rare politics post
Bush Homeland Security Nominee Kerik Withdraws
I don't personally give a whiff over Kerik. I have serious doubts about the purpose and necessity of the Holedamn, I mean Homeland, Security Department, since their most frequent public acts seem to have been increased airport screening (and subsequent increased sexual harassment suits) and a color-coded threat system (which just makes me think "Today's terrorist threat level is brought to you by the letter 'B'"). But that's not what this is about.
The article gives three problems with Kerik which seem to be fairly standard political problems, and it's very clear that the political world is concerned about one but not the other two. The one they're concerned about, and the one he withdrew his nomination over: he hired a nanny and a babysitter, both possibly illegal immigrants, and paid them under the table. Those other two, the one where he used members of his police force to research his autobiography and the one where he was on the board of the Taser corporation while making a push for more use of the devices in police forces, those he can "tough out", in the words of Rudy Giuliani.
Does anybody else have a problem with this? Demeaning, grossly inappropriate use of people who have important jobs who you're supposed to be managing; that's considered okay. White-collar corruption, well, it seems like we assume by default that politicians will try to get some money back for theirr political favors. But, if somebody slips $50 a month cash to his housekeeper and $100 a week to his babysitter, people who are just trying to get their feet under them in the world, well, let's call this an egregious enough offense that we'll make sure the guy who committed such an atrocious crime isn't put in charge of the Department of Homeland Security.
Words are failing me. Too early in the morning. Must switch to robot analytical mode. There are two reasons why this is inappropriate. First, it's unfair to him. It's a pretty minor, pretty common thing. You move into a new neighborhood. You've got some kids, nice big new house. You're chatting with your neighbor, saying, "The missus wants to go back to work, but I gotta put my foot down, 'cause somebody's gotta take care of dem kids, and keep my big ol' house clean." Neighbor says "Man, I got these housecleaners, come through every Thursday afternoon, clean the whole place in 3 hours and don't charge too much. Give them a call." "Yeah, but what 'bout the kids?" "I'm single, so I dunno, but I think the Townsends on the corner scoped out the local babysitting scene." Problems solved, all with the most normal, natural of methods. Bam, now you're no longer eligible for a major public office.
Second, it's unfair to the citizens of the United States. We're looking for someone to head what I'm sure the administration would consider to be the most important department in the entire government. Supposing that the Homeland Security Department actually did have a significant impact on whether or not the US remained safe from a terrorist attack, we'd want absolutely the best possible person to head the department up. I don't know if this Kerik guy was the best, and the political processes that choose department heads give me grave doubts, but supposing he was at least a great guy for the job, letting something like this get in the way of that is ridiculous. I suppose one could argue that it's a litmus test. May I respond by laughing until my sides hurt? He hired a nanny, for crying out loud. Now if one wanted to make the autobiography research incident or the Taser board incident litmus tests, that would be fine with me. But these, the political machine sweeps under the rug.
I think I'm going to move to a little town somewhere and stop reading the news. Ever. I think I'd be happier.
I don't personally give a whiff over Kerik. I have serious doubts about the purpose and necessity of the Holedamn, I mean Homeland, Security Department, since their most frequent public acts seem to have been increased airport screening (and subsequent increased sexual harassment suits) and a color-coded threat system (which just makes me think "Today's terrorist threat level is brought to you by the letter 'B'"). But that's not what this is about.
The article gives three problems with Kerik which seem to be fairly standard political problems, and it's very clear that the political world is concerned about one but not the other two. The one they're concerned about, and the one he withdrew his nomination over: he hired a nanny and a babysitter, both possibly illegal immigrants, and paid them under the table. Those other two, the one where he used members of his police force to research his autobiography and the one where he was on the board of the Taser corporation while making a push for more use of the devices in police forces, those he can "tough out", in the words of Rudy Giuliani.
Does anybody else have a problem with this? Demeaning, grossly inappropriate use of people who have important jobs who you're supposed to be managing; that's considered okay. White-collar corruption, well, it seems like we assume by default that politicians will try to get some money back for theirr political favors. But, if somebody slips $50 a month cash to his housekeeper and $100 a week to his babysitter, people who are just trying to get their feet under them in the world, well, let's call this an egregious enough offense that we'll make sure the guy who committed such an atrocious crime isn't put in charge of the Department of Homeland Security.
Words are failing me. Too early in the morning. Must switch to robot analytical mode. There are two reasons why this is inappropriate. First, it's unfair to him. It's a pretty minor, pretty common thing. You move into a new neighborhood. You've got some kids, nice big new house. You're chatting with your neighbor, saying, "The missus wants to go back to work, but I gotta put my foot down, 'cause somebody's gotta take care of dem kids, and keep my big ol' house clean." Neighbor says "Man, I got these housecleaners, come through every Thursday afternoon, clean the whole place in 3 hours and don't charge too much. Give them a call." "Yeah, but what 'bout the kids?" "I'm single, so I dunno, but I think the Townsends on the corner scoped out the local babysitting scene." Problems solved, all with the most normal, natural of methods. Bam, now you're no longer eligible for a major public office.
Second, it's unfair to the citizens of the United States. We're looking for someone to head what I'm sure the administration would consider to be the most important department in the entire government. Supposing that the Homeland Security Department actually did have a significant impact on whether or not the US remained safe from a terrorist attack, we'd want absolutely the best possible person to head the department up. I don't know if this Kerik guy was the best, and the political processes that choose department heads give me grave doubts, but supposing he was at least a great guy for the job, letting something like this get in the way of that is ridiculous. I suppose one could argue that it's a litmus test. May I respond by laughing until my sides hurt? He hired a nanny, for crying out loud. Now if one wanted to make the autobiography research incident or the Taser board incident litmus tests, that would be fine with me. But these, the political machine sweeps under the rug.
I think I'm going to move to a little town somewhere and stop reading the news. Ever. I think I'd be happier.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home