I'm a middle-aged white guy. And over the years I've collected my share of dings and nicks. Somewhere along the way I have grown used to the idea that I am neither perfect, nor do I expect perfection in others. (The perfect Zen state!)
What I do see is a difference in the character, or nature, of men. Wanna talk about your divorce? I really don't wanna talk about mine.
Point is, after a lifetime, somethings show up as rust. Other things show up as corruption.
I have a dog in the hunt. I am leaning hard for Guiliani. Mayor of the most important city in the world. Cracked down on Mafia and the bangers. The man has a rep. Personally, he found love in all the right places and at all the right and wrong times. So, he had a girlfriend while he was mayor. And the city cops worried for her safety. Hmm. Terrorists took down buildings in what city? Danger? Mayor?
What were they thinking?
Anyway, there's been a push to create some kind of scandal over police concerns for the mayor's girlfiend. Like they should have assessed the danger to her as "okay". They didn't. City resources...money...was spent on her protection.
Left a mark. But I'm not looking for Caesar's Wife. I looking for a man who can guide the office of President of the United States of America. That's why the question of rust versus corruption comes up. And it comes up in an unusual way.
It seems a company in Oregon has been caught doing things it shouldn't have been doing. It doesn't look good for the Romney campaign. Upper Left Coast is all over the latest doin's with the perps good ole Oregon boys.
16 comments:
It's only beginning. But you knew that.
Following is conjecture: Rudy's got bigger problems than the girlfriend thing. I suspect the liberals are just holding off opening his closets until they can get bigger play from their scandal mongering. Look for exposure of happenings from his DOJ days. He made a lot of enemies then. I could, and probably should, shut up until more facts come out. My guesses, for what they're worth, are prompted by comments from a well respected conservative attorney in Washington who surprised me when she uttered them.
I would gladly support Rudy if he gets the nomination. Same for Romney. But Fred's my guy right now. Have you seen his wife? No wonder Fred finds better things to do than campaign two years before the election.
I knew it! I knew it! I knew it! It was bound to happen someday...woe is me...
At another venue OregonGuy said...
Okay, LT, you gotta give.
None of this "natty-natty-boo-boo".
What's the spill on Rudy?
The source I'm going by is Clarice Feldman in a comment at "Just one minute" back around the end of the Libby trial (as I recall). I just spent some time trying to Google for it, and came up empty. It's there someplace.
I did find this, which is almost the same, but not the comment I was looking for.
GMax--I'm afraid there are a great deal more skeletons in Rudy's closet that are being Foleyed (held backto the last minute for maximum impact).
Posted by: Clarice | August 31, 2007 at 11:59 AM
My recollection (inference at the time?) was that Clarice had the kind of insider knowledge that one only gets from close association with AG and DOJ matters that require you to hang out inside the beltway. She does it so we don't have to.
Like I said above, it's conjecture. If that offends, I don't blame you. Like I also said, I probably should shut up (especially since I can't ante up the original stimulus). If I'm hoist on my own petard, so be it. Clarice is as good for an-almost-source as I can think of. Maybe as I mature I'll stop dealing in rumor and innuendo (?).
-----
Regarding Spitzer, you probably know as much as I do. He's a Gollum/Smeagol IMO. Certainly no hero. See "The Eliot Spitzer Show" in Commentary, 11/07. I know of no dirt that he could deal Rudy, although I'm sure he would if he could.
I like your "rust/corruption" analogy. Nobody (but nobody) gets to any kind of high office without a few black marks against them. (The Clintons are one of the best examples of that.) Anybody in any of the races without a few skeletons in the closet (even if they're only the anatomy-school variety) just hasnt made enough mistakes to learn anything.
Which is why Obama worries me. He comes across as the quintessential Nice Guy - somebody that the current slate of world leaders could walk all over.
My take on all this is, there's about 10 months to go before the election. I'd be just as happy to turn off everything but the Discovery Channel and the Cartoon Network until it's all over. None of the candidates so far show me anything encouraging. Beside that, once somebody gets in, he does what he wants, not what he told the voters he'd do. Our own Gov Shwartzenegger went in as a Republican, and soon changed into a liberal Democrat. Bush went in as a conservative, and soon changed to a middle-road liberal: no push for the Fence, no push for illegal immigration controls, no push for smaller, less intrusive government, ...
I like your "rust/corruption" analogy. Nobody (but nobody) gets to any kind of high office without a few black marks against them. (The Clintons are one of the best examples of that.) Anybody in any of the races without a few skeletons in the closet (even if they're only the anatomy-school variety) just hasnt made enough mistakes to learn anything.
Which is why Obama worries me. He comes across as the quintessential Nice Guy - somebody that the current slate of world leaders could walk all over.
My take on all this is, there's about 10 months to go before the election. I'd be just as happy to turn off everything but the Discovery Channel and the Cartoon Network until it's all over. None of the candidates so far show me anything encouraging. Beside that, once somebody gets in, he does what he wants, not what he told the voters he'd do. Our own Gov Shwartzenegger went in as a Republican, and soon changed into a liberal Democrat. Bush went in as a conservative, and soon changed to a middle-road liberal: no push for the Fence, no push for illegal immigration controls, no push for smaller, less intrusive government, ...
I was just asked by a friend, "Is Fox in the tank for Romney?" and given this link.
Regarding zz's suspicions about Obama, M.Simon just posted this review of BHO's spiritual leader.
Me? I just thoroughly enjoyed the OSU - LSU game and didn't think once about Hillary's travails in N.H. Being an old Cornhusker, I enjoyed watching Bo Pellini's defense stop Ohio State. It augers well for the return of Nebraska football.
To follow up on LT's thought.
Obama is Al Sharpton in drag.
Here is a bit on Obama's Church:
The Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan received the "Rev. Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright,Jr. Lifetime Achievement Trumpeteer" Award at the 2007 Trumpet Gala at the the United Church of Christ.
More at:
Trinity United Church of Christ
My problem with Rudy's girlfriend getting police protection is mainly 2 points:
1 - Why didn't he just hire a private bodyguard, and pay for it out of his own pocket? Why should the taxpayers have paid for it (as she wasn't his wife, which would have been different).
2 - Why should "the elite" be afforded better protection than "Joe Sixpack"? Face it, the protection wasn't against terrorists. It was against the everyday crime that the rest of NYC citizens have to face, due to NYC's anti-gun laws. Laws that the criminals love, because it disarms their victims.
The beauty of the NYT hit piece on Rudy is the impression it left...as exhibited by Uncle Walt's comment.
The big splash was that huge bucks spent were hidden from public accountability. Ends up, not true.
The retraction correction ran on what, page 27?
There were times when the cops thought Rudy's BFF needed protection. Protection funded from public coffers.
If Rudy were an "elite" perhaps the argument that he privately pay, as he did in almost all the cases originally reported by the NYT, would hold some water. But public officials, like our governor, receive police protection as a matter of course.
If you want to argue that the governor pay for his own protection, go ahead and try to make that argument. I don't think most people would find that reasonable.
Mayor of the world's most important city? Hmmm. Governor Kulongoski gets state police protection. Mayor Guiliani therefore shouldn't get city police protection?
Sorry, Walt. Figure out a clear argument and try again.
Thanks for stopping by!
I still ask the same question, is this rust, or is this corruption? As Uncle Walt points out, there are some people, who, by simply existing, are presumed to be corrupt, nee elite. For these people the "perks" of office are seen as perks and not as necessary to afford safety...and in some cases, economy. It accrues to the elite.
We've all heard the horror stories of Hillary in the White House and her abuse of the military and the Secret Service. What was the story I heard about you can tell more about a man from the way he treats the wait staff than you can from a conversation?
Anyway, I just don't get the corrupt vibe with Rudy. Did Bernie Kerik screw up? Seems so. Still, Kerik is a guy to whose opinion I would listen. Corrupt?
Where do you draw the line? And how is it that one picture of Abramoff with GW was worth a week of reportage, but multiple pics of Senator Clinton with the Hsu man rates nary a word?
Rust or corruption. I think we need to do a little digging before we start painting.
No, guy. I'm not saying it's corruption. At least, not how most people think of corruption.
I'm saying it's elitism. They think they deserve better protection than the normal citizens.
Kill every politician in the country, and "Joe Sixpack" would still get along just fine. So why do politicians "need" protection?
On the other hand, kill every "Joe Sixpack" and our country would shut down. So shouldn't "Joe Sixpack" be afforded at least the same level of protection as politicians?
And before anyone asks ... no, the President shouldn't have protection either. Not at taxpayer expense. The Secret Service is another unConstitutional gov't agency. If the Founders had thought the President "needed" protection, I'm positive they would have put it in the Constitution.
Volumes.
I can't imagine where Uncle Walt is coming from. The President doesn't need protection? That's insane. Do you know how many Presidents have either been assassinated or almost assassinated? How many Senators, Congressmen, mayors, public officials? We elect these people to serve in government, not take bullets from maniacs. Taking bullets from maniacs is what the Secret Service is paid for.
(Perhaps that's not a very descriptive name. If it were really secret, we wouldn't know about it.)
I do agree with Walt's #1. Public protection for your girlfriend is not a good idea. His other argument "kill every Joe 6pack" is specious at best.
It sounds like Walt favors the egalitarianism of Rousseau, where everybody is equal, everybody's a farmer. What the Framers had in mind when they said that everybody's equal, was "equal before the law". Which we see in the continuing parade of public officials and other "prominent citizens" being led off to jail.
Hooray! Somebody who actually reads books!
Thanks, Mike. I am one of the few who read "Confessions". And giggled. And really enjoyed it. Rousseau gets short shrift in today's academic environment. Oh, sure, he's read. Because he was in lots of ways an anarchist. And, I guess, anarchy is kinda in the vogue.
But what anarchy isn't, is random or unstructured. In fact it relies upon the individual to have the necessary structure for living with others in place internally. It isn't a blank check for any behaviour you happen to choose. The individual is responsible to others as a responsibility to self. This approaches the vaunted objectivism of Ayn Rand.
In my previous comment, my single word response "volumes" was meant to indicate that so many of Uncle's thoughts were wrong, that only volumes could set it right. You've attempted to do so, neatly. Thank you.
For further insight into Uncle Walt's epistimology, feel free to click on his link and run around his comments section. These folks are my neighbors and friends.
I don't get out much.
"But what anarchy isn't, is random or unstructured."
There's a danger in mistaking the Ideal X with the "currently understood" X. One good example (from Current Events) is libertarianism. What passes for libertarianism doesn't look much like Libertarianism.
I just started reading Milton Friedman (Free to Choose) and thought, here's a guy I can admire. (There are several good interview clips on YouTube. He comes across as completely self-confident and unassuming. (He's the guy who came up with the idea of school vouchers, among other things.).)
Then I found out he was a libertarian. How could he be so wrong?..... I suspect that it's because he was a big-L, different than today's little-l variety.
But on to anarchy: Structured, disciplined anarchy seems to me an oxymoron. Webster's agrees, too: "absence of order". (From the Greek "a-" = "not" and "archon" = "archon" = ruler.)
One of the Old Greek Guys (probably Socrates channeled through Plato) talks about [I'll have to hunt down the source] liberty "well understood" - what you said right after that. But it deserves repeating.
Absolute liberty means that I can do whatever the heck I want. That tends toward anarchy. But liberty well understood means that I consider the consequences of my actions, and that in harming others, I just might be doing more bad than good.
I suggest that what you call anarchy is really liberty - well understood.
History is not replete with examples of benevolent anarchists.
One of the kicks I got out of my first visit to Moscow--following the demise of the FSU--was to visit the gravesite of John Reed.
I was a minor hero that day. The guards and guides heard that I was from Oregon. Portland. Place of Zhan Reed.
Blush.
One of the more interesting writers to come out of Russia was a feller by the name of Bakunin. Like all Russians, Mikey had lots of time on his hands. Man, it's cold there.
The enlightenment period of the European continent had a huge impact on the thinking of Russian writers. If you study the Russian language you'll step back when you see just how many Russian words are actually French. German.
The lack of development in Russia is shocking. Just kilometers outside Moscow you can see villiages reduced to mud roads and shacks. The basic Russian impulse was not toward individualism. If the State didn't provide it, it didn't get done. That cultural trend was obvious when Foreigners sallied into Russia. The Russian language just didn't have the words to communicate everyday meanings of situations and society of the West. (Russians still speak of the West like some large, monolithic "other", close to the nihilism of certain French authors.)
So French writers had huge popularity with the intelligentsia. Writers like Diderot, DesCartes and, especially, Rousseau were like milk to a thirsty man. One of these writers was Mike Bakunin. Others followed on, most notably that crazy dame that accompanied J Reed, and eventually got invited to leave. New York debs with ideas are really never appreciated at Revolution parties.
Bakunin set out to certify anarchism as a political system. And he wasn't alone. Anarchy (capital "A") was extremely appealing to those who lived under a repressive system.
But a huge difference from those who have adopted the moniker that live among us today. Sometimes I think they've watched too much "Clockwork Orange".
Stepping from the pages of Rousseau, Bakunin's modern man was to be a Man of Nature. Living in contemporary Russia, that was a life that was complete with all that that meant: a harsh environment that would kill you as soon as sneeze.
When the current crop of tree-huggers start talking about the state of nature and man's role in it...usually capped within quotes...I compare the world envisioned by these lazy children with the world faced by Mike. No cell phones or e-mail. No gay Priuses. You want a Man of Nature? Okay, here's Nature. (And I decided years ago that if you weren't careful with Nature, you were going to get killed. Just as soon as she could get to it.)
BTW- I think that this is the only blog on the internet with two references to Rousseau in the same comment thread.
Were and how do I collect my prize? (I'll give you half.)
"BTW- I think that this is the only blog on the internet with two references to Rousseau in the same comment thread."
Throw in Bakunin and Reed and you've got it clinched.
A troubling thought just entered my mind: Is that the Reed that Reed College is named after?
Nope...although they may have been related.
I dated a Reed girl back in high school. Not the college. Family named Reed. It was imputed that their family included all the Reeds of note...John, the radical journalist, and the Reed that established the college. The family that established Reed College had no heirs. So, maybe cousins?
Interesting connections, though. I live on a street named after one of the Reed--not John--family business partners. This community was the end of the road for the Northern Pacific.
Curious world. Thanks for asking.
Post a Comment