Go to PhotoDude and laugh at Justin Raimondo. I did. Very therapeutic.
Jacob Weisberg is back at it at MSNBC/SLATE, with Enron vs Whitewater, proving the old axiom that a fool and his political agenda seldom part (Ok- I made that up- artistic license).
There are so many flaws with this article that attempting to pick it apart may be akin to worrying about a bloody nose when your leg has been severed at the hip, so I will let you read it in all its glory. Jonah Goldberg and the folks at Protein Wisdom may have the right idea about how to approach this whole Enron mess. I am done commenting about it as well until ANYTHING outside the corporate realm happens.
OK. I am now changing my bet. Iran is not next. Southeast Asia is next (free registration required).
From the Opinion Journal:
Imagine an Afghanistan-by-the-South-China-Sea, a radical Muslim state carved out from renegade regions of Southeast Asia, led by fundamentalist clerics calling for the destruction of the West.
That’s the vision that animates Jemaah Islamia, a group aiming to establish “Daulah Islamiah,” a state that would include parts of Malaysia, Indonesia and the Philippines. Fortunately, the group’s timetable for paradise on earth has suffered a setback, with the recent arrest of a 13-member unit in Malaysia and a squad of 15 in Singapore
Some other links on what appears to be a slow escalation:
Sgt. Stryker will probably have more info this in a couple of days (I would like to know what bases we have and what carrier groups are in the region, etc.), but he did note one aspect of the Philippine involvement the other day.
My answer is, I hope not. I am not sure why donating to every political campaign for the last 10 years and receiving no favors from the victors is going to spur a renewed interest in campaign finance reform, but watch as the NY Times and her ‘progressive’ (Why are progressives always pushing for the same old tired things- would we be more accurate calling them regressives- or are they called progressives because they naively believe any change is change for the better?) friends push for it. Even the thinking man, Brian Linse at AintNoBadDude, (someone I like a great deal and read daily) confuses me on this one….
“In fact, I’d argue that the previous cozy relations were a major reason that the Bush administration turned their backs on Lay & company. “
By that logic, the more you donate to a political campaign, the more likely you are to not have any help when you are in a jam because people might be embarassed by their connections to you? Or are we to assume that what this really means is that smaller contributors are the ones who get all the favors, because they have given enough money to get attention, but not too much so that they can still fly under the radar? Paging Mr. Machiavelli, paging Mr. Machiavelli.
Let me emphasize, however, that it is still too early (as many conservatives have noted) to call this one a political scandal. But shouldn’t that mean that it’s too early to assume it’s not a political scandal?
It seems to me most every political issue thrown at either party by the other is in a stage in which it is too early to call a scandal or too early to assume it is not a scandal (or it is just flat out a scandal). Remember, nothing is non-scandalous, because every decision is going to be drerided by the opposition. I can hear Henry Waxman now: “We have some serious questions about Bush’s proposal to give every todddler a teddy bear. Questions like, who funded this? Why did he not have a mix of animals.” etc. ad nauseum.
Let’s try this with my personal life. It is too early to say that I engaged in scandalous behavior after drinking 72 shots of Don Eduardo tequila last Friday night, but it is also too early to say I did not engage in scandalous behavior (given my track record with tequila, I would bet on the former). A responsible press would stop drooling and frothing at the mouth, and would ASK me (as I am the only one who knows)- or, get this- let the appropriate authorities question me if there is any EVIDENCE of wrongdoing. You don’t just dig into things for shits and giggles and partisan gain because some toad from California has serious questions (OK- we used to, but we no longer havea special prosecutor). At any rate, all this hyperventilating is getting annoying. Someone make a charge that Bush et al. did something wrong or please put the Bimbo Broadcaster back on (Ashleigh BAnfield). She doesn’t have much to say, but she is a helluva lot better looking than Jonathon Alter.
Perhaps there is a third way with Enron. It is NOT a political scandal, but rather a criminal and financial scandal committed by the CEO’s of Andersen and Enron. Regardless, a lot of good people got the shaft, and someone needs to pay for it. Just keep your eyes on the ball and don’t let the bickering and partisan manuevering in Washington distract you from the real issue, which is not political at this point- despite the best efforts of a select few, and not an argument for CFR, but corporate criminal behavior. FWIW- Enron would then NOT be a scandal, other than the amount of time devoted to it in the media lately, and would be more accurately called a CRIME. And we already have laws for that.
Either way, I still see no cogent or compelling argument for the Large Media Monopoly Enforcement Act (McCain-Feingold). What this really is is a delightful demonstration of the glaring anti-corporate anti-capitalist sentiment that runs through the veins of some in Washington. Like asking the largest energy provider for information when crafting an energy policy is a BAD idea. When my car breaks down, I do not drive to the local coffee shop to ask for advice because I am afraid that asking a mechanic might present a conflict of interest. This of course gets us back to the ‘there is an appearance of a conflict of interest because Enron gave campaign donations’ mantra- the solution to which, of course, is CFR and publicly funded campaigns.
Which is where I draw the line. I already am funding someone’s education, someone’s social security, and a variety of other things against my will. I am not funding Pat Buchanon’s 2004 election, too.
*Note* I should not be allowed to have red wine before I blog.
In between snarls and streams of spittle, Justin Raimondo states (shouts?? Oozes?):
Oh yes, we must be sure to keep up our relentless Full-Bore-Fact-Check on the Saudis – but never the Israelis. That is one of the cardinal rules of warblogging: never the Israelis. As His Majesty, King Andrew, recently announced: Israel must be supported “unequivocally” – i.e. no matter what horrors are carried out by Ariel Sharon and his nutball rightwing followers.
I guess I am guilty of fact checking only the Arabs- maybe it is the track record of misogyny, outdated theocratic and autocratic rule, perpetual human rights abuses, vile anti-semitism, the cozy support of former and current Marxist regimes, and the justification of terrorism and outright murder of innocent Jews that caught my attention.
At any rate, why fact check the Israelis? After all, the Jews control the media. The Holocaust never happened, etc.
The whole article just annoyed me. Attacking Glenn Reynolds, Ken Layne, Sgt.Stryker, and Andrew Sullivan, tarring them as racist and vile arab haters, without paying the slightest attention to what they actually say, just irks me. Back in your hole, Justin. And I agree with Matt Welch. Justin is creepy looking.
Although a registered Republican (which in the state of West Virginia is like being a vegetarian at a pig roast), I am in large part a….Quickian??