Ben Stein is wrong about the Eliot Spitzer saga
Ben Stein delivered a short opinion piece on Eliot Spitzer on ABC's This Week with George on 16 March 08 (apparently a copy of one on CBS) which included the text:
It is deeply scary to me that a few employees of the federal executive branch can start a train rolling that has such immense effects on the electoral process. Basically, a few career civil servants have nullified the will of the voters of the Empire State (over something clearly wrong, I don't doubt that, but it's not a political crime, not treason, not terrorism).
The problem with Ben's argument is that in the earlier vote in which Governor Spitzer was elected by an immense majority in the third most populous state. He got millions of votes THE VOTERS DID NOT KNOW ABOUT SPITZER'S INVOLVEMENT WITH PROSTITUTES. Would Spitzer have received an immense majority if the voters knew? Could Spitzer have even been nominated by the Democrats? Ben doesn't say.
Ben also observed: But let's be honest: Men hire prostitutes by the thousands, maybe tens of thousands, every day They also bring women across state lines for sex every day. If Spitzer wanted to test those waters, he was free not to resign.
Ben concluded that the impact of the Spitzer saga was "dangerous."
However, in Governor Spitzer's case, he got outed, humiliated, disgraced in front of his family, and then the voters lost the guy they voted for.
It is deeply scary to me that a few employees of the federal executive branch can start a train rolling that has such immense effects on the electoral process. Basically, a few career civil servants have nullified the will of the voters of the Empire State (over something clearly wrong, I don't doubt that, but it's not a political crime, not treason, not terrorism).
Having elected officials kicked out of office by appointed officials is a very dicey proposition. Over hiring prostitutes?
I strongly suspect that if the feds followed a hundred young male elected officials around for a year, they would find some sexual hanky panky among a lot of them, and some money or gifts changing hands often. If the feds prosecuted them all, it would basically mean that federal prosecutors have a veto over the electoral process.
That is dangerous.
***
On the subject of "truth in advertising" in electoral campaigns, IPBiz, in the post
Did campaign ads for Proposition 71 violate fair trade laws? ,
had quoted Tamra Lysaght:
Concerns regarding the hype surrounding the potential medical benefits of stem cell research and its implications for public expecations were notably absent from the public discourse prior to the passage of Prop. 71, though they were later noted by a number of scientific and institutional actors. The reasons for this phenomenon are unclear, but perhaps point to the reluctance on the part of the scientific and medical communities to openly question the value of this line of research or to critcize each other.
It's silly for Ben Stein to talk about Spitzer's immense majority, or for californiastemcellreport to talk about Proposition 71's large majority, when said majorities were obtained through deliberately withheld information, and which would not have been obtained had voters known about the withheld information.
***
A news commentator on Philly's Channel 6, and a commentator to the CBS news piece, got to another dimension of the story: hypocrisy. The CBS person wrote:
I was going to say the same thing, so I totally agree with Judi Calhoun. It's the hypocrisy, stupid, and you know who you are. I usually agree with Ben Stein's editorials(a few times he has even moved me to tears), but this time he''s way off. C''mon Ben, surely your brilliant mind couldn't have missed the obvious point!
Spitzer already had a reputation for being mean-spirited, which didn't help the glass houses dimension of this story.
***
Elliott Spitzer and Ben Stein: Spitzer is charged with violating the Mann Act because he arranged for this young woman to go from New Jersey to Washington, D.C. to have their “get-together”. Now, this woman lives in New Jersey. If they were meeting in New York previously, does this mean each time they “got together” in New YorkCity, by her leaving her home in New Jersey to meet with him in New York City, was a violation of the Mann Act?
On the Mann Act [IPBiz notes that Jack Johnson was not a bare knuckles fighter, and the Mann Act had a lot to do with Jack Johnson.]
***
Also
http://ipbiz.blogspot.com/2004/10/merck-recalls-vioxx-on-sept-30-2004.html
***
A final query, does Ben's twice-told tale constitute self-plagiarism? Did ABC have a duty to tell its "This Week" viewers that Ben's piece had already appeared on CBS?
***Another comment on the Stein piece about Spitzer -->
What a stupid article. It was the banks that reported to the IRS that something was suspect, not a fishing expedition. Somehow I don’t recall all this hand wringing when Republicans get busted.
It is deeply scary to me that a few employees of the federal executive branch can start a train rolling that has such immense effects on the electoral process. Basically, a few career civil servants have nullified the will of the voters of the Empire State (over something clearly wrong, I don't doubt that, but it's not a political crime, not treason, not terrorism).
The problem with Ben's argument is that in the earlier vote in which Governor Spitzer was elected by an immense majority in the third most populous state. He got millions of votes THE VOTERS DID NOT KNOW ABOUT SPITZER'S INVOLVEMENT WITH PROSTITUTES. Would Spitzer have received an immense majority if the voters knew? Could Spitzer have even been nominated by the Democrats? Ben doesn't say.
Ben also observed: But let's be honest: Men hire prostitutes by the thousands, maybe tens of thousands, every day They also bring women across state lines for sex every day. If Spitzer wanted to test those waters, he was free not to resign.
Ben concluded that the impact of the Spitzer saga was "dangerous."
However, in Governor Spitzer's case, he got outed, humiliated, disgraced in front of his family, and then the voters lost the guy they voted for.
It is deeply scary to me that a few employees of the federal executive branch can start a train rolling that has such immense effects on the electoral process. Basically, a few career civil servants have nullified the will of the voters of the Empire State (over something clearly wrong, I don't doubt that, but it's not a political crime, not treason, not terrorism).
Having elected officials kicked out of office by appointed officials is a very dicey proposition. Over hiring prostitutes?
I strongly suspect that if the feds followed a hundred young male elected officials around for a year, they would find some sexual hanky panky among a lot of them, and some money or gifts changing hands often. If the feds prosecuted them all, it would basically mean that federal prosecutors have a veto over the electoral process.
That is dangerous.
***
On the subject of "truth in advertising" in electoral campaigns, IPBiz, in the post
Did campaign ads for Proposition 71 violate fair trade laws? ,
had quoted Tamra Lysaght:
Concerns regarding the hype surrounding the potential medical benefits of stem cell research and its implications for public expecations were notably absent from the public discourse prior to the passage of Prop. 71, though they were later noted by a number of scientific and institutional actors. The reasons for this phenomenon are unclear, but perhaps point to the reluctance on the part of the scientific and medical communities to openly question the value of this line of research or to critcize each other.
It's silly for Ben Stein to talk about Spitzer's immense majority, or for californiastemcellreport to talk about Proposition 71's large majority, when said majorities were obtained through deliberately withheld information, and which would not have been obtained had voters known about the withheld information.
***
A news commentator on Philly's Channel 6, and a commentator to the CBS news piece, got to another dimension of the story: hypocrisy. The CBS person wrote:
I was going to say the same thing, so I totally agree with Judi Calhoun. It's the hypocrisy, stupid, and you know who you are. I usually agree with Ben Stein's editorials(a few times he has even moved me to tears), but this time he''s way off. C''mon Ben, surely your brilliant mind couldn't have missed the obvious point!
Spitzer already had a reputation for being mean-spirited, which didn't help the glass houses dimension of this story.
***
Elliott Spitzer and Ben Stein: Spitzer is charged with violating the Mann Act because he arranged for this young woman to go from New Jersey to Washington, D.C. to have their “get-together”. Now, this woman lives in New Jersey. If they were meeting in New York previously, does this mean each time they “got together” in New YorkCity, by her leaving her home in New Jersey to meet with him in New York City, was a violation of the Mann Act?
On the Mann Act [IPBiz notes that Jack Johnson was not a bare knuckles fighter, and the Mann Act had a lot to do with Jack Johnson.]
***
Also
http://ipbiz.blogspot.com/2004/10/merck-recalls-vioxx-on-sept-30-2004.html
***
A final query, does Ben's twice-told tale constitute self-plagiarism? Did ABC have a duty to tell its "This Week" viewers that Ben's piece had already appeared on CBS?
***Another comment on the Stein piece about Spitzer -->
What a stupid article. It was the banks that reported to the IRS that something was suspect, not a fishing expedition. Somehow I don’t recall all this hand wringing when Republicans get busted.
posted by Lawrence B. Ebert at 9:16 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home