two questions of the morning:

1) why has william jefferson not been charged? ongoing investigation? some weird but actually valid explanation for piles of cash in his freezer? what?

2) what the hell is pelosi thinking, nominating him to the house homeland security panel?

this is a bad mix of creepy and tiresome.

Just remember that, in politics, the laws you make are for the little people. Not the lawmakers. It sucks and it's so many different kinds of wrong. But it's the way it is.

------------------
Whade' "The Duck Formerly Known As Wade" Duck
'87 GT Auto
'88 Ferrario
'84 Indy (8/26/06)

Relax! You've managed to suck all of the fun out of the room.

Good questions. Wish there were some good answers.

http://www.washingtonpost.c...AR2006052100167.html
"Rep. William J. Jefferson (D-La.), the target of a 14-month public corruption probe, was videotaped accepting $100,000 in $100 bills from a Northern Virginia investor who was wearing an FBI wire, according to a search warrant affidavit released yesterday.

A few days later, on Aug. 3, 2005, FBI agents raided Jefferson's home in Northeast Washington and found $90,000 of the cash in the freezer, in $10,000 increments wrapped in aluminum foil and stuffed inside frozen-food containers, the document said."

William Jefferson is a democrat. The democrats are very protective of their members. Members of that party can do no wrong as only republicans are corrupt.

Pelosi will probably hide behind "innocent until proven guilty". Which while true, isn't justification enough.
She will also likely hide behind "the other side has had worse allegations..." Which while true, isn't justification enough. Well, at least to the american public, it isn't enough. But it is in the halls of congress. Which is a sad state of affairs.


And almost everybody knows I am very "conservative" politically. So that is the public disclaimer. But, honestly, this isn't left BASHING. You could put a different liberal in the positions than William Jefferson.

She knows that, too. So what is her motivation for taking the heat on this one? Because it is going to come, and it is going to be justified heat.

William Jefferson is a politician. The politicians are very protective of their members. Members of their party can do no wrong as only members of other party are corrupt.

Putting it in party terms is just what each party wants. They want you focussing your ire on the other party, rather than on the entire party system in general.

For the same reason Tom DeLay isn't in jail -YET.
These are wealthy, well connected people who use every trick and strategy to avoid justice.
In addition, the FBI, etc are hoping to get more information from them, using the threat of prison as a tool to get them to testify against the rest of the bunch.
Some people are so desperate to make this into some vast conspiracy that they miss the obvious explanation.
Don't be one of those people.
These criminals will, eventually, receive some kind of punishment.

quote Originally posted by frontal lobe: So what is her motivation for taking the heat on this one? Because it is going to come, and it is going to be justified heat.

that's my real question. he hasn't been indicted yet, so the alleged special protection among democrats doesn't strike me as terribly relevant - the current justice department is no slouch when it comes to investigating democrats, after all - but this move seems politically incoherent, and smacks of calculations or deals that, if they make sense, have the very strong whiff of the smoke-filled room about them.

Good point, Neptune! Let's compare the differences between how Delay and Jefferson have been treated...

Tom Delay isn't still in Congress. William Jefferson is.

Republican Conference rules forced Delay to resign as Majority leader temporarily, and under pressure from the GOP, he announced he would not seek to return to that position. Delay sought re-election, but due to the fact he thought he might lose the election (and lose that seat in Congress to a Democrat), he decided to resign.

William Jefferson was caught on tape taking a bribe. He is still doing is regular job. He is being nominated for the House Homeland Security Panel. I've seen no Democratic pressure for him to step down. It will be interesting to see if the appointments continue if/when he's inticted. I wonder if there will be pressure for him to step down then?

Innocent until proven guilty is an important part of our judicial process, and no one, even a politician, should be considered guilty of a crime before being convicted. However, how each party handles it's members who are accused of such crimes is apparently drastically different.

[This message has been edited by Formula88 (edited 03-01-2007).]

Talk about "COLD HARD CASH!"

quote Originally posted by Euterpe: this has been my background thought. we seem to have reached a kind of cul de sac under the current system. i think i want parliament.

It's way easier than that.
We need term limits. There's no reason that any of these people should be allowed defacto "lifetime appointments". At least, if they're crooks, they won't be around forever.
We already have term limits on presidents and governors. How are congressmen/women any less dangerous?

[This message has been edited by Raydar (edited 03-01-2007).]

I'd like to sugest that his background knowledge of Graft and Lousiana make him iminently qualified to handle Homeland Security.
Look at who Cheny picked to help with energy policy. Shady, probably, but you need people with first hand knowledge after all.

------------------
Ol' Paint, 88 Base coupe auto.
Turning white on top, like owner.
Leaks a little, like owner.
Doesn't smoke, unlike owner

Raydar and Euterpe its easier than ripping out our system and changing everything implementing term limits or changing to a parliamentary system. It really only takes the people showing up to vote to make the system work. Thats really all it takes.

Both of your solutions are attempts to fix a problem that is a result of the failure of the American voter to hold its elected representatives responsible both for their actions in government, and for the types of campaigns they run. Much like trying to fix problems in this country that are a result of social breakdown with legislation, we cannot unfortunately save our country from the apathy and stupidity of its citzens by simply replacing the system under which the government operates, because the real problem lies with the electorate.

quote Originally posted by pbd: Raydar and Euterpe its easier than ripping out our system and changing everything implementing term limits or changing to a parliamentary system. It really only takes the people showing up to vote to make the system work. Thats really all it takes. Both of your solutions are attempts to fix a problem that is a result of the failure of the American voter to hold its elected representatives responsible both for their actions in government, and for the types of campaigns they run. Much like trying to fix problems in this country that are a result of social breakdown with legislation, we cannot unfortunately save our country from the apathy and stupidity of its citzens by simply replacing the system under which the government operates, because the real problem lies with the electorate.

I agree that many people are lazy and complacent. Many of them are just happy to depend upon (settle for?) the status quo.
If the names and faces were required to be changed every so often it would, by necessity, force them to sit up and pay attention.

Very good points above,but there are several overriding problems with democracy and Government of the people by the people.Ignorance of how it works, WHY it works, and selfishness. Wanting higher rewards for doing less.Forgetting that there is always somebody below you who CAN and WILL work harder than you,and often for less money..because your (generally, not pointing specific fingers ) idea of less money is, in fact, more money for them. And finally, sometimes bosses and owners of businesses have NO scruples about getting rid of somebody who has worked hard, and earned increments in salary thereby, for somebody who can't at present attain that level of competence, but can, and will, aspire to it given a short time.A lot also comes down to the good versus bad aspect: take for example Dentists ( very topical for us at the moment ). A good dentist will be honest, and pass up the chance of a fat paycheck, by telling a patient they really don't need the expensive treatment, whereas a bad dentist will convince you that you DO need that treatment (but forgets to add 'because I will get richer if you do'... ) and then the bad dentist gets richer, and everyone believes he is richer because he is better at dentistry. And the good dentist gets less work, less money, and fades away. Doesn't always happen that way, but it is becoming more and more prevalent nowadays. But, with Government it is the reverse.The good Politician will say such and such sacrifice is needed, whilst the bad one says it isn't...but knows it is, and tries to maintain the popularity that his initial lie led to, but sneaks in the policy anyway...and then becomes a flip-flop,liar, con-man..etc etc. So, if everybody could understand that the nasty medicine is VITAL to Society, and accept the strictures that come with it, then Society stands a chance of improving....and the liars would fail before they even GOT into Office.
Hope that makes sense..
Nick

[This message has been edited by fierofetish (edited 03-01-2007).]

quote Originally posted by fierofetish: Very good points above,but there are several overriding problems with democracy and Government of the people by the people.Ignorance of how it works, WHY it works, and selfishness. Wanting higher rewards for doing less.Forgetting that there is always somebody below you who CAN and WILL work harder than you,and often for less money..because your (generally, not pointing specific fingers ) idea of less money is, in fact, more money for them. And finally, sometimes bosses and owners of businesses have NO scruples about getting rid of somebody who has worked hard, and earned increments in salary thereby, for somebody who can't at present attain that level of competence, but can, and will, aspire to it given a short time.A lot also comes down to the good versus bad aspect: take for example Dentists ( very topical for us at the moment ). A good dentist will be honest, and pass up the chance of a fat paycheck, by telling a patient they really don't need the expensive treatment, whereas a bad dentist will convince you that you DO need that treatment (but forgets to add 'because I will get richer if you do'... ) and then the bad dentist gets richer, and everyone believes he is richer because he is better at dentistry. And the good dentist gets less work, less money, and fades away. Doesn't always happen that way, but it is becoming more and more prevalent nowadays. But, with Government it is the reverse.The good Politician will say such and such sacrifice is needed, whilst the bad one says it isn't...but knows it is, and tries to maintain the popularity that his initial lie led to, but sneaks in the policy anyway...and then becomes a flip-flop,liar, con-man..etc etc. So, if everybody could understand that the nasty medicine is VITAL to Society, and accept the strictures that come with it, then Society stands a chance of improving....and the liars would fail before they even GOT into Office. Hope that makes sense.. Nick

It makes perfect sense. But when did you sneek into our office and observe my boss?

------------------
Whade' "The Duck Formerly Known As Wade" Duck
'87 GT Auto
'88 Ferrario
'84 Indy (8/26/06)

Relax! You've managed to suck all of the fun out of the room.

You know I really don't understand this move. It's absolutely mind boggling. It was Pelosi who removed Jeffereson from his ways and means position last year after the investigation was made public, now she appoints him to the Nat'l Security committee? It doesn't make any sense. So far all I can figure is that she threw him a bone knowing he won't make it through the full vote in the congress. But even still, why give him anything at all. I would rather see him shunned totally.

[This message has been edited by connecticutFIERO (edited 03-01-2007).]

I think you need to look back further into Pelosi's closet...I can't remember what it had to do with, but I recall something about Pelosi needing some political help in a tight spot, and Jefferson was in a position to give it to her. I wish I could remember it, but it was something having to do with the Congressional Black Caucus a couple of years back, which could have jeopardized her chances of becoming Speaker without their endorsement. Now it's time for that investment to pay off...

"...you've got a chip in the big game now. But you're not going to use it now. You're going to keep it until you need it..."

----from the movie, "Clear and Present Danger"

[This message has been edited by Vonov (edited 03-01-2007).]

quote Originally posted by Vonov: I think you need to look back further into Pelosi's closet...I can't remember what it had to do with, but I recall something about Pelosi needing some political help in a tight spot, and Jefferson was in a position to give it to her. I wish I could remember it, but it was something having to do with the Congressional Black Caucus a couple of years back, which could have jeopardized her chances of becoming Speaker without their endorsement. Now it's time for that investment to pay off... "...you've got a chip in the big game now. But you're not going to use it now. You're going to keep it until you need it..." ----from the movie, "Clear and Present Danger"

I sure hope not, I would lose a great deal of respect for her if that's tha case. I was never a big Pelosi fan actually, I was routing for Jack Murtha for speaker. But maybe we'll see a real explanation as pressure builds for her to explain the nomination. I know Democrats are already getting mad about this. I know I am.

quote Originally posted by Raydar: It's way easier than that. We need term limits.

People in general do not want term limits. If they did, they would implement them at the polls and we would not have the likes of Sens. McCain or Kennedy or Byrd.

quote We already have term limits on presidents and governors. How are congressmen/women any less dangerous?

I will suggest that our uninformed and/or apathetic voting populace is more dangerous. Politicians are only dangerous because voters cede their own power to them.

quote Originally posted by Euterpe: 2) what the hell is pelosi thinking, nominating him to the house homeland security panel?

It is obvious that our esteemed Diva of the House either owes someone something, or is afraid of being branded a racist.

quote Originally posted by fogglethorpe: People in general do not want term limits. If they did, they would implement them at the polls and we would not have the likes of Sens. McCain or Kennedy or Byrd.

People in general want term limits for the other guys, not for their guy. Their guy isn't a pork barrel politician. Their guy brings in needed jobs and investment to my state. It is the other guys that waste money on frivilous projects.

This is why election based term limits never work. People are afraid if they vote out their guy, then the other states won't vote out their guy and now the vote-out state loses those valuable chair positions that bring in the "investment" dollars. It is the political version of the prisoner's dilema.

Fixed, mandated term limits could fix this by making it so that no state could keep its guy in longer than another state.

PS. How could you forget Sen Stevens (R-Alaska) in your litany of over-termed Senators?

quote Originally posted by Steve Normington: PS. How could you forget Sen Stevens (R-Alaska) in your litany of over-termed Senators?

My bad, Steve.

"It's a series of tubes."

Read and hear his weird, rambling speech on net neutrality here.

------------------
Who is John Galt?

quote Originally posted by fogglethorpe: "It's a series of tubes."

The irony of this whole fiasco is that if he had replaced the word "tubes" with "pipes" it would have been similar to how just about every networking geek in the country describes the 'net.

And he offered an opinion that movie uploads/downloads would congest the network.
If everybody who rents videos suddenly decided to have them shipped over the 'net, I could imagine it would.

I'm not taking a stand either way. I'm just saying that, although he got some of the terminology wrong, his theory is basically sound. (The delayed email notwithstanding.)

[This message has been edited by Raydar (edited 03-03-2007).]

quote Originally posted by fogglethorpe: My bad, Steve. "It's a series of tubes." Read and hear his weird, rambling speech on net neutrality here.

And he's the guy in charge of regulating the internet.