I’m American, so I follow what’s happening “back home” quite a lot, including politics. I follow by reading websites (jumping off page is news.google.com), listening/watching podcasts (The Rachel Maddow Show, The Daily Show and Colbert Nation) and generally avoiding CNN.
I’ve often thought that I should listen to other competing views. Fox….well, every time I hear them say something, I just throw up (my hands) because there’s not a shred of evidence about the facts and because they are so very partisan. But, still I try and/or I see clips on other shows about what Fox said, and so it continues.
Today, I watched Morning Joe, about the severe weather and resulting traffic in NYC, and the indictment against former Governor “Ultrasound” Robert McDonnell.
And Joe said some things which sounded very disingenuous to me:
“…And then on the other side of it, you start listening to things that this company got in return, and……nothing. I mean, there’s nothing. There’s a launch party – seriously? – for a pill…..”
Well, yes, Joe. That’s something, not nothing. That’s a very big thing. How many companies get a launch party for a new product at the Governor’s Mansion? And how about the access the company got to key Government officials and agencies which was made possible by the Governor’s intervention? How about the first lady appearing at another product event and the Governor promoting the product? That’s not nothing, that’s definitely something.
He goes on….
(speaking about the Feds and the indictment) “But, going back to an old Hobbs Act [of 1946] to try to get this guy…..”
This is what really gets me. It seems like Joe’s point is: the Fed’s weren’t able to find a recent law that he broke. They had to go all the way back to 1946 to find a law he broke.
Ummmm, what?! You mean that a law’s effectiveness dissipates or disappears over time? They have expiry dates? I’m pretty sure that the law against murder was made a long time ago, but it’s still valid. The vaunted “Right to Bear Arms” was passed in the 18th Century – should we dismiss it because it’s old? (No, we should dismiss it because it addressed a situation – lawlessness, attacks from Indians and others, the lack of a police force, etc. – that is no longer present.) Laws are written to be valid from now forward, unless specifically repealed, such as Prohibition.
Joe, if you are gonna make a case as to why this indictment is erroneous or unfair or whatever, that’s fine. But, please be honest and logical in your arguments. The two above just don’t make the cut.