Is Any Honest Politician Left Anywhere?

The classic definition is that an honest politician is one who stays bought.

US politicians turned on the tobacco companies after receiving support from them for decades.

Kiwi politicians granted Kim Dotcom residency for a $10M purchase of government bonds--and then conspired with the US to arrest him, seize his assets, and extradite him. What is NZ's cut of the confiscated assets?

In a statement the Immigration Service said that “Mr Dotcom made full disclosure of his previous convictions and they were taken into account in the granting of his residence.

“The Immigration Act allows for discretion to be exercised in certain cases. In this particular case Immigration NZ weighed the character issue and any associated risk to New Zealand against potential benefits to New Zealand.”

They went right after those potential benefits, didn't they? But wait:

The Government has confirmed no minister was involved in the decision, but the Labour Party will insists that given the risks involved one should have been.

That's all right then, if the Government said so.

Afaic Dotcom is no bigger a rogue than the entertainment bigshots are; a fair comparison might show him to advantage. His problem is that his business never got big enough to compete with Hollywood's bribes.

Similar hanky-panky here.

Addendum 20120128. NZ admitted Dotcom. However, he was not allowed to buy the residence he rents, but was allowed to buy another luxury property.

Meanwhile, his assets are frozen, crippling his ability to hire representation. Innocent until proven guilty, uh huh.

Let me not be misunderstood: Dotcom is an unsavory character--but not as unsavory as the people who are going after him.