Thursday, October 05, 2006

defending Denny Hastert's decisions is ethically wrong

* from a site that i dont know, electricpolitics via avendon oops avedon:
"It would be refreshing to find somebody who doesn't agree with 9/11 conspiracy theories (so-called) who was willing to debate them in a civil way. And I don't mean the editors of Popular Mechanics, either. Perhaps the civil ones are changing their minds? One such is Bill Christison, the distinguished former CIA analyst and popular author of progressive political essays. Within the past year Bill has changed his mind about 9/11, from rejecting conspiracy theories outright to thinking that the standard story is not what it seems. In this conversation we talk a lot about what happens when one rethinks something like 9/11, less about the facts in question. I'm very grateful to Bill for talking with me and I hope this conversation helps those who are still sorting things out. Runtime of about an hour and nineteen minutes."
I havent listened to the interview yet.

* lindorff:
"It's a sad commentary on the state of American democracy, on the instincts of the American citizenry, and on the standards and judgment of the American newsmedia that the unsavory advances of a pathetic Forida congressman can have the nation in high dudgeon, while the ramming through of a patently illegal piece of legislation undermining a crucial 13th century civil liberty (habeas corpus), and the Fourth and Eighth Amendments of the constitution, and the secret planning for an illegal and catastrophic attack on Iran, both merit almost no complaint or mention.

Far be it from me to complain if Rep. Mark Foley's sexual obsession with teenage boys ends up sinking Republican hopes for hanging onto the House and Senate. But how sad that it would be if it is this, and the coverup of his crimes by the Republican leadership, that undoes the Bush administration, when its real crimes are of such grandeur and seriousness?

How are we to compare seeking to screw a 16-year old with totally screwing the Constitution? How are we to compare secret email solicitations with a secret plot to attack a nation of 62 million that poses no immediate threat to the U.S.?
The American media should be ashamed of themselves for wallowing in swill, when there is a cancer in the White House that is attacking the very foundations of the nation.

The American public should be ashamed for its sheer inanity and inattention to the responsibilities of citizenship."

* tonyblankley:
"I believe in and have regularly fought the partisan fight to the bitter end -- except when the position is ethically indefensible.

In this case, defending Denny Hastert's decisions is ethically wrong, would undermine our party's commitment to the defense of traditional moral values and is politically stupid in the bargain.
Although the hour is late, it is never too late to do the right thing. At this point, there is nothing left worth defending but our honor. And who knows, as an added bonus, it might also be the politically smart thing to do. But either way, it is the right thing."
* simon:
"Clearly Iraq had little problem in moving in or out goods of any kind. Therefore it must have been in BJ's and later JTFI's remit to monitor this activity."


Avedon said...

Psst! There's only one "N" in "Avedon".

starroute said...

I'm not surprised that the Foley affair gets people's attention in a way that raping the Constitution and plotting illegal wars don't. There is a divorce between public and private morality in our society -- has been since the 19th century, but it keeps getting more extreme. Anything done in the name of national or corporate profit is considered business as usual. You can argue about its effectiveness, but if you try to call it morally wrong, you will be denigrated as shrill and then ignored.

The nuclear family is the very last redoubt of moral judgment. Mess with the children and you get your head handed to you. As a result, the occasional intersections of politics with family matters are the *only* place where moral judgments are still considered admissible.

It's unfortunate that even liberals reinforce this split by piling on when something like the Foley affair arises. It's not entirely mistaken -- you have to take your chances when you find them -- but the real objective should be to return civic morality to the public arena in a way that hasn't been seen since the days of the founding fathers.

lukery said...

Avedon! I'm so sorry!

lukery said...

starroute: "Anything done in the name of national or corporate profit is considered business as usual. You can argue about its effectiveness, but if you try to call it morally wrong, you will be denigrated as shrill and then ignored."
indeed. one of the most immoral things that i *really* can't understand from the churchies is the global-warming denial. most of the other stuff i can kind of understand, at least somewhat, but straight-out lying about the permanent destruction of all of god's living things is a bit much.

i agree with you about the 'nuclear family' - although i suspect that the only reason that this story is resonating is because it appears that even the most selfish, white, privileged folks can imagine that it could happen to their own kids.