Letters to the Editor
-
At what point though
Do you start worrying about Americans here than you do for dusky anonymous people way over yonder? Has everyone forgotten that there is a round of national elections coming and we're in big big trouble here and now? Maybe the Dems need to focus on the here and now instead of the abstract role they wish we played on a world stage they don't want us on in the first place.
-
Mark Mywords, wtf?
What exactly were you trying to say there, Mark? Don't you think you could have said it in a short paragraph instead of that rambling blog entry?
-
Why logic and the Golden Rule don't help
Several letter writers here express disbelief and exasperation over the apparent inability of the Bush people and Republican congressional leaders to grasp the Golden Rule, or even to operate in a logically consistent way. How can they favor rules they previously opposed, and would oppose again if a Democrat were president? How can they imagine that the Geneva Conventions are binding on their other signers but not on us? I shall now explain how.
Everyone looks to some source of truth and value, some standard against which things can be measured and judged to be right or wrong. This may be logic, broadly speaking (as in the sciences), or it may be God or Scripture, or it may be a philosophical principle like the Golden Rule (which is in Scripture too). Those standards are all neutral with respect to nation-states. That is, they can be used to judge the actions of any nation -- the United States just the same as all others.
For Bush and Company, the world's ultimate source and standard of value is the United States. It is, literally, impossible for them to imagine that the United States, especially in its capacity as world leader and more especially when they're running its government, can do wrong. For them, that would be like saying that God can do wrong. In fact, they do not really believe in God, all the KKKristian-right rhetoric notwithstanding. (Pardon my stutter.) If they did, they would recognize that the United States, like any other human entity, might fail at times to do God's will. But they see that as impossible definition: the U.S. is God, and God cannot fail to do God's will.
Thus, it is not logically inconsistent (in their minds) to hold other nations to standards from which the U.S. is exempt. America has taken over God's role as Judge Unto the Nations; it is not a subject of judgment itself. And whatever suits America, by definition, is morally corrrect.
There is a name in political philosophy for this kind of state-worship, especially when it's combined with a faith in (one's own) violence as an agent of good. It's called "fascism." It's a creed that's been tried and found wanting in other countries, but apparently our own experiment with it is underway right now. On that point, I would note what Bush called himself not too long ago: "The Decider." Loosely translated, the German language has an equivalent term: "Der Fuehrer."
-
Getting the Democratic message through the media filter.
MarkMyWords:> "Democrats must resort to spectacle in order to break the corporate media bubble."
Exactly right. The MSM is biased against the Democratic party for lots of reasons, but ultimately MSM stars are shallow and silly. Spectacle will get MSM attention, whereas sincere, mature policy advocacy will be ( is ) ignored.
The next question is; do the current crop of Dems have the creativity ( and the stomach, ) to do what it takes?
-
Hmm
Look, a parable!
On January 20th, a horrible, traumatizing thing happens in the community. Without the ability to find the real reason behind it, the experts decide to blame a vague idea rather than a tangible source. In late February an effort is finally made to catch those behind this terrible affliction, the ones covered with the vague blanket of “terrorism.” Three people are accused, and the community insists that there must be an entire network of these terror-mongers at work. Using “tough” interrogation methods, at least one of the accused confesses. Over the course of the next several months, many people in the ever-widening “network” are interrogated, some of whom confess, some of whom maintain their innocence. Some of the accused and convicted die in prison: Others are killed. Twenty people in all were put to death.
On November 25th a higher power, one recognized by not only this community but its neighbors, finally stepped in and took control. No more terrorists are put to death.
The year is 1692. The place? Salem, Massachusetts.
It's nice to see we've come so far.
-
Cowardice in Congress
It's worth noting the reason John McCain is against amending the Geneva Conventions is for "the protection of American prisoners of war," and he, almost exclusively, is among the few in Congress who actually knows what that means. Credit needs to be given where credit is due, otherwise there is no basis for national morality.
And that is what is at issue here. I was once proud to be a citizen of a country that was a moral leader in the world. A lot of those in Congress know better on this one, I believe, but are too cowardly to break with their party, and the fear mongering of the Bush administration.
It's disgusting, despicable, and cowardly. They are the moral criminals, not the innocents being detained and tortured around the world who give the "terrorists" more reasons to promote their cause.
-
More Definition?
The argument that the Geneva Convention's prohibition of "outrages upon personal dignity" is too vague and undefined flies in the face U.S. jurisprudence which is full of statutes with relative definitions of unlawful behavior. Examples include "obscene," "cruel and unusual," "negligent," "malicious," and the list goes on. Consider the definition of unlawful sexual harassment: unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature that creates an hostile work environment. These legal standards are written to be adaptable to a given set of facts and circumstances, as legislators recognize that they cannot legislate one size fits all specifics. Democrats and Republicans alike understand that the regularly write and approve such general language in statutes. Legislators depend on regulatory agencies and courts to interpret the laws they write. The Administration and Republicans in Congress seek to limit the definition of "outrages upon personal dignity" to carve out those objectionable tactics in which they want to engage. As Americans, we should all support the notion that the United States does not condone or engage in conduct toward prisoners prohibited by the Geneva Convention -- it is the American thing to do.