Edwards trial and big picture
Jun. 1st, 2012 10:09 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
veronica_richEight years ago, I voted for John Edwards - well, I voted for John Kerry, but Edwards was his VP candidate on the ticket, too. I liked some of his ideas, how he was one of the first to point out "the two Americas" and bring attention to the disparities in human services and distribution of opportunity in this country, and I liked that he didn't start out rich. (I'm also one of the few people who understands while you should never trust a lawyer too far, they're not usually evil bastards with no soul - I worked for a criminal defense lawyer for several years, knew others through him, and found they were basically decent people trying to make a living who largely believed even if a person HAD committed a crime, the justice system still needed to observe rules in treating them a certain way; trust me, they didn't like some of their clients any more than you or I would. And some of them even had lines - the one I worked for wouldn't take rape cases).
Yesterday, Edwards got off of federal charges of criminal use of campaign funds, on jury indecision and technicalities. Was this right? I don't know all the details, so I'm not going to tell you. I can say I don't think any conviction, had it happened, should have been based on his personal behavior involving his now-dead wife, mistress, and child - a low-down dirty dog he might be, but if there was campaign malfeasance, THAT'S what needed to be proven. (And I'm not saying there wasn't, just because it wasn't proven beyond reasonable doubt or convicted. Remember O.J. Simpson, y'all ...) For this reason alone, though, I know there are going to be people angry he didn't get his "just deserts." They're sure entitled to be angry with him personally, as am I. Possibly even on campaign finance law.
But what I want to know is, are these same people just as upset that there are war criminals still on the loose who were in charge of our country for the first several years of this century, who've never been charged or tried - one of whom got his portrait hung up in the White House yesterday? It's just a thought I had early this morning while driving to work.
Yesterday, Edwards got off of federal charges of criminal use of campaign funds, on jury indecision and technicalities. Was this right? I don't know all the details, so I'm not going to tell you. I can say I don't think any conviction, had it happened, should have been based on his personal behavior involving his now-dead wife, mistress, and child - a low-down dirty dog he might be, but if there was campaign malfeasance, THAT'S what needed to be proven. (And I'm not saying there wasn't, just because it wasn't proven beyond reasonable doubt or convicted. Remember O.J. Simpson, y'all ...) For this reason alone, though, I know there are going to be people angry he didn't get his "just deserts." They're sure entitled to be angry with him personally, as am I. Possibly even on campaign finance law.
But what I want to know is, are these same people just as upset that there are war criminals still on the loose who were in charge of our country for the first several years of this century, who've never been charged or tried - one of whom got his portrait hung up in the White House yesterday? It's just a thought I had early this morning while driving to work.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2012-06-01 09:43 pm (UTC)The GOP is going down, and they've only themselves to blame. They cared more about grabbing the White House and Congress and marshaling the assets of corporate America on the backs of things like blowjobs and making sure we all were forced to agree that God approved of our massive military invasions over 19 assholes with four planes and their boss (who they happily helped fund years earlier, BTW), than in compromising on making laws and overseeing basic government functions we actually NEEDED. I remember the 80s; I'm not saying they were halcyon days, and there's a lot Reagan & Co. did that I disapprove of, but there was sure more compromise and moderate speech and give-and-take between the two parties then there is now, and you cannot blame Democrats equally for that loss - maybe some of it, but not even 50 percent, IMO. (Again, keep in mind I'm not Democrat, and I identify as Independent for a reason.)
Good lord, I didn't even address half of what you said, and I went off on tangents on things you didn't say, LOL. Diarrhea of the fingers. I guess you can say I mostly don't disagree, if I didn't bring up something. And, don't think I'm necessarily saying "because I'm saying this, I think you think the opposite" on something, because I'm just following my own thought trains, not just what you wrote.
As for the language thing, I DO think we need to make allowance for new immigrants and those who have a hard time learning the language (I for one am shit at learning new languages). But I'm also one of those who thinks even though we have no official language, we overwhelmingly speak English in this country, and a nation DOES need one central language that everybody eventually learns some basic communication in, in order to function more peacefully, so maybe we should make it official. Surely we can do this without destroying an immigrant's culture that they want to keep with them in some ways (though I am mindful that when we say "American" what we really mean is "old white European" for the most part - and I'm not sure that's always right). As you say, nobody should come here, or move at all, if they're not prepared to adjust in some part to the place they're going to.