Posts
Interesting News Items humorously serves up an interesting point. First the joke, about how ripping peoples' faces off for being stupid produces more 'green' behavior. Mothers around the country nod knowingly.
When rules are just posted, workers aren't as careful. Often they'll forget elementary tasks such as printing paper on both sides, or turning off computers at night." However green compliance skyrocketed in hollering-friendly workplaces.What's more interesting is the tendency to rationalize despicable behavior by pointing to some purportedly higher 'good'. Take Perez Hilton, for example. Take him somewhere.
"Take him somewhere." LOL. Maybe we could send him to that new planet they discovered. Since it's too hot for human life and all...
ReplyDelete"What's more interesting is the tendency to rationalize despicable behavior by pointing to some purportedly higher 'good'"
ReplyDeletetotally off topic, but this quote reminds me of the so called "torture memo"firestorm.
I've noticed that Fox News and Co. has already established their narrative on the issue. What I'm wondering is why Right leaning blogs are mum on the issue?
Smitty, I know you've laid out your position some time ago, but where do you guys stand on the recent developments?
I guess I'm surprised that the vehemence with which Fox is defending the prior administration and the subsequent talking points being paraded to defend that position, I'm surprised that the blogosphere on your side hasn't run with it?
any thoughts?
@Y4E,
ReplyDeleteRational people should pay attention to what the former VP said.
You've heard half the evidence: the US government very carefully thought through the torture memos. You can argue that it was sheer sophistry and a platinum-level performance in mental gymnastics. That is certainly what one side would have you do, as if W's administration could somehow be further demonized.
Or they could just declassify everything, and put all the evidence in front of everybody, and ask people to think for themselves.
I'm on record as saying I'd probably have done close to what W's administration did, given _all_ the evidence. I submit that the people demonizing Bush are, at best, naive, perhaps dangerously so. For any critic, I'm interested in knowing what situations they've been in where they had to choose from any array of alternatives that truly suck: do we compromise, and lean on enemy combatant (not POW) X, or do we take a higher road, and hope to persuade with high-mindedness? Game theory does not argue in favor of the latter.
Next, you can argue a theological tack, and tell me, as a Christian, I'm crucifying The Carpenter anew. Call that the Carter argument. In reply, I'd argue a distinction between individual and office. What you do as an individual is between you and the Almighty. The standard is a moral one, and higher. What you do in executing an office, an ethical standard, is a lower bar, and limited by Constitution and law. So, even though Bush doesn't approve of interrogating a neighbor, he may do so in the execution of duties as POTUS. You may call this distinction utter crap, but tell me: what offices have you held, and how have you personally dealt with the dichotomy of your internal ideals vs. the fallen reality in which we operate?
Finally, keep your eye on the emotional ball. Does the current administration _really_ care fig #1 about anything but power? Are the arguments set forth in a manner to stimulate thought in the electorate, or are we repeatedly flogged with guilt and fear for reasons of control. Watch what the other hand is doing, please.
Yes, we have heard half of the evidence and the evidence points to a Bush legal counsel that decided
ReplyDeleteto interpret pre-existing laws to suit their ideas about how to proceed with their war on terror.That the other half of the evidence is presented, as you say, so that people can think for themselves, points to the overall problem your side has in this whole debate.
You see, we are arguing, or are supposed to be arguing here, the rule of law. And considering that your side of the aisle claims to be the "rule of law" crowd-- you know,the folks who play by the rules--it is astounding to see the expediency with which you throw away those basic principles to the wind in an effort to circle the wagons on behalf of your boys.
The idea that the ends justify the means comes with the inherent premise that you are also accountable for said decisions.
If I decided to interpret the law in order to, lets say, protect my family( which I would probably do if necessary) then I do so with the understanding that I would have to stand trial for breaking whatever laws were necessary to achieve those goals. That your side would like to have it both ways is apparent when your side insists on leaving this LEGAL matter to the court of public opinion.
It makes sense considering that in the court of public opinion you can get away with euphemisms like " enhanced interrogation" and claims that any investigations would result in the "criminalization of policy difference". On this point I would say that such claims would be like saying that the Clinton impeachment was the criminalization of marital infidelity, while overlooking the fact that Bubba lied under oath. But that didn't stop Republicans from holding Clinton to the legal standards we expect from government officials.
The desperation with which the Right is defending the former administration in these matters speaks volumes.And the politicization from the friendly agitprop cabbal at Fox is disturbing.The idea that BO should override the concept of the separation of powers is more projection than actual logic.On the one hand, you protest that BO is a tyrant yet you would have him behave as one in order to suit your needs.If congress seeks to pursue this then it is on them.That Fox seeks to make this whole matter an albatross around BO's neck, despite his actual stance on the issue,tells me that the Right doesn't really have a principled stance as per torture, but rather seeks a political opening with which to damage the administration. The fact that this is apparent is a sure sign that this tactic has short legs at best.
I look forward to the other half of the evidence being released, as you are sure to see conflicting intelligence to the claims that "torture" works.We see now the simpletons game of pretending that the alternative to "torture" are hugs and kisses. There is enough intelligence out there to refute that, although I can also look forward to the Right cherry-picking those points that best suit their a priori opinions.
You know, it would be quite admirable for your side to take a tough stance on this and say " yeah, we approved these "enhanced interrogation" methods and yes, we are willing to stand by them and take one for the team if necessary."
But that won't happen, will it? Of course, that is pretty consistent with the top-down mentality that gave us the trickle down theory.And it also explains why nary a word is said about those serving time right now for the Abu Grahib fiasco.
So who's not keeping their eye on the other hand here?
Are we a nation of laws or is it all a shell game? Do you believe that no one is above the law or is that just one of those catch phrases you guys are so good at? I wonder, if this all comes to pass without any trials or indictments, is your side willing to give Obama props for doing the right thing, or will you use that to play the divisive games that Rove and Co. play so well?
I know what your side will do because the Right is full of shit, and shit stinks bad enough to warn you when you're about to step into it.
By the way, I am of the mind that we should move on. That we need to remember the knee-jerk insanity following 9-11 is part of the process. You know, that thing about not repeating past mistakes.
In any case, my curiosity lies in how you guys juggle the legality of this issue with the emotional factor of wanting to cover for the guys you elected...
@Y4E,
ReplyDeleteThe desperation with which the Right is defending the former administration in these matters speaks volumes.Workin' hard, trying to see this "desperation" of which you speak. You're anxious to make this a defense of Bush the person, or Cheney the person. I'd be as adamantly defending the POTUS regardless of who it was. You'll note that I even defended BHO in this very blog for taking a dispassionate stance in the piracy/kidnapping affair. Desperation?
it would be quite admirable for your side to take a tough stance on this and say " yeah, we approved these "enhanced interrogation" methods and yes, we are willing to stand by them and take one for the team if necessary."Hasn't Cheney been doing this, after a fashion, or are you assuming the Olympian height of rejecting every action of his? And isn't it more appropriate for W to continue his tradition of NOT personalizing matters, since that would pull limelight from BHO? IOW, if W aggressively defended himself in public, you'd have his head for that, too.
In any case, my curiosity lies in how you guys juggle the legality of this issue with the emotional factor of wanting to cover for the guys you elected...I'll take this as a tacit admission that, no, you've never stood in the breech, and had to make tough calls.
I forgive you your whipper-snapper-hood. If BHO continues to do as good a job as W did after 9/11, then you'll remain damp abaft the ears, lad.
"Workin' hard, trying to see this "desperation" of which you speak."
ReplyDeleteSmitty, maybe you haven't seen the linguistic contortions of late from pundits on the Right.The desperation which you don't see
is the desperation which turns a legal matter into a one which tries to justify breaking the law with the argument that " we did not break the law because we don't think what we did is illegal based on the fact that what is defined as torture we have decided to define as "enhanced interrogation"...The desperation lies in the mouths of former administration officials and their daughters mounting what is nothing more than a PR campaign to cover their asses...
"Hasn't Cheney been doing this, after a fashion, or are you assuming the Olympian height of rejecting every action of his?"
Uh...no.
He hasn't been owning up to anything.He's trying very hard to justify what he did and going so far as to bragging about it without acknowledging the illegality of it.In other words it's the " Yeah I did it but don't take me to task for it" defense. What courage!
And I previously gave you props for giving BHO props on the Somali pirate episode.
But this isn't about partisanship. This is about the rule of law and where you guys stand on it.
If no laws were breeched then there is nothing to worry about.
Are we willing to hold officials accountable for violations of the law if laws were violated?
Or do we turn the other cheek?
How far do we go into overlooking transgressions of law?
Would this also apply to any transgressions on the part of BHO and Co.?
Think about it.....
He's trying very hard to justify what he did and going so far as to bragging about it without acknowledging the illegality of it.In other words it's the " Yeah I did it but don't take me to task for it" defense. What courage!Bragging? I don't get that at all. I wouldn't accuse anyone in the administration of having taken any pleasure in any of GITMO, or having done a single thing more than the minimum required of the their duties.
ReplyDeleteSome of the people now serving time over Abu Ghraib, perhaps...
But this isn't about partisanship. This is about the rule of law and where you guys stand on it.
If no laws were breeched then there is nothing to worry about.Ah, the old "innocent men walk freely" card. Yes. Say your name is Rush Limbaugh. How many Years In A Freaking Row must you be audited before you realize that it has absolutely nothing to do with the rule of law, and everything to do with abuse of power?
And would you like to know why there will be no trials of Bush officials? Because there is no precedent for trying a man upon exiting office, and the Obama administration already knows that for every finger they point at W, three will point back at them.If we want to watch the US turn into a full-on despotism within 20 years, bring on the trial.
Actually, I agree with you, though: it would be good to see a full trial, were there a way to guarantee the downward spiral outlined above could not occur, and were there a way to guarantee that the peanut gallery would achieve consciousness. Neither is likely.
"Some of the people now serving time over Abu Ghraib, perhaps..."
ReplyDeleteOh, you mean the "bad apples" theory. This is what probably sticks in my craw the most,
considering that recent bipartisan commissions have concluded that those "indiscretions"
were once again a top-down directive and not just a bunch of reckless rednecks, as the previous administration
wanted us to believe.So the little guys are covering the asses for the big wigs who approved such methods...
As for Rush, I believe he's been audited by NY State IRS and not federal. In that case maybe he should have spoken to then
Gov.Pataki, the Republican Governor. What does this have to do with the subject at hand again?.....
Smitty, I said before I would prefer to move past all this, maybe a truth commission but no trials.
My point throughout all this is to point out how ideologically driven we've become. Laws were violated, and
it has been interesting to see how the Right justifies it all because of who the violators were.
Beyond that I feel that it is in our best interest to point out that laws were broken and leave it at that.
What's disappointing is all the word-games employed to create the appearance that it didn't happen.
The rule of law is bullshit.
I wonder how the Right will react if BO should blur certain lines of distinction...
What's disappointing is all the word-games employed to create the appearance that it didn't happen.
ReplyDeleteThe rule of law is bullshit.
I wonder how the Right will react if BO should blur certain lines of distinction...No one is pretending that the events of the record didn't happen. The contention is that it's a friggin' war, and, when you are in the position of choosing between losing L.A. and waterboarding, you'd better opt to preserve L.A., for all Hollywood is a bunch of flakes. The argument is about realpolitik vs. pie-in-the-sky idealism.
And the fact that we're chatting about this on the internet belies your "rule of law is bullshit" in a big way. If your concept held true, you'd likely be Young 0-Eyes. I say this not even slightly as a threat, but rather to encourage you to step back, think everything through, and consider the conclusions of your assertions, sir.