So the Bush White House endeavors to send out a nice, simple, inclusive holiday card. No different than millions of Americans of all religions send out.
And what happens? The extreme religious right is offended. Hëll, let’s not even call them the extreme religious right, because that makes it sound like extremist Jews, Muslims, Shintoists, etc., are all on the same page. Let’s call it what it is: Extremist Christians.
Here’s the fascinating thing about Extremists: They’re all the same. The philosophy of Extremist Christians is fundamentally no different than, say, that of Extremist Muslims. They believe in the same things: Exclusionary thinking. Intolerance. Ignoring fundamental lessons of their own faith when it runs afoul of extremist thinking. Where is the philosophy of Christian charity and understanding? Where is the writings in the Koran specifically forbidding the killing of innocents? They don’t serve the Extremist viewpoint of exclusion and intolerance and thus are cast aside.
They only differ in degrees of their actions. Some chop off the heads of helpless victims. Others blow up abortion clinics.
And the most consistent link is that trying to accommodate them never, ever works. That’s what Bush is discovering now, having staked his political star to the whims of the Extremists. It’s insufficient for Extremists that eighty percent of this country celebrates Christmas. Instead the ONLY acceptable greeting at this time of year is “Merry Christmas” rather than something inclusive such as “Happy holidays.” It’s insufficient for Extremists that there is already an implicit lack of separation of church and state around the holidays (the government shuts down for Christmas. You see the government shutting down for Yom Kippur? For Ramadan?) They want an EXplicit lack of separation by having the official greeting card from the White House be in celebration of Christmas only.
It’s never enough for Extremists. Never enough. Because the only thing that will really satisfy them–whether they’re walking bombs or just bombasts–is if everyone thinks just like them, believes just like them, and wants the same things as them. Which is never, ever going to happen, which is why they will never, ever be satisfied. Bush has been trying to appease them and hopefully even he is now realizing that it’s hopeless.
One is left shaking one’s head at a people who are claiming their holiday, their very beliefs, are being threatened. No. When Romans were throwing them to the lions, THEN their beliefs were being threatened. Here, in this country, their core philosophies have complete dominance over just about every aspect of life in this country.
And it’s not enough.
When dealing with Extremists and terrorists…it never is.
PAD
• 
Jim, it all boils down to the relationship between Christianity and other things in the U.S. and in general: other (happy) holidays, namely religions; other explanation of natural phenomena — science; other ways of life — homosexuality; other philosophies; and other moral point of view — humanism, etc.
One of the greatest questions of human existence is how can people with different point of views live together?
If you define yourself solely in terms of your enemy, you’ve already gone a long way towards becoming them
I agree with that. well said.
The leak in this case was meant to alert the public to illegal behavior on the part of the government. That strikes me as part of the main reason why leaks are an important part of civilized society.
The leak in the Plame case was political retaliation — or if you want to argue that that hasn’t been proven, at a minimum it was a leak by people high in the administration eager to provide political cover for policy.
The motives behind the two leaks are transparently and fundamentally different. Thus, opinions on the wrongness of said leaks are perfectly entitled to be as well.
then they should immediately drop all charges against Mr Libby since they will not be able to prove his intent or motive beyond a reasonable doubt. One of the excuses that had been offered for libby was that he was trying to explain why Wilson got the job to investigate accusations of yellowcake in Niger. Despite Wilson’s claims to the contrary, his wife had a role in getting him the assignment. Libby may or may not have been aware of Plame’s covert status when he outed her.
By your reasoning, if Libby genuinely felt that he was setting the record straight–remember, some were claiming that Wilson was sent on a fact finding mission by Cheney himself, which was not true–he should not be held accountable.
Interestingly, I’d brought up some of this in earlier threads, wondering what would happen if people leaked this kind of info for “good” reasons but as I recall the reply from some of the “let’s execute Rove for treason” crowd was pretty much on the order of “the law is the law”.
Seems to me the easiest system is to apply the law fairly. If the intentions of the leaker are deemed relevant then so be it–but we will have to establish that, won’t we? So justice demands that we investigate, identify and possibly indict the leakers, let the facts come out and lionize or imprison them, as the truth comes out.
Picking and choosing who gets to break the law seems a bit disingenuous.
There are beginning to be drips and drabs coming out about how often presidents from carter to Clinton have supported and used Warrentless searches and i8investigations. It seems a bit early to conclude that this is commonplace but I’d bet that is how it will end up. That is not an excuse for continuing it but it will certainly weaken the likelihood of any major impeachment hearing coming out of this.
http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo12139.htm
May 1979
1-101. Pursuant to Section 102(a)(1) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1802(a)), the Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order, but only if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that Section.
Signed by Jimmy Carter
http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200512200946.asp
“The Department of Justice believes, and the case law supports, that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes,” Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee on July 14, 1994, “and that the President may, as has been done, delegate this authority to the Attorney General.”
“It is important to understand,” Gorelick continued, “that the rules and methodology for criminal searches are inconsistent with the collection of foreign intelligence and would unduly frustrate the president in carrying out his foreign intelligence responsibilities.”
Feb 1995
http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo/eo-12949.htm
Section 1. Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) of the Act, the Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order, to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year, if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that section.
Signed by Bill Clinton.
Where was the outrage?
RE: Unauthorized Wiretaps by Carter and Clinton
I have a feeling this is one of those way out of context exerpts a la those quotes by prominent left-leaning politicians that suggested they they were always for invading Iraq.
But I wait to be retroactively outraged (along with Reagan and Bush 41 whom I also suspect performed similar acts).
And besides, isn’t the current crop of conservatives supposed to be better than that?
Good call, Sasha. Here’s the real dope on the “Clinton authorized wiretaps too!” myth. The full text of the order — the part that Bill Mulligan omitted — reads:
(Full text here)
Or, in layman’s terms,
–R.J.
http://www.electric-escape.net/
No, Bill. Even if Libby felt he was “setting the record straight”, that still falls under the heading of “providing political cover for policy.”
Regardless of how you want to spin Libby’s motives, he was not leaking to expose wrongdoing — which, last time I checked, was the criterion I posted and you’re trying to do an end run around. Leaking to correct a mistake is not the same thing.
It’s not primarily a question of intent — it’s a question of the venue to which the leak is relevant, and that’s verifiable by three blind monkeys at this point.
You are once again trying to argue that all leaks are created equal, and displaying an unusual-for-you bit of black-and-white thinking in the process. Sorry. Not this time.
TWL
I have yet to hear any story where there was a blatant use of this authority to intimidate his political enemies here in the US.
Then you’ve been living under a rock the whole time Fitzgerald has been investigating the Bush Administration’s outing of Valerie Plame.
Since I know how certain people love to take quotes out of context, I’m going to try to make this as clear as possible:
If Bush has been ordering wiretaps and other electronic surveillance in the United States of US citizens without going through the channels required by law to obtain a warrant, he is morally and ethically wrong.
If Clinton and Carter were ordering wiretaps and other electronic surveillance in the United States of US citizens without going through the channels required by law to obtain a warrant, they were morally and ethically wrong.
Here, however, is the crucial difference for the “where’s the outrage” question: Clinton and Carter are the past. They are out of office. There is nothing we can do about their past actions as president. Bush is the current president and after listening to him thump his chest in 2000 about how morally superior he was and how he was going to “restore honor” to the White House, for his apologists to use the “Clinton did it, so it’s okay for Bush to do it” arguement is just plain laughable.
tim, I simply don’t understand how you can expect anyone to accept your interpretation of the motives of these various leakers–when we don’t even know who they are.
Is there at least the possibility in your mind that this could have been done for less than admirable motives? What if it turns out that the leak was designed to do nothing more than cause political trouble for the president–would that then become illegal in you eyes or does the the end justify the means 9and intent).
Look, I’m not unhappy that this came out, especially since this seems to have been a lot more common than we knew. But given the naked screaming outrage directed at karl rove for his (so far) minor role in the Plame leak I just have to marvel at the contortions it takes to praise other leakers of national security issues. If people want to admit that they don’t give a rat’s ášš about the law, it should just be applied depending on where the political fallout end up, hey, fine. But that doesn’t quite jibe with their previous positions.
Here’s the real dope on the “Clinton authorized wiretaps too!” myth. The full text of the order — the part that Bill Mulligan omitted — reads:
Section 1. Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) [50 U.S.C. 1822(a)] of the [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance] Act, the Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order, to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year, if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that section.
Uh, Robert? Here’s what I posted:
Section 1. Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) of the Act, the Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order, to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year, if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that section.
I got it from http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo/eo-12949.htm which has the actual executive order (EXECUTIVE ORDER 12949 for those who collect them). I didn’t change a word and I’m having a difficult time seeing any big changes in what I copied and what you wrote…so please tell me what I “omitted”? Also, how exactly did I omit something from an executive order when all I did was copy and paste? Did I hack into the White House computers and change the order? Would that I had such power!
Incidentally, While George Tenant’s comments are interesting they A-don’t change the executive order one bit and B-have a lot of wiggle room. If You are deemed under the control or influence of Al Qeada you may well be considered “agents of a foreign power” and all bets are off.
It may well be true that the Clinton Administration did not pursue their belief that the President has the authority to order warrentless searches but their strenuous arguing that the president COULD do so certainly weakens the likelihood of impeachment charges against Bush. My argument is that this is so remote a possibility that if Democrats focus on it they will just lose and there will be no attention at all paid to the greater issue of whether or not such orders should be allowed–legal or not.
Den.
Wah wah wah.
Haven’t heard anyone here actually use the “Clinton did it, so it’s okay for Bush to do it” defense but then you ARE gifted with the preternatural ability to read minds and motives, eh?
And careful or even casual readers will note that what I said was “Where was the outrage?” Get that? “Was”? Past tense? yeah, I get that “Clinton and Carter are the past. They are out of office. There is nothing we can do about their past actions as president.” (Hope I’m not quoting you out of context. I’m using the cut and paste method but you never know what might get dropped out in the transition). But here’s the thing–these actions were reported. People knew. And. They. Did. Nothing.
Personally, I want this fully investigated. That may make me an apologist but I’ll live with it.
Bush approved…and will continue to approve illegal wiretaps.
But it’s ok, because Clinton, and other presidents, did it too.
Fine. Anyone have the language or statute (for the lay person, that means the LAW) that Bush is using to approve his wiretapping? If I understand Bush, it’s the same congresional resolution that he used to declare war on Iraq. The resolution that was to approve the president’s actions taken to counteract terrorists wherever we found them. Bush saw them in Iraq, despite the fact that no one else did.
He was wrong then. He’s wrong now. I don’t understand how anyone, in good conscience, can continue to defend this man. His mistakes have cost the lives of over 2,000 us troops, injured thousands more, over (his own admission) 30,000 Iraqi lives, hundreds of foreign allied troops, and now he’s invading the very privacy of US citizens that he claims to be protecting.
And your best defense is “Clinton did it, too?” That’s a lie.
Don’t just cite some vague law. Do the rest of the homework. You can find the relevant sections of FISA here: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00001822—-000-.html
I’ll do the shorthand for you: that authorization was explicitly for property controlled or owned by a “foreign power of powers,” and explicitly NOT to include a “substantial likelihood that the physical search will involve the premises, information, material, or property of a United States person”
Let me state that clearly. The citation to Clinton’s wiretapping was for foreign property ONLY.
Bill,
You’re spending way too much time arguing about legalities here.
However, here’s my last comment on the legal issues. Your claim that “well, if that’s the standard, charges against Libby should be dropped” is incorrect on its face, because Libby was not charged with breaking that law in question. He was charged with perjury and impeding an investigation, neither of which depends on whether the “leaking classified info” act was broken. Since, last I checked, you considered perjury a serious crime (at least when committed by a Democrat about an irrelevant subject), that should end the discussion about Libby.
Second — on the wiretaps. If this were simply nothing more than continuing the status quo, don’t you think the administration would be saying that? The fact that Bush has given all of these addresses and press conferences saying “we’re saving your lives, you stupid scum” strongly suggests that they think this is a new action. Why, therefore, should we pay attention to the Clinton-did-it-too crowd?
tim, I simply don’t understand how you can expect anyone to accept your interpretation of the motives of these various leakers–when we don’t even know who they are.
Look at the effects, Bill.
The Wilson case — was not revealing wrongdoing against or a threat to the American public. At its most generous interpretation, it was “setting the record straight” by offering an alternate interpretation to some events — but it was, at its heart, addressing a political question and not one of constitutionality.
The wiretap case — raises questions about the constitutionality of this administration’s behavior. That is what a free press is for. That is what leaks are for.
The leaker in the wiretap case could have had it in for Bush, sure, though that’s not what’s come out so far. It doesn’t change the effect that the leaks themselves were qualitatively different. Leaks about potential abuses of power on behalf of the group of people currently in power are always okay in my book — that’s often the only way for anybody to find out about such behavior.
given the naked screaming outrage directed at karl rove for his (so far) minor role in the Plame leak I just have to marvel at the contortions it takes to praise other leakers of national security issues.
Marvel all you like. The differences are pretty plain, and I don’t feel that I’m making even minor contortions. (And coming from a background in cosmology, I certainly know what logical contortions look like…)
Let’s cut through some of the verbiage here. I’m going to ask you three questions, and would appreciate simple, straight answers.
1) Do you feel that the actions of those who outed Valerie Plame — Libby, Rove, and whoever talked to Woodward — were justified, or a breach of ethics? Not “legal vs. illegal” — ethical. If you don’t feel you have enough information, what other information would you need?
2) Do you feel that the actions of the Bush administration as regards setting up these wiretaps are an abuse of power, or reasonable? If you don’t feel you have enough information, what other information would you need?
3) Do you feel that the actions of whoever leaked this info to the NYT are justified, or an ethical breach? If you don’t feel you have enough information, what other information would you need?
TWL
Bill, I may not have read clearly, but it sure seemed to me that you were saying “Clinton did it, and no one got outraged. Why now that Bush is doing it?”
Which, I’ll admit, one needs to do a little mental gymnastics to get to “Clinton did it, it must have been ok.”
But if when you say
“People knew. And. They. Did. Nothing.”
regarding Clinton, check the link in my last post. Even if a US citizen were proven to be an agent of Bin Laden, Clinton would still have needed a warrant. FISA prevents invasion of privacy of US citizens without a warrant.
Personally, I want this fully investigated.
So do I, and I’m happy to bring past presidents into it as well.
However, I want the primary focus to be on the current wrongdoing, because that’s the one we can do something about.
And might I humbly point out that the argument “wah wah wah” is perhaps not the best way to come across as on the side of reason?
TWL
Haven’t heard anyone here actually use the “Clinton did it, so it’s okay for Bush to do it” defense but then you ARE gifted with the preternatural ability to read minds and motives, eh?
Ah, Bill, you injected Clinton into the debate and challenged those who are outraged today to explain why they weren’t outraged then (and since you asked, had I seen those reports in 1995, I would have been outraged) and by doing so, you are implying that anyone who criticizes Bush today is a hypocrite.
You brought it up and used it to counter those who said what Bush is doing is wrong.
But, go ahead and make another personal attack on me, since you seem to think that’s a substitute for a debate these days.
But here’s the thing–these actions were reported. People knew. And. They. Did. Nothing.
Which, if true, was wrong but, other posters have pointed out that Clinton’s order apparently did not cover wiretapping of US citizens living in this country, which Bush’s order allegedly did. If this is true, then that’s a key difference. US Citizens under the law are supposed to be granted at least the nominal oversight of the FISA court. Foreigners do not have that protection.
Personally, I find the idea of secret warrants to surveil US citizens repugnant, but the law allows them if they go through proper channels. No president should feel he is free to bypass those channels.
You say you want it investigated, fine. But attacking people for not being outraged ten years ago does nothing to advance the investigation. It’s a deliberate distraction from the current issue. Perhaps they should have been outraged, but again, that’s the past. Let’s put the actual law on the table and look at what is being done right now. The “Clinton did it” defense is not a justification if Bush’s order does in fact violate the law.
I’m not a fan of Clinton. He did many things that I disagree with, but if you really want the legality of these wiretaps investigated, attacking people for not being outraged over Clinton does nothing to advance the investigation.
Doing so only tells people that your true interest is shutting down the debate.
Fine. Anyone have the language or statute (for the lay person, that means the LAW) that Bush is using to approve his wiretapping?
I’d love to see that, too. So far, Bush’s assertion that his wiretapping order was legal boils down to, “because I said so.”
He’s going to have to do better than that.
As for outrage, the NYT apparently had this story in 2004 and sat on it, giving Bush a pass to avoid this sticky issue during the election. That seems like a strange action for a newspaper that is supposedly his mortal enemy.
Which, I’ll admit, one needs to do a little mental gymnastics to get to “Clinton did it, it must have been ok.”
Maybe, but anytime you compare the actions of a past president to the current one and say words to the effect of, well, you weren’t outraged when President A did it, so you have no right to be outraged now that President B did it, you are implying that people have already given implicit approval to the current president’s actions.
Of course, that sidesteps the points that 1) the technical difference between the two may have been just different enough to make one legal and the other not (jury is still out on that) and 2) Clinton’s actions were not reported in the media as widely as Bush’s are now. Which is a grievous and unforgivable error on the part of the media, but hardly a counter argument against people who are outraged today.
Bobb,
I suspect term limits wouldn’t work as an overall answer because government has become so complex that you’d have an even bigger problem with non-elected aids actually running the show.
Tim,
Respectfully disagree. The goals and motivations for war are what sink Saddam as well as inappropriate response to the situation (nerve gassing unarmed protestors, for example). The same onus falls on us: our goals and motivation must be above reproach (which is, to some, a large question in the Iraq war), but once war is engaged, you wage to win. If we dropped a nuke on Iraq then you’ve got your inappropriate response and something to complain about, but to lie down and lose because some principles will be offended, no. War is war and you fight to win.
As an atheistic evolutionist, aren’t “principles” just social conventions, anyway? A layered illusion on the back of evolved animals? (I’m not saying you feel this way, I’m just not sure what principles are for one such as yourself. What gives principles validity for you? Honest question — when I was an atheist, unlike you, I was a scumbag with no principles to examine, so I honestly don’t know.)
I suspect term limits wouldn’t work as an overall answer because government has become so complex that you’d have an even bigger problem with non-elected aids actually running the show.
I’m not sure if I buy that argument. After, each new president brings in his own people to run the White House. Even if he’s from the same party as the incumbant, often the top slots go to someone the incoming president is familiar with rather than friends of the incumbant. A few cabinet positions may be holdovers, but there is always so turnover.
If we put term limits on Congress, I suspect that there would be more turnover among Congressional aides as well. Perhaps some would find a new patron once their current one left office, but many would also use connections made while working for Congress to get jobs as lobbyists or consultants.
Robbnn, is “War is war and you fight to win” the equivilent of “dámņ the torpedoes, full speed ahead?”
Meaning, once you get into the thick of things, you do what is necessary to accomplish you objective, regardless of the consequences?
I’ll be blunt: I think that the US is engaged in kidnapping, transportation of kindappees, torture, illegal imprisonment, and confinement without justice. All of these things, when American citizens do them to other Americans, are regarded as Federal crimes. Our president tells us that these acts, under different names, are necessary to accomplish our objective of defeating terrorism and maintaining the safety of our country. Both admiriable goals, to be sure. But what’s the point, if our methods destroy the very thing we are fighting to protect? Our ideals and beliefs, that there’s a better, more civilized, free way of life decry the acts that our soldiers and agents are allowed to commit. I just watched Serenity last night, so I’ll bring in the analogy of the Operative. Are we creating monsters, fighting to give us a better world, but one that has no place for the monsters? And if so, what does that make us?
I’m just not sure what principles are for one such as yourself. What gives principles validity for you? Honest question — when I was an atheist, unlike you, I was a scumbag with no principles to examine, so I honestly don’t know.
That question is so unbelievably insulting, I don’t know where to begin.
Thank you, however, for helping lend validity to the argument that when some religious people claim there can be no morality without religion, it’s because they themselves have no morality outside of their faith. You’ve just claimed openly that that’s the case for you.
I’m not going to discuss my principles with someone who implies I’m scum and refers to me as “one such as yourself.” Feel utterly free to pìšš øff — but if you want a serious answer, I would think that the last two years of posts I’ve made here would be sufficiently illuminating.
Bye now. Don’t wait up.
TWL
Are we creating monsters, fighting to give us a better world, but one that has no place for the monsters? And if so, what does that make us?
A better question may be, are creating new monsters that will one day turn around and bite us in the ášš? (See: Osama bin Laden, Fidel Castro)
Haven’t heard anyone here actually use the “Clinton did it, so it’s okay for Bush to do it” defense
I have on another forum. Ðámņ twit instantly brought up “well, this existed under Clinton & Carter”.
But nevermind the fact that, if thats the case, this also existed under Bush Sr, as well as Reagan, who I feel was far more likely to use this abuse of power than Clinton & Carter.
Either way, the circumstances between actual use by Bush, and potential use by Clinton (did Clinton ever use this act?) are different – Bush said “don’t bother getting a warrant”.
I have on another forum. Ðámņ twit instantly brought up “well, this existed under Clinton & Carter”.
But nevermind the fact that, if thats the case, this also existed under Bush Sr, as well as Reagan, who I feel was far more likely to use this abuse of power than Clinton & Carter.
A quick look at the political blogs shows that this argument is everywhere and always omitting Reagan and Bush the first. Bill is using a slight variation in telling people that they have no right to be outraged over Bush the second since Clinton may or may not have gotten away with it, but that mindset is the same.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/20/AR2005122000685.html
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/12/21/spyjudge.resigns.ap/index.html
Fallout from spygate hits the FISA court.
Tim, you misunderstand me. I’m not implying you’re scum (I said the exact opposite, in fact), I said I was scum so I don’t understand, having had no reason to look at the question when I was on that side of the fence. Quite clearly you HAVE principles, that’s why I’m asking where they come from/how they are valid. To look at your posts over the last several years indicates to me that you are not scum and that you do have principles. In no way am I insulting you, I’m asking for your philosophy of principle. If principles are “real” I’m asking for an understanding of how that can be.
As I undestand them principles/morals are handed down by God. If you don’t believe in God but believe morals are something more than social convention, I’d like to know how that can be. I’m sure there’s an answer; I just don’t know what it is.
I don’t understand your reaction, either. I praised you, slammed myself, and asked for help understanding. What’s wrong with that?
Tim,
Have been staying out of this, since I can understand the concern of many, including conservatives like George Will, have over the Eavesdropping Issue.
However, I feel such actions may be necessary -it was eavesdropping that helped foil a plot to blow up the Brooklyn Bridge. Bush has just made this unnecessarily hard on himself, since from what I’ve heard it is universally acknowleged that he would have obtained warrants rather easily.
Also, I think you may be misreading Robbnn’s statement, which at first glance I thought was a bit over the top against you.
But if you reread her words,
“When I was an atheist, unlike you, I was a scumbag with no principles to examine.”
She specifically says UNLIKE you. Which would tend to imply she has recognized that you DO have principles you live by.
I could understand your being upset if she said what I think you thought she said; but she didn’t say it, so it makes no sense to be mad.
You are, of course, free to feel however you like. Just thought I’d give you a different point of view.
Especially since – although there’s times you’ve portrayed me as foaming-at-the-mouth – I really do enjoy these discussions a lot more when you and Bill are around.
It makes for a passionate and intelligent exchange of ideas.
I saw that, Den, and if that doesn’t send a chill out among people, nothing will. The FISA court was established as the last line of protection individual Americans had against the vast might of the Executive office. It was the administrative tool that gave life to the Constitutional check on the Executive. And now the validity of that check has been compromised. The idea that warrants might have been issued on the basis of information gained through illegal means taints the entire legal process. This next statement isn’t just hyperbole…it calls into question Bush’s entire prosecution of the legality of this so-called war he’s fighting.
Yes, for those that think this, there is a difference between gassing a couple thousand people engaged in civil disobeidience (or revolt, as others might put it) and eroding or outright tromping on the essential rights of a nation. The second is far, far more dangerous. That sounds cold, I’m sure, but I would trade the lives a few thousand people if it meant I don’t have to worry whether the government is going to listen in on my private conversations, search my property, seize me and imprison me without a trial, or just make me disappear for a few years. And unless I’m mistaken, we did just that…only it was a few hundred thousand lives, during the 40s.
Robbnn,
Fine. You didn’t mean the statement to come across the way it did. It’s not exactly an apology, but I suppose it’ll have to do.
As I undestand them principles/morals are handed down by God. If you don’t believe in God but believe morals are something more than social convention, I’d like to know how that can be. I’m sure there’s an answer; I just don’t know what it is.
Fine. Here’s my “manifesto”, if you will.
I believe that what time we get on Earth is all we ever get. No rewards or punishments after, depending on how good a person we were or which particular bureaucratic hoops we jumped through. As Neil Gaiman has written, you get what everybody gets — a lifetime.
As such, if that’s all we ever get, I think each of us has a moral duty to leave this planet and this species better off than we found it — or at an absolute minimum, to obey the larger version of the Hippocratic oath and do no harm. The greatest gift I can give to my daughter is a world and a country that she can be proud to live in, and that she CAN live in — and I need to be able to look back while on my deathbed and say, “Yes, I helped bring this about.”
That means, over the long term, that you look at what’s best for humanity and for the planet as a whole. None of this nationalistic “hey, aren’t WE the best there is” crap holds up except insofar as it serves those ends.
Thus, people who refuse to recognize things which threaten our entire global environment (such as global warming), or who dismiss long-term questions with “how should I know? we’ll all be dead” are utterly antithetical to living a good life. They live only for the short term and are concentrated on maximizing their own temporal gain while impeding long-term survival.
And for the record, I think religion can get in the way of this a great deal, though it certainly doesn’t have to. When you have individuals who are so busy waiting for the Rapture that they not only overlook problems here, but indeed root for them because it’ll accelerate what they see as prophecy, they are part of the problem and not the solution.
There. That’s a worldview in a few hundred words. I have no idea if it answers your question or not — but there it is.
TWL
He was charged with perjury and impeding an investigation, neither of which depends on whether the “leaking classified info” act was broken. Since, last I checked, you considered perjury a serious crime (at least when committed by a Democrat about an irrelevant subject), that should end the discussion about Libby.
Bingo. You sir, are correct and I was wrong. My arguing that Libby was being prosecuted for leaking was as incorrect as those who keep saying that Clinton was impeached over a bløwjøb.
1) Do you feel that the actions of those who outed Valerie Plame — Libby, Rove, and whoever talked to Woodward — were justified, or a breach of ethics? Not “legal vs. illegal” — ethical. If you don’t feel you have enough information, what other information would you need?
I “feel” that they were probably a breach of ethics. I “think” that I don’t have enough information to say for sure–the trial will possibly bring that out, though, as we have established, that won’t matter much to the perjury charge. One bit of info needed would be whether or not Libby knew that Plame was a covert agent–it might not change the legality but it would have an effect on whether or not what he did was unethical.
I also think that, given the qualification that you have put on the legalities of leaks a good lawyer could raise enough doubt to make conviction almost impossible on that charge, should it be raised.
2) Do you feel that the actions of the Bush administration as regards setting up these wiretaps are an abuse of power, or reasonable? If you don’t feel you have enough information, what other information would you need?
I don’t know. My gut feeling–and there isn’t enough info yet for me to feel comfortable to call it more than that–is that it is, if not an out and out abuse of power at least far too great a temptation for such abuses to occur. We don’t yet know how many wiretaps there were, on who, or why, or what they gained from them or…well, much of anything.
3) Do you feel that the actions of whoever leaked this info to the NYT are justified, or an ethical breach? If you don’t feel you have enough information, what other information would you need?
Again, how could I make a reasoned judgment? We don’t know who did it. We have no way of knowing why they did it. Since we don’t know any of the answers of 2) we also can’t answer whether or not these leaks have exposed a dangerous abuse of power or damaged a valuable tool in the fight against terrorists. (Or C-neither of the above) Some may feel comfortable jumping to one extreme conclusion or the other on the basis of such skimpy info. I’m not.
For an informed opinion, an investigation is called for. Let the chips fall where they may. The most regrettable outcome would be if some new technology that we aren’t aware of is revealed as a result, giving the terrorists a heads up but I would hope that congress could put aside petty partisan score settling to get to the truth without endangering lives.
Bobb,
My actual point was that I think this may have been going on for some time and that the idea that this is an impeachable offense is a fantasy. I think this is extremely worthy of investigation but if Democrats try to go for the big enchilada they will blow any hope of something concrete coming out of it.
Again, whether or not the Clinton administration pulled the trigger on their stated legal opinion that the President had the legal authority to do warrentless searches, it certainly makes it unlikely that congress can claim that Bush has done an impeachable offense.
And might I humbly point out that the argument “wah wah wah” is perhaps not the best way to come across as on the side of reason?
Oh, agreed. But if Den continues to pretend that I quoted him out of context I’m going to treat the argument with the level of respect it deserves. If there were some way I could format the line Since I know how certain people love to take quotes out of context, I’m going to try to make this as clear as possible: in a way that makes it sound like it’s being said in a whiny pissy tone I would have but I only know italics and bold. Maybe I should be a better person but a man needs to know his limitations.
Ah, Bill, you injected Clinton into the debate and challenged those who are outraged today to explain why they weren’t outraged then (and since you asked, had I seen those reports in 1995, I would have been outraged) and by doing so, you are implying that anyone who criticizes Bush today is a hypocrite.
Speak of the devil! And like clockwork, he does it again. Go ahead, my man, find and quote the relevant passage where I, ahem, “challenged those who are outraged today to explain why they weren’t outraged then”. Go on.
(Here’s a hint– even I wasn’t outraged then!)
(And I’ve expressed serious reservations about whether or not this is a good thing to be doing now)
(which would mean that I’m calling myself a hypocrite!. Wow, This is puzzling! How to explain the seeming contradiction?)
Actually, it was Iowa Jim for first “injected Clinton into the debate” (must have been a large syringe). My first comment on the matter was: There are beginning to be drips and drabs coming out about how often presidents from carter to Clinton have supported and used Warrentless searches and investigations. It seems a bit early to conclude that this is commonplace but I’d bet that is how it will end up. That is not an excuse for continuing it but it will certainly weaken the likelihood of any major impeachment hearing coming out of this.
From that you carry on. Ah well. You see what you want to see. You see my pointing out that previous presidential executive orders giving the president warrentless search powers did not create a furor as somehow “Attacking” those who did not raise a stink. All in your mind, sir. A good number of folks on this board were hardly old enough to be outraged by ANYTHING Carter did. My point, again, was that previous executive orders and legal opinions will make it very hard to make this stick to Bush unless it can be shown that this was used for nakedly partisan purposes. A majority of those polled think the Patriot Act is either fine as is or needs to be stronger. Bush won’t suffer a bit if it turns out he tapped the phones of legit targets. As for why they felt the need to bypass the usual system–there’s the question. I can think of a few possibilities, some benign and some impeachable. That’s why I want an investigation.
You seem to believe that any criticism, even those that exist in your own mind, are attacks. Sorry, but my point, and I’ll keep on repeating it until it takes, is that given the lack of outrage over previous attempts to assert presidential power to issue warrentless searches, I just don’t believe it can now be turned into an impeachable offense. You can spin that any way you want, if it makes it easier for you to argue than sticking to the facts but it is what it is.
Maybe, but anytime you compare the actions of a past president to the current one and say words to the effect of, well, you weren’t outraged when President A did it, so you have no right to be outraged now that President B did it, you are implying that people have already given implicit approval to the current president’s actions.
Ah, once again in the Land Of Your Dreams. Said no such thing, implied no such thing, and this would be far more acceptable coming from anyone except the guy who went into a hissy fit when I quoted him. And I mean I actually quoted him, not saying weasel phrases and words like “in effect” “implying” etc etc. Pro. Jec. Tion.
Tim,
While I understand your anger, I thought that Robbnn was saying that when he was an atheist he was a scumbag–unlike you, who is an atheist and NOT a scumbag. I think he was making a complement. It would be hard for anyone to read this blog on a regular basis and come to any other conclusion.
But it was awkwardly phrased so I can well see how one could come to another interpretation without resorting to Den-like logic gymnastics.
Bingo. You sir, are correct and I was wrong.
Thank you. See, that wasn’t so hard. 🙂
I think the rest of this is likely to be in “agree to disagree” territory, so I’m going to lay my portion of the wiretap arguments to rest here.
(And between your post and Jerome, I think the essential question now is: Is Robbnn a “he” or a “she”? You went with the former, Jerome with the latter. I haven’t a clue.)
TWL
Tim, I believe that Robbnn has previously stated that he is a “he”.
Fred
Bill is using a slight variation in telling people that they have no right to be outraged over Bush the second since Clinton may or may not have gotten away with it, but that mindset is the same.
Psychological projection (or projection bias) can be defined as unconsciously assuming that others share the same or similar thoughts, beliefs, values, or positions on any given subject. According to the theories of Sigmund Freud, it is a psychological defense mechanism whereby one “projects” one’s own undesirable thoughts, motivations, desires, feelings—basically parts of oneself—onto someone else (usually another person, but psychological projection onto animals and inanimate objects also occurs). The principle of projection is well-established in psychology.
Translation: Bill has nothing but personal attacks to make.
Whatever, Bill. My last shred of personal respect for you has just evaporated.
“Again, whether or not the Clinton administration pulled the trigger on their stated legal opinion that the President had the legal authority to do warrentless searches, it certainly makes it unlikely that congress can claim that Bush has done an impeachable offense.”
Bill, I think I understand where you’re coming from, but this line of thinking isn’t logical, and if this ever does become an impeachment issue, it won’t be dispositive.
You can’t make an act legal just by saying “but we’ve been doing this for years.” There’s many cases where a law gets ennacted, enforced, applied, and only until it’s challenged before a court, despite how many other courts have upheld it, does it get declared unconstitutional or otherwise struck down. If it were simply a matter of historical repitition that made a law valid, jaywalking laws would be entirely unenforcable in about 90% of American cities today.
If it’s wrong now, it would have been wrong under Clinton. Whether Clinton acted, or just stated that he thought he could or should be allowed to act, has only annecdotal weight if Bush ever sees and legal ramifications from this.
Although I think the chances of Bush getting impeached right now are very slim. Public opinion may be way down, but until the sitting GOP members start feeling like their own political lives are at stake, they still control the congress. And there can’t be any impeachment if the Senate won’t call for one.
And you know what? As much as I hate this current administration, I don’t think an impeachment would be good for the country. The GOP, for better or worse, is in control. An impeachment would mean a total fragmentation of the controlling party, and that can’t be a good thing for any American.
Robnnn,
i’m going to try to field the question of morality without God, as it’s something i’ve put a great deal of thought into.
my morality is, quite simply, to seek pleasure and avoid pain. i believe this is the most basic drive of all animals.
now, the trick to turning this imperitive into anything resembling what we might call morality is to recognize that the wellbeing of others affects you and to be sufficiently far-sighted about the consequences of your actions.
if i give to charity, it is, on a very important level, because i believe that by easing poverty we can reduce crime thereby reducing the risk that i or someone i care for will be harmed by criminal actions.
i approach morality pragmatically. what can it do for me? i treat other people well because that raises the chances that they will treat me well. i think the golden rule has a good solid practical basis.
bottom line is, i personally don’t do anything that i don’t see as benefitting (directly or indirectly) myself or those i care for.
and my caring for people is in no way altruistic either (i actually don’t believe altruism exists) because caring for people adds to my quality of life.
that’s just my approach, i expect other non-believers may have a very different take on things.
oh, and please no one try to tell me that some people enjoy pain. enjoying pain is a logical impossibility. you may enjoy something i consider to be painful, or you may find pleasure in your ability to bear pain. this is not really the same as enjoying pain. many things in life give both pleasure and pain. a certain pleasure (love) may be worth a great deal of pain. it’s all about making intelligent choices to maximize pleasure and minimize pain,and there are frequently compromises involved.
-will
This is getting very fun, if not quite in keeping with the holiday spirit. But, alas, I must leave to go on a long trip from North Carolina to Eastern PA, including long stretches through West Virginia. Ever hit West Va during a snow storm? In the mountains? Where every human looks like an inbred worshiper of The Corn God? (note to those from West Virginia: I’m kidding! Although you know what I mean…)
So a Merry Christmas to all the Christians! Have some eggnog while you sit in front of the fireplace and watch repeats of Highway to Heaven and Joan of Arcadia! Happy Holidays to all the Atheists! Eat a Christmas cookie while watching episodes of Highway to Nowhere and Joan of Schizophrenia! Happy Chanakah to all the Jews! See if you can pry your kid away from his X-Box 360 long enough to spin a dreidal! Despite all the sniping and carping and secret wishes that some of you could experience being staked to an ant hill for a few minutes you guys and gals and people of indeterminate gender are part of my daily ritual and I’d shake the hand and buy a drink for any one of you. Just not all at once.
And a special thanks to PAD who is the reason we’re here. here’s hoping that 2006 will bring even more success. Thanks for letting us play in the sandbox.
(aplogogies for having no idea how to spell Chanaka or dreidal)
Although I think the chances of Bush getting impeached right now are very slim. Public opinion may be way down, but until the sitting GOP members start feeling like their own political lives are at stake, they still control the congress. And there can’t be any impeachment if the Senate won’t call for one.
Point of order: It is the House that drafts articles of impeachment first. The Senate then serves as the jury to determine if the president should be removed from office. So, the Senate can’t block a president from being impeached by the House, but they can refuse to remove him from office.
Still, you are right, the GOP in the House are not likely to vote to impeach him for illegally spying on US citizens, even if the worst case scenario turns out to be true and he used wiretapping against political enemies insted of terrorism suspect.
After all, that’s not a really serious “high crime and misdeanor” like lying about a bløw jøb.
And you know what? As much as I hate this current administration, I don’t think an impeachment would be good for the country. The GOP, for better or worse, is in control. An impeachment would mean a total fragmentation of the controlling party, and that can’t be a good thing for any American.
I don’t think that’s a valid concern. We are blessed with a very stable system of government and it’s strong enough to withstand a split withing the GOP.
Besides, Bush has already started to drive a wedge between the social conservatives and small government conservatives in the GOP, so unless their next nominee can reunite the two factions, fragmentation of the GOP may be inevitable.
“As an atheistic evolutionist, aren’t “principles” just social conventions, anyway? A layered illusion on the back of evolved animals?”
1) Religious people require morality to be something that was handed down from God. Without the validation by God, they feel there can be no morality.
2) But, why would something that was handed down from God be considered automatically moral? (Even assuming that it was handed by God, and not actually ancient human traditions interpreted by many different people over a long period of time).
3) Why should we insist on such a level of validation? especially considering the very obscure nature of god and the many different interpretations of god’s will. After all, a religious society has not proven a guarentee for a moral society.
4) If morality were something else, not divine, such as social conventions, why should it be considered as “just” social conventions? Is being a social convention such an insufficient source of validity? And aren’t there other sources of validity that are not divine and still have power? There are many different philosophical accounts of morality, (although still less than religious accounts)
5) In any case, morality, religious or secular is an act of choice. Whereas the laws of nature cannot be broken, in deciding to follow any moral creed we make a choice to attribute value to it. So in a sense, any morality is a human/social act.
6) I myself am a humanist, which means that the validity of my morality does not come from the divine but is based on a value attributed to humans because they are sentient (without getting into aliens and animals now). There is no objective reason why I should consider sentience valuable any more than that I place value on God’s will. But I do. The only difference is that sentient beings are known entities and God is not so familiar.
7) However, not all people are humanists or religious. We live in a society that has many different moral points of view. Our social conventions are the result of bargaining between these points of view. But that is not as bad as it sounds. Not long ago, African-Americans and women were viewed by social convention to be inferior. By appealing to the humanist idea that they are also humans deserving the same considerations, as well as appeal to the religious idea that they are all made in god’s image, leaders of these groups were able to change social convention. Would that have been possible had this inferiority been validated as God’s will?
Anyway, I hope this is a sufficient answer:
It should be noted that an evolutionary account of morality would say that morality was something in our genes that helped the human species survive, not a social convention. It should also be noted that since society is not an illusion, social conventions should not be considered illusions either.
just when I think I’m out they pull me back in…
Bobb, good points.
I realize that this would not necessarily inoculate Bush from accusations of illegality. Hëll, Nixon thought that by definition he couldn’t break the law–anyone who used him as a precedent would be unfettered.
We have some lawyer types here. It isn’t unusual for a president to assert executive privalge or powers and then have them later determined to be invalid. If Bush argues that his Attorney general and other legal scholars determined that precedent and the war powers act allowed him to do this, how likely is it that he would be impeached?
And this is all aside from the fact that I’m guessing that the majority of Americans will not support even a hint of such talk if it turns out that this was done on terror suspects. Note to those who don’t read carefully–I’m not saying I agree with that. (I’m also not “attacking” them).
I can’t go as far as you did…there does come a point where the right to untapped phones is superseded by protecting our lives…but I’d rather err on the side of privacy, for now. But I’d like to see how this all plays out.
“there does come a point where the right to untapped phones is superseded by protecting our lives”
The law aggrees with you. That point ends 72 hours after the wiretaping begins.
In any case, Bill, Merry Holiday/Happy Christmas/insert whatever non-offensive holiday greeting fits you.
Having just watched the I Shouldn’t Be Alive where the couple and their newborn son get stuck for something like 8 days in a snowstorm, remember to bring some food, water, and for heavans’s sake, some winter clothing and blankets, just in case. If for no other reason than when my wife makes me pack all that stuff for our own trip this weekend, I won’t feel like the only one that’s acting a little paranoid. 🙂
I’m a guy. 🙂
Missed this: “Are we creating monsters, fighting to give us a better world, but one that has no place for the monsters? And if so, what does that make us?”
I wouldn’t use the term “monster” but “warrior”, and since warriors are people and people are very adaptable, most can still fit into that better world. That would make us “wise as serpents” I think.
“A better question may be, are creating new monsters that will one day turn around and bite us in the ášš? (See: Osama bin Laden, Fidel Castro
)”
This IS a better question and one we need to consider most intently.
Tim,
Where does this “moral duty” come from? Am I wrong if I disagree with this “moral duty” (not saying I do, but if I did)? The rest of what you said can be attributed to… (okay, I won’t say that name because it ends converstations, how about…) Gangis Kahn. He was trying to make the world a better place for his loved ones.
Will,
Spot on. Completely and utterly unassailable.
Micha,
Why are they illusions if they don’t come from God? Because then the morals you live by are no more valid than those, say, a facist holds. What makes you right and Castro wrong?
You make a good point about there being several religions and therefore several moral imperatives from several gods. Ultimately that’s why we can’t enforce moral laws through legislation unless breaking them harms others.
I do believe social progression is possible within a religious community. People are the problem with morality (like the laws of nature, we grow in our under of them, likewise with moral laws) and our expression of them may change.
Can morality be on a genetic level? Evolution is “concerned” with the survival of the individual, not the species. Or am I misunderstanding?
Evolution is “concerned” with the survival of the individual, not the species. Or am I misunderstanding?
Actually it’s the opposite. It is only concerned with the species. There are many species where the vast majority of individuals don’t even have the possibility of reproducing and their individual survival is of no concern even to themselves- ants, for example.
Ok, I mean it. I’m turning off the computer.
Robbnn,
Where does this “moral duty” come from?
From within. You have no better answer if I were to ask you the same question, since I don’t accept “from God” as a meaningful answer.
Am I wrong if I disagree with this “moral duty” (not saying I do, but if I did)?
There’s no answer I can give here that will satisfy you. If I say “no”, then you’ll claim it’s not really a moral code compared to yours. If I say “yes”, you’ll condemn me for inflexibility.
The rest of what you said can be attributed to… (okay, I won’t say that name because it ends converstations, how about…) Gangis Kahn. He was trying to make the world a better place for his loved ones.
Ah. I see.
Bill and Jerome, I do hope it’s okay if I get offended *now*.
Robbnn — you asked where my principles came from. I told you. You’ve now likened me to Genghis Khan.
My invitation to pìšš øff is hereby reinstated. And you may rest assured that your own divine moral code contains all sorts of stuff that has been said by horrible people as well.
Happy to help. Now please go away. You’re part of the problem now.
TWL
Tim, if I may. Moral barometers come in all shapes and sizes. I’ve no doubt that much of you direction at this point in your life comes from within. These values were planted there by individuals and experiences. Without acknowledging this, you potentially set yourself up for someone to reply that no man is an island and without an outside influence, one has no constant to get one’s moral bearings. Don’t fall into that trap. 😉
Fred
1) “Why are they illusions if they don’t come from God? Because then the morals you live by are no more valid than those, say, a facist holds. What makes you right and Castro wrong?”
The disputed assumption is that morals have to be as true or as false as mathematical or logical or scientific facts. But maybe the question should not be about right or wrong, but about consequences? If I and Castro share humanistic principles, then the argument would be, whether our actions help or harm humans, and this is something that can be examined. If on the other hand we do not share the same humanistic assumptions, then, still for me, the relevant question is not being right, but whether the actions cause harm to other humans.
2) “You make a good point about there being several religions and therefore several moral imperatives from several gods. Ultimately that’s why we can’t enforce moral laws through legislation unless breaking them harms others.”
True
3) “I do believe social progression is possible within a religious community. People are the problem with morality (like the laws of nature, we grow in our under of them, likewise with moral laws) and our expression of them may change.”
It all amounts to the same thing, whether religious or secular, our morals are a social phenomenon. In both cases we are struggling to understand what is right or wrong to do in a changing reality.
“Can morality be on a genetic level? Evolution is “concerned” with the survival of the individual, not the species. Or am I misunderstanding?”
Actually, according to Richard Dawkins’s Selfish Gene, it is the survival of the gene, not the individual. The assumption is that humans (or some of them) had in their genetic makeup that caused them to act “morally”, and that these genes helped these humans survive, and so passed on to future generations of humans. This is not so strange, since we know other animals have herds or packs, and have certain instincts that govern their behavior. It is reasonable to assume that parents’ instinct to care for their offsprings has something to do with the fact that they share genes. This does not make the love of a mother to her child any less real.
Fred,
Oh, I’ll acknowledge it; that trap’s a non-starter.
However, I’m not falling into the broader trap of discussing morality with Robbnn any more. I’m sick of the likes of him, reputing to want to understand others while really handing down condemnation with a broad and ever-sanctimonious smile.
I show my morality by my deeds, by how I treat the world and other people. Robbnn and his ilk are inclined to say that that somehow “doesn’t count” because I don’t use the right buzzwords while being a decent human being.
I have put up with that sort of crap for years, and I will not in any way shape or form put up with it here.
Grownups don’t need a morality that’s imposed from without. Robbnn’s already said that if his faith were to go away, so would his morals. Mine won’t.
And that is where I intend to leave that.
TWL
Actually, one more point comes to mind.
People are wondering where that moral code I described above could come from.
One place, quite honestly, is an understanding of science. When you understand how the world generally works and how interconnected everything truly is, it’s awfully difficult to take a viewpoint that then says, in effect “cool — I’ve got mine, so you can all jump off a cliff.” We’re on the same cliff.
So that’s one area that’s shaped my views. It’s perhaps not as deep in some people’s eyes as hearing a reformed drunk saying that his favorite philosopher is Jesus Christ, but I think it’s significant.
TWL
Tim,
I didn’t compare you to Gengis Kahn, I said he could claim the same thing. There is no “trap.” I’m not debating you, or trying to give you enough rope or make you say something you’ll regret, I’m asking questions to understand. That’s what grownups do. I’m not comparing your beliefs with mine, I’m trying to understand yours. Without my faith, I would do as Will says, live to find pleasure and avoid pain. Also as he says, my pleasures can be a bit extreme…
Why must everything be a trap? To suggest I’m trying to trap you into something is awfully cynical. Is that what you were doing with Iowa Jim? Draw him out so you can slap him down? His beliefs can be examined but yours can’t?
Bill and Micha, thank you for the correction on evolution.
Micha, how do you get everyone to define “harm” in the same way? Communism does believe it’s better for the people. We disagree, but who are we to say? Liberals promote globalism, but doesn’t that require all of us being on the same page (which we clearly aren’t). Conservatives are nationalists, recognizing that to get the world together they must embrace a single philosophy. Bush says that philosophy is Democracy. He’s taking the first steps of globalization and getting shot down for it…
Rob “and his ilk” attempt to understand through discussion. The questions from my side will be from my worldview, but I have not and will not condemn others. I have not called anyone ignorant, inflexible, or dámņëd. I am firmly of the belief that if God wants you in His camp he will light the fire in your heart; I have no matches. Tim, meanwhile, has condemned me. ?
Robbnn,
I don’t think everything is a trap. I also don’t think you have a real interest in how I think, though — given how breezily you brought Genghis Khan into it, it’s clear that you don’t think I’ve got a real moral code, or at least that I haven’t satisfactorily explained its origins.
And I’m not prepared to continue the conversation on that basis. I’m sorry that … well, actually, I’m not especially sorry that disturbs you. Honesty trumps diplomacy this time.
You say you’re only asking questions to understand. Fine. Ask ones that don’t imply a lack of morality on the part of your fellow conversationalists, and I’ll consider coming back to the table. Your current questions, to put it mildly, aren’t fitting the bill — they continue to imply that you’re mystified I’m not out raping and pillaging without the threat of some sort of cosmic comeuppance, and it’s hard for me to understand why you don’t understand how offensive that is.
As I said previously, I’ve explained my moral code. You appear to be questioning its validity. That is your right, but don’t expect me to be sitting idly by while you do so.
TWL
Tim,
I DO think you have a moral code, I am NOT implying you’re out raping and pillaging. I don’t know why you insist on going there. I haven’t discussed a singe example of your morality (I doubt the examples would be all that different than mine, though your politics are).
Like the evolution argument, I’m not talking about evolution of your moral code but the abiogenisis of it (see, I am listening). I’m glad you have one (you teach children, I’m VERY glad you have one). It comes from within you. I only brought up Kahn because he could say the same thing about his code. I could have said the same thing about Dr. Schwietzer. I am hearing a disconnect from you is why I’m questioning it. Will gave, IMO, a very sound, irrefutable rationalization. Micha did too. Yours comes from within you. Iowa Jim’s understanding of evolution comes from within him. Ya’ll didn’t like that answer and challenged him, then challenged him again when he went off to regroup. You don’t want to discuss it, fine.
Should I be offended because you don’t see how offensive it is when you question my intentions, when I’ve stated them clearly? Yes, I question your moral code’s validity (as in why they would be valid beyond yourself, not that the morals themselves are suspect.) I’m not asking you to sit idly by, but I’m not attacking you, either.
Sheesh.
Robbnn,
I DO think you have a moral code, I am NOT implying you’re out raping and pillaging. I don’t know why you insist on going there.
Well, let’s see. I describe my moral code, you tell me that Genghis Khan could have said precisely the same thing about his, and you wonder why I’m offended.
A few possibilities come to mind:
1) You honestly don’t see how your statement could be seen as drawing a deeply offensive comparison. If that’s the case, then we have so little common ground as to make a discussion of morality meaningless.
2) You can understand how it’s easy to interpret your statement in the way I’m doing, but don’t care. In that case, I’ve no interest in engaging you in the discussion, since you’re just going to continue engaging in heedless offense.
Either way, it is bad for Zathras … and for the continued discussion.
I am hearing a disconnect from you is why I’m
questioning it.
Fine. That’s a valid statement. My question in return: what precisely is the disconnect you’re hearing? If you answer that, then maybe we can get somewhere.
Yours comes from within you. Iowa Jim’s understanding of evolution comes from within him. Ya’ll didn’t like that answer and challenged him, then challenged him again when he went off to regroup. You don’t want to discuss it, fine.
Oh, horseshit.
Robbnn, evolution is a scientific process, and one that Jim was incorrectly defining during his discussion. Understanding that does not “come from within” someone — it’s a matter of education and understanding how science works. That’s not challenging some inner code he has, that’s correcting him on a question of fact. I corrected him, Bill corrected him, Luigi corrected him, and Jerome’s pet parakeet probably corrected him in private e-mail.
How you can even conceive of drawing a comparison there only shows why this conversation is past pointless (not to mention ones on evolution). Thus, I suspect this is the last time I’m going to contribute to it unless it starts going somewhere constructive fast.
Sheesh.
On that we agree.
TWL