Effort to boot unethical congressman laudable, but will it really help?

By David McElroy · November 18, 2011

Insider trading is considered such a serious offense by the federal government that it routinely prosecutes people and sends them to jail for it — unless you’re a member of Congress, in which case the rules don’t seem to apply.

Spencer Bachus is a Republican congressman from the district in Alabama where I live. I’ve met him and I have friends who know him, but I can’t say I know the man. He’s been in the news lately, but for all the wrong reasons. When CBS News’ magazine “60 Minutes” ran a story last Sunday about members of Congress who were involved in insider trading, Bachus was prominently mentioned. It appears that Bachus was taking secret information he was getting as a member of the House Committee on Financial Services and using that to trade banking stocks that he knew were about to go down in value.

Bachus says that nothing he did was illegal, but he also says he quit trading stocks late last year. I wonder why he quit doing what he was doing if it was perfectly legal and ethical.

Here in Alabama, many conservatives and Republicans are outraged about Bachus’ behavior and are calling on him to resign. About 50 or 6o conservatives gathered at Bachus’ Birmingham office Thursday to protest.

It’s a good thing that conservatives recognize that the man they’ve been supporting as their congressman is unethical and needs to go, but I have a question for them. Who do they expect to be a good replacement? If this man has been able to fool them since he was elected in 1992, what makes them think their next choice will be any better? And what makes them think that simply replacing individual pieces of a corrupt and coercive system is going to make any difference?

I understand that people are angry. I understand that they’ve been trained to believe that “getting the right person for the job” is going to solve everything. But have they ever seen any credible evidence that this is the case?

The problem isn’t the unethical people we send to be members of Congress or to run various parts of government. The problem is the system itself. Getting rid of Bachus — or even throwing out all of the incumbents and replacing them with new people — doesn’t fix the basic flaws in the system. The core issue that we give a group of people unlimited power to grant favors and do whatever they decide to do to the rest of us. Whoever we place in that position is going to become corrupt, because what we’re sending them to do is immoral in the first place. The sign here would be more accurate if you struck the word “big” and replaced it with “coercive,” but coercive government is still a criminal enterprise even if it’s small.

We tell ourselves that it’s an honor and a responsibility to be elected to high office. The truth is that we’re sending people to operate levers of a machine that enslaves and kills. In the belly of that beast, what’s a little insider trading? Every now and then, the rabble get angry and demand a sacrifice of the election gods — and someone such as Bachus is thrown overboard. But does it really change anything? Is the system any different?

It’s time to change the system. Don’t just boot a congressman. Boot the entire coercive state.

Share on Social Networks

We are ruled by the dumbest and most incompetent people among us — and we have a system which allows stupid and irresponsible people to force the costs of their idiocy onto smarter and wiser people. Can we get away with that? Yes, for quite some time. But we eventually reach a point at which the dumbest of the dumb — who are habitual liars and mentally ill fools — lead us to the disasters and destruction that some of us have seen coming for years. We are approaching that point. And yet most of the idiots around us still wave their rhetorical banners of support for the evil people who are leading us to ruin — and all of them point their fingers at someone else, never noticing that their own enthusiastic support of evil is to blame. When things finally fall apart, blame yourself for your blindness to the evil, not whoever happens to be in power when it happens.

I’ve been making some changes to the site lately and there are more changes coming in the days ahead, so don’t be surprised if you some small differences. This is not a wholesale redesign, but rather the addition of some features. Since they’re smarter than I am, I’ve put Oliver and Alex in charge of the technical work, which you can see in this action photo from the control room of our media complex. I recently added a series of landing pages for readers who randomly discover the site from an Internet search. I’ve also changed the YouTube link at the top of the page to go to the new YouTube channel for video essays that reflect things I’ve already published here. (Here’s a little bit about both of the YouTube channels I’m working on.) In addition, I’m trying to move away from using Instagram, so I’m experimenting with photo plug-ins that will eventually allow me to host the pictures — cats, dogs, sunsets, whatever — that I often take. So don’t be surprised to see more changes. Thanks for your patience. Let’s hope Alex and Oliver know what they’re doing.

I have no use for the theocratic and repressive government of Iran. The people who run the country are cruel at best and evil at worst. The Iranian people deserve freedom. But I have no personal quarrel with anybody in Iran. While I’m not thrilled about a future Iranian government having nuclear weapons, I’m just as concerned about nukes in the hands of politicians in Israel, Pakistan, India, China and Russia. I’m not even thrilled with the U.S., Britain and France having them, either, because I don’t trust any politicians to be responsible with such terrible weapons. All I can say with certainty is that American taxpayers have no business attacking Iran, especially since we’re being forced to pay for this attack in order to benefit the politicians of Israel — and nobody else. If Middle Eastern countries want to fight among themselves, that’s none of my business. It’s not the business of the U.S. government, either. I have no quarrel with anybody in Iran — and having the government which claims to represent me launch an unprovoked attack against a sovereign country will only make all Americans less safe in the near future. This attack is poorly conceived and morally unjustified. Remember that when the Iranians launch attacks that we will then condemn as “terrorism.” What the U.S. is doing right now looks like terrorism to me. And let’s not forget that the attack is the latest in a long line of unconstitutional wars by various U.S. presidents — who have no legal power to declare war on their own, according to the U.S. Constitution.

A child having a tantrum understands only one thing: Did I get my way or not? He doesn’t understand the issues involved. He doesn’t understand the reasons that went into a decision. He doesn’t understand any of the things that mature and reasonable adults have to understand in order to live healthy lives. By his reaction to the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling to strike down his disastrous tariff scheme, Donald Trump shows himself to be — once more — a screaming child having a tantrum. Outside the world of mob bosses who expect to get their way every time, normal adults don’t act this way, but Trump isn’t normal. He’s an angry and vengeful man who has narcissistic personality disorder. And we are in danger as a result. Trump doesn’t understand the legal issues involved in this ruling. He doesn’t understand economics. He doesn’t understand rule of law. He doesn’t understand that he can ever be wrong. All he understands is that he didn’t get his way. And he is now a narcissistic and raging little boy who also happens to hold life-and-death power over most humans on this planet. He’s dangerous — and the system which gives him that power is even more dangerous.

Is it an attempt to blur the gender line between men and women? Or is it some weird tribute to the traditional Scottish kilt? It’s hard to say, but fashion designers keep pushing for men to wear skirts in the last few years. Both men and women in modern fashion seem oddly androgynous, as though it would be offensive for a man to look manly or for a woman to look feminine. A CNN article about the latest fashions from Paris caught my attention Monday and left me wondering about the ugly clothes the designers are hawking. If a man wants to wear a skirt — or a kilt — that’s OK with me, but I’ll stick with a traditional dark suit with a white shirt and tie. (Well, when I’m not wearing t-shirts and sweats, of course.) I always wonder who actually buys the outlandish garb from fashion designers anyway. I would be humiliated to be seen in any of this stuff, but I obviously have no sense of high fashion.

Related Posts