Flutterby™! : Senator's self-interest 2009-08-21 15:34:41.080081+00

Senator's self-interest

2009-08-21 15:34:41.080081+00 by Dan Lyke 8 comments

Politicians are primarily interested in re-election, which means their interests aren't aligned with those of the electorate. Via RC3, using Matthew Yglesias' observations.

And the misalignment of Senators' self interest by the availability of massive amounts of money in bribes (a.k.a. "campaign contributions" snicker) is something that won't get fixed without somehow drying up the bribes. The likelihood that that will happen???

In business, the misalignment between executives' self interest and that of the share holders is called "agency cost", and can get pretty pricey, as when executives destroy a company (Bear Stearns, e.g.) by serving their own interests.

#Comment Re: made: 2009-08-24 01:10:47.352674+00 by: ziffle [edit history]

Rand Paul is running for Senator from Kentucky. Please log on to http://randpaul2010.com and make a contribution. Here is one guy that will not be compromised!

Instead of fixed term limits (two terms seems plenty for a Senator), maybe senators should need an increasing margin to get re-elected. Like 60% for first re-election, 70% for second, etc. You'd have to be damned well liked to continue in office for very long.

And I've always held that Congressional Representation should be handled like jury duty. Instead of re-electing the same bunch of dweebs every 2 years, why not draw from the electorate at random.

If your really want to read some recent (Aug09) testimony on so called "self interest" of Congress critters, fixating in the sense that sniffing bilious gangrene exudates is focusing, there is video and transcript of Sibel Edmonds testifying for a defendant in an Ohio elections commission trial brought by Jean Schmidt. Ms Schmidt is likely to be extremely sorry that she ever thought of this litigation. So far it has apparently been pretty much ignored by the corporate media. How it could be pretty much tells us all what the state of the MSM is.

Bribery and sexual blackmail, sometimes naming names, sometimes leaving the determination of the malfeasant to either the obvious, or an easy googling effort on the part of the reader. Congresscritters, pentagon and government officials, academics and others. As far as the bisexual female congress person who is reputed to have been turned as a result of film based blackmail by foreign agent, it seems possible that her name might be associated with one of the players in this litigation.

The sale of nuclear and other weapons secrets, US involvement with Al-Qaeda, a Congresscritter and drug money, US use of drug trade, financing and transporting of Islamic extremists into Central Asia, and the use of Afghanistan as training ground for these extremists and too many other sordid issues to discuss. A long read or listen -- I am only half way through the transcript so far. If I run across a precis, I will post the link.

This is a sad story, and it remains quite incomplete because Edmonds is still gagged to a great degree by two separate invocations of the States Secret Privilege. Worst of all, it makes the Senators and Representatives who only take money from corporations for profit flavored law, look like the good guys. Also note that Ms Edmonds is nonpartisan in her testimony, neither Democrats nor Republicans are spared.

If you want to write something up as you read, seems like Flutterby'd be as good a place as any to host it...

Dan, you know I don't have a problem with expressing my opinions when I think I know what I am talking about, but I don't feel competent to provide the condensation of this material. There is just too much in the testimony where I know I don't understand what she is saying. The risk for slander/libel would also be high -- I am sure you noticed my earlier dancing to avoid any direct accusation.

At some point someone with greater comprehension of the information, and more capable of making inferences will do the analysis. For example, I know from other material that there are references in the testimony to accusations of homosexual pedophilia on the part of a member. What don't I know about a lot of what she said? What if I am wrong? It would not just be me that I was putting at legal risk, but you as well. I will not do that.

But I provided the links so that anyone who cares to can at least get a feel for what she speaks about.

The Brad Blog normally specializes in Voting fraud, particularly Electronic Voting fraud (I know, a redundancy of terms), but they have also been supporting Sibel Edmonds. There is a precis of her most recent testimony available at

Note this will become more interesting when there is someone who can fill in all the blanks. I hope someone like Seymour Hersch has a go at it.

I would like someone to really describe what "certain not very morally accepted activities" means for sure. I think I know, and I sort of suspect that what is meant is activities that were both morally abhorrent and very illegal. But that is just a guess on my part.

#Comment Re: made: 2009-09-03 02:48:05.076421+00 by: m [edit history]

Also please note that my guess that the unnamed married congresswoman who was turned by having a lesbian affair with a Turkish agent, was involved in the litigation was incorrect, as Ms Edmonds has said that this person is a Democrat.