No Stylish Corruption?

1 post / 0 new
No Stylish Corruption?


Recent and not so recent events have started to make me wonder about our ruling class.  


I mean, going back to ad scam, we heard tales of cash in envelopes being carted around town, and similarly, we have a former Prime Minister taking cash in envelopes. 

In their station in life, shouldn't a former P.M. have not just one, but like a choice of henchmen (bumbling or otherwise) to do the actual dirty work?


I always figured corruption, both actual criminal code corruption (rare, as the corrupt also get to write the laws) and what we commonly hold to be corruption, would be done in unadvertised private clubs, where guys who looked and sounded like the late John Houseman would arrange "things" while sitting in overstuffed burgundy leather arm chairs over brandy and cigars using, for the most part, a well placed Pinter Pause, and with thicker conspirators, a raised bushy eyebrow.

But all this is more than a little crass.  


I mean, take a look at smaller events, like the Cash Heed inquiry.  It seems the legal firms can't even remember who they've brib... sorry, who they've "contributed" to in the past.    And we have Micheal Bryant unabashedly bringing out all the big guns-- and giving us all a peak behind the curtain-- to escape the consequences from something that, affront to us or not, would not have held much consequence.


Buck buck buckak.  I'd rather have fessed up and faced the consequences rather than let everyone see me pee my pants in fear the way Bryant did.


Canadian corruption doesn't seem to be a artsy film noir with tight dialogue, rather another in the series of the "Carry On"  gang, "Carry On up the St. Lawrence".


A lot more Sid James than John Houseman, as it turns out.