Did Rod Blagojevich Receive Justice? Wednesday Journal #3

Former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich was sentenced today to 14 years in prison for his recent conviction on multiple federal corruption charges.

Among his offenses were conspiracy to solicit bribes  for State contracts, mail and wire fraud, and most notoriously, his scheme to sell the newly-elected President's vacated Ilinois Senate Seat.

Just as shameful, after his convictions, Blagojevich seemed to take a cavalier attitude toward his convictions, proclaiming his innocence, and, seeming unaware of the gravity of his situation, appearing on late-night talk shows, humorous television advertisements, and "Celebrity Apprentice".

There is little to say in his favor. Sadly, he is in large company, having the dubious distinction of being the 4th Illinois Governor to be convicted since 1973.I believe Rod Blagojevich should serve justice for his convictions and for continuing a shameful tradition of corruption in Illinois politics.

But 14 years?

Who's afraid of Rod Blagojevich? 

I'm glad to finally be rid of Blagojevich (see "Good Riddance," June 28, 2011), but frankly his walking the streets does not make me fear for my personal safety. 

Prison is a punitive measure to be sure, and the Judge in the sentencing sought to make an example of the former Governor, as a deterrent to future corruption by state officials. 

But does anyone believe that is really going to work?  I would rather see those who destroyed the financial futures of millions of Americans take their rightful place in Federal Prisons.  The same goes for legislators who pass irresponsible laws, resulting in the deaths of everyone from soldiers and poor senior citizens, to desperate young mothers and innocent victims of petroleum disasters...to name a few.

Illinois' last Governor, George Ryan, was convicted in a Driver's License scandal that resulted in the deaths of a family of six.  This occurred before his tenure as Governor, while he was still serving as the Illinois Secretary of State.

Ryan got six years.

14 years for Blagojevich?  I think a more thoughtful judge could have come up with a more creative form of justice, one that would combine a shorter prison sentence with a more useful (and humbling) way to allow Blagojevich to pay his debt to the state. 

Now, we are merely paying his room and board for the next 14 years.

A Political Interlude: Sunday Journal

The Republican party must be breathing a collective sigh of relief.


Herman Cain, former Domino's Pizza CEO and one-time front-runner in the 2012 Presidential bid, has closed his campaign and has withdrawn from the race.  Allegations of sexual harassment, and a possible 13-year extramarital affair (scandals which always mean the death knell to"moral" Americans, stirred by the media into a self-righteous frenzy) sealed Cain's Presidential downfall.  So now, many conservative Republicans, "true" Americans (who hate Mr. Obama), no longer need worry about throwing support behind one of their own candidates who is of the "wrong" race.


And now, the attack dogs of Fox News seem to be nipping at the heels of presumptive front-runner Mitt Romney.  Romney's interview with Brett Baier last Tuesday was more than awkward, it was an uncommonly aggressive grilling by Fox News of one of their own.  Or IS Romney one of their own?  I don't like Romney as a politician or a Presidential candidate; I think he and his campaign are capable of the basest dishonesty in order to besmirch an opponents reputation. (See my post, "On Romney's Deception", Nov. 30). 

But much as I dislike Romney, I hate even more the seemingly heinous and transparent reason why other Republican candidates and the Conservative Fox news are going after him:  It seems to me they are trying to force a Romney meltdown, so that those same conservative Republicans no longer need to worry about throwing their support behind one of their own candidates who is the "wrong" kind of "Christian".

It looks like it's working, at least this week. New Gingrich, an old-boy politician, has now moved into the front-runner position in the Republican Presidential race.

Thus the collective sigh of relief, if my hunches are correct.

The Obama camp is thrilled at the Republican infighting, because they are now going after Romney for the same reasons that the Obama campaign itself would attack Romney, mainly, flip-flopping on major issues (see this article in Politico, Team Obama Cheers On Newt, Dec. 3).

Well, when it's all over, maybe Cain, Romney, and maybe even Gingrich, can supplement their book deal incomes with jobs as political "analysts" (emphasis on the first two syllables) on Fox News.

Film Review: "The Ides of March"

"The Ides of March" is a solid, effective political thriller.  It accomplishes the rare feat of guiding viewers through the tedious labyrinth of American politics by entertaining us with a suspense-filled story. 

The plot is almost too plausible to be far-fetched.  It might not say anything new about corruption, betrayal, backstabbing and one-upmanship that form the sorry state of American presidential elections; but it does stand out as a fine example of the highest levels of skill and polish that American movies have to offer.  "The Ides of March" is a sophisticated potboiler.

Ryan Gosling is the super-idealistic media manager for a Democratic Presidential candidate (George Clooney), who is in a tight race in the Ohio primary against an adversary that is known for playing dirty politics.  Gosling's character is a sincere and skillful player, an impressive spinner, who impresses Clooney with his knowledge of public opinion and how to manipulate it.  That is, until he gets involved with a pretty young intern (Evan Rachel Wood) with close family ties to the Democratic party. This eventually leads to his discovery that his hero Clooney is embroiled in a potentially career-ending scandal.

How he reacts to this discoraging development, and learns to survive by beating everyone at their viscious game, makes for a highly watchable if cynical piece of filmmaking.

The heart of the film is Gosling's character's slow movement into disillusionment.  It can be seen as the loss of innocence of a whole electorate; but I think the film wisely eschewed such ambitions. It's a good look at a particular character.

Philip Seymour Hoffman is the campaign's chief of staff, a seasoned and cynical politico, who knows  how to play dirty, but still holds to some notion of loyalty. Paul Giamatti (less annoying than usual but still hammy) is the manager of the rival campaign, a snake-in-the-grass among snakes, who makes a phone call that sets Gosling's desperate descent into motion. Marisa Tomei is an political insider, a reporter for the New York Times who cheerfully exploits everyone.  Jeffrey Wright (playing beneath his talents) is a senator whose hotly-sought endorsement is the catalyst for all kinds of double-dealing on all sides.



Gosling can carry a film, and is showing an interesting range.  This is the fourth film I have seen him in this year (I like to think that it's due to Gosling's good taste in selecting properties, ones that interest me!) along with "Blue Valentine", "Crazy Stupid Love", and "Drive".  He reminds me of the high-school jock who shocks everyone by how good he is in the drama club.  He commands the scenes he is in, and has a slow, deliberate manner of speech, like Brando with good diction.  It hope he continues to appear in mature roles in serious fare.


Clooney's is more of a supporting role. It was clever to cast himself as a Democratic candidate (a foreshadowing?) whose ideas are on the money for today's voters, practical and easy to support, while his character is ensnared in a morally indefensible dilemma.  Had this character been portrayed as  Republican, the film would have received the knee-jerk scorn of Fox-News types and those who are threatened by National Public Radio as being too partisan.

All other cast members performed well in one of the year's best ensembles.  Funny, but at times this movie seemed to be a stop-off for cast members on their way to do other films: Gosling and Tomei both in "Crazy Stupid Love", Hoffman in "Moneyball", Clooney in "The Descendants",  Giamatti in "Win-Win", Wood in "True Blood."  Perhaps this film was a labor of love, a film they all believed in.  If so, I applaud the involvement of each of them.

I was absorbed by the well-written and fast-paced film (screenplay by Clooney, Grant Heslov, and Beau Willimon based on his play "Farragut North").  During the intense climactic confrontation between Gosling and Clooney, shot in shadowy closeup, it hit me how nicely directed this movie is even though at that moment I had forgotten who directed this film.  It is, of course, Clooney's picture, a worthy follow-up to another compelling political drama, "Good Night and Good Luck".  Clooney is blessed with a strong technical crew; the look of the film, the design and lighting, are top-notch; and the film is edited down to the exact frame, moves quickly and goes down smoothly.

The plot turns on an accidental discovery found on a character's i-phone text.  Was this part of the original play? Maybe because this was the second consecutive film I saw where this plot device was used ("Like Crazy" was the other one), that I regarded this as a new, already tired cliche, one that should be banned from Hollywood films from now on.

I cannot imagine how this film plays to viewers from outside the U.S.  The machinations, the blackmail that are all a part of "politics", must seem insane, and counter-intuitive to the governance of this country.  If Clooney stays in Hollywood instead of Washington, he may do all of us a public service by continuing to create high-quality, well, played motion pictures like "The Ides of March" that raise audiences' awareness of the madness of our political system, and even move them to positive action.

A Political Rant On Tax Hikes, Deficit Reduction, and American Voters

President Obama is now adamant about reducing the deficit by at least 3 trillion dollars in 10 years. He unveiled a plan at the white house to cut spending and ask the most fortunate citizens to increase their fair share in tax revenue.

I had some random thoughts about Obama's new strategy, and his chances for getting elected for a second term, considering the state of our electorate.....

--As far as the tax hikes, there have been many articles about what Obama's administration is calling the "Buffett Rule". It is named for Warren Buffett, the billionaire investor, who is tired of the rich being coddled with lower tax rates than most middle-class Americans.... 

--Obama made the tax-the-wealthy plan one of the planks of his election.  His vehemence at this particular time has caused many pundits, even his supporters (even Jon Stewart) surmise that he is merely campaign posturing.

Stewart had a great editorial a week ago about "Campaign Obama" (click HERE). 

--Ah, education...I could go on and on.  As Bill Clinton said this morning on the Today Show, many American voters adopt an ideology, even when it has no basis in fact.  And these Americans cast their votes accordingly.  I totally agree, in the eloquent statement made by a friend and fellow writer, that "ignorant, and naive voters probably do best by staying away from the polls..."

--Ironically, politicians, in spite of what they say, do not want an educated electorate.  For one thing, the current method of campaign advertising would not work among a high-functioning, thinking and reasoned populace.

--The Republicans have co-opted many of the disenfranchised and disadvantaged, and have appealed to their fears about issues that have little to do with their best interests.... 

--The "tea partiers" seem to be those who are comfortable with regimentation, who prefer to take orders, and WHO DO WHAT THEY ARE TOLD...which is why they look for a a "parental" leader, a "priestly" leader, even a "militaristic" one (follow orders, don't question them). These voters are easily led, are uncomfortable with logic, and vote "en masse", like lemmings.

--They can feel good about exercising their "patriotic duty" without having to take personal responsibility for their choices.

--Democrats have a harder road, in general.  They trade in abstract ideas (like civil rights. justice, etc.) which are ambiguous, not concrete.  Their voters require a thoughtful internalization of ideas before accepting them, and then they can take action.  For this to occur, these voters should be better-educated.  Democrats find it harder to appeal to the emotions of their core constituents.

(And politicians are a prime example that you don't have to be intelligent to be wealthy...)

Enjoy the Jon Stewart video..

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Transformer - Campaign-Based Economy
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog The Daily Show on Facebook

Tax Breaks For "Job Creators"

Many Americans, concerned that essential programs will be cut to reduce the deficit, reasonably expect that America's wealthiest citizens and corporations be taxed at a higher rate, and contribute a more equitable share to the common good of the country.  Under such extraordinary economic circumstances as we see today, tax breaks that were extended to the wealthy, under former President George W. Bush, should be rescinded. 

The  monetary amounts raised by this requirement would help the country's financial health, and would hardly be felt as a dent in the pocketbooks of these enormously wealthy citizens and corporations

Yet, in an effort to block this reasonable requirement, many political figures, most of them among the country's wealthiest citizens, fight tooth and nail against this idea, stating that it is bad policy in a weak economy to tax "job creators".

The term "job creators" is rarely debated or questioned, neither in Congress nor in the White House.  But it is such a bald-faced misdirection that it cries out for immediate scrutiny from intelligent journalists, concerned citizens, and political leaders.  The protection given "job creators" should be a leading topic on the news, covered relentlessly.  So-called "job creators" should be made to justify the misleading title they seem to embrace.  I wondered why this concept was rarely challenged over the airwaves.

Based on a large number of writers in the blogosphere addressing this topic, I am not alone, which was a comfort, albeit a small one.

The lack of calling-out of these "job creators", who are getting rich on the backs of a dwindling workforce, is especially irksome in light of the recent bleak U.S. employment news, and the discouraging haggle over Mr. Obama's upcoming speech  to address the jobs crisis (as though either the Republican presidential debate, or the season premiere of the National Football League, were the ONLY two nights available to discuss a topic that should have been done two years ago--or whether these two competing events should have had any bearing on this address in the first place).

By the way, Mr. Obama acquiesced to the Republicans and their Presidential debate, and will now compete with a season-opener football game.  Bad judgement on the President's part; unnerving, almost laughable disrespect from the Republicans.  All political theater, on every side.  No matter.  My instinct suggests that a majority of football fans would not have tuned in to the speech, nor supported Obama's plan, no matter when the speech was scheduled to be given.  

Lila Shapiro's Huffington Post article on Friday, September 2, nicely summarized the alarming news that continues to bode ill for our economic recovery. Americans, meanwhile, remain either too scared or too complacent to take to the streets, preferring instead to retreat to their football games, or to their paternalistic Republican despots (who they naively think represent them), or to the two or three jobs (if they can find work at all) they must work to make ends meet:

The number of those out of a job for six months or more remained above 6.0 million in August and accounted for 42.9 percent of the unemployed. A total of 2.04 million were out of work for 99 weeks -- the limit for jobless benefits in some states -- or longer, a slight rise from 2.01 million last month, according to BLS figures not in the report.

"Their horizon for a brighter day is moving away from them," said Carl E. Van Horn, a labor economist at Rutgers University and co-author of a recent report focusing on the long-term unemployed. "Their optimism has been crushed by reality: They are still not working, or if they are working they're making a lot less money. You're either devastated or you're hurting, that's the range."

Meanwhile, corporate profits remain at pre-recession levels of strength. Many experts say that robust corporate profits alongside stagnant wages and declining workweeks points to a grim future for America's workforce.

"Many companies have simply come to the conclusion that labor is just too expensive," said Bernard Baumohl, chief global economist at The Economic Outlook Group. "We are moving increasingly into a labor-less society."

Perhaps there should be a requirement that tax breaks be extended to those who can demonstrate that they have created new American jobs each year, for Americans on American soil, whether they be a wealthy individuals, corporations, or small entrepreneurs who nevertheless have successfully grown to the need to hire workers.  Make it a simple process to account for added jobs; make loopholes difficult to create, or easy to dispense with.

Every one else on the highest end of society would have to ante up.

US Politics--Bachmann, Perry, and...Karen Armstrong

It's just too easy to poke fun.... The resemblances are far too striking:

A couple of weeks ago, Newsweek magazine published a photograph of Republican Presidential Candidate-hopeful Michelle Bachmann.  The photo, captioned "The Queen of Rage", stirred a controversy.  Critics complained that the photo made her look crazed, and did not reflect her true nature.

I am not so sure...

It is so easy to satirize these presumptive leaders, to turn them into parodies of themselves, to marginalize them and insist that they are simply eating at the children's table of politics, and can never emerge as leaders of the Free World.

(Besides...I think I would prefer to have snarling dogs running our government...At least they are honest about their feelings, and you always know where you stand with them.)

But we need to pay attention to these figures, and what they stand for, in order to understand their unlikely appeal, and to work around the irrationality and misplaced anger of their disenchanted, disenfranchised, and some of them unfortunately ignorant, followers. 

Otherwise, the rest of us might soon have to dance, reluctantly, to their tune.

The main point is that Michelle Bachmann, and her closest current rival Rick Perry, would not in themselves be prominent, threatening, nor even worthy of serious discussion, unless they happened to represent the ideas of a significant number of American citizens.

And that is frightening, unnerving, and sad.

Among other things, I have lately read and heard a lot about the political-religious doctrine called Dominionism, to which both Bachmann and Perry and others, especially among Tea Partiers, are connected. (It is cynically uncertain whether these political hopefuls actually believe in this idea.  Of course, they use it to their advantage.) 

Dominionism is a radical Christian sect that is gaining strength. In a nutshell, it states that their followers are entitled to hold dominion over the world, and will do this by infiltrating political systems, and expel the "demonic" ideas of abortion, homosexuality, and all non-Christian beliefs. Dominionists believe they must do this to bring about the end-times as prophecied in the Bible, to exorcise non-believers and prepare believers for the end of the world.


For more about this idea that is shaping American politics in an ominous way, check out the article by Michelle Goldberg in The Daily Beast.  

NPR's Fresh Air Interview from last week with Rachel Tabachnick, who researches the impact of the religious right and end-time narratives on American politics, was informative (if ominous). Check out also Tabachnick's writing on the web site, Talk To Action.

Best of all, I highly recommend the writing of Religious Historian and Theorist Karen Armstrong.  I found Armstrong's books, and read them immediately following the 9/11 tragedy. She helped guide me out of the darkness of my own ignorance to gain a better understanding of religion, conflict, fundamentalism, and politics.  Her book, "The Battle for God", is a lucid and comprehensive piece of work, well-researched, about why religious fundamentalism takes hold in societies, and why it is a major political force in today's world. (Read her interview on Faith L. Justice's blog HERE)

Armstrong, a former nun and self-proclaimed "freelance monotheist", goes deep but retains a conversational, commonsense approach to her vast and complex subject.

According to Armstrong, pre-industrial societies held to the notions of "mythos" and "logos".  "Logos" were practical , rational, scientific, and logical bases to run societies. "Mythos" was a concept similar to a primitive form of psychology, in which common stories, or "myths" were used to give meaning to peoples' lives. Religion was one form of mythos.  As science grew in spectacular fashion in industrial societies, myths lost their power, and those who clung to them became frightened, and needed some guiding force to comfort them or put meaning into their lives.  Their very existence was threatened until they were able to look up to leaders who assuaged their fears and created new myths.

Soon myths began to replace the rational and scientific bases for a reasonable society...and the battle rages on our political stage today.  Abortion and homosexuality are seen as just the most prominent symbols of a threatening, modern scientific existence.

I highly recommend Karen Armstrong's books, especially "Battle for God".

The rise of the Rick Perrys and the Michelle Bachmanns, by legitimizing and reinforcing the most irrational fears of the citizens who look up to them to lead them out of a world that terrifies them, is similar to the rise of religious fundamentalism. 

Perry and Bachmann and their ilk are successful because people are scared, and the way these political-religious figures exploit that fear is nothing short of demonic.  And these frightened people are also vocal, and also easily led---to the polls.  That's the most frightening of all.

Running mates?