Your comment on President Obama's remarks to the pilot of AFO are well taken.
Our new president comes from a part of America that really has no clue about earning anything, a portion of our populace that believes in entitlement. President Obama and most of his supporters probably have no idea of the rigors involved in becoming AFO's pilot and could care less. It is obvious by the way they regard the military - half-idiot savages running loose across the planet. Every major Democrat seems, at one time or another, to have called our military losers or killers or implied that they routinely commit crimes. Biden and Hillary may be exceptions, but they haven't gone out of their way very far to denounce the others.
That remark you quoted is horrifying proof of how completely the country is "Oprahfied" - i.e. interested only in emotions and feelings, not logic and thinking. Essentially uninterested in duty and sacrifice. It also shows that many Americans are completely captivated by pop culture (which Oprah personifies) and have no idea there is a world beyond.
There is always Hope.Comment Posted By Jim On 26.01.2009 @ 15:10
All very ruminant and polysyllabic, but tonight's double episode (hours 3 and 4) indicates that (a) torture gets results that save lives* and (ii) handwringing gets you smashed in the nose with the butt of a pistol, even if you're a SAIC.
Somewhere, Andrew Sullivan is crying into his pillow.
*for Good Guys on television... I'm not making light of actual, real live Saudi/Saddam/Iranian-style torture.Comment Posted By Jim On 12.01.2009 @ 23:11
The left has nothing against violence, killing or even genocide - so long as the people who are killed are th ones they want deae. To them "we" - Americans and Israelis - are the right people. Why else do they spend so much time objectifying us and projecting their violence fantasies on us? Most leftists are destructive authoritarians with a true hatred of individual freedom and a not-so-closet love for murderous dictators.Comment Posted By Jim On 3.01.2009 @ 13:39
I am concerned the talk about prosecuting those who implementions said is policies (say, regarding water boardings or ideas regarding interpretations of the Geneva accords) is extremely problematic because they are actively debated right now. The report put out by congress is not some bi-congressional report with clear and unanimous agreement but rather a biased political report designed to damage the outgoing administration and party to the advantage of the incoming administration (as well as it's ideology). One, it should be added, many of whose conclusions are not based on any facts whatsoever.
To say that we should consider prosecuting, for example, John Yoo, Douglas Feith, or Donald Rumsfeld because they had a position on the law that later was regarded as unpopular or incorrect strikes me as little more then post de-facto justice.
I believe that the Attorney General of the State of California is engaged in rank violation of his duties under Constitution of his state by making absurd claims that somehow an the amendment passed to bar marriage between two persons of the same sex is somehow invalidate because it "invalidates a previously established right." However, does this mean that if California, in the unlikely event of a sudden Republican takover should consider attempting to prosecute AG Brown for say, crimes against the state constitution despite the fact he clearly believes his actions are within his ideas, however misguided, of a "living constitution" should function? Of course not, such would be ridiculous.
What I am suggesting is that we must be extremely careful with the idea of proceeding with trials of political appointees for subjects of current of democratic debate in a country for the reason that such actions would quickly become addictive for a party in power, and the party in opposition would soon wish to return the favor. Such things would necessarily lead to rapid destabilization, and the risk of the political violence as partisans become concerned they can no longer operate openly without the risk of oppression from above.Comment Posted By Jim On 23.12.2008 @ 23:45
As I have been saying, we are all playing a little guessing game. I love to guess too, I guess that makes me a pundit. From my experience with Fed Court it is wise to remember that the prosecutors only give up the information they have in small pieces so as not to tip their hand. Trial is where the real case comes out. What we have been given is the document that led to arrest. It is not the "case in chief." But it does seem safe to say that Barack Obama is probably not directly involved in this particular case. I don't think you can say Team Obama is out of the woods. As I said to the Obots we know there are taped conversations not released. What they say and the nuances on those tapes will be important - for both sides. We also have no clue about other information obtained. Just that Fitzgerald thinks that he can convict B of trying to sell a seat.
It is possible that the arrest came because of a fact that was not discussed much in last day or so - that Fitzgerald went to a judge for authorization for wiretaps. Those taps probably came with strings attached limiting the authority for the taps. So he may have wrapped it up as soon as he had the case he had outlined to the judge.
This is ALL speculation on my part, but Fitz' future may be in a bit of flux as Obama is able to fire him as well as promote him. He is said on some sites to want to stay in Chicago and bringing a high profile case to trial may help keep him in place as the political risk of firing him increases.
Fitzgerald may also be stepping in to prevent a crime he discovered in progress. He has been investigating Blago and Chicago for years. Perhaps he was made aware of this and jumped quickly.
I am certain of one thing: This isn't good news for anyone who has been politically active in the Chicago machine since 2002. I don't believe this is the material he has been working on since he nailed Rezko. I think this is supplementary. Be patient I am sure there will be more.
JimComment Posted By Jim On 11.12.2008 @ 14:04
Volokh Conspiracy has an interesting timeline posted on their site. The argument presented about the timeline is that Barack Obama knew of the alleged scheme early and distanced himself from it. The author feels it is not a crime simply to fail to report a bribery attempt. The question the author has is essentially Nagarajan's point: why did Obama tell a clumsy lie when he had (apparently) acted within the law?Comment Posted By Jim On 10.12.2008 @ 11:54
This returns us full circle. We just don't know enough about the circumstances to make a judgment. We are all commenting on the first filings of an important criminal case (and the reaction to those filings) and need to be cautious about how far we take our conclusions.
I believe that my essential point remains valid despite challenges: Blago felt comfortable approaching the Obama camp with a very questionable deal, if not an outright illegal proposal. They don't appear to have reported it and seem to have, at the very least, heard him out and offered him "apreciation".
There will be more to come. Bet on that.
Thank You Nagarajan, very well said.Comment Posted By Jim On 10.12.2008 @ 11:29
I'd tell you to keep spinning but you are already dizzy. You don't like the fact that Obama is named in a federal indictment of a man who felt he could get improper favors from him. Like I said, let's see where this leads. The only tinfoil hats around here are worn by those who refuse to accept the reality of Chicago politics and Barack Obama's role in said politics. Nothing that has come out today implicates Obama but it sure doesn't "exonerate" him either.Comment Posted By Jim On 10.12.2008 @ 03:23
Yours is the broad brush, not mine. I did not see the direct reference to Obama. You are reading into it far too much - as if it proved Obama's innocence. That is a very broad brush indeed. Much will depend on court testimony and credibility of witnesses. You intentionally used the word "exonerated" which has no application here whatsoever. Already there is an apparent contradiction between Obama's immediate response and previously quoted comments from David Axelrod (and Rahm Emaneuel). Axelrod says the governor and Obama spoke about the senate seat, Obama says he did not speak with the governor. Ooops. Moreover, the indictment says the incidents under investigation go back to 2002 - first paragraph. There is probably a lot more here that hasn't been released. This is a statement of probable cause - not the government's case-in-chief. It is way too early to tell where this will lead. Stay tuned it will be interesting. Sweat if you want to.
PS: If you are honest, you will ask yourself two questions and wait for the answer before "exonerating" Obama. The questions: 1) "What was the relationship between a corrupt governor and Barrack Obama that led the governor's faith that he could expect questionable or illegal favors from the President-Elect?
2) Why was he so convinced Obama would grant the alleged favors that he became angry and abusive when told to wait...?"
Sit back and relax, it will be interesting.Comment Posted By Jim On 9.12.2008 @ 17:47
Obama is not "exonerated" in the indictment. He is simply not mentioned. That does not mean anything as far as future prosecution efforts are concerned. It means that Blago will be talking and what he has to say will be very interesting. Stay tuned.Comment Posted By Jim On 9.12.2008 @ 15:45