SPITZER: IT'S BOOSH'S FAULT!!

ohio county wrote:

You see that, Jimmy?

Yes, but...

I'd just finished reading Andrew McCarthy's article about prosaic justice. I do appreciate the apporbation but it was not an original thought. That's why I was so empathetic to the suggestion of poetic justice. I shared it.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OWIyNjQ5YTFjNWIyYzkyYTViZjg5M2I4NzA1OWIyNmQ=

I'm sorry I didn't link this at the time.

Living by the Sword

Ron Paul, M.D.

13 March 2008

It has been said that “he who lives by the sword shall die by the sword.” And in the case of Eliot Spitzer this couldn’t be more true. In his case it’s the political sword, as his enemies rejoice in his downfall. Most people, it seems, believe he got exactly what he deserved.

The illegal tools of the state brought Spitzer down, but think of all the harm done by Spitzer in using the same tools against so many other innocent people. He practiced what could be termed “economic McCarthyism,” using illegitimate government power to build his political career on the ruined lives of others.

No matter how morally justified his comeuppance may be, his downfall demonstrates the worst of our society. The possibility of uncovering personal moral wrongdoing is never a justification for the government to spy on our every move and to participate in sting operations.

For government to entice a citizen to break a law with a sting operation – that is, engaging in activities that a private citizen is prohibited by law from doing -- is unconscionable and should clearly be illegal.

Though Spitzer used the same tools to destroy individuals charged with economic crimes that ended up being used against him, gloating over his downfall should not divert our attention from the fact that the government spying on American citizens is unworthy of a country claiming respect for liberty and the fourth amendment.

Two wrongs do not make a right. Two wrongs make it doubly wrong.

Sacrifice of our personal privacy has been ongoing for decades, but has rapidly accelerated since 9/11. Before 9/11 the unstated goal of collecting revenue was the real reason for the erosion of our financial privacy. When nineteen suicidal maniacs attacked us on 9/11, our country became convinced that further sacrifice of personal and financial privacy was required for our security.

The driving force behind this ongoing sacrifice of our privacy has been fear and the emotional effect of war rhetoric – war on drugs, war against terrorism, and the war against third world nations in the Middle East who are claimed to be the equivalent to Hitler and Nazi Germany.

But the real reason for all this surveillance is to build the power of the state. It arises from a virulent dislike of free people running their own lives and spending their own money. Statists always demand control of the people and their money.

Recently we’ve been told that this increase in the already intolerable invasion of our privacy was justified because the purpose was to apprehend terrorists. We were told that the massive amounts of information being collected on Americans would only be used to root out terrorists. But as we can see today, this monitoring of private activities can also be used for political reasons. We should always be concerned when the government accumulates information on innocent citizens.

Spitzer was brought down because he legally withdrew cash from a bank – not because he committed a crime. This should prompt us to reassess and hopefully reverse this trend of pervasive government intrusion in our private lives.

We need no more Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act!

No more Violent Radicalization & Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Acts!

No more torture!

No more Military Commissions Act!

No more secret prisons and extraordinary rendition!

No more abuse of habeas corpus!

No more PATRIOT Acts!

What we need is more government transparency and more privacy for the individual!

ziggy wrote:

Stephanie wrote:OK what really got me was the wife. Why is it when a political figure screws around on his wife, he always posts the long suffering wife by his side for his news conference? Spitzer hauled her out, but didn't look at her, didn't mention her, nada.

Rent a pro buy a disease. OMG if that were my husband I'd have smacked him upside the head and told him he was on his own.

Ms. Ziggy and I had a discussion about this last night- after we had watched his resignation announcement about a dozen times. I mentioned that she (Ms. Spitzer) had about the most sad looking female demeanor I had ever seen. But Ms. Ziggy said that those wives probably demand it- that such a wounded wife of a public figure would demand to be there to (1) let the world see the face of the real victim, and (2) to make him apologize to her just as publicly as he does to the public at large.

Thinking about it, I have decided that she may be onto something. If I were standing there to make such a public acknowledgement, Ms. Ziggy would be the last person I'd want standing there beside me. It, having to stand there beside her while make such an admission, would be the ultimate humiliation for me.

Stephanie wrote:You know, I've been mulling this over since you've posted it.

TRENTON, N.J. — A former aide to ex-Gov. Jim McGreevey claims he had sexual trysts with McGreevey and his estranged wife before the governor took office.

Theodore Pedersen, McGreevey's former driver and traveling aide, detailed multiple trysts in interviews Sunday with The Star-Ledger of Newark and New York Post. He disputes claims by Dina Matos McGreevey that she did not know about her husband's homosexuality when she married him in October 2000.

In her book, "Silent Partner," Matos McGreevey says she missed the signs that her husband preferred men. She says she didn't learn of his homosexuality until shortly before he announced to the nation that he was "a gay American" and would resign.

Pedersen, a 29-year-old real estate developer, told the newspapers that the threesomes started in 1999 while McGreevey was mayor of Woodbridge and McGreevey and Dina were dating. He said they stopped when McGreevey was elected governor in 2001.

He said he only had contact with Matos McGreevey during the trysts, and wasn't sure whether McGreevey was gay.

"In hindsight, there might have been light interest (in me)," Pedersen told The Ledger, "but it didn't seem like he was gay. It did enhance their sexual relationship having me be a part of it."

Pedersen's name surfaced recently as part of the McGreeveys' contentious divorce proceedings, with Matos McGreevey asking whether Pedersen's trip to China last summer, in which he accompanied McGreevey and his boyfriend, Mark O'Donnell, was paid for out of a bank account the former governor and his partner share.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,338311,00.html