Ed,
It's time to step down from your pulpit and take your medications.
 
Rummy
 
 
In a message dated 9/17/2008 9:27:18 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
ekroposki at charter.net writes:


Because some forms of cheating or stealing are within current law  does not
make them right using traditional norms of right and wrong.   Because Jamie
Garrelick and others were a members of the Clinton  Administration and used
their influence after they left office does not  make it right to be paid 75
million dollars.  

There is right  and wrong when public funds are invoved.  The boards of  these
organizations were controlled or influenced by those in public  office.  I
believe a good case should be made against all of them from  criminal
charges, but just to get the issues public, go for 'Unjust  Enrichment' or
something.  Put real sunshine on the issues and  people.

That is not Marxist, but right or wrong.

So, then you  think it is right for insiders to make millions and not be
subject to  scrutiny?  I think the president should pardon Eliot Spitzer  for
sexual escapades and appoint him special prosecutor [as long as his  wife has
him on a leash].  Put him where he has a sucessful track  record.  Imagine
that!

Ed K
Greenville, SC,  USA


R22MikeW wrote:

> 
> Ed,
> 
> You want  to sue "unjust enrichment"?  That seems to smack of a Marxist 
>  viewpoint.  I am shocked!
> 
> Mike
> s/v Shanghaid'd  Summer ('81)
>        Nissequogue River, NY
>  
> 
> From: "Tootle" <ekroposki at charter.net>Sent: Wednesday,  September 17, 2008 
> 8:49 AM
>>
>> Ben referencec the  following article alledging it was written by a
>> conservative and  'Bill Buckley protege.'
>>
>>
>>  http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/16/opinion/16brooks.html?hp
>>
>>  What is a conservative?  To Ben C., from his rigid and blindfolded view,  
>> it
>> is one thing.  He keeps referencing a group  of people as 'the
>> anti-intellectual wackos and fundamentalist nut  cases', as if his 
>> viewpoint
>> was  perfect.
>>
>> I am reserving the comment to define  conservative, neo-conservative, but
>> I
>> am responding to  his reference to David Brooks' and the New York Times.
>> When you  move from the northeast corner of the USA you find Americans who
>>  believe that "all the news that is fit to print" is not now nor has been  
>> for
>> several decades an accurate description of the  New York Times.  The
>> people
>> who write for the New  York Times are MSM, ‘Main Stream Media’.  David 
>>  Brooks
>> is MSM.
>>
>> This type of person is like  Chris Matthews who gets tingles up his leg 
>> over
>>  Obama.  Chris Matthews has in the past made demeaning and  derogatory
>> comments about people willing to do menial jobs.   These people have
>> developed a holier than thou attitude.  The  come across as saying that 
>> their
>> opinion is more  right than others.  So, for the rest of us, those that 
>>  quote
>> them as authorities of correct opinions must be viewed as  fellow 
>> travelers.
>>
>> David Brooks said, “If  you wanted someone to destroy a corrupt
>> establishment, she’d be  your woman.”  While the rest of the article
>>  bashed
>> her and her supporters, this quote is what many of us  want.  We want 
>> someone
>> to make a real effort to  reduce and find corruption and wrong doing.
>>
>>  Furthermore, we want to reduce those who use legal methods to fill  their
>> pockets.  This is illustrated in the Fannie May and  Freddie Mack issue.
>> There are many who made millions of dollars  using legal methods
>> associated
>> with these  institutions.  They made these monies by acting as
>>  consultants,
>> lobbyists, lawyers, etc. for these  institutions.  The monies paid these
>> people exceed reasonable  compensation to most Americans.
>>
>> Because something is  legal does not make it right.  These people should
>>  be
>> sued for ‘unjust enrichment’ if nothing they did was  illegal.  Maybe 
such 
>> a
>> law suit would not win,  but their activities and methods would become
>> more
>>  public.  They would be exposed to ‘Sunshine’.
>>
>> The  argument is offered that both Democrats and Republicans are  involved.
>> So what?  Expose the truth about all of them.   I guess lawyers like Ben 
>> C.,
>> would find employment  defending their actions.  I would prefer that they 
>>  be
>> placed on public exhibition in from of the courthouse is a  cage.
>>
>> Again, because something is legal does not make  it right.  “Making right
>> choices in gray areas is  difficult.  To be aware of the dilemma is not
>>  enough.   There needs to be a moral sensitivity which remembers to  ask
>> the
>> right questions at the right time.  To  know what is good is not enough?
>> There is a difference between  waking up and getting up. There must be
>> specific decision for the  right.  To be sensitive and aware is good.  To
>> make  proper decisions is better.  The way of victory is to maintain a  
>> moral
>> stamina which continues.”    Paraphrase of Bryan Crenshaw
>>
>> Ed K
>>  Greenville, SC, USA
>>
>>
>> Ben Cittadino  wrote:
>>>
>>>  http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/16/opinion/16brooks.html?hp
>>>
>>>  What is a conservative?  To Ben C., from his ridgid and blind folded  
>>> view,
>>> it is one thing.  He keeps  referencing a group of people as 'the
>>> anti-intellectual wackos  and fundamentalist nut cases', as if his
>>> viewpoint was  perfect.
>>>
>>> I am reserving the comment to define  conservative, neo-conservative, but 
>>> I
>>> am  responding to his reference to David Brooks' and the New York  Times.
>>> When you move from the northeast corner of the USA you  find Americans
>>> who
>>> believe that "all the news  that is fit to print" is not now nor has been
>>> for several  decades a accurate description of the New York Times.   The
>>> people who write for the New York Times are MSM, Main  Stream Media.
>>>
>>> This type of person is like  Chris Matthews who gets tingles up his leg
>>> over Obama.   Chris Matthews has in the past made demeaning and
>>>  derogatory
>>> comments about people willing to do menial  jobs.
>>>
>>> Robert;
>>>
>>>  The above link is to today's NY Times column by David Brooks, who  you
>>> may
>>> recognize as the William F. Buckley  protege' and conservative 
>>> commentator.
>>> It  concisely sets out the problem with Palin that those of us who
>>>  represent the dying breed of "Rockefeller Republicans" (the  political
>>> philosophy of your Susan Collins and Olympia Snow)  have.
>>>
>>> As the Party falls away to the  anti-intellectual wackos and 
>>> fundamentalist
>>>  nut cases (and they know who they are) we can only hope that  the
>>> overwhelming support of the new politics of hope among the  youth (under
>>> 40) folks will bode better for the  future.
>>>
>>> Even though I hail from the Great  State of New Jersey, home of John
>>> Basilone (hero of  Guadalcanal), I still consider the greatest American
>>> hero to  have been Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain (teacher, Governor, and 
>>>  hero
>>> of the 20th Maine).
>>>
>>> Fair  winds and following seas.
>>>
>>> Ben C. , s/v Susan  Kay. Highlands, NJ
>>>
>>> Robert Skinner  wrote:
>>>>
>>>>  Ed,
>>>>
>>>> Since you persist in making snide  comments about the great
>>>> state of Maine, this is to let  you know that you have real
>>>> opposition in Maine -- perhaps  neither as bombastic,
>>>> prevaricative, nor monomaniacal as  you might find among
>>>> your neocon fellow traveler comrade  dittoheads, but at
>>>> least equally valid  [understatement].  As a professional
>>>> musician once  reminded me, volume is no substitute for
>>>> quality.   And, by the way, repetition is no substitute for
>>>>  logic.
>>>>
>>>> I, for one, am paying attention  to the issues, primarily
>>>> the gone-to-hell-in-a-handbasket  state of the nation while
>>>> in the care (using the term  loosely) of the Grumpy Old
>>>> Patriarchs, and the fact that a  good house-cleaning could
>>>> not produce any worse  results.  As I see it, any group
>>>> of teen-age mutant  turtles could do better and cost a hell
>>>> of a lot  less.
>>>>
>>>> It doesn't make a lot of  difference who is the master of
>>>> the ship of state when it  is on the rocks.  The question
>>>> is who can get it off  in one piece.
>>>>
>>>> OK, now that I've had my  turn, you can have the soap-box
>>>> back, Ed.  Please  clean up after you are done, and put
>>>> the seat  down.
>>>>
>>>>  /Robert
>>>>
>>>>  ------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>  http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/
>>>> Wednesday 10  September 2008
>>>>   by: Andrew Sullivan, The  Atlantic
>>>>
>>>> Editor's Note: Historically a  John McCain supporter, conservative
>>>>  journalist
>>>> and blogger Andrew Sullivan takes on the issue  of John McCain's 
>>>> integrity
>>>>  as
>>>> he strives to win the presidency. -  vh/TO
>>>>
>>>>       For  me, this surreal moment - like the entire surrealism of  the
>>>> past
>>>> ten days - is not really  about Sarah Palin or Barack Obama or pigs or
>>>>  fish
>>>> or lipstick. It's about John McCain. The one thing I  always thought I
>>>> knew
>>>> about him is  that he is a decent and honest person. When he knows, as
>>>>  every
>>>> sane person must, that Obama did not in any  conceivable sense mean that
>>>> Sarah Palin is a pig, what did  he do? Did he come out and say so and
>>>>  end
>>>> this charade? Or did he acquiesce in and thereby  enable the mindless
>>>> Rovianism that is now the core feature  of his campaign?
>>>>       So far, he has  let us all down. My guess is he will continue to
>>>>  do
>>>> so.
>>>> And that decision, for my part,  ends whatever respect I once had for 
>>>>  him.
>>>> On
>>>> core moral issues, where this  man knew what the right thing was, and
>>>>  had
>>>> to
>>>> pick between good and evil, he  chose evil. When he knew that George W.
>>>> Bush's war in Iraq  was a fiasco and catastrophe, and before Donald
>>>>  Rumsfeld
>>>> quit, McCain endorsed George W. Bush against his  fellow Vietnam vet, 
>>>> John
>>>> Kerry in  2004. By that decision, McCain lost any credibility that  he
>>>> can
>>>> ever put country first. He put  party first and his own career first 
>>>>  ahead
>>>> of
>>>> what he knew was best for the  country.
>>>>       And when the Senate and  House voted overwhelmingly to condemn and
>>>>  end
>>>> the torture regime of Bush and Cheney in 2006, McCain  again had a clear
>>>> choice between good and evil, and chose  evil.
>>>>       He capitulated and  enshrined torture as the policy of the United
>>>> States, by  allowing the CIA to use techniques as bad as and worse  than
>>>> the
>>>> torture inflicted on him in  Vietnam. He gave the war criminals in the
>>>>  White
>>>> House retroactive immunity against the prosecution  they so richly
>>>> deserve.
>>>> The enormity  of this moral betrayal, this betrayal of his country's
>>>>  honor,
>>>> has yet to sink in. But for my part, it now makes  much more sense. He
>>>> is
>>>>  not
>>>> the man I thought he was.
>>>>   And when he had the chance to engage in a real and  substantive
>>>> debate
>>>> against the most  talented politician of the next generation in a fall
>>>>  campaign where vital issues are at stake, what did McCain do? He  began
>>>> his
>>>> general campaign with a  series of grotesque, trivial and absurd 
>>>>  MTV-style
>>>> attacks on Obama's virtues and implied  disgusting things about his
>>>> opponent's  patriotism.
>>>>       And then, because he  could see he was going to lose, ten days
>>>>  ago,
>>>> he
>>>> threw caution to the wind and  with no vetting whatsoever, picked a
>>>>  woman
>>>> who, by her decision to endure her own eight-month  pregnancy of a Down
>>>> Syndrome child in public, that he was  going to reignite the culture war
>>>> as a
>>>>  last stand against Obama. That's all that is happening right now:  a
>>>> massive
>>>> bump in the enthusiasm of  the Christianist base. This is pure Rove.
>>>>     Yes, McCain made a decision that revealed many appalling  things
>>>> about
>>>> him. In the end, his  final concern is not national security. No one who
>>>> cares  about national security would pick as vice-president someone  who
>>>> knows
>>>> nothing about it as his  replacement. No one who cares about this
>>>>  country's
>>>> safety would gamble the security of the world on  a total unknown
>>>> because
>>>>  she
>>>> polled well with the Christianist base. No person who  truly believed 
>>>> that
>>>> the surge was  integral to this country's national security would pick
>>>>  as
>>>> his
>>>> veep candidate a woman who, so  far as we can tell anything, opposed it 
>>>>  at
>>>> the time.
>>>>        McCain has demonstrated in the last two months that he does  not
>>>> have
>>>> the character to be president  of the United States. And that is why it 
>>>>  is
>>>> more important than ever to ensure that Barack Obama is  the next
>>>> president.
>>>> The alternative is  now unthinkable. And McCain - no one else - has 
>>>>  proved
>>>>  it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews/1156080,091008ebertpalin.article
>>>>
>>>>  Roger Ebert on Sarah Palin: The American Idol  candidate
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  September 11, 2008
>>>>
>>>> BY ROGER EBERT  Sun-Times Movie Critic [How  appropriate!]
>>>>
>>>> I think I might be able  to explain some of Sarah Palin's appeal. She's
>>>>  the
>>>> 'American Idol' candidate. Consider. What defines an  'American Idol'
>>>> finalist? They're good-looking, work well  on television, have a sunny
>>>> personality, are fierce  competitors, and so talented, why, they're 
>>>>  darned
>>>> near the real thing. There's a reason 'American  Idol' gets such high
>>>> ratings. People identify with the  contestants. They think, Hey, that
>>>>  could
>>>> be me up there on that  show!
>>>>
>>>> My problem is, I don't want to  be up there. I don't want a vice 
>>>>  president
>>>> who is darned near good enough. I want a vice  president who is better,
>>>> wiser, well-traveled, has met  world leaders, who three months ago had
>>>>  an
>>>> opinion on Iraq. Someone who doesn't repeat bald- faced  lies about
>>>> earmarks
>>>> and the Bridge to  Nowhere. Someone who doesn't appoint Alaskan
>>>>  politicians
>>>> to 'study' global warming, because, hello! It  has been studied. The
>>>> returns
>>>> are  convincing enough that John McCain and Barack Obama are darned  near
>>>> in
>>>>  agreement.
>>>>
>>>> I would also want someone  who didn't make a teeny little sneer when
>>>> referring to  'people who go to the Ivy League.' When I was a teen I
>>>>  dreamed
>>>> of going to Harvard, but my dad, an electrician,  told me, 'Boy, we
>>>> don't
>>>> have the  money. Thank your lucky stars you were born in Urbana and can  
>>>> go
>>>> to
>>>> the  University of Illinois right here in town.' So I did, very  happily.
>>>> Although Palin gets laughs when she mentions the  'elite' Ivy League,
>>>> she
>>>> sure did  attend the heck out of college.
>>>>
>>>> Five  different schools in six years. What was that  about?
>>>>
>>>> And how can a politician her  age have never have gone to Europe? My dad
>>>>  had
>>>> died, my mom was working as a book-keeper and I had a  job at the local
>>>> newspaper when, at 19, I scraped together  $240 for a charter flight to
>>>> Europe. I had Arthur  Frommer's $5 a Day under my arm, started in
>>>>  London,
>>>> even rented a Vespa and drove in the traffic of  Rome. A few years
>>>> later,
>>>>  I
>>>> was able to send my mom, along with the $15 a Day  book.
>>>>
>>>> You don't need to be a  pointy-headed elitist to travel abroad. You need
>>>> curiosity  and a hunger to see the world. What kind of a person (who  has
>>>> the
>>>> money) arrives at the age of  44 and has only been out of the country
>>>>  once,
>>>> on an official tour to Iraq? Sarah Palin's travel  record is that of a
>>>> provincial, not someone who is  equipped to deal with global issues.
>>>>
>>>>  But some people like that. She's never traveled to Europe,  Asia,
>>>> Africa,
>>>> South America or Down  Under? That makes her like them. She didn't go to
>>>> Harvard?  Good for her! There a lot of hockey moms who haven't seen
>>>>  London,
>>>> but most of them would probably love to, if they  had the dough. And
>>>> they'd
>>>> be proud if  one of their kids won a scholarship to  Harvard.
>>>>
>>>> I trust the American people  will see through Palin, and save the 
>>>>  Republic
>>>> in
>>>> November. The most damning  indictment against her is that she
>>>>  considered
>>>> herself a good choice to be a heartbeat away.  That shows bad judgment.
>>>>
>>>>  __________________________________________________
>>>> To  subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing list go  to
>>>> http://www.rhodes22.org/list
>>>>  __________________________________________________
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>  -- 
>> View this message in context: 
>>  
http://www.nabble.com/For-Ed%2C-from-Maine---political-tp19503919p19531396.html
>>  Sent from the Rhodes 22 mailing list archive at  Nabble.com.
>>
>>
>>  __________________________________________________
>> To  subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing list go to  
>> http://www.rhodes22.org/list
>>  __________________________________________________
>> 
>  
> __________________________________________________
> To  subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing list go to
>  http://www.rhodes22.org/list
>  __________________________________________________
> 
> 

--  
View this message in context:  
http://www.nabble.com/For-Ed%2C-from-Maine---political-tp19503919p19532119.html
Sent  from the Rhodes 22 mailing list archive at  Nabble.com.


__________________________________________________
To  subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing list go to  
http://www.rhodes22.org/list
__________________________________________________





**************Psssst...Have you heard the news? There's a new fashion blog, 
plus the latest fall trends and hair styles at StyleList.com.      
(http://www.stylelist.com/trends?ncid=aolsty00050000000014)