Politics, Everyday, All day... morning, noon and night....

All things outside of Burning Man.
Locked
Simply Joel
Posts: 3483
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 9:08 am
Location: Land of Lincoln
Contact:

Post by Simply Joel » Wed Aug 25, 2004 10:18 am

cowboyangel wrote:Oh Oh watch out Dick...the religious right is gonna get your fribilated ass for recent pro-gay comments......you may in fact already be dead........
wishful thinking... about the end of the VP.

Cheney Sees Gay Marriage as State Issue

By Marc Kaufman and Mike Allen, Washington Post Staff Writers

DAVENPORT, Iowa, Aug. 24 -- Vice President Cheney spelled out his differences with President Bush on the volatile issue of gay marriage Tuesday while making his most revealing public comments so far about the sexual orientation of his gay daughter.

Asked his position on the subject at a town hall meeting here, Cheney replied: "Lynne and I have a gay daughter, so it's an issue that our family is very familiar with. . . . With respect to the question of relationships, my general view is that freedom means freedom for everyone. People . . . ought to be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to."

Cheney went on to reiterate the position he first outlined in the 2000 campaign -- that same-sex marriage should be left to the states to decide. He noted, however, that Bush has endorsed a constitutional amendment preventing the states from recognizing such marriages.

"At this point . . . my own preference is as I've stated," Cheney said. "But the president makes basic policy for the administration. And he's made it."

The remarks were the furthest Cheney has gone in laying out his differences with Bush's position, and they took leaders of the GOP conservative base by surprise. Although Bush has rarely discussed his support for the amendment, conservatives viewed his stance as one of the most important social statements of his term. Republican strategists said it would motivate Christian voters to the polls even though it risks alienating swing voters.

The Family Research Council, a conservative group with close White House ties, called Cheney's remarks disappointing. "Unfortunately, protection of our values is made more difficult when mixed messages emanate from the White House," said Tony Perkins, the group's president. "We support President Bush's commitment to a constitutional amendment on marriage, but we are left to wonder why the vice president is allowed to depart from this position when the top of the ticket is unified on all other issues."

The Human Rights Campaign, the leading gay rights lobbying group, issued an enthusiastic statement after Cheney's remarks. "President Bush must be feeling the heat," said the group's president, Cheryl Jacques. "Millions of Republican families, like the Cheneys, have gay friends and family members and are offended by President Bush's efforts to put discrimination in the Constitution."

Bush officials said Cheney has such deep and longtime goodwill among conservatives that the White House is not worried about the political fallout from the exchange.

Cheney's remark was the first time the vice president has taken note of his daughter's sexual orientation in public, officials said. Mary Cheney works for the Bush-Cheney campaign as director of vice presidential operations, responsible for her father's political travel and appearances.

Cheney's wife, Lynne, a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute who accompanied the vice president Tuesday, has previously suggested differences with the administration's policy on same-sex marriage. Lynne Cheney said on CNN's "Late Edition" in July that states should have the final say on the issue: "I think that the constitutional amendment discussion will give us an opportunity to look for ways to discuss ways in which we can keep the authority of the states intact."

In February, Bush announced his support for a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, calling marriage "the most fundamental institution of civilization" and saying courts were threatening to weaken society by changing the meaning of marriage. In July, the Republican-controlled Senate voted 50 to 48 against bringing up the amendment for a vote.

Democratic presidential nominee John F. Kerry and running mate John Edwards both oppose the amendment. Although the candidates say they do not support same-sex marriage, they defend the right of gay couples to win the legal protections afforded married couples. They also say the Constitution should not be amended to limit the rights of a certain group of people.

Explaining Bush's position at the town hall meeting Tuesday, Cheney said that several judicial rulings, including those by the Massachusetts Supreme Court to legalize same-sex marriages, were beginning to make the judgment for the entire country, and that the president proposed the constitutional amendment as a result. "I think his perception was that the courts, in effect, were beginning to change, without allowing the people to be involved," Cheney said.

"I made clear four years ago when I ran and this question came up in the debate I had with Joe Lieberman that my view was that that's appropriately a matter for the states to decide," he said.

The question on same-sex marriage was asked by a woman who wanted to know what, "in his heart," Cheney thought about the issue. His response was politely received by the group, but not with the enthusiasm of many of his other responses.

Anne Womack, Cheney's campaign spokeswoman, told reporters after the meeting that Cheney's comments did not constitute a change of opinion or policy. She said she could not say whether Cheney opposed the amendment and that "the vice president respects the president's right to make the decision."

Most of the questions from the crowd of 450 were supportive and respectful. But one woman sobbed as she told the vice president that her husband had been unemployed for several years after the pump factory where he worked closed with most of its jobs going abroad.

Cheney responded that U.S. companies would become more competitive if Congress made the last three Bush tax cuts permanent and passed legislation to limit lawsuits against manufacturers and doctors.

Allen reported from Washington.

User avatar
cowboyangel
Posts: 6986
Joined: Fri May 14, 2004 10:32 pm

Post by cowboyangel » Wed Aug 25, 2004 10:21 am

given the renewed attacks on Kerry and his anti-Vietnam views...if anyone still thinks that the war was just or right or warranted, listen to this...so much for the empty creed of the "officer and gentleman"

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl? ... 25/1410215
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believe is false."- William Casey, CIA Director 1981

Simply Joel
Posts: 3483
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 9:08 am
Location: Land of Lincoln
Contact:

Post by Simply Joel » Wed Aug 25, 2004 10:42 am

cowboyangel wrote:given the renewed attacks on Kerry and his anti-Vietnam views...if anyone still thinks that the war was just or right or warranted, listen to this...so much for the empty creed of the "officer and gentleman"

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl? ... 25/1410215
so you know a lot about the creed from personal experience, or simply another outsider looking in?

User avatar
cowboyangel
Posts: 6986
Joined: Fri May 14, 2004 10:32 pm

Post by cowboyangel » Wed Aug 25, 2004 12:37 pm

Joel.....just listen to the show. I had a full NROTC scholarship to college that I relinquished after some training cruises where I saw first hand what I'd be called upon to do (kill people without objection or reflection) and how mind-locked into unquestioning conservativism the officer core was...now had I met a guy like Sweed Mumsen, a true maverick and honorable officer...things might have been different...but I didn't find that.
What happens to guys/gals in the Academy and what happens out in the battlefield are two different kinds of things....once again...listen to the show....
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believe is false."- William Casey, CIA Director 1981

Simply Joel
Posts: 3483
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 9:08 am
Location: Land of Lincoln
Contact:

Post by Simply Joel » Wed Aug 25, 2004 12:38 pm

cowboyangel wrote:Joel.....just listen to the show. I had a full NROTC scholarship to college that I relinquished after some training cruises where I saw first hand what I'd be called upon to do (kill people without objection or reflection) and how mind-locked into unquestioning conservativism the officer core was...now had I met a guy like Sweed Mumsen, a true maverick and honorable officer...things might have been different...but I didn't find that.
What happens to guys/gals in the Academy and what happens out in the battlefield are two different kinds of things....once again...listen to the show....

So, your perspective is from the outside looking in....

enough said.

User avatar
cowboyangel
Posts: 6986
Joined: Fri May 14, 2004 10:32 pm

Post by cowboyangel » Wed Aug 25, 2004 12:44 pm

you obviously didn't read my post or listen to the show, so once again give the show a listen and open up your mind a little....
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believe is false."- William Casey, CIA Director 1981

User avatar
samtzu
Posts: 3403
Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2004 5:56 pm
Location: Portland,OR;Columbia,CA;Emigrant Wilderness
Contact:

Post by samtzu » Wed Aug 25, 2004 2:46 pm

Once again, we butt heads on perspective.

CBA: Joel comes from a career military background. His perspective is different from yours, but his observations, made with his very shrewd and very intelligent (and clear thinking, as far as I can tell) mind, are very valid. I may not agree with what he says, but I understand that he is not prevaricating... he is speaking the truth as he sees it.

JOEL: CBA is passing on something that is very valuable to him from his point of view. I have given a cursory glance to the material, and I have to agree that there is some validity to it, from my point of view. The brainwashing was there, but, if you were intelligent enough (unlike most of the officers I knew), you could shake it off. The atrocities, while a bit inflated in this report, did happen in Vietnam. I'm not sure about the ones cited, but I was aware of things that were going on while I was there. It's the way war works.

ALL: I am an arrogant, showboating, ass who thinks he can explain the way people think to those who disagree with each other. I will be providing this service on the Playa for those who may (or may not) want it. Think of it as 'gifting'. Joel, Cowboy... you don't have to thank me for explaining it all to you. It was my pleasure...

Really... :twisted:
The revolutionary does not grow up because he cannot grow, while the creative individual cannot grow up because he keeps growing ~~ Eric Hoffer

User avatar
cowboyangel
Posts: 6986
Joined: Fri May 14, 2004 10:32 pm

Post by cowboyangel » Wed Aug 25, 2004 4:32 pm

thank god for burning man and the aura of acceptance, non-judgement, and sharing evidenced therein
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believe is false."- William Casey, CIA Director 1981

User avatar
samtzu
Posts: 3403
Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2004 5:56 pm
Location: Portland,OR;Columbia,CA;Emigrant Wilderness
Contact:

Post by samtzu » Wed Aug 25, 2004 5:28 pm

Oh, fuck off...
The revolutionary does not grow up because he cannot grow, while the creative individual cannot grow up because he keeps growing ~~ Eric Hoffer

User avatar
cowboyangel
Posts: 6986
Joined: Fri May 14, 2004 10:32 pm

Post by cowboyangel » Wed Aug 25, 2004 6:35 pm

Ha! coming from you Sam I know that's a good fuck off...
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believe is false."- William Casey, CIA Director 1981

Simply Joel
Posts: 3483
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 9:08 am
Location: Land of Lincoln
Contact:

Post by Simply Joel » Thu Aug 26, 2004 6:46 am

cowboyangel wrote:you obviously didn't read my post or listen to the show, so once again give the show a listen and open up your mind a little....
I read the transcripts because I don't have the correct plug-in or whatever...

My opinion on the interview... it is only one man's account, an outsider to the unit... not an infantryman, probably a little higher IQ than most of "the men he was reporting about" (that is what military journalist do), and some very poor leadership (lack of morale courage, morale convictions, ethics) in a very stressful time and place.

Am I going to defend the atrocities... no, yet I do know that whatever defines one's morality is tested and in some cases like the example given... is diminished during war. I believe it to be a human frailty, not making the right decisions under the stress of combat.

I believe most of us have moments where we choose between right and wrong... yet, few of us make those decisions with someone's life at risk or in their hands... soldiers, law enforcement officers, doctors just to name a few.

I believe that only from that perspective where you can "walk in the shoes of those who served" can you make a vaild morality call.

but, hey that is just my postion on the matter.

CA, you are still a casual observer looking in the window of a world you know little about.

Simply Joel
Posts: 3483
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 9:08 am
Location: Land of Lincoln
Contact:

Post by Simply Joel » Thu Aug 26, 2004 6:48 am

cowboyangel wrote:thank god for burning man and the aura of acceptance, non-judgement, and sharing evidenced therein
As long as the wine, women and song hold out... after that, I am afraid it would be every man and woman for themselves....

as evidenced by the mass exodus with poor behavior of those few morons driving way too fast, way to sleepy and way to hungover...

Simply Joel
Posts: 3483
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 9:08 am
Location: Land of Lincoln
Contact:

typo correction

Post by Simply Joel » Thu Aug 26, 2004 6:51 am

way too sleepy and way too hungover...

Simply Joel
Posts: 3483
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 9:08 am
Location: Land of Lincoln
Contact:

Post by Simply Joel » Thu Aug 26, 2004 7:08 am

cowboyangel wrote:thank god for burning man and the aura of acceptance, non-judgement, and sharing evidenced therein
http://eplaya.burningman.org/viewtopic. ... 6453#76453

loveshack wrote: Joined: 25 Aug 2004
Posts: 1
Location: Auburn
Posted: Wed Aug 25, 2004 10:04 pm Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There is a camp called ...and then there is love. It will be at 8:00 and Mercury we will be sponsoring the "Orgy Dome" It is for Single women(hopefully bi) and Couples ONLY. NO SINGLE MEN. Come on by and check it out :D
Lots of acceptance, non-judgement, and sharing to found there... as long as you are a woman (hopefully bi) or a couple.

User avatar
samtzu
Posts: 3403
Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2004 5:56 pm
Location: Portland,OR;Columbia,CA;Emigrant Wilderness
Contact:

Post by samtzu » Thu Aug 26, 2004 7:50 am

Joel wrote:
cowboyangel wrote:

thank god for burning man and the aura of acceptance, non-judgement, and sharing evidenced therein
http://eplaya.burningman.org/viewtopic. ... 6453#76453


loveshack wrote:

Joined: 25 Aug 2004
Posts: 1
Location: Auburn
Posted: Wed Aug 25, 2004 10:04 pm Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There is a camp called ...and then there is love. It will be at 8:00 and Mercury we will be sponsoring the "Orgy Dome" It is for Single women(hopefully bi) and Couples ONLY. NO SINGLE MEN. Come on by and check it out
Lots of acceptance, non-judgement, and sharing to found there... as long as you are a woman (hopefully bi) or a couple.


Easily resolved. I am going to ask CBA to go there, with me, as a couple, and then we can get in to meet the hot (bi?) chicks! Wadda' ya' think? How's that for the Spirit of Burning Man?
The revolutionary does not grow up because he cannot grow, while the creative individual cannot grow up because he keeps growing ~~ Eric Hoffer

Simply Joel
Posts: 3483
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 9:08 am
Location: Land of Lincoln
Contact:

Post by Simply Joel » Thu Aug 26, 2004 7:59 am

samtzu wrote:Joel wrote:
cowboyangel wrote:

thank god for burning man and the aura of acceptance, non-judgement, and sharing evidenced therein
http://eplaya.burningman.org/viewtopic. ... 6453#76453


loveshack wrote:

Joined: 25 Aug 2004
Posts: 1
Location: Auburn
Posted: Wed Aug 25, 2004 10:04 pm Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There is a camp called ...and then there is love. It will be at 8:00 and Mercury we will be sponsoring the "Orgy Dome" It is for Single women(hopefully bi) and Couples ONLY. NO SINGLE MEN. Come on by and check it out
Lots of acceptance, non-judgement, and sharing to found there... as long as you are a woman (hopefully bi) or a couple.


Easily resolved. I am going to ask CBA to go there, with me, as a couple, and then we can get in to meet the hot (bi?) chicks! Wadda' ya' think? How's that for the Spirit of Burning Man?
I like it. I can only guess which one of you will be the bitch.

User avatar
samtzu
Posts: 3403
Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2004 5:56 pm
Location: Portland,OR;Columbia,CA;Emigrant Wilderness
Contact:

Post by samtzu » Thu Aug 26, 2004 8:02 am

I'm assuming we'll trade off... in the Spirit of Burning Man, of course...
The revolutionary does not grow up because he cannot grow, while the creative individual cannot grow up because he keeps growing ~~ Eric Hoffer

User avatar
Last Real Burner
Posts: 941
Joined: Mon Sep 01, 2003 9:34 am
Location: Heaven
Contact:

....Hot Pants?..........

Post by Last Real Burner » Thu Aug 26, 2004 7:24 pm

No Trade Offs!!!!!

Once a Bitch always a Bitch......


unmistakably,
mr smith
"Do you know what happened to the boy who got everything he wished for? - He lived happily ever after".

User avatar
cowboyangel
Posts: 6986
Joined: Fri May 14, 2004 10:32 pm

Post by cowboyangel » Thu Aug 26, 2004 8:48 pm

grumbling aside... I'll try that camp at least once......maybe they have a good blow up doll......
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believe is false."- William Casey, CIA Director 1981

User avatar
cowboyangel
Posts: 6986
Joined: Fri May 14, 2004 10:32 pm

Post by cowboyangel » Fri Aug 27, 2004 9:09 am

JACKSON, Wyo. - Federal Reserve (news - web sites) Chairman Alan Greenspan (news - web sites) said Friday that the country will face "abrupt and painful" choices if Congress does not move quickly to trim the Social Security (news - web sites) and Medicare benefits that have been promised to the baby boom generation.
Greenspan Urges Federal Fiscal Discipline - Reuters


Returning to a politically explosive issue that he has addressed a number of times this year, Greenspan said that it was wrong for the government to hold out the promise of more retirement benefits than it is capable of providing.

He said this issue was particularly critical given the impending retirement of 77 million baby boomers born in the two decades after World War II.

"As a nation, we owe it to our retirees to promise only the benefits that can be delivered," Greenspan said in opening remarks to a two-day conference sponsored by the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City on the challenges posed by aging populations.

"If we have promised more than our economy has the ability to deliver, as I fear we may have, we must recalibrate our public programs so that pending retirees have time to adjust through other channels," Greenspan said. "If we delay, the adjustments could be abrupt and painful."

Greenspan, as he has done previously, suggested that possible changes would be raising the retirement age to receive full Social Security benefits, which currently is gradually increasing from 65 to 67.

Greenspan, who is 78 and was recently confirmed for a fifth term as Fed chairman, has been a proponent of raising the retirement age ever since he was chairman of a commission that recommended a number of changes to rescue Social Security from impending insolvency two decades ago.

In his remarks, Greenspan said that the projected doubling of the U.S. population over the age of 65 by 2035 would add to the government's budget deficit woes.

But he said it was important to be careful in how those deficits were addressed. He said that relying entirely on an increase in the payroll tax on workers to deal with the funding shortfall in Social Security and Medicare would make it more costly for employers to hire workers.

Greenspan said policymakers must consider all the economic impacts that changes in the government's two biggest benefit programs would entail such as the effect on retirement decisions, the size of the labor force and the saving behavior of Americans.

Greenspan acknowledged that any decisions to trim benefits or boost payroll taxes could be difficult politically, but he said those decisions must be made and made quickly to give baby boomers time to adjust.

"Though the challenges of prospective increasingly stark choices for the United States seem great, the necessary adjustments will likely be smaller than those required in most other developing countries," he said, noting that Europe and Japan will have a much higher proportion of retirees to current workers in coming years.

Greenspan has repeatedly this year addressed the looming crisis in Social Security and Medicare, a development that the presidential candidates have chosen to virtually ignore given the painful choices that will likely be presented to the next president.


that's right...take away our benefits, give enormous tax breaks to the corporations and the rich and continue to fuck the working man and women....hey isn't this a great system?

http://www.brightpathvideo.com/flash/greenspan.swf
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believe is false."- William Casey, CIA Director 1981

Simply Joel
Posts: 3483
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 9:08 am
Location: Land of Lincoln
Contact:

Post by Simply Joel » Fri Aug 27, 2004 9:36 am

cowboyangel wrote: that's right...take away our benefits, give enormous tax breaks to the corporations and the rich and continue to fuck the working man and women....hey isn't this a great system?


"The whole idea of our government is this: If enough people get together and act in concert, they can take something and not pay for it." -- P.J. O'Rourke - A Parliament of Whores

"There is no virtue in compulsory government charity, and there is no virtue in advocating it. A politician who portrays himself as "caring" and "sensitive" because he wants to expand the government's charitable programs is merely saying that he's willing to try to do good with other people's money. Well, who isn't? And a voter who takes pride in supporting such programs is telling us that he'll do good with his own money -- if a gun is held to his head." -- P.J. O'Rourke

"Authority has always attracted the lowest elements in the human race. All through history, mankind has been bullied by scum. Those who lord it over their fellows and toss commands in every direction and would boss the grass in the meadow about which way to bend in the wind are the most depraved kind of prostitutes. They will submit to any indignity, perform any vile act, do anything to achieve power. The worst off-sloughings of the planet are the ingredients of sovereignty. Every government is a parliament of whores. The trouble is, in a democracy the whores are us." -- P.J. O'Rourke

User avatar
samtzu
Posts: 3403
Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2004 5:56 pm
Location: Portland,OR;Columbia,CA;Emigrant Wilderness
Contact:

Post by samtzu » Fri Aug 27, 2004 10:01 am

Well, even though I am 'of that age' and the thought of working an extra two years before qualifying for my 'retirement' is reprehensible, I don't expect to get a damn thing.

Which is fine with me.

Every time the Gov'ment gives, they take away a freedom or liberty. They place restrictions on what you do with 'your' money. Fuck that. I would rather be thrown out on the street (or into the woods) than have to beg the government for money that I paid into the system (which, with inflation being what is has been, isn't that much in terms of current dollars). Yeah, well fuck the government! They will never 'take care' of me as long as I have the strength to resist their 'care'.

Oops... starting to foam at the mouth again. Sorry... ignore that.
The revolutionary does not grow up because he cannot grow, while the creative individual cannot grow up because he keeps growing ~~ Eric Hoffer

Simply Joel
Posts: 3483
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 9:08 am
Location: Land of Lincoln
Contact:

PJ O'Rourke interviews Colin Powell

Post by Simply Joel » Fri Aug 27, 2004 10:16 am


Simply Joel
Posts: 3483
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 9:08 am
Location: Land of Lincoln
Contact:

Post by Simply Joel » Fri Aug 27, 2004 10:18 am

samtzu wrote:Well, even though I am 'of that age' and the thought of working an extra two years before qualifying for my 'retirement' is reprehensible, I don't expect to get a damn thing.

Which is fine with me.

Every time the Gov'ment gives, they take away a freedom or liberty. They place restrictions on what you do with 'your' money. Fuck that. I would rather be thrown out on the street (or into the woods) than have to beg the government for money that I paid into the system (which, with inflation being what is has been, isn't that much in terms of current dollars). Yeah, well fuck the government! They will never 'take care' of me as long as I have the strength to resist their 'care'.

Oops... starting to foam at the mouth again. Sorry... ignore that.
in other words.... Radical Self-Reliance

User avatar
samtzu
Posts: 3403
Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2004 5:56 pm
Location: Portland,OR;Columbia,CA;Emigrant Wilderness
Contact:

Post by samtzu » Fri Aug 27, 2004 2:40 pm

I do, truely, believe in radical self reliance. I've told my kids that if it comes down to it, and I have to be taken care of, rent an airplane, take my ass up to about 30,000 feet, and let me take the 'long walk'.

They've all agreed, saying it's for the best. They tried to do it a couple of months ago, but I was able to successfully fight them off. I guess that is the measure of my strength... when I can no longer survive, I no longer deserve to...

Makes me want to go watch The Edge again...
The revolutionary does not grow up because he cannot grow, while the creative individual cannot grow up because he keeps growing ~~ Eric Hoffer

AuldAne
Posts: 16
Joined: Tue Sep 02, 2003 10:22 pm
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Contact:

Post by AuldAne » Fri Aug 27, 2004 8:46 pm

Simply Joel wrote: I believe most of us have moments where we choose between right and wrong... yet, few of us make those decisions with someone's life at risk or in their hands... soldiers, law enforcement officers, doctors just to name a few.

I believe that only from that perspective where you can "walk in the shoes of those who served" can you make a vaild morality call.
This isn't politics exactly, but...

This is interesting from a theoretical standpoint. It's a good argument that situation must be accounted for when making a moral judgement about something: if a person makes a mistake when they are under extreme stress you can't hold them accountable the same way as if they were not. And obviously it is much easier to come to the "right" decision about something when you are sitting in front of a computer at home drinking a beer as opposed to, say, in a firefight in a jungle thousands of miles from home.

Let's say a soldier, under fire, mows down an innocent civilian. Beer drinker at home says that's wrong, easy. Is he in a position to judge the soldier? The most stress he's ever been under is changing a flat on the 80 east of Reno. So perhaps he isn't. But then to think about it in another perspective, does the stress level of the murderer really matter to the victim, or to their family? Aww you were stressed out c'mere and give me a hug? What's important here?

Or yet another way, if you can't even draw an objective moral line at murder, but instead must constantly be in the other man's shoes, does the concept of "morality" have any meaning at all? Or is it just something we talk about to make us feel better about ourselves?

And no I didn't even take Philosophy 101 in school so save your drolleries. :mrgreen:

(now start talking about the problems arising from a rigid non-situational moral system)

-Beer drinker at home
[A man] would be crazy to fly more missions and sane if he didn't, but if he was sane he had to fly them. If he flew them he was crazy and didn't have to; but if he didn't want to he was sane and had to. - Joseph Heller, Catch-22

AuldAne
Posts: 16
Joined: Tue Sep 02, 2003 10:22 pm
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Contact:

Post by AuldAne » Fri Aug 27, 2004 9:03 pm

samtzu wrote: Every time the Gov'ment gives, they take away a freedom or liberty.
Usually people who say things like that are either Republican or Libertarian. The way to tell the difference is to start asking them about government "giving" that they might take for granted. For best effectiveness, tailor to the subject: ask the rural man about farm subsidies, the veteran about the GI Bill, the family man about primary education, and pretty much everyone about roads, their local military base, you get the picture. You will discover they either mean "Every time the gov'ment gives to someone besides me they take away my freedom or liberty", or they mean, well, something more interesting.

Or just ask them who they think is cooler, Rush Limbaugh or Milton Friedman, that'll do the trick too.
[A man] would be crazy to fly more missions and sane if he didn't, but if he was sane he had to fly them. If he flew them he was crazy and didn't have to; but if he didn't want to he was sane and had to. - Joseph Heller, Catch-22

Simply Joel
Posts: 3483
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 9:08 am
Location: Land of Lincoln
Contact:

Post by Simply Joel » Sat Aug 28, 2004 3:37 am

Simply Joel wrote:I believe most of us have moments where we choose between right and wrong... yet, few of us make those decisions with someone's life at risk or in their hands... soldiers, law enforcement officers, doctors just to name a few.

I believe that only from that perspective where you can "walk in the shoes of those who served" can you make a vaild morality call.
AuldAne wrote:This isn't politics exactly, but...

This is interesting from a theoretical standpoint. It's a good argument that situation must be accounted for when making a moral judgement about something: if a person makes a mistake when they are under extreme stress you can't hold them accountable the same way as if they were not. And obviously it is much easier to come to the "right" decision about something when you are sitting in front of a computer at home drinking a beer as opposed to, say, in a firefight in a jungle thousands of miles from home.
I believe everyone is accountable. I believe with proper training, yes, training, people (soldiers, doctors, LEO's) under stress are capable of making the correct decisions at the correct time. And in the case of war atrocities, poor medical decisions, poor law enforcement, most cases can be linked to a lack of proper training.
AuldAne wrote:Let's say a soldier, under fire, mows down an innocent civilian. Beer drinker at home says that's wrong, easy. Is he in a position to judge the soldier? The most stress he's ever been under is changing a flat on the 80 east of Reno. So perhaps he isn't. But then to think about it in another perspective, does the stress level of the murderer really matter to the victim, or to their family? Aww you were stressed out c'mere and give me a hug? What's important here?
What is important is the ability to make important ethical decisions. Without being taught a set of ethics (ususally societal), one operates in a void. By the way... I consider your illustration to be apples and oranges... solders in most cases don''t deserve being compared to a murderer as you have done above. Nice try, but no cigar.
AuldAne wrote:Or yet another way, if you can't even draw an objective moral line at murder, but instead must constantly be in the other man's shoes, does the concept of "morality" have any meaning at all? Or is it just something we talk about to make us feel better about ourselves?
yes, no respectively...
AuldAne wrote:And no I didn't even take Philosophy 101 in school so save your drolleries. :mrgreen:
it shows
AuldAne wrote:(now start talking about the problems arising from a rigid non-situational moral system)
like I require your permission?
AuldAne wrote:-Beer drinker at home
I believe we could all figure that one out on our own.

Simply Joel
Posts: 3483
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 9:08 am
Location: Land of Lincoln
Contact:

Post by Simply Joel » Sat Aug 28, 2004 3:49 am

AuldAne wrote:
samtzu wrote: Every time the Gov'ment gives, they take away a freedom or liberty.
Usually people who say things like that are either Republican or Libertarian. The way to tell the difference is to start asking them about government "giving" that they might take for granted. For best effectiveness, tailor to the subject: ask the rural man about farm subsidies, the veteran about the GI Bill, the family man about primary education, and pretty much everyone about roads, their local military base, you get the picture. You will discover they either mean "Every time the gov'ment gives to someone besides me they take away my freedom or liberty", or they mean, well, something more interesting.

Or just ask them who they think is cooler, Rush Limbaugh or Milton Friedman, that'll do the trick too.
Whoa, fucking whoa... a veteran earned his GI Bill.... it is part of the contract, not social or corporate fucking welfare.

Milton Friedman is way cooler, by the way.

Simply Joel
Posts: 3483
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 9:08 am
Location: Land of Lincoln
Contact:

Post by Simply Joel » Sat Aug 28, 2004 4:01 am

August 28, 2004

Portrait of a Republican
By DAVID BROOKS

One of the most thoughtful politicians in Washington doesn't believe in the theory of evolution. I thought I'd introduce him to you because over the next week we're going to hear a lot of stereotypes about Republicans and especially social conservatives. It might be useful to interrupt those prejudices with the more complicated reality.

Representative Mark Souder grew up in a small town near Fort Wayne, Ind. His father owned a general store and then a furniture store and was the beneficiary of what Souder calls small-town socialism. People would pay more to buy from local merchants to keep out the big chains.

Souder was a member of the Apostolic Christian Church, a fundamentalist church with a strong pacifist tradition. One of Souder's jobs as a boy was to cross out the word "devil's" on the Devil's Food Cakes, because his uncle said that nothing that good should have the word "devil" on its package. In accordance with his church's teaching, Souder has never smoked or danced. But the church does allow beer drinking (they're Germans), and he did own a 1966 Mustang as a young man.

Souder's parents offered to pay half the cost of any nonfiction book not having to do with sports. So while young, he developed the habit, which he's kept up, of reading almost one nonfiction book a week. In 1964, he heard Ronald Reagan speak on behalf of Barry Goldwater and fell in love with politics.

He subscribed to National Review, joined the Young Americans for Freedom and became part of the 1960's counter-counterculture. "We cut our hair like Bobby Kennedy, but acted like William F. Buckley," he recalls. He went into the furniture business but was very active helping two Congressmen from his district, Dan Quayle and Dan Coats.

Souder welcomed the rise of the religious right, but regarded Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell the way many conservatives did: "I was supportive but I believed they oversimplified problems."

Then in 1994, he ran for Congress himself, and in that great Republican year, won. He immediately behaved in ways that defy the stereotypes. He's worked with members of the Black Caucus to steer federal scholarship money to urban kids. He voted against three articles of Bill Clinton's impeachment - he thought Clinton's behavior was immoral but not impeachable. He was one of the House Republican leaders of an unsuccessful coup against Newt Gingrich.

Souder admires John McCain, especially his independence and fiscal hawkishness. (Souder once took on House members' office allowances, which didn't make him popular.) He greatly admires President Bush, though he says: "My main difference with Bush is over the environment. They're too close to our contributors."

Souder says his district is part of Robert Taft/Paul Harvey America. It has a high Army enlistment rate, but it also has a long tradition of isolationism. "The idea is, you build a fortress and go after them if you have to."

Souder opposed U.S. intervention in Bosnia, but says: "Sept. 11 was an eye-opener for areas like mine and for me. You can't escape your international interests. At some level we have to be the policeman of the world. We have an ethical responsibility."

When Souder talks about the early fights of his activist youth, he talks about doctrinal feuds - between evangelicals and libertarians etc. But when he talks about the G.O.P. now - in power and after Sept. 11 - he's much less ideologically predictable.

The fact is, the Republican Party is less riven into ideological camps than it used to be, and the issues that used to divide it, like abortion, are less salient. Now fundamentalists, moderates, libertarians and old-fashioned Main Street types all express the same sort of concerns: about the need to win the war and anxiety that we're not fighting it properly; about the need to restore fiscal discipline and the anxiety about egregious Republican pork-barrel spending. Across the party, there is a great deal of admiration for Bush's core instincts, but a belief that his administration has not performed that well.

In short, ideological disputes have been replaced by problems of governance. Old coalitions are breaking down. New ones have not yet formed. We media types love to report about rifts in Republican ranks. But most of those clichés are obsolete.

As Mark Souder's career illustrates, this is a party committed to some key principles, but open to radical new directions, if President Bush is bold enough to propose them.

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company

Locked

Return to “Open Discussion”