.
The week before Christmas Break, I was asked to cover a history class at our school. After addressing the teacher's lesson plans, we had time for discussion. I chose to change the subject slightly to a term we all need to know in the months ahead. I wrote on the whiteboard three Latin words, quid pro quo, and asked the students if they knew what it meant. To my surprise, many hands went up, and the first student's definition was excellent, though not what I expected:
.
"It's like when a lady gets a raise or a promotion, and then later on people find out she had to do certain things with the boss in private in order to get picked."
.
"Wow. That's exactly right in terms of sexual harassment, but we're going to be talking about quid pro quo as it pertains to last week's news story about Illinois Governor Blagojovich who is accused of trying to sell president-elect Obama's senate seat." .
They knew more about this story from late-night TV than from the news. (Speaking of late-night TV, has anyone else noticed that "Blago's" ever-present smirk looks like Johnny Carson's?)
.Quid pro quo literally means "what for what" in Latin. In other words, "I'll give you this if you give me that." There is not a thing wrong with quid pro quo in its typical legal sense. In fact, it is at the heart of every contract and sales receipt. "Render these services and I'll pay you in exchange." Or... "Give me this amount of money, and I'll sign over the title of my car to you." It becomes an accusation only when people attempt to pretend that there was no quid pro quo involved in an exchange. "Sure, I did get a gift of a million dollars, but that is not why I gave the guy the senate seat." The denial typically does not pass the laugh test.
.
Some very interesting things have happened since the day I covered that history class. I'm not talking about the fact that the governor defied all of his peers by appointing Obama's replacement in the midst of this investigation; I'm referring to the many other examples of quid pro quo popping up in the news.
.
We learned today that one of Obama's selected cabinet members had to pull his name from consideration due to questions of illegal quid pro quo.
.
"New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, tapped in December by President-elect Barack Obama to serve as secretary of Commerce, has withdrawn his name for the position, citing a pending investigation into a company that has done business with his state....A federal grand jury is investigating how a California company that contributed to Richardson's political activities won a New Mexico state contract worth more than $1 billion.".
As we know, Hillary Clinton has benn tapped for Secretary of State [click that link to a must-see funny video clip]. But if we've learned anything over the years it's that the Clintons always come with baggage. I wonder if this story about a similar Clintonian quid pro quo will be as troublesome for her as Richardson's case? I doubt it.
.
"A developer in New York state donated $100,000 to former President Bill Clinton's foundation in November 2004, around the same time that Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton helped secure millions of dollars in federal assistance for the businessman's mall project....Donations to charities favored by lawmakers have been a recent ethics flash point in Congress. In 2007, Congress enacted a law requiring companies and their lobbyists to disclose donations to charities associated with lawmakers. But there is no law requiring former presidents to disclose money they collect for their foundations. Last month, Bill Clinton's foundation revealed the identity of its donors as part of an agreement with President-elect Barack Obama, who selected Hillary Clinton as his nominee for secretary of state."Most of the attention on the disclosure list has focused on millions of dollars donated by foreign tycoons and Middle Eastern governments, like Saudi Arabia, which have an interest in the U.S. foreign policy that Mrs. Clinton would direct as the nation's chief diplomat.
But lower on the list was Congel's name,...His contribution is the only known situation so far in which an American donor gave a large sum to Bill Clinton's foundation while benefiting from his wife's official actions...."
But lower on the list was Congel's name,...His contribution is the only known situation so far in which an American donor gave a large sum to Bill Clinton's foundation while benefiting from his wife's official actions...."
.
Like I said, I doubt the Clintons will have any problems avoiding charges. Likewise for her successor in the senate. Does anyone wonder what quid pro quos will go undiscovered when Hillary's senate seat is handed over to Caroline Kennedy (or whomever gets her seat)? She, too, will get a psss. It's not her countless "you knows" that bother me but rather her lack of substance as she speaks. But more to the point, the New York Times said:
.
"Like it or not, roughly 7,000 employees of New York City file 32-page disclosure forms each year divulging personal information about their family finances in an effort to bolster confidence in open government. But when Caroline Kennedy was employed by the city Department of Education from 2002 to 2004, as the chief executive of the Office of Strategic Partnerships, she was not required to file...." Some have explained that it is because she was willing to work for only one dollar per year, but the disclosure is not about taxable income; it's about secret influence over one's decisions and quid pro quo. This is why "Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, a billionaire who takes $1 a year from the city, is required to file disclosure forms each year."
.
There is nothing shocking about any of these quid pro quo stories. I think the voting public long ago lost faith in the money-driven, self-centered, "what's in it for me" political tactics that have always been the Achilles heel of free elections. What is shocking is that such common behavior is suddenly news worthy and that politicians and big donors aren't closing their blinds as they scratch each other's backs.
.
Thus far quid pro quo issues have impacted Obama's Chief of Staff, at least two cabinet appointments, and possibly two of his new co-horts in the Senate, but in spite of all the quid pro quo that's hitting the fan, one thing we can be sure of... our unflappable president-elect Obama will not let it break his stride between now and January 20th. No, sir, he knows how to keep it cool.
On a more serious note, regarding some international topics, Obama will not have the luxury of playing it cool after January 20th. The events in the Gaza Strip may force his hand sooner than he wished to sit at the table.
4 comments:
Here I encouraged you to start this particular blog and then I fail to support your efforts with some of my own thoughts. I read the comment left at your previous post by one of your readers who wondered why no one was leaving comments here.
I am contributing in one way though. I make your counter go up each time I visit and that is at least once a day to see if you have anything new up and if anyone has left a comment.
The thing is, Tom, you do such a good job expressing your opinion, which usually coincides with mine, that I can't think of anything to add to it.
With this post though I will add that in Chicago Quid Pro Quo is known as Pay to Play if I am not mistaken and everyone (every politician) does it I've heard. I tell you, Tom, there may be no hope for our political system when it comes to ethics.
Thanks for stopping by my blog of late. The photo you referred to is one I took of our woods behind our house. I agree, it is a lovely snowy shot. I don't know, Tom, if I will ever get back to keeping up my blog. I have lost interest thanks in part to my long, long "To Do" list.
Keep up the good work here.
SQ,
I'd forgotten that you suggested this, but you're right. I do remember that now. Don't feel responsible. I'm glad to have a "second venue" and I don't think the readers at POI are as interested in this sort of thing. I really don't know. I do know that I managed to offend and lose some readers at that site when I included political thoughts. So hey... what can we say? =)
It's been a fun place to share thoughts. I'm honored by the thought that such a well-spoken, conservative "kitchen activist" and compassionate grandmother drops by on a regular basis.
Comment as often as you like.
and feel free to write a "guest tribute" to Bush 43 when I post that assignment in a week or two.
As for your own blog, I do understand completely ("heiresschild" reached the same conclusion last year), but commenting is a form of blogging, too, so you're still active. =)
Tom, have you ever read an essay by Mark Twain called "The Privilege of the Grave"? In it he says: "As an active privilege, free speech ranks with the privilege of committing murder: we may exercise it if we are willing to take the consequences."
People have become so fearful of speaking freely, that you will find almost no one does it anymore. Most of the blogs have become about quilting and photographs and "whiskers on kittens" and "snowflakes on mittens". I sometimes wonder if any of the folks out there have ideas or opinions, because no one ... and I mean no one ... voices them anymore. You would not believe the personal attacks aimed at me simply because I said I do not care for Obama. It was frightening. I know I will have my "I told ya so" moment, however.
So, I think people may be afraid to comment here, but please keep on writing!
Jo,
I have read much of Twain and will look for that text. His wit is sharp and his irreverence makes me laugh and then wonder if I should have laughed out loud, but it is funny.
You are right, Jo. I admit it. I was walkin' on pins and needles trying to be so careful about all this stuff over at POI. I still want to be respectful, and I must admit at a personal level, Obama is disarming and winsome, but these are some pretty "strange" times we're living in and many people think that America as we know it is about to change--especially in the area of free speech. Differ with someone and they'll call it hate (or hate speech). There is a decorum required to lead a nation in times like these. "Clear-headed" I can accept. "Calm under fire" a must, but "COOL" will turn pretty luke warm standing up against Putin or Hamas or Ahmadinejad. I've not yet seen the flip side of Obama's "flip" approach to most situations.
Time will tell. So how are things in Vancouver?
Post a Comment