Blogito, Ergo Sum - 16 December 2008

Where is officialdom most crooked? Last week, many guessed it must be Illinois, after news that Gov. Rod Blagojevich was taped making brazen personal demands in exchange for his selection of a Senate successor to President-elect Barack Obama. ...

In a Department of Justice tally covering the last decade, Florida wins by its sheer number of guilty. The report, released last week, itemizes convictions in federal public corruption cases at local, state and federal levels in the 50 states, the District of Columbia and three United States territories.

Illinois ranks only seventh, with 502 convictions.

Which might win the prize...you can arrest them but, thanks to crooked judges, you can't convict them? In typical NYT poll fashion they don't tell us the number of arrests which led to those convictions, leaving us totally unable to determine how many got away with it.

In 1824, John Quincy Adams, Andrew Jackson, William Crawford and Henry Clay failed to win an Electoral College majority, so the election was thrown into the House. Clay, the House speaker, hated Jackson and threw his support to Adams, who became president and promptly named Clay his secretary of State. Critics accused them of a "corrupt bargain." But that was before cable, so there were no nightly segments on Claygate.

I was as revolted as anyone by the obscenity-laced brazenness of Rod Blagojevich seeming willing to auction off anything that wasn't nailed down in the state of Illinois. But as the above episode illustrates, political horse-trading is as old as the Republic. When does it cross the line into illegality?

Obviously, when a public official demands something--cash, a job for his wife, the firing of critical editorial writers--in exchange for an official act, it meets the definition of extortion. When someone offers a public official something--money, a jog, campaign contributions--in exchange for a contract or appointment, it fits the definition of bribery.

But didn't bleeping Blago just make explicit what is often implicit among politicians? Don't they angle for support with a wink and a nod? Didn't Obama name Hillary, Biden and Richardson to his Cabinet after they endorsed his candidacy? Don't presidents often reward major donors who can't speak a foreign language with ambassadorships? When big corporations, trade groups and unions make contributions, does anyone believe they don't expect anything in return? Is it a mere coincidence when a lawmaker then sees the light and introduces a favorable bill?

None of this is to excuse Pay-Rod's what-the-bleep-is-in-it-for-me crassness. But sometimes the scandal is what's legal. We've all become inured to inside political dealing. Perhaps much of that dealing would look different if we knew what the players were saying in private.

At the same time, we don't want to criminalize political negotiations. Rahm gave Blago's folks a list of acceptable Senate candidates? So what? If he wasn't having such talks, he should be sued for political malpractice. Unless he promised the governor something in return, it sounds pretty routine.

So how come Obama has been bobbing and weaving and spinning and disclaiming and washing not only his hands but the hands of his staff, claiming that Blago is only a guy he saw occasionally in the neighborhood, he never listened to anything he ever said, either, he didn't buy or sell any property from him, and he never, never, no, not ever, gave as much as a single thought to what Blago would do with his former senate seat?

Why doesn't Obama simply admit that of course he and his staff held common and ordinary and totally expected conversations with various political people in the state house, including the governor, and very naturally they discussed some political horse-trading.

Soon Obama will be telling us he was so busy thinking about saving the planet (rolling back the seas) that he had no time at all to think about the senate seat he was abandoning in nearly pristine condition. Methinks he doth protest quite a lot too much.

But if journalists are getting overheated, what about Illinois Democrats? National Review's Byron York examines the role of the state attorney general, Lisa Madigan, asking the Illinois Supreme Court oust Blago:

"In calling for the court to remove Blagojevich, Madigan pointed to a section of the Illinois constitution which says the legislature 'shall specify by whom and by what procedures the ability of the governor to serve or to resume office may be questioned and determined.' Madigan also cited a state supreme-court rule that laid out the procedure for such cases and argued that Blagojevich's current situation amounts to a 'disability' that justifies stripping him of his powers. But the constitutional provision cited by Madigan was written to deal with a governor who suffered a physical or mental disability -- not a political one . . "

So how come Howard left out any mention of young Jesse Jackson, one of the candidates for Obama's seat, telling reporters that he thought Blago had a mental problem?

On the subject, and including discussion about Caroline Kennedy wanting Hillary's seat given to her, Kurtz makes this good point:

Even if his name wasn't Biden? No matter, though, the point is well taken: why are any of these seats filled by appointments in the first place? Why aren't they all filled by means of special elections?

Eugene Robinson | Hurling a shoe is a grave insult in the Arab world. It was wrong. But was it understandable?

The throwing of shoes is about the worst imaginable insult in the Arab world, a gesture intended to humiliate and demean. That such a thing would happen on Bush's last visit suggests the vast gap between the president's goals and accomplishments in Iraq. Bush still believes his decision to go to war was the right thing to do and is convinced that history will vindicate him. I'm thinking he's going to have to wait a long, long time.

Well, on the other hand, Mr. Robinson, the Iranians have referred to Mr. Obama as a "house Negro", which at least included polite usage, so was that wrong but understandable?

For that matter, there very likely are some voters in the United States who would be willing to throw their own variety of "worst imaginable insults" at Barack Obama during his inauguration ceremony, if only they could. Wrong...but understandable?

How about Timothy McVeigh, another person who felt his actions were understandable and was not without supporters who agreed? Or dare we mention William Ayers, a man who, just before the planes struck on 9/11, had said he was sorry that he hadn't done more bombing? What does he justify it as today...merely extreme vandalism or some such understandable behavior?

You cannot condone wrong behavior when it suits your own personal prejudices and then self-piously condemn others for excusing theirs. By opening a forum for discussing the reasonableness of grave insults with regard to President Bush you give people the impression that this is a subject worthy of discussion because of your personal opinion that the Iraq war was wrong. Finding one hotheaded and impressionable young man lacking sufficient self-control to use the exceptional opportunity afforded him by merely being present as a credentialed journalist at the event is only a small step away from condoning a bomb-thrower, even if you don't think so within the insulated confines of your own mind. You may have forgotten that theirs is the same kind of mentality which produced open rejoicing from Saddam Hussein and others when they heard the news of 9/11 in New York City, cheering as they watched Americans jumping to their deaths.

I have never lived extensively in the southern United States so I cannot say for sure, my only exposure to their mentality being decades ago as a young Marine who trained with a number of young teenagers from the Deep South, but I suspect that those who joined the KKK and lynched blacks they believed to be guilty of raping white women might make the same kind of "wrong, but understandable" justification for their behavior.

People need to be careful about what kind of doors they open. Yours was done in yet another attempt to smear Bush about Iraq, an action which you consider to be justified and understandable in your own mind, perhaps even not 'wrong' as far as your way of thinking goes, even if I do not.

"Wrong...but understandable" opens the floodgates for potential evil to course through, and this cannot be excused by your happiness in finding an Iraqi who agrees with you with regard to the war. The fact that you believe that Bush may have to wait a long, long time before history vindicates him in Iraq may be more indicative of your failure to grasp what's actually happening around the world today than anything else. Those who will actually write the history tend to have a wider view and a more rational attitude than those who throw shoes and those others who find their behavior understandable.

One of the truly great writers of our time is Mark Steyn. Mark is so well-informed and so intelligent and erudite and common-sensical on so many subjects that it leads one to despair if competition is your goal. I'm not in competition with Steyn, however, only admiration. Here he is on a subject I don't know anywhere near as much about as he does, musical composition, and in this case Hammerstein:

How very interesting. I try to walk to town once a day, it's not nearly far enough, and when I walk I often sing to myself. The first two songs Mark mentions are among my favorites. Both are challenging, since I am a bit too reserved to simply sing out like I really should. I also have shamefully let my singing voice go almost to naught for lack of practice. I've never considered myself to be a great singer, but I wasn't that bad, either, in my own estimation. I adapted three musicals and subsequently appeared on stage in them, but I also did not cast myself in the role which required the best voice, I knew there were others more talented than I was for those roles. Some of my critics observed that I didn't really act in any of them, I only played myself, and the songs were not all that demanding. True, but I didn't think I disgraced myself on stage. I think I'm reasonably honest in evaluating my own performances, good and bad, and I still feel my finale in "I've grown accustomed to her face" is evocative. Maybe not, maybe not...but it brings tears to my eyes.

Anyhow, singing well requires singing loudly, and practicing voice control and breathing, and I haven't done that in a very long time. Since I'm already known around here as the crazy gringo, I might as well start singing aloud and learning to once again hit the high and low notes required.

I have an intermediate voice. I'm not quite a bass, I can almost but not quite do justice there, and I'm not quite a tenor, either, although perhaps a bit closer. I'm sort of an upper baritone lead, if you pitch me in the right key. Finding that key has been my problem.

An interesting thing that has happened to me in recent years is that I have become very emotional when singing some songs, even privately to myself, and I can't seem to control it. For instance, when I sing "O, Danny Boy" I almost break into tears at the end, I cannot divorce myself from the lyrics, and all the more so when I think of them as being "O, Tony Boy". I never used to be this sentimental or emotional, I find it almost disturbing. I doubt if I will ever again perform on stage, but I sometimes wonder now if I even could make it all the way through a serious song?

Steyn is one of the most capable writers I know of today, on any subject. I cannot imagine ever possessing his knowledge or his talents, but if I had someone I wanted to emulate, Mark would be the one.

I need to start singing loudly, let them think I'm crazy. They already do, after all. And they're right.