Ian Welsh had a piece on ethics this week in which he defined the difference between morals and ethics as, “…morals are how you treat people you know. Ethics are how you treat people you don’t know.” I rather liked that definition at first reading, even though it sounded a little bit “too good to be true.” The more I pondered it, though, the more it held up, and I came to like it very much indeed.
His discussion regarding the definition is well said and and makes some good points. Like most of what he writes, I recommend it as good reading.
He also, in this piece, resonates with my thinking regarding a major breakdown in our governance that has been a burr under my saddle for a long time and which no one ever talks about. That is that our legislators keep thrashing around in a misguided efforts to arrive at moral legislation, such as abortion and gay marriage, and have abandoned completely any effort at ethical governance, as is revealed by their oft-repeated statement that, “My responsibility is to serve the best interest of my state/district.”
Actually, we should have no laws regarding the moral issue of abortion, either permitting or banning it, and the ethical responsibility of a federal legislator is to represent the principles of his state/district in serving the best interest of the nation as a whole.
The voters, of course, contribute to the ethical failure by reelecting incumbents because they want to “maintain seniority in Congress.” What that actually means is that they want to assure that their representation has sufficient “pull” in Congress to secure the maximum amount of pork for their state, and they vote for legislators based on the amount of pork which the representative is able to bring home.
During the Civil War it was said that “a nation divided against itself cannot stand.” That was at a time when this nation was divided into two halves. We are now divided into fifty greedy, self serving states, each trying to suck the maximum resources from the federal coffers for its own benefit and each willing to throw the nation under the bus in order to gain a “leg up” over its 49 competitors.
Whenever I bring up this concept in discussion, especially in liberal discussion, I am roundly slapped down and told that the true and proper role of a federal legislator is precisely to serve the best interest of his state/district. “If they don’t serve my interests,” I am asked, “who will?”
It never occurs to them that in matters of national governance perhaps their parochial interests should not be served at all, by anyone.
The rise of the Tea Party was actually a triumph of principle over greed, because for the first time the voters were in significant measure willing to elect legislators based on the principles they espoused rather than on what they could do for the district’s parochial self interest. Whether those principles represented valid governance is beside the point, the Tea Party was not based on “I’m going to bring federal money into your area.”
Yes, there was an element of self interest in voting Tea Party, in wanting lower taxes and smaller government, but it was not parochial self interest. These legislators were elected based on principles of national governance.
Saturday, June 1, 2013
Friday, May 31, 2013
Oh, For God's Sake
Consumer spending dropped in April, after increasing less than expected in March. Unemployment claims rose in April, after being essentially flat in March. And bless the American public's little heart, consumer confidence rose in April, to its highest level in several years because home prices increased by 20% in one year and the stock market topped $15,000. My God, we are a stupid country.
Update, Friday evening: From Crain's New York Business news comes this, "The number of Americans filing for unemployment benefits rose and an initial estimate of first-quarter economic growth was revised slightly lower." The article goes on to say that, "The stock market rose Thursday after a pair of lackluster economic reports convinced traders that the U.S. central bank will continue to boost the economy with its stimulus program."
Aside from the insanity of the stock market being "encouraged" by "lackluster economic reports," consider the moronic conclusion that such bad news will assure that the Fed will "continue to boost the economy." What idoit puts "lackluster economic reports" and "continue to boost the economy" in the same sentence?
Update, Friday evening: From Crain's New York Business news comes this, "The number of Americans filing for unemployment benefits rose and an initial estimate of first-quarter economic growth was revised slightly lower." The article goes on to say that, "The stock market rose Thursday after a pair of lackluster economic reports convinced traders that the U.S. central bank will continue to boost the economy with its stimulus program."
Aside from the insanity of the stock market being "encouraged" by "lackluster economic reports," consider the moronic conclusion that such bad news will assure that the Fed will "continue to boost the economy." What idoit puts "lackluster economic reports" and "continue to boost the economy" in the same sentence?
Thursday, May 30, 2013
More Empty Words
Just four days after Obama gave a grand speech outlining his new policy that drones would be used so carefully that no civilians would be killed or injured, we used a Hellfire missile to kill a Taliban leader in Pakistan and in the process killed six other people who happened to be nearby. We do not know who all of those people were.
Obama’s claim that Hellfire missiles fired from unmanned drones will only be used when there is “near certainty that no civilians will be killed or injured — the highest standard we can set,” is another case of him giving us nice words and assuming that we are really stupid. If the Hellfire missile could be used with sufficient precision to meet that asinine criteria, it would not bear the name “Hellfire” missile. In this case the missile killed the target and six other people, several of whom are unknown to us.
Does that meet the standard that Obama set just four days previously?
Of course not. There were six other people around the target, and we did not know who they were. Either that, or we had such a poor view of the target that we did not know who was around him. In either case was there a “near certainty that no civilians would be killed” when that missile was fired? On the contrary, it pretty much had to be assumed that innocent people would die, and the missile was fired anyway.
Again, why do we assume that anything that Obama says has any actual meaning? In the words of Glenn Greenwald, “Few things are as unreliable as Obama's speeches and rhetoric.”
Obama’s claim that Hellfire missiles fired from unmanned drones will only be used when there is “near certainty that no civilians will be killed or injured — the highest standard we can set,” is another case of him giving us nice words and assuming that we are really stupid. If the Hellfire missile could be used with sufficient precision to meet that asinine criteria, it would not bear the name “Hellfire” missile. In this case the missile killed the target and six other people, several of whom are unknown to us.
Does that meet the standard that Obama set just four days previously?
Of course not. There were six other people around the target, and we did not know who they were. Either that, or we had such a poor view of the target that we did not know who was around him. In either case was there a “near certainty that no civilians would be killed” when that missile was fired? On the contrary, it pretty much had to be assumed that innocent people would die, and the missile was fired anyway.
Again, why do we assume that anything that Obama says has any actual meaning? In the words of Glenn Greenwald, “Few things are as unreliable as Obama's speeches and rhetoric.”
Wednesday, May 29, 2013
False Economic Recovery
Heidi Moore at The Guardian has an article today titled “Don't be fooled by the false economic recovery,” which rather makes me think she has been reading my mind. She talks about “the power of illusion, to mask reality” and relates that to the actual meaninglessness of consumer confidence and housing prices as a measure of economic recovery, when unemployment is still persistently high, the number of people in poverty and on food stamps is still rising, and wages for the working class remain stagnant at best.
She makes good points. The people of this nation are prone to being taken by illusion, such as the one that a war in Iraq would make us safe from terrorism, followed by the idea that continuance and escalation of the war in Afghanistan would do likewise by “denying them space in which to plan their attacks.” Economically, people look at a soaring stock market and rising home prices and need no other evidence that the economy is booming.
Buoyed by such “confidence” they rush out and buy cars with nothing down and four year loans and bid $100,000 above the asking price for houses, and think that doing that sort of thing constitutes rational behavior. Confidence based on an utterly irrational stock market and the fact that other irrational actors are also buying houses at ridiculous prices.
My parents used to ask me, “If everyone else jumped off of a five story building, would you do so too?” Today's American answer economically is clearly, “Yes.”
Notice that the booming portion of the economy is in two areas. One is cars and houses, both of which are bought on credit and means the nation is once again piling up debt at a furious rate. The other is the stock market, which as it functions today is not actually part of the economy at all, but is a parasite which sucks money out of the economy.
Europe is doing a slow motion economic implosion, and it is only a matter of time before the Euro is a thing of the past. Japan is circling the drain as it frantically devalues its currency an a last ditch effort to survive. China is slowing down, no matter how often it releases fancy numbers in an effort to disguise that fact. And yet this country, having apparently decoupled economically from the rest of the world, is entering an economic boom.
Hurry, get your reservation in for the unicorns that are coming.
She makes good points. The people of this nation are prone to being taken by illusion, such as the one that a war in Iraq would make us safe from terrorism, followed by the idea that continuance and escalation of the war in Afghanistan would do likewise by “denying them space in which to plan their attacks.” Economically, people look at a soaring stock market and rising home prices and need no other evidence that the economy is booming.
Buoyed by such “confidence” they rush out and buy cars with nothing down and four year loans and bid $100,000 above the asking price for houses, and think that doing that sort of thing constitutes rational behavior. Confidence based on an utterly irrational stock market and the fact that other irrational actors are also buying houses at ridiculous prices.
My parents used to ask me, “If everyone else jumped off of a five story building, would you do so too?” Today's American answer economically is clearly, “Yes.”
Notice that the booming portion of the economy is in two areas. One is cars and houses, both of which are bought on credit and means the nation is once again piling up debt at a furious rate. The other is the stock market, which as it functions today is not actually part of the economy at all, but is a parasite which sucks money out of the economy.
Europe is doing a slow motion economic implosion, and it is only a matter of time before the Euro is a thing of the past. Japan is circling the drain as it frantically devalues its currency an a last ditch effort to survive. China is slowing down, no matter how often it releases fancy numbers in an effort to disguise that fact. And yet this country, having apparently decoupled economically from the rest of the world, is entering an economic boom.
Hurry, get your reservation in for the unicorns that are coming.
Tuesday, May 28, 2013
War On Terror Speech
I haven’t had much to say about President Obama’s “War On Terror” speech, mostly because I’m still trying to figure out what the hell he actually said. What do you make of a speech filled with such inconsistent cliches as, “We must define the nature and scope of this struggle, or else it will define us,” followed by the same tired old one about how we must, in Afghanistan, “sustain a counter-terrorism force which ensures that al Qaeda can never again establish a safe-haven to launch attacks against us.”
Further complicating my confusion is the downright schizophrenic reactions to it. Every warhawk who loves the war on terror was absolutely thrilled by Obama’s speech and drew from it the deepest reassurance that Obama intends to continue the war until the end of time, while progressives almost without exception were equally thrilled and drew from the speech an assurance that the last bomb will have fallen in no more than a week or two.
Except, that is, for those who will attack Obama no matter what he says, who are saying, of course, that Obama is himself a secret Muslim and is trying to leave the country so unguarded that Islamic jihadists will be able to make their way in and create Sharia law throughout the nation.
Anyway, progressives are hanging their hats on the concept that he is the first president in history to actually ask that presidential authority be reduced because he called for the “eventual repeal of the AUMF.” Yes, and he said that he would filibuster against immunity for the telecom industry, too, and then voted in favor of it. He said that he would not sign a bill extending the Bush tax cuts, and then extended them for two years. Why do we keep assuming that Obama will actually do anything that he says he will do?
Glenn Greenwald goes into this at much greater length and with his usual insight and eloquence, pointing out that Obama typically makes speeches that use a lot of words that say nothing. I recommend his piece to you. I particularly like the part where he compares the Bush WOT approach to that of Obama, saying that the only difference between the two is that Bush did it with a cowboy swagger while Obama is anguished and inwardly tortured by it.
He doesn’t point out that, anguished and inwardly tortured or not, Obama has said that ordering the killing of an American citizen was “the easiest decision” he ever made as president. When killing is an easy decision, how likely are you to end wars?
Further complicating my confusion is the downright schizophrenic reactions to it. Every warhawk who loves the war on terror was absolutely thrilled by Obama’s speech and drew from it the deepest reassurance that Obama intends to continue the war until the end of time, while progressives almost without exception were equally thrilled and drew from the speech an assurance that the last bomb will have fallen in no more than a week or two.
Except, that is, for those who will attack Obama no matter what he says, who are saying, of course, that Obama is himself a secret Muslim and is trying to leave the country so unguarded that Islamic jihadists will be able to make their way in and create Sharia law throughout the nation.
Anyway, progressives are hanging their hats on the concept that he is the first president in history to actually ask that presidential authority be reduced because he called for the “eventual repeal of the AUMF.” Yes, and he said that he would filibuster against immunity for the telecom industry, too, and then voted in favor of it. He said that he would not sign a bill extending the Bush tax cuts, and then extended them for two years. Why do we keep assuming that Obama will actually do anything that he says he will do?
Glenn Greenwald goes into this at much greater length and with his usual insight and eloquence, pointing out that Obama typically makes speeches that use a lot of words that say nothing. I recommend his piece to you. I particularly like the part where he compares the Bush WOT approach to that of Obama, saying that the only difference between the two is that Bush did it with a cowboy swagger while Obama is anguished and inwardly tortured by it.
He doesn’t point out that, anguished and inwardly tortured or not, Obama has said that ordering the killing of an American citizen was “the easiest decision” he ever made as president. When killing is an easy decision, how likely are you to end wars?
Sunday, May 26, 2013
Memorial Day 2013
There was a discussion on another venue about the meaning of Memorial Day, which started when the original poster said that it is a day “that we thank those who served in the military.” After I and some others argued that it is a day that we remember those who have died in the armed service of their country he did change that to “we thank those who served in the military, especially those who served in combat and lost their lives.”
Which is, of course, still wrong and makes him invincibly ignorant.
Today is a day to watch auto races; one which will probably be exciting and another, later in the day, which will almost certainly be about as exciting as watching sewage ooze out of an overfull septic tank.
Tomorrow is a day to remember, and honor, those who have gone to war, in the words of Kenneth Roberts, “not to die for their country, but to place themselves, their precious lives, between their home and the forces which would destroy it.” Men like the crew of the USS Thresher, some of whom were close friends, the USS Scorpion, and all of the submarines “on eternal patrol.”
If there is a National Cemetery near you, go there tomorrow and take a look at all of the uniform white markers, aligned in neat rows no matter in which direction you view them. Note the little flags in front of each one, placed there in remembrance, and you will know the meaning of “Memorial Day” through its original name, which was “Decoration Day.”
Take a walk and read some names. No need to thank them. No ceremonies or grand gestures required. The military has a code that they do not leave their dead behind. We as a people should have the same code. Don’t leave them behind. Remember who they are.
Every year on 9/11 we read the names of those who were victims of that day. Why do we never read the names of those who fell in Fallujah? Why is there never a reading of the names of those who lost their lives on Iwo Jima, or at Chosin Resevoir?
Which is, of course, still wrong and makes him invincibly ignorant.
Today is a day to watch auto races; one which will probably be exciting and another, later in the day, which will almost certainly be about as exciting as watching sewage ooze out of an overfull septic tank.
Tomorrow is a day to remember, and honor, those who have gone to war, in the words of Kenneth Roberts, “not to die for their country, but to place themselves, their precious lives, between their home and the forces which would destroy it.” Men like the crew of the USS Thresher, some of whom were close friends, the USS Scorpion, and all of the submarines “on eternal patrol.”
If there is a National Cemetery near you, go there tomorrow and take a look at all of the uniform white markers, aligned in neat rows no matter in which direction you view them. Note the little flags in front of each one, placed there in remembrance, and you will know the meaning of “Memorial Day” through its original name, which was “Decoration Day.”
Take a walk and read some names. No need to thank them. No ceremonies or grand gestures required. The military has a code that they do not leave their dead behind. We as a people should have the same code. Don’t leave them behind. Remember who they are.
Every year on 9/11 we read the names of those who were victims of that day. Why do we never read the names of those who fell in Fallujah? Why is there never a reading of the names of those who lost their lives on Iwo Jima, or at Chosin Resevoir?
Friday, May 24, 2013
Restoring What Constitution?
Obama will, in the future, assassinate American citizens without due process of law only if they present a “continuing and imminent threat.” No more killing them by accident, apparently, but still no actual evidence required, merely a departure from American soil and the decision by… Well, he doesn’t say who makes that decision. We knew before his speech that he was the “decider” of who would be executed by drones, but his speech sort of muddied those waters.
The constitution says that conviction of treason (although he never used that word) requires “the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act,” which seems to require a trial in a court of law, and Obama sort of acknowledges that while dismissing it at the same time by saying that, “Of course, the targeting of any Americans raises constitutional issues that are not present in other strikes – which is why my Administration submitted information about Awlaki to the Department of Justice months before Awlaki was killed,” Apparently he shares Holder’s rather loose definition of “due process.” Due process means we tell a bunch of lawyers about it before we do it.
He also seems to think that citizenship is conditional on good behavior, using his common tactic of saying something that sounds really good unless you actually think about it, in which case it makes no sense.
Really? A sniper in the act of firing on a crowd is a “clear and present danger” against whom lethal force is justified. However, Obama’s “swat team” can only use lethal force to meet lethal force. They cannot use lethal force unless their lives or the lives of others are endangered by the present actions of the person they are engaging.
Nor, if the police know that a person is planning to act as a “sniper shooting down on an innocent crowd” can they preemptively kill him, or even arrest him simply for his intention. They go to the place where he is planning to commit the crime, prevent him from doing so and arrest him in the act. We do not arrest people for thought crimes in this country, but Obama does execute people for them. In Obama’s world, planning to do something bad is a capital offense.
He has a vastly different definition of “justice” than I do.
The constitution says that conviction of treason (although he never used that word) requires “the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act,” which seems to require a trial in a court of law, and Obama sort of acknowledges that while dismissing it at the same time by saying that, “Of course, the targeting of any Americans raises constitutional issues that are not present in other strikes – which is why my Administration submitted information about Awlaki to the Department of Justice months before Awlaki was killed,” Apparently he shares Holder’s rather loose definition of “due process.” Due process means we tell a bunch of lawyers about it before we do it.
He also seems to think that citizenship is conditional on good behavior, using his common tactic of saying something that sounds really good unless you actually think about it, in which case it makes no sense.
But when a U.S. citizen goes abroad to wage war against America – and is actively plotting to kill U.S. citizens; and when neither the United States, nor our partners are in a position to capture him before he carries out a plot – his citizenship should no more serve as a shield than a sniper shooting down on an innocent crowd should be protected from a swat team.
Really? A sniper in the act of firing on a crowd is a “clear and present danger” against whom lethal force is justified. However, Obama’s “swat team” can only use lethal force to meet lethal force. They cannot use lethal force unless their lives or the lives of others are endangered by the present actions of the person they are engaging.
Nor, if the police know that a person is planning to act as a “sniper shooting down on an innocent crowd” can they preemptively kill him, or even arrest him simply for his intention. They go to the place where he is planning to commit the crime, prevent him from doing so and arrest him in the act. We do not arrest people for thought crimes in this country, but Obama does execute people for them. In Obama’s world, planning to do something bad is a capital offense.
He has a vastly different definition of “justice” than I do.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)