Stanley Fish is examining campaign buttons in the classroom. Here's his New York Times column, and my comment on other people's comments.
More later,
Russ
Monday, October 13, 2008
Sunday, April 27, 2008
Torture endangers our troops
We have hypocrisy in its finest from the Bush administration... again. In today's New York Times, the Justice Department has approved moral relativism regarding torture.
As is mentioned in the article, if the United States plays fast and loose with the Geneva Conventions, what's to keep other countries from imposing worse tortures on U.S. soldiers and citizens? You can always argue that the "insurgents" in Iraq are already beheading people, but uncivilized conduct by others is not a valid reason for our own uncivilized behavior.
Besides, conservatives are supposed to be against moral relativism -- the idea that application of moral rules is entirely situational. For example, torture is wrong, but you can torture a bad guy if you have a good reason.
Of course the Justice Department is engaging in legal reasoning, not moral reasoning. And, they are lawyers.
More later,
Russ
As is mentioned in the article, if the United States plays fast and loose with the Geneva Conventions, what's to keep other countries from imposing worse tortures on U.S. soldiers and citizens? You can always argue that the "insurgents" in Iraq are already beheading people, but uncivilized conduct by others is not a valid reason for our own uncivilized behavior.
Besides, conservatives are supposed to be against moral relativism -- the idea that application of moral rules is entirely situational. For example, torture is wrong, but you can torture a bad guy if you have a good reason.
Of course the Justice Department is engaging in legal reasoning, not moral reasoning. And, they are lawyers.
More later,
Russ
Monday, November 05, 2007
I wouldn't want to be like you
The headline is the title to an old Alan Parsons Project song, I think.
More to the point, I wouldn't want to be like Bush, and I don't want to vote for anyone who acts like Bush. The presidential campaign, besides starting way too early (Shouldn't all these Senators and members of Congress be doing the job they have rather than campaigning for their next job?), all of the candidates are competing for the job.
I don't want competition in my government. I want those elected to work together to do the right thing for the United States and the world. Sure, they can argue about what the right thing is, but they should all be working toward determining the right policy, the right action, the right whatever. The current candidates are more concerned with their own egos than with the job of being a good president.
Impeach them all!
More later,
Russ
More to the point, I wouldn't want to be like Bush, and I don't want to vote for anyone who acts like Bush. The presidential campaign, besides starting way too early (Shouldn't all these Senators and members of Congress be doing the job they have rather than campaigning for their next job?), all of the candidates are competing for the job.
I don't want competition in my government. I want those elected to work together to do the right thing for the United States and the world. Sure, they can argue about what the right thing is, but they should all be working toward determining the right policy, the right action, the right whatever. The current candidates are more concerned with their own egos than with the job of being a good president.
Impeach them all!
More later,
Russ
Joe Wilson on HuffingtonPost.com acting like Karl Rove
Former ambassador Joe Wilson supports some ass-covering by senators on HuffingtonPost.com today. Much of what he says makes sense: Use diplomacy to thwart Iran's nuclear ambitions, military force should be the last resort, the Bush administration can't be trusted, etc.
However, the main thrust of this blog post by Wilson is supporting senators – Clinton and Durbin in particular – for voting in favor of the Kyl-Lieberman non-binding resolution and/or signing...
No offense to Wilson's intellect, but no one with even half a brain believes that either the letter or the resolution will even slow Bush down if he wants to send troops to Iran. He is Commander and Chief, and under his theory of the presidency, he doesn't need authorization to commit troops. The ONLY reason any senator supporting the letter and/or the resolution is to be able to say he/she was on record against using military force in Iran. In other words, political ass covering.
Get a clue Wilson. This blog post is so blatantly political it's something I would expect from the Bush administration.
More later,
Russ
However, the main thrust of this blog post by Wilson is supporting senators – Clinton and Durbin in particular – for voting in favor of the Kyl-Lieberman non-binding resolution and/or signing...
"a strong letter to President Bush in response to his increasingly bellicose language on Iran. The letter informs the president that he does not have the authority to take military action against Iran without prior, specific authorization from the Congress."In addition, Wilson takes shots at Obama for criticizing Clinton for supporting the resolution/letter. Of course, Obama says its the wrong approach, not that it's purely political BS.
No offense to Wilson's intellect, but no one with even half a brain believes that either the letter or the resolution will even slow Bush down if he wants to send troops to Iran. He is Commander and Chief, and under his theory of the presidency, he doesn't need authorization to commit troops. The ONLY reason any senator supporting the letter and/or the resolution is to be able to say he/she was on record against using military force in Iran. In other words, political ass covering.
Get a clue Wilson. This blog post is so blatantly political it's something I would expect from the Bush administration.
More later,
Russ
Sunday, November 04, 2007
Lawbreakers: They're everywhere
This Letter to the Editor in today's Washington Post seems to have created mostly agreement among commenters that lawbreaking is bad, even though these "lawbreakers" are trying to work within our democratic system.
The Problem Is Lawbreaking
But why shouldn't illegal aliens break the law and then lobby for amnesty after the fact? President Bush did the same thing with illegal wiretapping. I guess enforcing the law only applies to those who aren't white men in positions of power.
Speaking of white men in positions of power, at least I presume Thompson adviser Phillip Martin is white, being a convicted lawbreaker isn't always a hindrance, at least not in politics.
Thompson Adviser Has Criminal Past
The problem with the coverage, and my snarky reference to the relationship between lawbreaking and politics, is that there is no way to know if Phillip Martin still thinks and acts like a lawbreaker. The story, while not explicitly saying so, seems to presume that past actions are the best predictor of present and future actions. Maybe, but our system of justice accepts punishment as payment to society for criminal activity, and presumes innocence for current accusations of lawbreaking. And as far as the story goes, no current accusations have been leveled.
One more potential problem with the story: Two of the sources quoted are ex-wives of some of the people mentioned in the story. Reliable sources? Hard to say.
One last note. In case it seems otherwise, I am not supporting any current candidate for president, but Fred Thompson is not even under consideration. He is one of the last people I would like to see elected president. Maybe he could play president on TV instead.
More later,
Russ
The Problem Is Lawbreaking
But why shouldn't illegal aliens break the law and then lobby for amnesty after the fact? President Bush did the same thing with illegal wiretapping. I guess enforcing the law only applies to those who aren't white men in positions of power.
Speaking of white men in positions of power, at least I presume Thompson adviser Phillip Martin is white, being a convicted lawbreaker isn't always a hindrance, at least not in politics.
Thompson Adviser Has Criminal Past
The problem with the coverage, and my snarky reference to the relationship between lawbreaking and politics, is that there is no way to know if Phillip Martin still thinks and acts like a lawbreaker. The story, while not explicitly saying so, seems to presume that past actions are the best predictor of present and future actions. Maybe, but our system of justice accepts punishment as payment to society for criminal activity, and presumes innocence for current accusations of lawbreaking. And as far as the story goes, no current accusations have been leveled.
One more potential problem with the story: Two of the sources quoted are ex-wives of some of the people mentioned in the story. Reliable sources? Hard to say.
One last note. In case it seems otherwise, I am not supporting any current candidate for president, but Fred Thompson is not even under consideration. He is one of the last people I would like to see elected president. Maybe he could play president on TV instead.
More later,
Russ
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)