Candidates for Philadelphia’s 2015 mayoral race are having major issues raising campaign funds due to a change in the City Code that prohibits entities from receiving no-bid City contracts if they exceed campaign donation limits to a SUCCESSFUL candidate.
It may sound like twisted logic … If you candidate loses, no problem! If they win, you are SOL.
But the change in The Code resulted from a very long list or sordid scandals known collectively as “pay-to-play”, a problem not only in the Big City but throughout a state known as one of the most politically corrupt in the country.
How does this having such a large effect? Because most of those who receive “no-bid” contracts tend to be lawyers! So those big money law firms in the City, so use to manipulating the political landscape in the hope of backing the Winner – and the potential for those no-bid legal contracts are being forced to sit on their hands once they reach the prescribed campaign limitation.
This certainly isn’t the Big Aha solution for our bigger elections – at least not entirely, but it’s not a bad start!
Kudos to Charles Krauthammer, who once again takes our nice, comfy way of looking at things, in this case our satisfaction in Jordan’s response to the brutal immolation of pilot, Muadh al-Kasasbeh, and asks, “What if …?”.
Krauthammer cautions that despite Jordan’s relative strength a stability, it would not take very much to instill a measure of instability through those in Jordan who might be a bit more sympathetic to ISIL because they simply aren’t all that invested in Jordan.
From Syrian refugees to those Palestinians preferring the relative safety of Jordan over life in the territories, the threats to Jordan from inside might just be as big or bigger than those on the outside.
Be that as it may, it is still a positive sign that nation-states in the Middle East are rising – even if it had to be forced – to meet the real threat to regional stability … brutally violent radicalized extremists.
In a case that may parallel the challenges of successfully prosecuting Bowe Bergdahl for his desertion, a Marine (loosely defined here as one who was enlisted as a Marine, eve though they hardly acted like one) will go on trial for his bizarre desertion adventure.
The case of CPL Wassef Hassoun is a bit more ridiculous than Bergdahl’s. Hassoun disappeared in 2004, appearing days later blindfolded in a photo with a sword positioned over his head; only to reappear unharmed a few days later at the U.S. Embassy in Beirut, Lebanon.
No one believed his kidnap scenario, and he was sent immediately to Camp Lejeune, where he promptly disappeared again for a few days before another hearing. (Not sure how one “in custody” disappears again, but the article is unclear as to the circumstances.)
I’m not buying that this case parallels much the Bergdahl situation since Hassoun had disappeared numerous times. However, in such cases where American military personnel were unnecessarily put at risk looking for “kidnapped” soldiers, who appeared to have left assigned duty stations of their own accord, must be dealt with severely if the evidence supports a willful desertion of duty in hostile environs.