing, but not action.
Osama calculated, after witnessing our lack of spine in Mogadishu, that the United States has no patience for protracted conflict. The first sign of a body count, the American people will demand a pullout, the argument goes. Saddam knows this and is counting on it. He knew beforehand his army would be mopped. He counted on waiting us out, and by extension, a Kerry win. Iran and North Korea know the same thing. Even our Asian allies are coming to us with doubts we could ever real do anything should China start getting belligerent. The general consensus is that if you get in a fight with America, you’ll lose the initial battles, but all you need to do is wait until the anti-war crowd, liberal media, and liberal politicians whine enough and the tide of public opinion will shift.
If we pull out of Iraq before finishing our objectives (which have always seem perfectly clear to me), Iran could simply nuke Israel and nothing would happen. North Korea could feel comfortable crossing the DMZ and taking South Korea. China could finally take that prime-beef real estate known as Taiwan without fearing an American response. Why? Because even if the US initiates military action, all they need to do is run the clock and the Left will talk the public into giving up. The anti-war crowd will come to us with stories about how the Jews are to blame.
There comes a time to pullout. That time starts after a permanent government is in place and when they are ready to be mostly responsible for their own security. The time is coming relatively soon, and most have thought that after this next round of elections, troop reductions would begin to occur. Look for the anti-war left to start claiming credit for the execution of a plan that has been in place for years.
Said jcb @ 3:04 pm Comments (7) | Permalink
Holiday Sales up 22% From Last Year
Which is it? Both can’t be true at the same time. Either sales are up or sales are down. Looking at the articles and all the associated articles, it appears that sales are up (20+%) across the entire market. The negative numbers are specific sectors or sub-sections (enclosed malls). It appears that the negative articles are written such as to indicate that the market and economy are doing much worse than they really are. This isn’t the first time.
There is a significant amount of “talking down” of the economy. You can see this in the housing bubble theories, companies not doing enough, and the dire predictions of a weak holiday season (since proven untrue).
Unemployment is at 5.0%, despite two hurricanes. This is roughly half the rate of unemployment throughout most of Europe. Current income is up, GDP is growing (3.8%), and the stock market is up. Despite this, pundits insist that doom and gloom is coming even though economic indicators will continue to show increases.
Let’s be honest a moment, it isn’t the Republicans campaigning on a bad economy, it’s the Democrats. It’s in their campaigns that the economy is in the tank and everyone is suffering despite the complete lack of any evidence to support it. Income is up. Home ownership is up. Unemployment is down. Home values are up. Almost every traditional indicator shows that the economy is growing, yet the perception is fostered that we are heading towards the Great Depression.
This trend in reporting shows two things. Democrats are beyond using facts to scaremonger voters about the economy. Instead of coming up with a platform to better America, they spend their time telling America how bad things are. Facts be damned. Second, it shows that the press, once again, is in the tank with the Democrats agenda and is carrying the water for them. The story is a roaring economy, but they search and scour for some shred of evidence to talk it down. Objective reporting or campaigning? I think the answer is clear.
Said jcb @ 12:27 pm Comments (5) | Permalink
Crossposted at Part-Time Pundit by John Bambenek
During the press conference this afternoon, US Prosecutor Fitzgerald emphasized that no one knew that Valerie Wilson/Plame worked for the CIA and that her cover has been blown. He said that she needed that cover and the blowing of that cover has harmed national security. After reading the indictment and listening to the press conference. Libby was charged with perjury, obstruction, and lying to investigators.
If Libby leaked the name of a covered operative why is he not charged as such? The prosecutor during the press conference, Fitzgerald said he was “the first person in the chain of phone calls” that released her name to the public. Why is he not charged for leaking the name? Fitzgerald is saying that’s essentially what he did. The first question asked why Fitzgerald didn’t charge Libby for leaking; the response was that he didn’t know the motives so he can’t charge for leaking. That position is absurd.
A second question not asked is about Valerie Plame’s cover, the assumption seems to be given that she had it, needed it, and she kept it secret. Let’s discuss non-official cover for a moment and its purpose. The entire point of any cover is so that person covered can deal with foreign agents without them knowing they are dealing with an agent of the United States. That’s the point of espionage; it’s to deceive into getting information that would not normally be given. If foreign people would give up the information to an FBI agent, there is no point to having a covered agent.
Valerie Plame had cover so she could talk to people in other countries without knowing her affiliation with the United States, it’s that simple. If there was information that would otherwise compromise the fact that she was affiliated with the US government, her cover would be compromised.
Valerie Plame’s cover was blown the second she married Joseph Wilson (which is probably why she moved to Langley). How can I say this? Two things. The marriage ceremony was public and it creates a public record. In fact, Joseph Wilson made no attempt to hide the name or identity of his wife. Second, no one can seriously think that the known wife of a US ambassador would not have an affiliation with the United States government.
Some argue that her name was disclosed in a Who’s Who record, in talks given by Wilson, or other events. These are irrelevant distinctions because her name, in and of itself does not link her to the government. What links her to the government publicly is her marriage to a US ambassador, even without mentioning she was CIA.
If I was engaging in espionage in Russia on behalf of the United States, I would not take seriously the trustworthiness of the wife of a Russian ambassador. No one would. Perhaps the reason Plame’s leaking was not charged is because her cover was already blown the day she got married.
Said jcb @ 12:44 pm Comments (5) | Permalink
With the recent indictment of Tom DeLay for conspiracy, other corruption has become apparent such as with Harry Reid. Tom DeLay engaged in travel plans some consider unethical, however, in the aftermath of that scandal over 200 Congressmen (from both parties) has to “revise” their travel documentation. Regardless of party, one does not need to look far for corruption. The grassroots on both sides is not particularly enamored with it either.
Some think it’s the end of the Republican Party, but one only needs to look to Illinois to see how this will play out. Illinois has a governor with approval ratings even lower than President Bush. The current governor, a Chicago Democrat, got into office because the prior Republican administration is corrupt. When a Chicago Democrat runs on the platform to clean up Springfield and the voters buy it, you know you have problems. Now corruption is king (or rather still is king) and the Republicans are running on the platform of throwing out the Dem corrupt cronies. No one is buying so they Republicans are drafting a favored governor (Jim Edgar) from yesteryear to run again. The only problem is that he taught George Ryan everything he knows and while corrupt, wasn’t as extreme as Ryan. That aside, Jim Edgar has announced he wants nothing to do with it.
My suggestion to deal with DeLay’s supposed corruption? (Supposed because it took, what, 6 grand juries to find anything on him?) Massive blood-letting. Let’s have both parties, everyone from the top all the way down to village dog catcher engage in a legal battle royale of corruption investigations. No matter where you are on the political spectrum, you think some political officials are corrupt. It’s time to get this all out on the table because you know several hundred Congressmen have some crimes they want to hide. We can talk about some of the prior scandals (the House banking scandal for instance) but let the gloves come off and drop the “good ‘ole boy” attitude and let them viciously attack each other in the criminal system.
One, it will go a long way to getting to corruption and waste out of government. Politicians get away with this because they never pay the piper. Take a look at the highway bill and how much pork and vote buying is there. If you want corruption out of politics, this is what it takes. I may be conservative, but I’m no fool. I know there are corrupt Republicans out there, and its time for them to pay the piper too.
Two, it emphasizes and underscores why we need limited government. Government needs to be big to be corrupt. If it doesn’t have $2.2 trillion dollars to throw around, it becomes much harder for them to get companies to start bribing them. There aren’t kickbacks on the $1,000 orders I do for work, for good reason. It’s time to downsize the government and let the local entities do the social work of government. At the lowest level, we can at least keep an eye on them. I know where the mayor of my town lives and I can call him up at home right now. Good luck trying to get in touch with the President. Or Tom DeLay for that matter.
This presents a golden opportunity for those who believe in limited government. There are greedy people in the world and they want money and power. A massive corruption investigation, top to bottom, complete with jail sentences will make politicians have second thoughts the next time they want to shovel some cash to contributors to their campaigns. If I stole $500, I’d be doing time right now. It’s time for those who have stolen so much more than that and wasted the rest to have their day in court.
Said jcb @ 1:30 pm Comments (2) | Permalink
