Team Obama's mud slingin at Mitt Romney-a
lot of allegations and maybe ifs with no legal support are an alarming way to
run a political campaign. If Mitt Romney is indictable for something then the
administration should put up or shut up and not just toss mud all day. If it
illegal to have overseas bank accounts does that include J.P. Morgan Chase? Are smaller foreign banks safer places to stash retirement savings than too big to fail U.S. banks and minion subsidiaries? If
tax liability extends only 7 years then why should Romney provide data for
1999, 2000 or 2001? Is the Obama administration planning to set the I.R.S. records to audit everyone the past decade or two?
No one
assumes that there isn't corruption or bias in politics. The containment of
corruption is an effort of those opposed to corruption. Bill Clinton was the
President of the United States during 1999 and 2000-the years the Obama
administration seems to focus upon as possible years where Mitt Romney may have defrauded the public by wearing two
Presidential hats at once as if he were Bo Jackson while claiming more than a
decade later to have been president of just one Olympic games without any
corporate leading at that time.. For all I know the Clinton Justice Department
could have investigated if there was anything that needed looking in to. Some
did believe the Clinton administration was corrupt in some respects though. It
seems improbable that the Clintonistas would have been biased toward the future
Republican Governor of Massachusetts.
The
concept of a political 'system' is in itself interesting. The constitution
'system' of the United States was designed to enable freedom in social and
civic relations for individuals, and that system needed to evolve to explicitly
recognize the corrupting effects of slavery and non-enfranchisement, yet it
fundamentally achieved that.
The civic sector today in-itself may be
implicitly corrupted by over-networking and /or economic totalization of
opportunity within the control of elites such as the former communist party of
the Soviet Union, or by aristocrats on the right advancing through various
means such as oligarchy to plutocracy and monarchy, war and juntas with
military dictators and so forth. Dissidents to the regime regard the system as
corrupt implicitly while the powerful regard that as correct. The Obama
administration has consistently added accelerant onto the civil conflict of
Syria-helping to get it started in some respects, and the death total is now
over 15,000. Evidently the end justifies the means to the President, with the
end being the removal of the Alawite Regime and establishment of a Sunni
sectarian government with a nominal democracy.
I ought
to clarify that a little because some might willingly disinterpret the
reference objects and time literals for political advantage rhetorically
speaking.
The
abstract consideration of political 'systems' differs from any particular
political circumstance in space and time as logic pro forma differs from a
particular application of logic.
The basic
civil liberty is freedom from the encroaching, exploiting power of others
for-themselves. The Soviet system of state absolutism totally subjects
individuals to the power of others-a vary repressive social phenomenalism. The
Obamacare tracking of poor individual citizens is about as bad as the Yuk Point
N.P.R. show today on data mining and tracking of people with smart phones for
financial transactions. State authoritarian creates a dumbed down populace with
human creativity and inventiveness stifled substantially. It is a bad direction
to go in that is as silly as the relief of corporations from meaningful legal
accountability via the legal fiction that they are individuals.
That
argument is itself an example of what the disputants regard as corruption on
the opposition side when it is simply a political situation within the
constitutional context enabling it. Some regard social reality as
transcendently more real than existential, natural concerns for environmental
conservation. There is of course a substantial disingenuity in the left tactic
of attacking corporate social reality as legal individuals in that they seek
not a reform of capitalism to fit with the times that would maximize free
enterprise and social welfare but instead want to move in the aforementioned
direction of statism even of a global scale.
No comments:
Post a Comment