Letters to the Editor
-
I LOL'd
"Scooter Libby's case was another one in which a policy dispute was criminalized. That kind of criminalization is a very, very big deal."
Little bit early for revisionist history don't you think?
Perjury is a "policy dispute"? And perjury over treasonous actions to boot.
Isn't it odd that perjury over a blowjob is grounds for impeachment but perjury related to treason is A-OK?
Elephantman's "rebut" included exactly zero facts. Watching his clown show is highly enjoyable.
-
@LWM - dystopia
I read the article and this jumped out at me:
Libertarianism offers its believers a clear conscience to do things society presently restrains, like make more money, have more sex, or take more drugs.
Now if those aren't excellent reasons to embrace libertarianism. . . On the other hand, I believe any Democrat worth his or her salt could hold the same or similar opinions.
Here's the libertarian rub. I can't bring myself to accept the possibility that my surgeon, dentist, car mechanic, airplane pilot and pharmacist might have no other claim to their occupational titles than the response, "but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night."
That's too scary, even for me.
-
NeoEthics
GG:
All of this may seem jumbled and inconsistent but it is actually quite coherent and clear. Neoconservatives do not believe in any limits on their power. Their mission in the world is so important and so Good that anyone devoted to it is, by definition, a hero, a Warrior, on the side of Good. By definition, a neoconservative cannot be guilty.
I think they must justify it to themselves (internalize the ethical inconsistency) by believing "Anyone in our place would do the same thing." This is similar to the reaction from the Bushies that we've seen time and again to the many scandals-- in fact, it's often the first response to an accusation. They're not guilty because:
Clinton did it.
The Terrorists wouldn't hesitate to do it.
The Democrats did [whatever illegal activity is being discussed] first!
As if somehow citing some other miscreant's behavior takes debating the ethics or legality of any situation off the table. My kids used to use this same tactic when they were, like, three.
I enjoy Warren Olney whenever I catch one of his programs. Today's "To the Point" was good. He interviews Charlie Savage and then moderates a discussion on the prosecutor scandal, between Roger Clegg (President and General Counsel of the "Center for Equal Opportunity")(oxymoronic name, btw) and David Becker (Senior Counsel at People for the American Way). After Charlie Savage lays out the issues, Clegg's first response is (paraphrased), "This is to be expected. Everyone does it. It's politics as usual." Becker sets him straight.
Hosted by Warren Olney, To the Point is a fast-paced, news based one-hour daily national program that focuses on the hot-button issues of the day, co-produced by KCRW and Public Radio International.
Partisan Politics at the Justice Department
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales faces more questions about partisan politics in the administration of justice. Were federal prosecutors hired for their Republican leanings? Did they use their power to influence some of last year's closest elections?
http://www.kcrw.com/news/programs/tp#today
[That's the link for today. Tomorrow you have to scroll down and listen under "Recent Shows."]
-
Shorter RealName and Elephantman:
"Glenn is wrong but we can't or won't say why."
Convincing!
"U GUYZ R WRNG!" is a powerful statement but given that Libby was already found guilty and Wolfowitz admitted his own guilt you'll have to do a bit better than that.
Call me crazy but if you want to claim that someone is incorrect you might try pointing out *why* exactly. I'm strange like that.
Logic - it's not just for 5th graders any more.
-
@Michael Harold
What's wrong with libertarianism? I was thinking about this after the little battle last night, and I remembered a bit about signaling in the animal world.
Among most social animals, signaling mechanisms for hierarchical positions are common. The problem is that the hierarchy should correspond to the health, strength, intelligence, etc, of the pack members involved - basically, the hierarchy should reflect what it each member can demand (including "enlightened self-interest"). The problem with each member just demanding it, and fighting it out, is that the pack would be destroyed - the damage would be so great, that it's in no individual organisms interest to fight it out.
So every social species has evolved markers that are tied to the qualities that would win a fight. Peacocks have feathers, reflecting their health. Rams have horns. And so on. The rams can measure their fitness by locking horns - both individuals can measure each others strength without risking too much in the process. This applies both to sexual and political selection, which are of course intertwined.
Now the libertarian and the fascists (strangely enough?) both start their philosophy of government from the principle that government is defined by it's legitimate monopoly on violence - this is the textbook poli sci definition. For the fascist, this implies that government should be wielded by an unabashed application of violence and power. For the libertarian, this means that government should be limited to those things that invariably involve violence.
Both are wrong. Poli sci intro textbooks are wrong. Government is not defined by it's monopoly on violence - that is a side effect. Government (human politics) is the human power signaling mechanism. It's primary goal is to reduce violence by signaling what would happen under a regime where each individual battles it out to gain their place in the hierarchy. Logically, that leads to the members limiting their violent capabilities (among others), and pooling them away from day-to-day accessibility. We then use complex social interactions to ascertain our intelligence, health and even physical strength.
When those mechanism fail - someone is thought to be a cheater, or someone misapprehends relative power or that relative power becomes ambiguous, government starts to fail and violence ensues. Systems that center on the governments monopoly of violence start from the wrong premise - they start from the breakdown of government, not from it's healthy functioning. And so, they inevitably fail. Fascist governments tend toward instability, as each possible leader wars it out with others. Libertarians recreate that same mistake, by stripping societies from many of it's self-regulating mechanisms, and focusing on only one simple variation, leaving the rest outside any legal framework.