Michael Grunwald of the Washington Post writes Bad Neighborhood
How Cops Would Clean Up Congress's Back Rooms, in which he makes some pretty interesting statements:
Except for one bad neighborhood here in Washington. It is enduring a crime wave unparalleled in recent memory, and even though its leaders are making noises about cleaning it up, many experts remain skeptical that its culture of recidivism can be reformed. Then again, the neighborhood in question, the U.S. Congress, has always inspired skepticism.
The scandals swirling around Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff -- as well as the plea bargain by California GOP Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham on bribery charges -- have bolstered Mark Twain's hypothesis that America has no native criminal class except Congress. As new pay-for-policy allegations emerge about representatives with made-for-cartoon names like Doolittle, DeLay and Ney, conventional wisdom is congealing around the notion that Congress is what it is, and can't be changed.
But that was once conventional wisdom about New York, too. "The most important thing we've learned since the mid-'90s is that there's plenty we can do to clean up bad neighborhoods," said Northeastern University criminologist Jack Levin. It turns out that aggressive policing really can defeat an anything-goes mentality, that entrenched criminal cultures really can be reformed, that potential offenders tend not to offend when they believe their crimes will be witnessed, reported and punished. "At some point, people have to say: Enough is enough," said Carnegie Mellon University criminologist Alfred Blumstein, author of "The Crime Drop in America."
I know I'm ready to say "Enough is Enough", I know many of you are ready to say "Enough is Enough", it's the one of the many reasons VOID is becoming more talked about.
11 comments:
You know it's bad when criminologists are taking a good hard look at Congress!
Though, the way our many irresponsible incumbents have been acting lately, it's certainly fitting.
*Note to people who I've discussed VOID with in the past. We've made a necessary policy change: VOID now promotes ousting all irresponsible incumbents (and leaves it up to the voter to determine who is and is not responsible and why). All supporters can still retain the original message of voting against all incumbents, but we must make the change for legal reasons. It's just another step in our national launch of the VOID movement.
I have a feeling any list of "responsible" incumbents would be pretty darn short.
:-)
Yes, I'd certainly agree with that, but it has increased our support. That way people who are represented by McCain, for example, who appreciate his attempts at routing the corruption can still support us without feeling like they're betraying a candidate who's done his job.
Though, it's interesting to say, of all the people who've defended McCain as an example of why VOID isn't a good idea...none of them were actually represented BY McCain.
*shrugs*
Not having been involved in some of the discussions on that, it wouldn't be fair for me to judge. Yet I've found sometimes it's easier to make excuses against something rather than to consider it. Which might explain why some use McCain as an example yet are not from his state. It's a good move to take that away from the discussion so that the real issues end up being discussed.
:-)
Yeah, Dan's been monitoring the effects of the change. He also suggested it. I'll be sure to pass along your praise!
McCain's record speaks for itself:
i.e., "McCain Feingold Campaign Reform"
That's not good. It's unconstitutional...
Other than that, I'd have to agree that it's rather fun voting against the incumbents. I've been doing that for years and advocating such actions.
If they haven't made the primetime news for having elicited a significant, postive change for American and/or our communities - GONG!!!!
Hat's off to them for giving it a whirl though. Thank you for your service....
Next!
Quick shot: I'm with GTL--McCain-Feingold is enough to earn john McCain a place in at least the seventh circle of hell (isn't that where Dante placed Grafters & Swindlers?) along with all but a very few of his co-congressctiters (sounds a lot like co-conspirators, doesn't it?).
Oh, what the heck, a swipe at the culture of corruption in the Mass Media Podpeople's Army isn't out of place, either. The Abramoff scuffle is being portrayed by the MMPA as a "republican" scandal. *Pfui* Just because the dems involved are mentioned below the fold (or in inside pages or in muttered asides) it doesn't make them any less (likely to be) guilty.
Mark Twain was right (but then so was Will Rogers--}"About all I can say for the United States Senate is that it opens with a prayer and closes with an investigation." etc.)
Very funny in a wry sort of way, but all too true.
McCain's eforts have been mostly window-dressing, and he is most likely just in this for the campaign fuel, but at least he's doing SOMETHING.
I like the VOID concept, Stephanie, at least as an occasional electoral laxative. Flush 'em out once in a while.
Hey, I wasn't supporting McCain...he's just an example that's often thrown at me. Feingold is said in the same breath...which pisses me off because as a constituent of his I just can't support the man.
Anyway...
Nice wording, Mike:
"...an occasional electoral laxative."
Though, I must say (I know, I've probably said it before) that it is the position of VOID that "occasional" will not be effective in eliminating the corruption in Congress. Occasional is enough to get them to play nice for a while some times, but not enough to get them to change their ways or the system.
Personally, I think some support is better than none!
:-)
McCain's not your state anyway Stephanie so you have an instant out on that one.
:-)
Just like he's not my state either, but I do like some of the things he's tried when compared to my own Senators.
Post a Comment