<-How Lecherous Am I? |Main|That's Madison->

Campbell Brown Is a Fucking Idiot

December 12, 2008 12:43 AM

p until a few months ago, I had no clue who Campbell Brown was. Now that I do, I wish she'd shut the fuck up.

As far as I'm concerned, she's the worst that mainstream news has to offer (note that I'm not counting people like Bill O'Reilly as members of the "mainstream news" because, well, what they do isn't news). She's sensationalistic and panders to the "common" folk and all that other shit. But the positions she chooses to take are retarded.

In a video posted on CNN.com today, for example, Ms. Brown discusses the fact that Governor Rod Blagojevich still has the sole legal right to name Barack Obama's successor to the U.S. Senate. In the video, she goes to great lengths to remind us that, in America, people are innocent until proven guilty. But then she pretty much to say "well, not so much."

See, she thinks that it's preposterous that someone facing allegations as serious and ridiculous as those the Governor is facing could still be in a position to appoint a senator. And she goes on to analogize that situation to ones where police officers are put on leave if they are facing allegations of serious misconduct.

But her positions are stupid for several reasons. First of all, we can't throw away the presumption of innocence just because the allegations in a particular case are both extremely serious and clearly true. Rod Blagojevich is a sleazebag, but he's also innocent. He can't be sentenced or sent to jail, and he hasn't lost his position as the Governor of Illinois. This conclusion might seem absurd in this particular case, but the principle is solid. It isn't beyond the realm of possibility that someone with the authority to bring criminal charges would misuse that authority for personal or political gain. If the rule is that any government official accused of some serious offense automatically loses his or her authority, then anyone with the power to make those accusations would also have the power to circumvent the will of the people and government as a whole.

And that brings us to the second problem with Ms. Brown's analysis. There is a crucial difference between a police officer accused of misconduct and a Governor accused of breaking federal law, namely that governors are elected. It seems pretty clear that Illinois voters chose a selfish, idiotic, arrogant, terrible man as their governor. But that is the right of the voters. This is the man they chose and he has not relinquished that authority nor has any other entity used any legal mechanism to remove him from office. The people of Illinois chose to give this man this power and also, directly or indirectly, approved the system that allows him to keep his authority in this issue. They can change the law if they want, but for the time being, this is the will of the people.

Democracy isn't perfect. In fact, sometimes it can lead to really stupid results. But that's when we have to be the most careful to protect it, I think. The presumption of innocence and the notion that the will of the people is supreme are two of our most important ideas. If we really want to take them seriously, then we have to take them seriously all the time. And if we can't do that, then we might as well just give up on everything.



9 Comments


tRJ said:

1. Campbell Brown is indeed a moron. She was fine as a Weekend Today anchor, but serious news isn't her strong suit.

2. Have you ever watched O'Reilly? His show is excellent.

December 12, 2008 8:51 AM



Ismael Tapia II said:

Are you saying that his show is excellent as entertainment? Because on that score, I agree. But if you're saying something else, then I'm gonna need you to elaborate.

December 12, 2008 9:27 AM



The Reeg said:

I agree with you, but I take issue with the last bit: "Democracy isn't perfect. In fact, sometimes it can lead to really stupid results. But that's when we have to be the most careful to protect it, I think."

Perhaps, but it's also when we have to take a close look at said stupid result to decide if it was democracy or mob rule--the various marriage and adoption amendments being an excellent example. The will of the people should be supreme, except for when that power is used to erode civil rights. It's a hard distinction to make sometimes. But I don't want to live in a country where my rights are at the mercy of a bunch of ill-informed bigoted rednecks.

December 12, 2008 11:36 AM



Anonymouse said:

While I know nothing of this idiot you are discussing, I think the more concerning thing is that AG Madigan is trying to use a statute intended to allow for a government official to step in for another government in the event of debilitating injury or illness or personal leave to try and argue that the Lt. Governor should assume Gov Rod's duties because Gov. Rod is debilitated by virtue of having charges pending against him. In short, the public can't trust a man, presumed innocent, because of these charges. Instead, Madigan wants to circumvent the constitutionally defined process of impeachment (which might take some time), so that the Supreme Court of Illinois should just declare him incompetent (or something similar) and shift his duties to the Lt. Gov. Note how self-serving all of this is. Madigan nearly ran for Gov. in the last elections, and makes no secret that she wants the job at some point. Now she wants to be seen as the savior instead of allowing the defined legal process play out.

If the government wants to keep Gov. Rod from appointing a senator, which assumes that he can find someone willing to accept his nomination, then the legislature should pass a law with sufficient majority to override his certain veto. Short of that, this process just needs to play out. My guess is that Gov. Rod won't resign without a pretty sweet deal on the table, and therefore he will just have to be impeached.

December 13, 2008 2:12 PM



Justine said:

I see what you are saying. But he was trying to sell the office. So, it seems like he shouldn't be able to make the appointment. (Right?)

Suppose that, legally, there is no clear clear precedent for preventing him from making the appointment--but that, nonetheless, they can just make something up to prevent him from making the appointment, and that that is what all the citizens of Illinois would have antecedently wanted in these circumstances. Isn't that ok? If not, why not? Certainly many (most) important legal precedents (that you like) essentially involve judges just making shit up that seems 'just' in this sort of way.

To make this even more controversial: lawyers seem to have an indefensibly idealistic conception of 'the law' and its place in society--like 'fuck everything else, a purely idealistic interpretation of 'the law' is always in every case of the utmost importance, even if it means watching everything burn down around us'. That doesn't seem like the right view when important things are at stake, as they are here.

December 16, 2008 2:55 AM



Ismael Tapia II said:

Justine,
My point, really, is that we have to follow the rules as they existed before all of this shit went down. So if the rules that the legislature passed, the executive signed, and the courts upheld allow for Blagojevich to be somehow removed from power for merely being accused of a serious crime, then fine.

If such a rule exists, I don't like it because it means that someone can lose the power the electorate chose to give them simply by virtue of an accusation, which seems extremely wrong and dangerous to me. This is my secondary point: that if we think that the presumption of innocence is really important--and it is--then we have to respect it even when we have good reason to believe that the person is, in fact, guilty. An obviously guilty person has just as much right to a trial as an arguably innocent one. And that's the way it has to be if we're serious about having a system that is as accurate as possible and that prefers to err on the side of liberty rather than incarceration and condemnation.

As far as your other point, I disagree. I think that we must respect the laws at all times, and especially when all shit is breaking loose. That doesn't mean that I don't think we can reevaluate those laws in a crisis--or in anticipation of a crisis--to ensure that they allow whatever flexibility we think is necessary. But if, for example, we're willing to throw away the concept that the people can choose their leader periodically simply because none of us like the guy we chose anymore, then I think we have much less reason to trust that our system will stay in place whether or not there is a crisis.

I do think that there are times when individuals are justified in acting outside of the law, but I think that, to the greatest extent possible, the system and the people that make up the system should follow the rules.

December 17, 2008 12:54 AM



Dollie said:

Hey, that's the grteeast! So with ll this brain power AWHFY?

July 10, 2011 10:46 AM









Leave a comment


Type the characters you see in the picture above.