Update from the Heartland
No.328
17.3.08 – 23.3.08
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
No.328
17.3.08 – 23.3.08
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,
The follow-up news items:
-- Renowned science fiction author, inventor and visionary Sir Arthur Charles Clarke, CBE, passed away on 19.March, in a Sri Lankan hospital at age 90. His magnificent word imagery will be sorely missed. May God rest his soul.
-- I do not find many differences between the hatred preached by Reverend Fred Phelps [313] and Reverend Jeremiah Wright [327] – fear and intolerance – not the Christianity I understand.
-- ABC News 20/20 program "Prostitution in America -- Working Girls Speak" aired this week and gave us another view into the societal challenge we face [327]. They did a decent job of describing and defining the problem. They offered no solutions. We think we understand the problem, and yet, we are afraid to seek solutions. So, we shall continue to ignore the ugly underbelly of our society and pretend it does not exist.
Western law as we know it today is an amalgam derivation of many sources – Roman law, Judeo-Christian morality, English common law, the Declaration and the Constitution. The pronouncements of the Archbishop of Canterbury regarding acceptance of Sharia law in the West [323] instigated an examination of his suggestion, which was perhaps his intention. The following article offers an excellent, balanced view of Sharia law.
“Why Shariah?”
by Noah Feldman
New York Times
Published: 16.March.2008
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/16/magazine/16Shariah-t.html?th&emc=th
Feldman does highlight dark spots in Western law to place the popular view of Islamic law into an historic context. I still contend that Islam is evolving, and our view of contemporary Sharia law is perhaps best seen through a lens of Western law 600 years ago. Expecting a quantum leap forward for our Islamic cousins is not reasonable or realistic. Open dialogue and debate seems to be the proper path. As I repeatedly suggested, Western law has more, necessary evolution ahead as well, to realize the freedom and liberty sought by the Founders of this Grand Republic.
As is so often the case for me, a court ruling got me ta thinkin'. The California Court of Appeal reversed a lower court decision that had been in favor of the parents in a home schooling challenge – Jonathan l. and Mary Grace L. v. Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services [CCoA B192878 (2008)]. California state law requires teachers of children to possess a state teaching license credential. The parents involved in this case did not possess the required credential. The family’s choices did not reach the State’s awareness until the sixth of eight children complained of abuse by the father. Associate Justice H. Walter Croskey wrote for the court, “we find no reason to strike down the Legislature’s evaluation of what constitutes an adequate education scheme sufficient to promote the ‘general diffusion of knowledge and intelligence,’ which Article IX, section 1 of our [California] Constitution states is ‘essential to the preservation of the rights and liberties of the people.’” We could discuss the benefits and risks of home schooling, but that is not my interest in bring this case to our attention. I think we can all agree that a teaching credential is a good thing for our children, and yet requiring a parent to obtain a credential to teach his/her children is both onerous and extraordinarily burdensome; in a practical sense, such a requirement precludes home schooling. The subject ruling represents an excellent example of judicial interpretation recognizing dominance of the State over any individual citizen, thus allowing the State to enter any home with children and judge the conduct of the family. As with so many of our societal “concerns,” We, the People, tolerate lazy laws that bludgeon private families that do not conform to the government’s notion of proper conduct. The State does have a bona fide interest in the education of children. Yet, like all the other penetrations of the public-private boundary by the State, so much depends upon the definition of the State’s proper interest in the context of the sanctity of the family and a citizen’s freedom of choice. Here, the California appeals court bowed to the power of the State, rather than acknowledge the law’s overly broad, truncheon attributes that intrude too far into the private affairs of families. The court could have returned the law to the Legislature to focus on proper State public interests; they failed! This case is yet one more reason why we must pay attention. It would be easy to say, hey, that’s California; it does not affect me. However, I respectfully submit that laws and judicial pronouncements anywhere within this Grand Republic affect us all like the proverbial camel inching its nose ever deeper into the tent.
I suspect we have had enough sex in last week's Update (and more in the comment section below). Allow me to offer a couple of interesting journalistic perspective opinions without my drivel.
"WEST WING: Why Sex Scandals Are Good for American Democracy"
by Gabor Steingart (in Washington)
Der Spiegel
Published: March 18, 2008
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,542138,00.html
and
"Politicians & Sex"
by John Stossel
RealClearPolitics.com
Published: March 19, 2008
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/politicians_sex.html
The Supreme Court issued a ruling this week that did not stimulate me to read. The case sounded like a simple, albeit important, procedural ruling. Then, I began to consider the decision in the context of Senator Obama’s ‘race in America’ speech this week, along with the Reverend Wright conflagration [327], the Jena 6 episode [300-2, 310], et al. Today’s and the latest rendition is Snyder v. Louisiana [___ U.S. ___ (2008); no. 06-10119], ostensibly a Court opinion regarding the trial procedure known as preemptive challenge, as used in the Snyder case. The oddity here rests in the reflective undercurrent of race in a judicial proceeding. The Court appears to have recognized the sad reality brought to the fore by Barack’s candidacy – racism is not dead. I shall be so bold to say that the Snyder ruling was appropriate within the social fabric of this Grand Republic, however, the decision was poor constitutional jurisprudence as noted by the dissenting opinion. Barack has given us an opportunity to confront our ugly history and to take a few more lifting steps toward the light. Regardless of who wins the Democratic nomination or who wins the general election this Fall, I trust Barack will help us along the path of reconciliation. He is comparatively young, has a bright future, and his eloquent and persuasive public rhetoric is indeed inspirational. We have a long way to go, and we need his help.
Last week, ten score plus veterans of the War of Islamic Fascism gathered in Silver Spring, Maryland, to begin a process they called “Winter Soldier,” to speak out against the War and enjoin the government to end it. For those not old enough to remember, this phenomenon is not new. On 31.January.1971, the Vietnam Veterans Against the War began a similar process they called the “Winter Soldier Investigations,” to protest that war. As there are citizens who have been against the War on Islamic Fascism from before the get-go, the military is a reflection of the society it serves; thus, these little shindigs become Press events that amplify the voices of dissent and doubt. Of a deeper historical note, the title seems to be derived from Thomas Paine’s immortal pamphlet, “The American Crisis,” published during that bleak winter – 23.December.1776 – “These are the times that try men’s souls” – hardly an appropriate derivative source. We must listen, but let us not give them more weight than they deserve.
Comments and contributions from Update no.327:
“‘Eliot was accused, tried, condemned and executed by the Press in the court of public opinion.’ All the while, astronomically more events are taking place here in the U.S. and in the world, and the media, it seems, can only dwell on this. I guess, since steroids in baseball was waning, they needed some other minutia to make a story out of.”
My response:
Indeed! Steroids in baseball . . . but more to the point, no Britney Spears. We do enjoy our salacious voyeurism, apparently.
. . . a follow-up:
“Hey, you're absolutely right. Steroids and Spitzer have taken the heat off of Britney. Poor girl.”
A comment:
“One of the best of the updates.
“Your responses are spot on and while I'm not 100% in agreement with you, what you say is clear, unambiguous, and well supported.
“Keep on keeping on and thanks for letting me participate in the non-blog version.”
My reply:
I do not seek agreement or endorsement, only the vigorous public debate on issues of our time. I’m glad you found this Update useful. I will indeed keep on keepin’ on.
Another contribution:
“Regarding the Spitzer situation-- three words. Gambino. Crime. Family. There have been reports that the ring that ran the money laundering and prostitution ring frequented by Spitzer were associated with the GCF. Even if that were not the case, the ring was still associated with organized crime, something with which that a Governor of New York can't have any involvement. Remember that Spitzer didn't just have an extra-martial affair. He used the services of this ring for 6-8 years, or more, to the tune of over $80,000. Further, Spitzer, as the chief law enforcement officer of the State of New York, had personally supervised the busts of at least two major prostitution rings, while at the same time availing himself of the services of another such ring. (That alone raises a lot of questions.) It is simply untenable to have the State Attorney General and later, the Governor, regularly going to an organized crime prostitution ring over several years. Even more when, as AG, he had cultivated the aura of a crime buster...Eliot 'Ness' Spitzer.
"Also Spitzer had alienated his own party through some ill-conceived actions during his first year, so that he had absolutely no backing. He had lost a number of personal backers. All that said, there are some lingering questions about the government's handling of this, especially the leaks to the press. The U.S. Atty's office should be questioned sharply about the information on the investigation that was leaked."
My response:
I hadn’t heard the GCF connection, but I’m not surprised. When we make sinful pursuits like prostitution criminal, the criminal sub-culture sprouts, blooms and flourishes to fulfill and satisfy demand – one of the primary reasons to legalize it and regulate it.
I make no excused for Spitzer; he knew what he was doing, placed himself above the law, and worst of all hypocritically prosecuted his brethren.
From my perspective, albeit a miniscule minority, Spitzer’s affair was only extra-marital if done without his wife’s consent . . . and, to my knowledge, we have not been privy to the internal family dynamics. Sex should be a private matter between them. Unfortunately, we are so sexually repressed that the private affairs of others thrust into the public spotlight take on sensational dimensions.
There is little doubt in my little pea-brain that the speed and depth of his downfall were politically motivated. I am no fan of Spitzer, but I resent what the government and Press did to him and his family.
Ultimately, you are of course quite correct . . . being a customer of the criminal sub-culture is categorically untenable.
. . . a follow-up comment:
“You are right about the political motivation-- who are the other clients who weren't publicly outed? As I said, there is a lot that the U.S. Atty and the Bureau have to explain about how normally confidential information got out to the media. May have something to do with the U.S. Attorney scandal.”
. . . and my follow-up response:
Indeed. I highly doubt Spitzer was the only high profile client of the Emperor Club VIP organization, but that is not a relevant question for me. I think prostitution or professional sex should be like any other personal service activity. I have the right to identify where you shop for groceries or buy your petrol, or where you bank or who your family physician is – those are public interfaces or interactions; I do not have the right to enter your private domain to gain such personal information. Yet, such intrusions into your private-to-quasi-public life would be an obscene intrusion into your private life. Just because the capability and technology exists does not mean we should tolerate such abuses. Why is it or should it be any different for sex. Slick Willy Clinton and John Kennedy possessed the physical and social attributes to charm the ladies out of their panties; Eliot Spitzer and Richard Nixon did not; some can get it for free, some must pay, and every marriage is different and unique.
I agree . . . the most likely source of this despicable leak and miscarriage of justice was the U.S. Attorney’s office – New York and/or Washington. While such unprofessional conduct is not beyond the FBI, e.g., J. Edgar Hoover, I have more faith in the FBI than the politicized U.S. Attorneys. I strongly suspect it is part & parcel to the U.S. Attorney scandal that exploded over a year ago. This administration’s inept and scandalous politicization of the Justice Department has been and will be extensively and extraordinarily harmful to this Grand Republic.
Another contribution:
“To the Spitzer ‘affair’ - This sordid episode has a multidimensional conflict aspect to it for someone like me who favors making prostitution and drugs legal, yet treating integrity as an important virtue as well. He may be one of the most sanctimonious hypocrites in my lifetime and I suspect his downfall has more to do with his self-righteous pursuit of people he disliked, but never charged, as well as failing to work with the NY legislature. He destroyed many lives before he destroyed his own. I recognize that our open system of checks and balances will sometimes result in what is certainly a terrible time for his family. I don't care who he sleeps with, but I imagine his family would have preferred someone smarter about it. Had he operated with integrity, he would still be governor. So, in some twisted respect, I'm glad he's gone because justice is served. I'm just not satisfied with the laws and tactics that did him in. The question is, if prostitution and drugs were legal, would he still have been taken down? I suspect it was a matter of time and he gave his enemies a convenient way to do him in. He's no Teddy Roosevelt in spite of his attempts to compare himself to him. The truth is he is a man with little regard for the people closest to him - his family who are the real victims. Let's repeal prohibition, but let's not bury integrity in the process. It is OK to call conduct that becomes public unacceptable, legal or illegal. In the end, integrity is the one virtue over which an individual has complete control no matter what anyone says. Spitzer should have asked of himself more than others do. And we can do better as a society if sex laws are given a hard look. The article by John Stossel [see above] is a good start.
“To the continuing dialog about Al-Quaeda - the facts support why we fight them wherever they may be. We are hurting them and will eventually beat them if we don't give up the fight. To describe our efforts as indiscriminate killing is exactly how Al-Quaeda should be described, not the brave souls risking their lives to protect us. If we fail, the enemy wins, we lose, and then we will see indiscriminate killing as never before. The Islamofacists want to kill us, enslave us, and force us to live their way. Time to ensure the bullies don't have the chance instead of condemning the very people who are busy saving the world. And, skip the argument that we are forcing democracy upon anyone. Last time I checked we have an immigration problem that is not due to people being forced to come here. Democracy is a free choice made by free people, when they are given the opportunity to make it.”
My reply:
Well said. The hypocrites are easy and appropriate targets – all of ‘em . . . politicians, clerics, all those who attempt to place themselves above the rest of us. Spitzer set himself up, as you say. Integrity is one of our most precious attributes, and Spitzer clearly bartered or threw his away.
Re: "If prostitution and drugs were legal, would he still have been taken down?" In this present case, I would say he might have had a longer fight, if not survived. However, his hypocrisy and paucity of integrity made him an easy target; if not for prostitution, it would have been something else. He gave his adversaries the bullets, loaded the gun, and cocked the hammer. That said, even if prostitution was legal and an honorable profession, there are large portions of our society who would condemn him – to them, any sex other than for procreation and especially any activities outside the confines of a monogamous, heterosexual marriage is a sin, wrong and contemptible. That group would shout for punishment regardless of whether such activity was acceptable to the family. To me, moral projection and intrusion into private affairs does not rise to the level of no integrity, but those societal flaws are high on my list of contemptible conduct. I agree absolutely and totally; integrity is essential and vital; Spitzer frittered his away. He paid the price.
Sure, it is our right to speak out about anything including private conduct that becomes public. However, my focused condemnation goes to the Press that contributes to the intrusion into our private lives and the politicians who pass laws criminalizing private morality. We are a society and culture seriously out of balance, and it will only get worse as technology continues its inexorable advance, giving the government and the Press even greater ability to intrude. John Stossel hit the nail squarely and with a single stroke. “Too often, American criminal law is a blunt instrument designed to make it look as if politicians are protecting us. I think the politicians usually protect themselves, at our expense.” Spot on, John.
Excellent observation re: illegal immigration and those who condemn the conduct of the United States.
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
The follow-up news items:
-- Renowned science fiction author, inventor and visionary Sir Arthur Charles Clarke, CBE, passed away on 19.March, in a Sri Lankan hospital at age 90. His magnificent word imagery will be sorely missed. May God rest his soul.
-- I do not find many differences between the hatred preached by Reverend Fred Phelps [313] and Reverend Jeremiah Wright [327] – fear and intolerance – not the Christianity I understand.
-- ABC News 20/20 program "Prostitution in America -- Working Girls Speak" aired this week and gave us another view into the societal challenge we face [327]. They did a decent job of describing and defining the problem. They offered no solutions. We think we understand the problem, and yet, we are afraid to seek solutions. So, we shall continue to ignore the ugly underbelly of our society and pretend it does not exist.
Western law as we know it today is an amalgam derivation of many sources – Roman law, Judeo-Christian morality, English common law, the Declaration and the Constitution. The pronouncements of the Archbishop of Canterbury regarding acceptance of Sharia law in the West [323] instigated an examination of his suggestion, which was perhaps his intention. The following article offers an excellent, balanced view of Sharia law.
“Why Shariah?”
by Noah Feldman
New York Times
Published: 16.March.2008
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/16/magazine/16Shariah-t.html?th&emc=th
Feldman does highlight dark spots in Western law to place the popular view of Islamic law into an historic context. I still contend that Islam is evolving, and our view of contemporary Sharia law is perhaps best seen through a lens of Western law 600 years ago. Expecting a quantum leap forward for our Islamic cousins is not reasonable or realistic. Open dialogue and debate seems to be the proper path. As I repeatedly suggested, Western law has more, necessary evolution ahead as well, to realize the freedom and liberty sought by the Founders of this Grand Republic.
As is so often the case for me, a court ruling got me ta thinkin'. The California Court of Appeal reversed a lower court decision that had been in favor of the parents in a home schooling challenge – Jonathan l. and Mary Grace L. v. Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services [CCoA B192878 (2008)]. California state law requires teachers of children to possess a state teaching license credential. The parents involved in this case did not possess the required credential. The family’s choices did not reach the State’s awareness until the sixth of eight children complained of abuse by the father. Associate Justice H. Walter Croskey wrote for the court, “we find no reason to strike down the Legislature’s evaluation of what constitutes an adequate education scheme sufficient to promote the ‘general diffusion of knowledge and intelligence,’ which Article IX, section 1 of our [California] Constitution states is ‘essential to the preservation of the rights and liberties of the people.’” We could discuss the benefits and risks of home schooling, but that is not my interest in bring this case to our attention. I think we can all agree that a teaching credential is a good thing for our children, and yet requiring a parent to obtain a credential to teach his/her children is both onerous and extraordinarily burdensome; in a practical sense, such a requirement precludes home schooling. The subject ruling represents an excellent example of judicial interpretation recognizing dominance of the State over any individual citizen, thus allowing the State to enter any home with children and judge the conduct of the family. As with so many of our societal “concerns,” We, the People, tolerate lazy laws that bludgeon private families that do not conform to the government’s notion of proper conduct. The State does have a bona fide interest in the education of children. Yet, like all the other penetrations of the public-private boundary by the State, so much depends upon the definition of the State’s proper interest in the context of the sanctity of the family and a citizen’s freedom of choice. Here, the California appeals court bowed to the power of the State, rather than acknowledge the law’s overly broad, truncheon attributes that intrude too far into the private affairs of families. The court could have returned the law to the Legislature to focus on proper State public interests; they failed! This case is yet one more reason why we must pay attention. It would be easy to say, hey, that’s California; it does not affect me. However, I respectfully submit that laws and judicial pronouncements anywhere within this Grand Republic affect us all like the proverbial camel inching its nose ever deeper into the tent.
I suspect we have had enough sex in last week's Update (and more in the comment section below). Allow me to offer a couple of interesting journalistic perspective opinions without my drivel.
"WEST WING: Why Sex Scandals Are Good for American Democracy"
by Gabor Steingart (in Washington)
Der Spiegel
Published: March 18, 2008
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,542138,00.html
and
"Politicians & Sex"
by John Stossel
RealClearPolitics.com
Published: March 19, 2008
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/politicians_sex.html
The Supreme Court issued a ruling this week that did not stimulate me to read. The case sounded like a simple, albeit important, procedural ruling. Then, I began to consider the decision in the context of Senator Obama’s ‘race in America’ speech this week, along with the Reverend Wright conflagration [327], the Jena 6 episode [300-2, 310], et al. Today’s and the latest rendition is Snyder v. Louisiana [___ U.S. ___ (2008); no. 06-10119], ostensibly a Court opinion regarding the trial procedure known as preemptive challenge, as used in the Snyder case. The oddity here rests in the reflective undercurrent of race in a judicial proceeding. The Court appears to have recognized the sad reality brought to the fore by Barack’s candidacy – racism is not dead. I shall be so bold to say that the Snyder ruling was appropriate within the social fabric of this Grand Republic, however, the decision was poor constitutional jurisprudence as noted by the dissenting opinion. Barack has given us an opportunity to confront our ugly history and to take a few more lifting steps toward the light. Regardless of who wins the Democratic nomination or who wins the general election this Fall, I trust Barack will help us along the path of reconciliation. He is comparatively young, has a bright future, and his eloquent and persuasive public rhetoric is indeed inspirational. We have a long way to go, and we need his help.
Last week, ten score plus veterans of the War of Islamic Fascism gathered in Silver Spring, Maryland, to begin a process they called “Winter Soldier,” to speak out against the War and enjoin the government to end it. For those not old enough to remember, this phenomenon is not new. On 31.January.1971, the Vietnam Veterans Against the War began a similar process they called the “Winter Soldier Investigations,” to protest that war. As there are citizens who have been against the War on Islamic Fascism from before the get-go, the military is a reflection of the society it serves; thus, these little shindigs become Press events that amplify the voices of dissent and doubt. Of a deeper historical note, the title seems to be derived from Thomas Paine’s immortal pamphlet, “The American Crisis,” published during that bleak winter – 23.December.1776 – “These are the times that try men’s souls” – hardly an appropriate derivative source. We must listen, but let us not give them more weight than they deserve.
Comments and contributions from Update no.327:
“‘Eliot was accused, tried, condemned and executed by the Press in the court of public opinion.’ All the while, astronomically more events are taking place here in the U.S. and in the world, and the media, it seems, can only dwell on this. I guess, since steroids in baseball was waning, they needed some other minutia to make a story out of.”
My response:
Indeed! Steroids in baseball . . . but more to the point, no Britney Spears. We do enjoy our salacious voyeurism, apparently.
. . . a follow-up:
“Hey, you're absolutely right. Steroids and Spitzer have taken the heat off of Britney. Poor girl.”
A comment:
“One of the best of the updates.
“Your responses are spot on and while I'm not 100% in agreement with you, what you say is clear, unambiguous, and well supported.
“Keep on keeping on and thanks for letting me participate in the non-blog version.”
My reply:
I do not seek agreement or endorsement, only the vigorous public debate on issues of our time. I’m glad you found this Update useful. I will indeed keep on keepin’ on.
Another contribution:
“Regarding the Spitzer situation-- three words. Gambino. Crime. Family. There have been reports that the ring that ran the money laundering and prostitution ring frequented by Spitzer were associated with the GCF. Even if that were not the case, the ring was still associated with organized crime, something with which that a Governor of New York can't have any involvement. Remember that Spitzer didn't just have an extra-martial affair. He used the services of this ring for 6-8 years, or more, to the tune of over $80,000. Further, Spitzer, as the chief law enforcement officer of the State of New York, had personally supervised the busts of at least two major prostitution rings, while at the same time availing himself of the services of another such ring. (That alone raises a lot of questions.) It is simply untenable to have the State Attorney General and later, the Governor, regularly going to an organized crime prostitution ring over several years. Even more when, as AG, he had cultivated the aura of a crime buster...Eliot 'Ness' Spitzer.
"Also Spitzer had alienated his own party through some ill-conceived actions during his first year, so that he had absolutely no backing. He had lost a number of personal backers. All that said, there are some lingering questions about the government's handling of this, especially the leaks to the press. The U.S. Atty's office should be questioned sharply about the information on the investigation that was leaked."
My response:
I hadn’t heard the GCF connection, but I’m not surprised. When we make sinful pursuits like prostitution criminal, the criminal sub-culture sprouts, blooms and flourishes to fulfill and satisfy demand – one of the primary reasons to legalize it and regulate it.
I make no excused for Spitzer; he knew what he was doing, placed himself above the law, and worst of all hypocritically prosecuted his brethren.
From my perspective, albeit a miniscule minority, Spitzer’s affair was only extra-marital if done without his wife’s consent . . . and, to my knowledge, we have not been privy to the internal family dynamics. Sex should be a private matter between them. Unfortunately, we are so sexually repressed that the private affairs of others thrust into the public spotlight take on sensational dimensions.
There is little doubt in my little pea-brain that the speed and depth of his downfall were politically motivated. I am no fan of Spitzer, but I resent what the government and Press did to him and his family.
Ultimately, you are of course quite correct . . . being a customer of the criminal sub-culture is categorically untenable.
. . . a follow-up comment:
“You are right about the political motivation-- who are the other clients who weren't publicly outed? As I said, there is a lot that the U.S. Atty and the Bureau have to explain about how normally confidential information got out to the media. May have something to do with the U.S. Attorney scandal.”
. . . and my follow-up response:
Indeed. I highly doubt Spitzer was the only high profile client of the Emperor Club VIP organization, but that is not a relevant question for me. I think prostitution or professional sex should be like any other personal service activity. I have the right to identify where you shop for groceries or buy your petrol, or where you bank or who your family physician is – those are public interfaces or interactions; I do not have the right to enter your private domain to gain such personal information. Yet, such intrusions into your private-to-quasi-public life would be an obscene intrusion into your private life. Just because the capability and technology exists does not mean we should tolerate such abuses. Why is it or should it be any different for sex. Slick Willy Clinton and John Kennedy possessed the physical and social attributes to charm the ladies out of their panties; Eliot Spitzer and Richard Nixon did not; some can get it for free, some must pay, and every marriage is different and unique.
I agree . . . the most likely source of this despicable leak and miscarriage of justice was the U.S. Attorney’s office – New York and/or Washington. While such unprofessional conduct is not beyond the FBI, e.g., J. Edgar Hoover, I have more faith in the FBI than the politicized U.S. Attorneys. I strongly suspect it is part & parcel to the U.S. Attorney scandal that exploded over a year ago. This administration’s inept and scandalous politicization of the Justice Department has been and will be extensively and extraordinarily harmful to this Grand Republic.
Another contribution:
“To the Spitzer ‘affair’ - This sordid episode has a multidimensional conflict aspect to it for someone like me who favors making prostitution and drugs legal, yet treating integrity as an important virtue as well. He may be one of the most sanctimonious hypocrites in my lifetime and I suspect his downfall has more to do with his self-righteous pursuit of people he disliked, but never charged, as well as failing to work with the NY legislature. He destroyed many lives before he destroyed his own. I recognize that our open system of checks and balances will sometimes result in what is certainly a terrible time for his family. I don't care who he sleeps with, but I imagine his family would have preferred someone smarter about it. Had he operated with integrity, he would still be governor. So, in some twisted respect, I'm glad he's gone because justice is served. I'm just not satisfied with the laws and tactics that did him in. The question is, if prostitution and drugs were legal, would he still have been taken down? I suspect it was a matter of time and he gave his enemies a convenient way to do him in. He's no Teddy Roosevelt in spite of his attempts to compare himself to him. The truth is he is a man with little regard for the people closest to him - his family who are the real victims. Let's repeal prohibition, but let's not bury integrity in the process. It is OK to call conduct that becomes public unacceptable, legal or illegal. In the end, integrity is the one virtue over which an individual has complete control no matter what anyone says. Spitzer should have asked of himself more than others do. And we can do better as a society if sex laws are given a hard look. The article by John Stossel [see above] is a good start.
“To the continuing dialog about Al-Quaeda - the facts support why we fight them wherever they may be. We are hurting them and will eventually beat them if we don't give up the fight. To describe our efforts as indiscriminate killing is exactly how Al-Quaeda should be described, not the brave souls risking their lives to protect us. If we fail, the enemy wins, we lose, and then we will see indiscriminate killing as never before. The Islamofacists want to kill us, enslave us, and force us to live their way. Time to ensure the bullies don't have the chance instead of condemning the very people who are busy saving the world. And, skip the argument that we are forcing democracy upon anyone. Last time I checked we have an immigration problem that is not due to people being forced to come here. Democracy is a free choice made by free people, when they are given the opportunity to make it.”
My reply:
Well said. The hypocrites are easy and appropriate targets – all of ‘em . . . politicians, clerics, all those who attempt to place themselves above the rest of us. Spitzer set himself up, as you say. Integrity is one of our most precious attributes, and Spitzer clearly bartered or threw his away.
Re: "If prostitution and drugs were legal, would he still have been taken down?" In this present case, I would say he might have had a longer fight, if not survived. However, his hypocrisy and paucity of integrity made him an easy target; if not for prostitution, it would have been something else. He gave his adversaries the bullets, loaded the gun, and cocked the hammer. That said, even if prostitution was legal and an honorable profession, there are large portions of our society who would condemn him – to them, any sex other than for procreation and especially any activities outside the confines of a monogamous, heterosexual marriage is a sin, wrong and contemptible. That group would shout for punishment regardless of whether such activity was acceptable to the family. To me, moral projection and intrusion into private affairs does not rise to the level of no integrity, but those societal flaws are high on my list of contemptible conduct. I agree absolutely and totally; integrity is essential and vital; Spitzer frittered his away. He paid the price.
Sure, it is our right to speak out about anything including private conduct that becomes public. However, my focused condemnation goes to the Press that contributes to the intrusion into our private lives and the politicians who pass laws criminalizing private morality. We are a society and culture seriously out of balance, and it will only get worse as technology continues its inexorable advance, giving the government and the Press even greater ability to intrude. John Stossel hit the nail squarely and with a single stroke. “Too often, American criminal law is a blunt instrument designed to make it look as if politicians are protecting us. I think the politicians usually protect themselves, at our expense.” Spot on, John.
Excellent observation re: illegal immigration and those who condemn the conduct of the United States.
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
No comments:
Post a Comment