For those still following the absurdity unfolding around the family of ex-Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr., we now have word that his decision to run for reelection (without campaigning) and then promptly resign will cost the taxpayers over $5 million — as if the taxpayers have not paid enough to the family of Jesse Jackson.
Some of us have long been critics of Jesse Jackson, Jr. and his family who have been the focus of corruption and misconduct allegations. Then there was the disappearance of Jesse Jackson Jr. as investigators looked into his use of campaign contributors allegedly to fix up his house and to buy a Rolex watch for a mistress. At the same time, investigators were looking into his wife, who serves on the city council. No one bothered to inform his constituents when their member disappeared and left only speculation for weeks on his whereabouts. Nevertheless, weeks later, Jackson checked himself into the Mayo Clinic and announced that he would still run for reelection even with a diagnosis of having bipolar disorder. He won handily without showing up to campaign in a district that clearly does not give a wit about substantial allegations of misconduct. (Ironically, Jackson took office in a special election after his predecessor Mel Reynolds left office in a sex scandal involving an underage campaign worker). He promptly promised his constituents that he would serve vigorously in Washington. However, once elected, Jackson reportedly demanded a disability pension in return for giving up his seat — essentially holding a seat hostage according to those reports. He then resigned a couple weeks after the election — triggering the need for two special elections.
The Illinois State Board of Elections calculated those elections cost $2,700 to $4,000 per precinct. With 590 precincts in Jackson’s 2nd Congressional District, an election would probably cost around $2,575,000. That comes to $5.15 million for both a primary and general election.
Just to give you an idea of the cost imposed by the Jacksons on the taxpayers, that cost would have save the entire page system. The over 200 years of page service in the House of Representatives was eliminated to save $5 million a year. It is also the equivalent for the federal subsidy for 20 million free meals for poor children.
Yet, again, Democrats are silent in criticism of Jackson or his family in fear of angering Jesse Jackson Sr. We will simply pay millions while Jesse Jackson Jr. has yet to be indicted for the alleged misuse of campaign funds. Keep in mind that the Justice Department prosecuted the late Sen. Ted Stevens (R., Alaska) for the use of lobbyist money to fix his home. The investigations into Jackson and his wife are continuing and Jackson is reportedly trying to reach a plea bargain. In the end, the criminal investigations, special election costs, and other collateral costs will make bring the final tab for taxpayers likely over $10 million even without the possibility of a criminal trial. Of course, common people can go to jail for years for stealing less than $1000, but they are not (it seems) part of America’s ruling class.
Many are awaiting the results of the reported plea negotiations with Jackson and the Justice Department to see if he will get one last deal from a less than grateful American people. [Update: How the dipolar analysis would factor into a criminal case is still unclear. There is an interesting conflict in the original position of Jackson that his illness would not prevented him from running for reelection and resuming his work in Congress. Yet it is likely that the illness will be used as a defense on any corruption or fraud charges. That creates a bit of a conflict. Being reelected certainly gave him a bargaining chip as part of the reported plea negotiations. However, it also contradicted a position that his illness did not make him responsible. By resigning, it would certainly help Jackson argue that the illness left unable to function adequately. It may also end the congressional inquiry into his involvement in an alleged effort to buy the Senate seat vacated by President Obama.
He may have a difficult time on the merits. The test of insanity as a defense is extremely high even with a diagnosis from the respected Mayo Clinic. If he cannot make a direct insanity defense, the most likely impact of the illness would be on mitigation of sentencing. If the case is a strong as suggested, he could opt for a plea and push for leniency on sentencing. The question will turn on his ability to function before he disappeared — with accounts of his schedule and behavior in and outside Congress. Courts commonly have defendants with some form of mental illness, but such illness rarely amounts to an absolute defense.
There is also the problem of others who may have been aware of any of the alleged criminal conduct from his wife to his accountant to his staff. The prosecutors may bring a huge amount of pressure on them to turn and testify for the prosecution if a case moves to the charging stage.]
98 thoughts on “Report: Jesse Jackson Jr. To Cost Taxpayers Over $5 Million After Resigning Shortly Following His Reelection”
Polygraphs are only about 80% accurate, can be monkeyed with and aren’t used in diagnosing psychopaths as a general rule.
Well, thanks for the fMRI, you had mentioned it but was not sure that that was the killer. Will see what Google says. Polygraph is not proof I understand.
I’m still not doing your research for you. You’re the one who claims that you can fake an fMRI as part of your counterclaim. The burden of proof rests with you.
You and your buddies are always asking for proof.
But what’s good for the goose is crap for the gander, obviously. But then that is not new.
Thanks. Great orientation.
you can purchase it from the Teaching Company.
I got this on sale for around 50 dollars. Never pay full price because they always have sales. The most I have ever paid for a course is around $100 bucks but recently I have gotten them for $60 or less.
Not much more than a night at the movies for 3 people with popcorn and soda.
The courses are pretty good and taught by full professors. For example the one I linked to is taught by a professor at Vanderbilt University another one I have on consciousness is taught by Prof named Daniel Robinson of Georgetown and Oxford.
his course is on sale, I recommend it.
Do your own research if you’re curious.
“Even if possible, it would be highly improbable.”
Biggest concession by you this week. Improving.
Zip……Zop. Did you see that? It was the magnetiztion change. Show me a link and I’ll believe it. I CAN, unlike others change POVs.
“From my experience with close friends and family, it always seems the least stable personality dominates the interpersonal relationships. They seem to want to shape the world, no matter how small, to avoid consequences for their actions.”
Please, the link to the learning series on the brain.
Even if possible, it would be highly improbable. Learning to control your heart rate is a considerably different proposition than learning to manipulate the magnetization between oxygen-rich and oxygen-poor blood in your brain.
People can learn to control their heartbeats, in fact it is rather simple. I have done it while connected to a heart monitor during minor surgery, a nurse told me to cut it out.
The mind is a funny thing about which we know little, with practice the fMRI may be able to be gamed. I am currently watching a teaching company series on the brain. So far the one thing I have noticed is that the brain is very well connected. All parts seem to interact with all of the other parts. It is quite fascinating.
Not saying your arent right, just thinking about the possible down side.
There are ways to minimize the ability to prep for such tests. Also, the fMRI testing that is currently evolving for psychopaths would be foolproof as it relies on measuring autonomic responses that are beyond conscious control unlike a polygraph. As far as background checks go? I don’t see a problem with that either as part of a psychological profile. It’s not as if they are trying to get a job as a milkman. However, the fMRI may make that a moot point.
people can learn how to beat a polygraph, dont you think they could also learn to beat a psychological profile? A sociopath or psychopath would not be honest on the test and so how good would it be?
If you say look at their childhood as an indication as well, wouldnt we be able to look into a candidates childhood to see if he abused animals or was a bully? We wouldnt really need a test if we could do a proper background check as future constituents.
From my experience with close friends and family, it always seems the least stable personality dominates the interpersonal relationships. They seem to want to shape the world, no matter how small, to avoid consequences for their actions.
There is nothing arbitrary about demanding your leaders be sane.
The rest of what you say is gibberish.
Your first mistake was to support me, even partially.
That is forbidden in Gene’s world. He begins to sniff to find a point to attack.
He lookes at his favorite attack points, which everybody is inferior (here) to him, whereupon he attacks.
Not having sufficiently humiliated you and gotten your acquiescence to his sentencing of life time inadequacy, then he begins ad hominem and simple attacks.
He NEVER acknowledges his own argumentation errors, etc.
Now it appears that you have quite correctly appraised him for what he is. A bitter bully.
Gene, while professiong the good of the people, is essentially an elitist. He, as you say, finds it disagreeable to associate with people less well “equipped” than he is. But rather than seeking the ideas with truth and value beneath the faults in the argumentation advanced, he only seeks to destroy and drive away from the arena.
He has a sick relationship with those who support him in spite of his domination of them. They are perhaps RWA’s, and in need of an authority figure to guide their thoughts.
And he is so cracked as to believe that when I disapproved the use of mass psyche screening, then he states that that means that I support the cause of psychopaths.
Such crap does not even need answering by me.
I cite Gene:
“However, of all the posters here id707, you are indeed the one I’d expect to stand up for the rights of psychopaths to hold office being more important than ensuring the best governance possible.”
But I will answer, partially:
I stand up for all persons rights to be free from arbitrary mental screening. And am against all such systems for that purpose.
The “why are you worried, you are not doing anything wrong” argument was/is used to support electronic surveillance of different sorts. The mental screening of candidates can be expanded in the same way, even to PTA organizations. Regard the TSA, a “good” idea which now can be found just anywhere the DHS feels necessary, or an organization invites them to be.
Is that how we wanted to be “secure”? I feel not.
Politicians need to be examined, not screened by experts. By informed people.
That is the way we have and I hope will continue to screen candidates, hopefully with better use of traditional techniques. See my suggested APDU vetting of politicians.
Jesse Jackson is nothing but a lying ambulance chaser and shakedown artist.
Remember how MLK died in his arms and Jesse’s shirt was stained with his blood ? Me neither.
Like father, like son.
Ooooo. Reductio ad absurdum! The tactic really only works if you know how to use it properly, Eeyore. Too bad for you that you don’t. See, in the way you deployed it was to demonstrate that a statement is false by showing that a false, untenable, or absurd result follows from its acceptance. The only problem is that you made up circumstances which no one proposed to apply testing to do so. You would have to confine the argument to an absurd conclusion from requiring office holders for the method to be effective and so far you have nothing of substance other than a general disapproval of psychological testing. Nice try though. And by nice I mean sad and ineffective argumentation.
As to my personal preference? Point away. That wasn’t part of the argument for proper, merely a preference for a thought I’m still mulling over. If you’ve got a problem with it, it is entirely your problem because as was pointed out, amendment is not required. Or were the words “personally” and “possibly” too complicated for you to grasp?
As for CEOs? That’s private business. If a corporation wants psychopaths in their upper ranks that’s up to the board and the investors. I’m talking about strictly holders of public office and high level appointees. People who are supposed to represent others in society before considering their own selfish narrow self-interests but often fail to do so because they are psychologically incapable of doing so.
Eeyore, are you aware that you opened the ad hominem gate by introducing arrogance into the equation? Tit for tat, bucko although I opted to respond with insult instead. What you say isn’t an invalid argument because you’re a jackass. It’s invalid because you have yet to formulate a reasonable counterargument based on evidence and logic opting instead to appeal to emotion and the poorly deployed absurd extension beyond the original proposition. This is not my concern, but it is certainly amusing.
And you are partially correct: I don’t care what you think of me one bit – it’s irrelevant. It’s your opinion and you’re entitled to it and to express it and I’m allowed to ignore it all I wish. If you wish to call yourself an assh*le though, I won’t stop you. I prefer jackass, but you know you better than I do so I’ll defer to your call on that issue.
But come on . . . tell us how considering demanding good mental health as a condition for public office leads to FEMA camps some more.
That’s just adorable, you plush toy you.
Oh let’s do include the armed services and LEOs. How about testing socialites from Tampa? Better test the teachers and judges and prosecuting attorneys and prison guards and public university professors. And every cabinet officer and CEO of publically owed companies with assets over $500M. We know well there are certifiable sociopaths employed in those positions and our country will be a better place if we corral them all in our FEMA camps. And surely we will want to test all those superbly qualified testors. While we’re at it don’t you think we should pick up all the social workers, priests (Cardinals included), rabbis, imams and ministers and yoga masters? Don’t forget the guys who run the water treatment facilities. They can certainly fu*k us up. Librarians! Goodness knows they are a dangerous lot. Did I forget to mention NASA, NOAH, NATO, and the NAACP? Good grief! I almost forgot TSA, FAA, FDA, and the PTA.
Funny that you forgot your preference for a constitutional amendment…..
“but personally I think it’s important enough to possibly think about the basic requirements for mental health testing in public officials as a potential Constitutional amendment (even though legislation would be an easier row to hoe).” Gene H.
Hope you don’t mind me pointing it out. I just want to make sure we get the very best system you can design and hope to encourage you not to take the “easier row”.
Gene, are you aware how quickly to resort to ad hominems when someone disagrees with you? But I do understand. It must be terribly stressful to have to put up with all the less gifted and their pitiful attempts to engage in meaningful conversation when they have NO idea of what they are talking about let alone how to argue properly.
I’m very confident that other than the constitutional amendment clarification, I needn’t point out to you that the above has absolutly no bearing on the argument. But it sure was fun. At least for this jackass.
10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1….
(countdown for the next stage of Gene H argumentation: The, I Don’t Care What You Think Of Me, Assho*e.)
Comments are closed.