My libertarian instincts sometimes fail me. Here's a prime example;
Man Ticketed For Wearing Speedo On Beach
Showing posts with label law. Show all posts
Showing posts with label law. Show all posts
Monday, May 12, 2008
Friday, March 21, 2008
Friday, March 07, 2008
Transparency
We all remember Hillary Clinton's miraculous skill at trading cattle futures. At the time her critics wryly noted that she should be giving investment advice rather than being First Lady. I believe it was a means of giving $99,000 to her and Bill without disclosing the source and circumventing any pesky laws about who can give what to elected officials.
Now, Bill Clinton has made a fortune by selling worthless stock to someone who wanted them so badly that they'd willingly pay $700,000 for them. These same shares that Gary Kasparov couldn't unload for a dollar a share at the same time. History, it seems, does repeat itself however it seems that cycle is shortening.
The Clinton's have always sent the message that they are our betters. They are not bound by laws because they are of a higher order of being and the righteousness of their cause demands that they sometimes skirt the rules. After all, this is For The Children(TM).
Lying under oath doesn't matter if you're a Clinton if it's a private matter. Credible rape allegations are unimportant. Those women were nuts and sluts anyway. We have important work to do here.
Apostate right winger Andrew Sullivan declares Hillary to be Cheney in a pantsuit.
They have not and will not release their tax returns or any information about the library.
Bill never released his medical records while in office. I'll wager there were some diseases in there he didn't want people to see.
Is it appropriate for the "First Gentleman" to be jetting around the globe squeezing people for donations to his foundation and/or library? It certainly gives rise to the appearance of impropriety if nothing else. Given the Clinton's tarnished history with, well, everything this is a fundamentally bad idea. Of course it also means that Terry McCaulliff and his ilk will be loudly denouncing anyone who even hints at just that (save of course, your truly who will continue to toil away in pseudonymity).
Now, Bill Clinton has made a fortune by selling worthless stock to someone who wanted them so badly that they'd willingly pay $700,000 for them. These same shares that Gary Kasparov couldn't unload for a dollar a share at the same time. History, it seems, does repeat itself however it seems that cycle is shortening.
The Clinton's have always sent the message that they are our betters. They are not bound by laws because they are of a higher order of being and the righteousness of their cause demands that they sometimes skirt the rules. After all, this is For The Children(TM).
Lying under oath doesn't matter if you're a Clinton if it's a private matter. Credible rape allegations are unimportant. Those women were nuts and sluts anyway. We have important work to do here.
Apostate right winger Andrew Sullivan declares Hillary to be Cheney in a pantsuit.
They have not and will not release their tax returns or any information about the library.
Bill never released his medical records while in office. I'll wager there were some diseases in there he didn't want people to see.
Clinton also raised more than $362 million for his foundation through 2006 and secured pledges for billions more.
Is it appropriate for the "First Gentleman" to be jetting around the globe squeezing people for donations to his foundation and/or library? It certainly gives rise to the appearance of impropriety if nothing else. Given the Clinton's tarnished history with, well, everything this is a fundamentally bad idea. Of course it also means that Terry McCaulliff and his ilk will be loudly denouncing anyone who even hints at just that (save of course, your truly who will continue to toil away in pseudonymity).
Thursday, March 08, 2007
An Actual Bush Scandal
Lawmaker's Intervention in Law Enforcement Crosses Line
He's dead right. This one ought to be front page, above the fold lead story. I have no patience for political abuse via courts. I hated the Independent Counsel statute when they used it as a club against Republicans and it made me queasy when they did it under Clinton. In every case it started as one thing and went on and on and mutated into a beast that was determined to find something.
This is a bit different but in the same vein. They're sacking US Attourneys for not filing charges against Democrats before the election. That is thuggery. Let the heads roll.
He's dead right. This one ought to be front page, above the fold lead story. I have no patience for political abuse via courts. I hated the Independent Counsel statute when they used it as a club against Republicans and it made me queasy when they did it under Clinton. In every case it started as one thing and went on and on and mutated into a beast that was determined to find something.
This is a bit different but in the same vein. They're sacking US Attourneys for not filing charges against Democrats before the election. That is thuggery. Let the heads roll.
License To Lie
Not All Sources Are Equal
The Press wants it both ways. They want to be able to shield their sources and be immune from defamation suits. Combine those and you'll get exactly what the author states; imagined sources that can be protected forever so there is no accountability. I could create a source I have called "Senior Administration Official" and have him/her tell me that Hillary Clinton is a Satan worshipping child murderer. I could then say I will not reveal my source and you can't prosecute me. News would never be reliable and defamation suits would go exactly nowhere. The more optimistic of you would note that the end result of such an environment might actually be better because any story without named sources would be discounted by large segments of the population. A view I don't share.
The Press wants it both ways. They want to be able to shield their sources and be immune from defamation suits. Combine those and you'll get exactly what the author states; imagined sources that can be protected forever so there is no accountability. I could create a source I have called "Senior Administration Official" and have him/her tell me that Hillary Clinton is a Satan worshipping child murderer. I could then say I will not reveal my source and you can't prosecute me. News would never be reliable and defamation suits would go exactly nowhere. The more optimistic of you would note that the end result of such an environment might actually be better because any story without named sources would be discounted by large segments of the population. A view I don't share.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
