Blagojevich Sentenced to 14 Years
The convicted former governor of Illinois was finally sentenced - 14 years. On the one hand, we can say that justice has been served. The system worked. On the other hand, since I really didn't follow the trial, I don't really know that. But let's assume for a moment that the system did work.
Two points struck me, however. One, that he traded a senate seat for cash. As governor, he was in a position to appoint someone to a vacated senate seat. He auctioned the thing off - a senate seat.
Even if others haven't done this, isn't it outrageous that he even thought he could? When I speak to people who don't quite get how corrupt things have gotten, maybe this will help them get the point. Let's hope it does, and let's hope that leads to people voting responsibly - for people who aren't using their positions to line their pockets.
The other point that struck me was the comment of Blagojevich's attorney after the sentencing. Here's what he said:
“There are sides to him that are not criminal, that are good, that are decent” defense lawyer Aaron Goldstein told the court yesterday, citing initiatives by Blagojevich to create a children’s health insurance program and give free public transit rides to people age 65 and older."
This is an attorney talking - someone who should understand the meaning of justice. The point of the trial was for justice to be served, not to evaluate the former governor's soul.
But that's not really what struck me most. What really struck me was the example that the attorney gives to show what a "good" guy Blagojevich is: initiatives by Blagojevich to create a children’s health insurance program and give free public transit rides to people age 65 and older.
Let's skip the children's health insurance program. We'll assume it's not some sort of boon-doggle (probably a stretch). But how does giving free public transit rides to people age 65 and older make him "good"? Notice, it doesn't say poor seniors. It's just people age 65. Are all people age 65 poor? Are most people age 65 in need of free public transportation?
I don't know. What I do know is that this age group votes. Do you think that had anything to do with the "initiative"?
Is this all the attorney can find "good" in his client?
When you see politicians proposing these sorts of "good" initiatives, remember it costs them nothing. They're using our money. And typically, they benefit by betting votes. So it serves them personally and - on rare occasions - benefits others. The benefit, though, frequently is simply incidental to the vote-getting.
Cynical? I don't think so. And all this still goes on in the midst of the biggest economic and financial crisis or our lifetimes.
Two points struck me, however. One, that he traded a senate seat for cash. As governor, he was in a position to appoint someone to a vacated senate seat. He auctioned the thing off - a senate seat.
Even if others haven't done this, isn't it outrageous that he even thought he could? When I speak to people who don't quite get how corrupt things have gotten, maybe this will help them get the point. Let's hope it does, and let's hope that leads to people voting responsibly - for people who aren't using their positions to line their pockets.
The other point that struck me was the comment of Blagojevich's attorney after the sentencing. Here's what he said:
“There are sides to him that are not criminal, that are good, that are decent” defense lawyer Aaron Goldstein told the court yesterday, citing initiatives by Blagojevich to create a children’s health insurance program and give free public transit rides to people age 65 and older."
This is an attorney talking - someone who should understand the meaning of justice. The point of the trial was for justice to be served, not to evaluate the former governor's soul.
But that's not really what struck me most. What really struck me was the example that the attorney gives to show what a "good" guy Blagojevich is: initiatives by Blagojevich to create a children’s health insurance program and give free public transit rides to people age 65 and older.
Let's skip the children's health insurance program. We'll assume it's not some sort of boon-doggle (probably a stretch). But how does giving free public transit rides to people age 65 and older make him "good"? Notice, it doesn't say poor seniors. It's just people age 65. Are all people age 65 poor? Are most people age 65 in need of free public transportation?
I don't know. What I do know is that this age group votes. Do you think that had anything to do with the "initiative"?
Is this all the attorney can find "good" in his client?
When you see politicians proposing these sorts of "good" initiatives, remember it costs them nothing. They're using our money. And typically, they benefit by betting votes. So it serves them personally and - on rare occasions - benefits others. The benefit, though, frequently is simply incidental to the vote-getting.
Cynical? I don't think so. And all this still goes on in the midst of the biggest economic and financial crisis or our lifetimes.
Comments