Weekly Jackass Number Fifty-One: Ted Kennedy
How could this feature have gone so long without recognizing this week’s recipient? Perhaps it is because ANY week is a good week to honor the least-well-liked of the Kennedy clan. There is no stunt too shameless, no rhetoric too vapid, for Senator Kennedy to wallow in. Here’s the well-known crusader for women’s rights (just ask Mary Jo Kopechne!) from the well-known feminist Kennedy family (just ask Marilyn!) on Judge Alito:
“A credibility gap is emerging with each new piece of information released on Judge Alito’s record,” said Sen. Edward Kennedy, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which is to begin confirmation hearings on Jan. 9.
“He bears an especially heavy burden at the hearings in January to explain the growing number of discrepancies between his current statements and his past actions,” said Kennedy, D-Mass.
This, from the man who didn’t even see fit to notify authorities of the death of Kopechne! Talk about credibility gaps (and shame on the voters who continue to send this man who, at the very least, is guilty of vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated back to Congress)!
Of course, the real problem is that Alito opposes abortion, and it is abortion rights that are the bread and butter of Democratic machine politicians like Kennedy (and it is also his abortion stance that explains why women will consent to even be in the same room with him). Here’s Kennedy on the occasion of announcing his opposition to John Roberts:
…a number of my colleagues on the Committee asked Judge Roberts about issues related to women’s rights and a woman’s right to privacy. On these important matters, too, he never gave answers that shed light on his current views.
No one is entitled to become Chief Justice of the United States. The confirmation of nominees to our courts — by and with the advice and consent of the Senate — should not require a leap of faith. Nominees must earn their confirmation by providing us with full knowledge of the values and convictions they will bring to decisions that may profoundly affect our progress as a nation toward the ideal of equality.
The problem here is the problem that affects most modern liberals: moral relativism pervades Kennedy’s statement.
To a person like Kennedy, as his statement clearly shows, the law is an ever-changing social document, subject to the whims and changing morality of the populace. Thus, judicial nominees should be weighed on the outcomes for social justice and equality that their nominations might enable (some of us call this legislating from the bench).
The truth of the matter is that the role of the Supreme Court is highly limited: its only proper function is to decide on the constitutionality of the questions of law before it. There is no room for sociology coursework in the deliberations of this branch of government. That is the proper domain of the legislative and executive branch.
The proof in the pudding is the fact that justices are appointed for life. If Kennedy’s view of the Supreme Court was the correct one, why wouldn’t we want our justices to face the electorate, and stay in touch with the will of the voters?
If such questions ever cross Kennedy’s mind, the record does not show it…
Thus, we award this broad distinction on a narrow basis to a man who is surely overqualified…congrats, Teddy Boy, and have a drink on me…
That is consistent with the socialist philosophy derived from Plato. Truth is malleable. Truth is determined by the society as a whole for the good of the whole. The truth can change as soceity sees fit.
This is why liberals “lie.” We see it as a lie. Liberals see it as a “current truth.” The actual facts don’t matter if they don’t support whatever the “current truth” is.
Not only is there not a concrete right or wrong to a liberal (moral relativism), but there is no black or white truth. All truth is whatever you want it to be, as long as it advances the political agenda of the society as a whole.
The reason liberals lie, then, is to advance their political agenda. Truth need not apply. Then, when those who revere the truth do not agree based on factual basis, the liberal simply calls them names louder and louder until the defender of truth goes away or is shamed into silence via aspersions of racism or hatred.
See, once the factual truth is discarded in favor of the political “truth,” no one is allowed to invoke the truth. Many times we’ll see a suppression of the factual truth so that the political “truth” will prevail. Often, we’ll see historical revisionism so that later on the factual truth (now changed to a lie) will support the political “truth.”
Kennedy is thus being very consistent with his lies and evasions.
Plato was not a moral relativist.
No, he wasn’t. But Plato supported the church in purporting that the truth could not be knowable by the individual. The truth was malleable and open to change by those who were stewards of society, ie; the church.
Kant and Hegel expanded on this later on. Socialism derives from Platonic-Kantian-Hegelian thought.
In contrast, Aristotle propounded that the individual could in fact know the truth and that the truth never changed. At the time, he said this in opposition to the Platonic method of the church.
Once Aristotelian thought was embraced by the church, the Enlightenment was born.
Well, that is about the silliest thing I have ever read. First of all, there is nothing in the excerpt from Ted Kennedy which has anything to do with moral relativism, or shifting truths, or anything even resembling lies. In the first quote, he states thate there are inconsistencies in Alito’s statements. In the second, he says that Roberts’s views are opaque and should be disclosed before being elevated to Chief Justice.
Mr. Thrash then takes this as proof positive not only that liberals lie, but they do so to advance their political agenda. Needless to say, there is no evidence given to support this. Moreover, when “those who revere the truth” (obviously not liberals) enlighted the rest of the world, the liberals are unable to do anything except name-calling (an ironic charge for a post which is filled with nothing except name-calling).
We then learn that socialism derived from Plato and Kant. Seeing that both of them preceded the advent of socialism — Plato by millenia, Kant by many decades — this would no doubt be a big surprise to them, were they around these days to hear their writings trashed. Hegel a liberal? Who knew?
Silly? You apparently are clueless to Kennedy’s history of grandstanding rhetoric that takes any position, no matter the inconsistency, for the purposes of politics.
Then you attempt to limit the application of my observation of kennedy’s consistency to the Alito snippet.
You reach even further up your a** to conclude that by “derive” I mean “came from the mouth of” without any thought to philosophical evolution.
If you’re that blind, then reasoning with you is senseless.
peter, thanks for the kind words (I kid, of course – you’re always welcome to disagree). I do believe Kennedy’s statement is an example of moral relativism, though clearly you do not. Let me narrow it down a little for you:
“Nominees must earn their confirmation by providing us with full knowledge of the values and convictions they will bring to decisions that may profoundly affect our progress as a nation toward the ideal of equality.”
Now, that may be your view of what qualifies a nominee to our highest court, but it is not mine. I have no need of knowing the values and convictions, current or former, of a Supreme Court Justice. I don’t believe the purpose of the Supreme Court is to weigh decisions as they may ‘profoundly affect our progress as a nation toward the ideal of equality’.
I repeat: the only reason to even HAVE a Supreme Court is to rule on the appropriateness of legal matters under our ruling document. Values, convictions, ideals of equality – these are all fine things, but they have no bearing on the administration of proper constitutional rulings. They are a matter for legislators and executives.
I repeat the question, this time to you – if Kennedy’s view is correct, why don’t Supreme Court justices face election?
As to Kant and Plato, I’m sure William can speak for himself – but what’s so ridiculous in saying that socialism derived from them? Disagree if you wish, but it’s not an absurd statement. Your argument that they lived decades or centuries before the philosophy was fully born is as silly as anything you’ve criticized here.
However, William, I must say that peter is usually quite reasonable and a welcome contributor to the dialogue here, though he comes at these issues from a different angle than we do…
No, I just look at the facts. Whether or not you like Ted Kennedy, he has been extremely consistent throughout his political career. He has been a steadfast advocate of things such as abortion rights, minimum wages, gun control, a progressive tax system, and so forth. You may disagree with his philosophy or his votes, but you cannot call him inconsistent or imply, as you do, that his positions are due to seeking political advantage and not because of deeply felt values. These are the facts, and your distaste of Kennedy blinds you to them.
peter, I’ll give you that much – philosophically, he has been very consistent, and he’s not the first man to fail to live up to his principles in his private life (I’ve suffered from that failing a bit myself)…
I can only say this: I am a lifelong resident of MA, have never voted for Ted Kennedy (actually, have always voted against him), Ted’s behavior offends me, he is the best example of the worst sort of public, government employed human being, I can imagine. I am incapable of being objective about Ted Kennedy in the same irrational way I am repulsed by spiders.
I think that it is appropriate to make sure that the values of a Supreme Court justice are broadly consistent with the mainstream. In many respects, law is the codification of a society’s moral values, and it is reasonable to make sure that those who adjudicate it have beliefs which are consonant with what we consider to be core American values.
I believe that convictions and values are integral to how a judge decides a case, and it is entirely reasonable and appropriate to probe those values in a confirmation hearing. Interpreting constitutional law is rarely a cut-and-dried decision based on the Constitution and on precedent. It involved balancing competing claims and values, and a great jurist is one who has the values and convictions to use his discretion wisely.
Do you think that Brown v. Board of Education was a wise decision? Its linkage to the Constitution and to relevant precedents is, at best, tenuous. I believe it was the right decision, and that decision would not have been reached without the values and convictions of the Court at that time.
Presumable you would not want a felon, a racist, or a misogynist to sit on the Supreme Court. Why? Because moral blemishes are most relevant to choosing judges. Extending that logic, one would want to know that a Justice’s values and convictions are strong enough to guide him in adjudication among competing interests.
As for electing people to the Court: the idea is to enable a Justice to make the correct decision without being held sway by public opinion.
As for Kant and Plato — only the most tortured reading ot their work would lead you to socialism. It’s like saying that Alice in Wonderland was the predecssor of communism.
Allow me to quote myself about Kennedy:
Now, from Peter:
(ahem)
Kennedy is a consistent socialist and his positions are consistent with his philosophy.
In regards to Alito, in 1990, Kennedy had nothing but praise for him. He just couldn’t find anything bad to say… not because there was nothing bad to say, but because there was no political necessity at the time to smear him. Now that there is, he predictably (because he’s consistent) finds sudden doubts to parade in front of the camera. Why? Because the party base is demanding a supreme court nominee head, no matter what the facts.
I believe Kennedy has NO deeply felt values – not like you attribute to him. His values lie with his party and whatever platform it demands. In that, and only that, he is consistent.
OK, I’m confused. First I’m told that Kennedy is a liar (without being told what he lies about or when he lied). Then I’m told that he is consistent (a consistent socialist whose views are consistent with that philosophy). Then I’m told that his values lie with his party (which is definitely not socialist) and with whatever platform the party demands (which apparently excludes socialism).
And the party is demanding a Supreme Court nominee head? That’s why half of the Democratic Senators voted for Roberts?
Plato – the individual cannot know right or wrong.
Kant – government determines truth for society.
Hegel – truth is embodied and disseminated from government through its rulers.
Each built upon the last. From that string, Marx and Hitler formulated differing degrees of socialism.
When I say Plato is the father of socialism, I am referring to the current leftist philosophy that the government knows better than the individual and only the government can solve the problems of man.
When I say Aristotle was the father of conservatism, I am referring to the current “right wing” ideology that the individual can know the truth, right, and wrong, and that the individual knows better than the government how to live his own life.
There is plenty of evolution and progression in each line of development, but paraphrasing is easier than typing a zillion f***ing pages and losing the reader in the process. There is nothing “tortured” about the philosophical developments that led to our current ideologies unless you’re referring to my brief descriptions.
Peter, have you been reading any news? I’ve been to DailyKos, have you? Alito’s head is being demanded no matter what his positions turn out to be – for no reason other than that Roberts slipped by them.
The democrats couldn’t smear Roberts because there was nothing to smear. Doing so would have meant showing the nation that the democratic policy is similar to Britain’s conservative policy: opposition for the sake of opposition. Even then, there was hysteria emails and automated phone calls (yes, I got them) urging the immediate correspondence to my rep to oppose Roberts. Politically, it would have been suicide. After Roberts was nominated, democrats were demanding that the next nominee would be stonewalled no matter who it was.
Kennedy has consistently lied for his party, which is indeed socialist. Only a deaf ostrich could ignore the democratic party’s socialist policies. Nowhere did I claim that the democratic party was not socialist.
“But Plato supported the church in purporting that the truth could not be knowable by the individual.”
No, he didn’t.
(What “church”, by the way? Plato was writing centuries before the birth of Christ).
But, Peter, this is wrong too:
“As for Kant and Plato — only the most tortured reading ot their work would lead you to socialism.”
Kant I don’t know much about, but Plato I do. The “Republic,” written c. 370 BC, is the first (recorded) argument in history for communal ownership of property, equality between the sexes, abolition of the family … in some ways, his ideal society looks like socialism.
(In other ways, it doesn’t – notably that this proto-socialist arrangement is to be applied only to an elite governing class; hoi polloi, the reader assumes, get to keep their individual hovels).
A reading that’s less than “tortured” does indeed reveal similarities between Kallipolis (the ideal state in “Republic”) and modern communitarianism/socialism/statism.
*
As for the initial topic: in their *personal* views, from what I can discern of them, neither Alito nor Kennedy are in the “mainstream,” if you define that to mean the middle third or so of the electorate.
Alito seems considerably to the right of dead center, Kennedy *at least* as far to the left.
In his “judicial philosophy” (boy I hate that phrase), Alito seems to approach the rightward edge of the mainstream, but he’s still within it. IMHO. Also in the opinions of many who’ve worked with/for him.
Let me take the comment on Brown vs. Board of Education. Do I think it was a good decision? I’ll answer this way – I think it was a good outcome, and I think this is what both liberals and conservatives who favor judicial activism are motivated by – their own version of what is a good outcome differing from time to time, of course.
Here’s part two of the answer, though – I don’t think abortion policy, education policy, or racial policy should be decided by the Supreme Court – except in such cases as that policy has a constitutional component.
Now, clearly, the Constitution must remain a living document – but we have the Amendment process. Yes, it’s excruciatingly difficult – it was meant to be…
In Critique of Pure Reason, Kant makes a very different argument, along the lines that the truth in unknowable because different observers have different perspectives. Hegel also makes a different argument, that truth is found through a dialectic of a force and a counter-force, not that the state is the sole arbiter of truth. In any event, these are epistemological arguments, and not political arguments.
Moreover, you are completely wrong when you state that leftist philosophy is that “the government knows better than the individual and only the government can solve the problems of man.” Let’s look at a few examples. Broadly speaking, most leftists (and certainly Ted Kennedy) believe that a pregnant woman knows better than the state whether to carry a baby to term. Broadly speaking, most rightists disagree and want the state to decide.
Many on the left believe that if two gay people want to have the same legal protections that two straight people have, that’s their business. The right wants the state to decide which rights gays should have.
Most on the left that the terminally ill should be allowed the option of euthanasia. Most on the right would argue that the state knows best.
Ditto for medical marijuana.
It seems to me that if you really believe that the individual should be able to decide for himself, you ought to be an enthusiastic leftist. It seems to me that it is those on the right who want deprive the individual of the ability to decide issues of right and wrong.
Knemon, William, and Peter: As a person who has read my share of Ayn Rand (I’m turned off by the Ayn Rand cult, but I do find many of her ideas intellectually attractive), let it be said that Rand firmly agreed that Plato and Kant were the seeds of the Communist monster, and that most good things come from Aristotle…
Well, I don’t read DailyKos, so you have me there.
And no, the Democratic party is not socialist. With the exception of a single Congressman in Vermont (who I think is a Socialist and votes in the Democratic caucus), there are no major Democratic figures which are socialist. Not Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Barbara Boxer, Harry Reid, or even Howard Dean. Or perhaps you merely apply the term to people you disagree with.
Wow, what a topic we have going here…peter, you make some good points re: the Left and individualism, but overall, your argument is a bit off target. Let’s face it, both the left and the right sin in giving too much power to the state, but in different areas. If you or I are to be really honest, and if the goal is individual liberty, we should be committed Libertarians (but as a broad generalization, let it be said: the Left tends to live the individual alone in matters of pleasure: sex, drugs, and rock’n'roll, baby!, while the right tends to live the individual alone in matters of economics – someone has to earn the bread that allows all that irresponsibility. It’s a cartoonish explanation, but one with some merit, I think).
Well, I agree with Mark about abortion policy — in my opinion, Roe v. Wade had the right outcome but was horrible case law. I’m not sure when the Supreme Court is involved in educational policy or racial policy, except with affirmative action, where there are legitimate due process issues. This is not to argue for or against affirmative action — only to note that the fourteenth amendment issues are inescapable.
Lemme give you some classic Kennedy crap.
From his own website: “EDUCATION:
No Child Left Behind” has been underfunded, mismanaged, and poorly implemented and is becoming the most spectacular broken promise of this Republican Administration and Congress. America’s children deserve better.”
Underfunded? Only a total moron could envision an almost 60% increase in education funding AFTER Clinton left office for the period 2000-2003 as “underfunding.” More rhetoric based on nothing but party politics. It’s nothing but a lie to smear the republicans and advance the idea that republicans want to kill kids and democrats want to hug them. It also mollifies the teacher’s unions that he champions that are pissed that the Act requires standards, rather than letting crappy teachers continue to turn out uneducated students. Did you know that Kennedy was one of the proud signatories of the Act during the signing? But politics now demand his opposition to Bush. So he follows his consistent pattern and opposes with lies about education.
There, I wrote another book but backed up my “lie” claim. Do you need more? I have more time.
Well, I think that there is a lot to be said for libertarianism. I believe in most of the cliches (the government which governs best is the government which governs least; you can swing your arms as much as you want up to the point where you hit the other guy’s nose).
I believe in a very wide sphere of economic freedom, with some exceptions (e.g., the power of the state should be used so that twelve years olds don’t work in mines and factories).
Probably one thing you would disagree with me on is that I believe that reasonable gun control is a legitimate use of state power. If the state has the right to license drivers, then it should have the right to license firearms and their users, as well as to prohibit the sale to those who are likely to use them in anger (e.g., felons).
However, the guiding principle, in my opinion, ought to be that state power should be used sparingly and only when there is demonstrable reason for doing so.
Well, no. Saying that a program is under-funded is not tantamount to lying. Nor did he say that Republicans want to kill kids (only Anne Coulter says things like that). He worked in a bi-partisan manner with Republicans to get the bill passed, and he thinks that the program was mismanaged. That’s not a lie, it’s a policy dispute.
If you are so eager to call politicians liars, I’m hesitant to hear what you must think about George Bush and Dick Cheney…
peter, I personally hate guns (imagine that, a Republican who hates guns). However, I think the right to bear arms is absolutely crucial as a check against a despotic turn of events. As hard as it is to imagine in a fully developed democracy, if events took an ugly, Hitler-like turn, I’d be grateful we had that Second Amendment.
But gun rights and abortion rights are arguments that bore me quickly on both sides…my passions are more related to economics and foreign policy, so it’s probably not surprising that I find myself leaning right more often than left…
Roe vs Wade is law. I think it is sick to kill babies, but if it’s law, then it’s law. I won’t go out and get an abortion.
Individual. The state sanctions murder of a defenseless individual for the “good” of the mother and arguably society (less poverty welfare crime etc). That is socialist. Euthanasia has its roots in socialism. Socialism decries capitalism and freedom of the individual to make his own destiny.
The democrats are the ones claiming blacks are too stupid to help themselves and that they need government assistance. I find that insulting, racist and socialist. High taxes for the benefits of a welfare state and government controlled industry is socialist. Forced profit sharing for the re-distribution of wealth for social purposes (education, prevention, support) are socialist and such conventions are demanded by democrats – think tobacco, alcohol, the prescription drug industry, and the mounting assault on SUVs and “big food.”
(Waves hand) I don’t like federalism. I don’t like what Lincoln did. It was illegal and Reconstruction was unconstitutional. I was born and raised a democrat, but I can’t reconcile with being a socialist.
Whew, we’re posting around each other. I dunno if I’ve missed anything or not.
(laughs) Saying the program is underfunded when education has had stellar increases is not lying? Oh hell… All of us know that if Kerry had won and given a 30% increase (half of Bush) that the media would be proclaiming a new era of Camelot. Kennedy would be having multiple orgasms and mashing even more syllables together in incoherent speeches.
It’s a lie.
Anyone can claim that anything is mismanaged. However, the teachers unions that Kennedy supports are the ones that have stymied the implementation of the Act. yet from kennedy, we hear what appears to be blame for republicans and Bush. That is misleading, and he knows it, which makes it a lie.
Bush and Cheney… I like Cheney. He’s a good man. Hasn’t said anything I can pick on and is an effective VP.
Bush…. (sigh)
What a disappointment. Bush is a political whore, just like all the other damn politicians out there. Is he a liar? Yep, but not about all the hysterical DailyKos topics. He’s a liar in the worst tradition of the politically correct disease that passes from the media to our reps. I wish all our politicians would be real men and stand up, wipe off their chins, and confront the media disease that turns them all into whores.
Where are the heroes? Bush won’t name Islam for the cult and enemy that it is. Nope, he’s too busy claiming Islam is peace. Whore. None of the democrats are any better, except maybe Lieberman. Note how the democrats are now attacking Lieberman for his sensible remarks.
The political situation in this country is hopeless.
It is my daughter’s bedtime and hence time to leave her room and turn off the computer, so regrettably this is my last post tonight. I’m not wimping out here, just gotta run. However, there is just too much good stuff in the last post to ignore.
I recognize that I am unlikely to make any progress with the abortion issue, but consider a few facts: a fetus is not a baby. Abortion is not murder. Nor does poverty, welfare, or crime fit into the picture (unless you want to discuss how wealthy women have always been able to afford abortions but many poor women cannot).
Nor does euthanasia have its origins in socialism. It has its origins in the belief that the iterminally ill ndividual has a right to end his own life to avoid suffering and pain. Socialism has nothing to do with it.
Name a Democrat who says that blacks are too stupid to help themselves, or that they need government assistance. (Poor people, sick people, and old people need government assistance. Some of them are black. Nobody argues that blacks need public assistance simply because they are black).
There is a huge difference between a progressive tax system and “high taxes for the benefit of a welfare state.” It is also factually untrue to suggest that this describes the current tax system, where regressive taxation (e.g., FICA, gax taxes, sales taxes) hits the poor and working poor, while the middle class have mortgage interest exempt from taxation and the wealthy have dividend income mostly exempt from taxation.
Government controlled industry? Excuse me, which industries are controlled by the government?
Forced profit sharing? Huh?
The last time I looked, tobacco, alcohol, and prescription drugs are all legal. So are SUV’s and “big food” (whatever that is — ribeyes? baby back ribs? I’m still trying to figure that one out).
I definitely believe people should be able to have weapons — only that they should be registered so that if they are used in committing a crime, the criminal can be apprehended –
But see, that’s not going to work in the extreme Hitler case, because a registered gun is one the despot can confiscate – I repeat that I know it sounds ridiculous, but it really is, in my mind, absolutely crucial that the government NOT know where all the guns are, as painful as that is for me to say, as I am very cognizant of the ease with which criminals can procure and use firearms…
If a fetus is not a baby, then a baby is not a human. Even though a fetus is just an underdeveloped baby (although at many abortions can live outside the womb), it can also be said that a baby is just an underdeveloped human.
So if we deny the fetus the humanity it always develops into, then we can deny the humanity that a baby always develops into. A fetus never develops into a goat, or a fly, or a lump of tissue that oozes radioactive liquid gold. A fetus always develops into a baby that always develops into a human adult (assuming no accidental deaths or other sicknesses). Poor women get federally funded abortions. Aren’t you aware of these things, or do you just want to ignore them?
I don’t really care how many kids you want to kill and how many you brag about cutting up. You won’t be doing it to mine.
You have to be kidding me. Jesse F***ing Jackson. The white man is evil. Only government can help the black slave overcome the evil white society. The black man cannot succeed on his own. His sick racism serves no purpose except to play politics with racism for money. His rhetoric enslaves his fellow blacks into a “struggle” of his own devising that promotes division and hatred.
Euthanasia and it’s socialist attachments.
“Poor” and “working poor” are socialist class terms. The poor in this country are exempted from income tax, and the republicans constantly push that income bar that is exempt higher. Unfortunately, although Bush’s last tax cut dropped a whole range of previously poor taxpayers off the tax rolls, the left still whined that only the wealthiest 1/1000th of 1% got the benefits. Socialist class-warfare lies. I got news for you. Dividend income is not a function of the wealthy. Dividend income was taxed twice (illegally) – once when the company made the profit and a second time when it was delivered to the shareholder. That ended. The dividends are taxed once, fairly. Also, dividends are now held by even the poor. This is the new ownership investor society.
The push to nationalize healthcare is a government controlled socialist dream. Almost all other industries are regulated, if not heavily. Tobacco is under forced profit-sharing. Where have you been?
SUVs are under a smear campaign by the left for targeted regulation. “Big food” is also under pressure from the left over fat content. Legislation keeps getting pushed (and thankfully failing) that would take the choice away from the consumer and into the hands of the government. Big macs would only be allowed a certain amount of fat. Super-sizing would not be allowed. Don’t read US News and World Report? This crap comes up every 18 months or so.
That is socialism. If the government is telling me what to eat because it knows what is good for me, that is socialism at its worst.
I think, though, that you don’t want to see this.
Socialists don’t like a populace that has weapons. No socialist country ever has. Ever wonder why the left hates guns so bad? Easier to control your people when they’re all like the French citizenry during the riots. Helpless and dependent on government.
I just want to say that strep throat (if that is indeed what just woke me up with throat pain at 4 in the ay-em) is NOT COOL.
I have nothing more to say.
*
Well, actually, yes I do.
I think William Thrash goes a little far in places. This situation comes up, for RINOS like me, rather often. I come down on the same “side” as Thrash, but much closer to the “center.” Peter’s relatively moderate tones might appeal to me (as one who crossed the aisle not that long ago), but I am veeery wary of those on his “side” but much louder and more extreme. (E.g., Kos, who I’m told lives only 10 or so blocks north of me. FWIW).
For instance –
WT: Bush is not a “whore” for not labelling Islam itself the enemy. Were he to do that, the incessant Hitler name-calling would instantly look a lot more valid.
(Widening the war to a struggle against 1+ billion people = neither just nor prudent)
Peter: A zygote might not be a baby.
A five-month fetus … if it’s not a baby, what is it?
“It’s a fetus.”
Okay, fine, but that’s medical/scientific terminology, not the way people (used to) talk. Mothers (who plan on bringing the child to term) call it and know it to be, yes, a baby.
In our current regime, at least until the third trimester (after that it varies state to state), it’s the mother’s decision which somehow invests the child with humanity. That’s an uncomfortable area for me, and lots of people, not all of whom are malign phallocrats like myself.
I suppose, were I the philosopher-king, I’d leave abortion legal but with more restrictions (along the model of most European states). My wife, on the other hand, would ban it entirely, or almost so. I get the feeling this is not the most common of situations – a wife significantly more conservative than her husband. (It makes for good times at Berkeley parties, I’ll tell you that right now).
All I know is this: if we can’t all start focusing on what threatens us *all*, rather than calling each other commies and Nazis, the future is bleak.
*
Okay, the Theraflu is doing its (temporary, barely sufficient) work. Me and my hopefully-not-but-probably-yes-strep-cultures are off to bed, again, perchance to dream.
*
P.S.: as I think Mark already pointed out, a true libertarian sees nothing to smile about in either party right now.
P.P.S.:
“Plato – the individual cannot know right or wrong”
Not so. Again, I can’t comment on Kant or Hegel, but this is not what Plato says. He thinks knowledge of the good is *difficult* to obtain for the average person, but not impossible.
Oh, man. I knew there were going to be consequences when I started going to sleep earlier (since the new puppy tends to wake me shortly before dawn).
Unusually, my first thought on the inital post is exactly the same as Peter’s: No moral relativism is on display in these Kennedy quotes — just a different morality. Now, not being a moral relativist myself, I can wholeheartedly state that it’s a grossly inferior morality, and displays grossly partisan hypocrisy to boot, but it’s not relativist. Safe prediction: Senator Kennedy will passionately condemn Alito as wrong on abortion or civil rights before Alito is confirmed. That condemnation depends on the belief that some things are right and others are wrong.
However, there’s a long thread and lots of things I could disagree with from both sides. But one massively important statement of extraordinary wrongheadedness has been left unchallenged: “As for Kant and Plato — only the most tortured reading ot their work would lead you to socialism. It’s like saying that Alice in Wonderland was the predecssor of communism.”
That’s just crazy talk! Have you even read Alice in Wonderland (and Through the Looking Glass)?? Some of the most delightful bits are entirely about philosophical fads of the time (mid 19th century) including all of the relativist views you’ve been discussing, and yes, Communism (Marx wrote a generation before Carroll did.). However, they are strongly on the other side — Alice’s encounter with Humpty Dumpty is a delightful skewering of relativism (“`When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’”) and statism (when she worries that he might fall, he expresses total confidence that “all [the king's] horses and all [the king's] men… They’d pick me up again in a minute, they would!”) In both cases, it takes only the common sense of a child to see the fundamental absurdity of the complex philosophical arguments popular among Europe’s intelligentsia. And the ending is perfectly prescient: communism coming to a sudden end when implacable reality shatters its complex network of lies (like a fragile egg balanced atop a stone wall) and no amount of clever rhetoric or state authority can put it back together again.
Anyway… nice pick for the weekly Jack***, Mark, and welcome back.
Thrash: agreed with several things you said (like the meaning of the word “socialist” with a small ‘s’ extending well beyond one lonely congressman from Vermont), but… there’s no way that all of Islam is our enemy. There are far more muslims under arms on our side than there are on the other, even if we just look at Iraq or Afghanistan. We’re fighting a war of competing ideologies, and it’s crucial to be clear on the dividing line — and it’s nowhere close to “Do you accept the Lord Jesus Christ as your personal savior?” or even “Do you believe that Mohammed was God’s prophet?” We have plenty of friends, and even enemies in this fight, who would give any combination of answers to these questions.
I am extreme. I’ll make no apologies for it. I find almost no politicians I would vote for in either party. I was raised a democrat and switched to Perot before becoming Republican. That ought to tell you where I don’t stand.
(sneezesmirkcough)
One thing I firmly believe in is the TRUTH. I refuse to bow to historical revisionism or political revisionism – which is why you’ll hear me occasionally say things that don’t sound right to the conventional wisdom.
All that said, I would like to address the issue of “declaring war on Islam.” That just sounds like I’m wearing jackboots and an armband, no? That makes me sound like I’m gesticulating from a podium with a small moustache, no? Does it make you think of swastikas? Or does it make you think of some lone community in Idaho? Does it make you uncomfortable as you watch football? Do you feel like dismissing it as hysteria so you can get back to the latest episode of Law and Order?
I’ve got news for you, we’re not only at war with ALL of Islam, but we’ve been at war and they know it while we look the other way. Just becuase some of us might find it inconvenient to admit, doesn’t make it any less true. To type everything here would take too long.
If any of you think you have the courage to open your eyes long enough to see the war, I wrote a couple articles about it here and here.
I refuse to kneel to the lies of the media and accept the spin that says we aren’t at war with islam and that Islam is peaceful. Only retarded, ignorant people can believe that kind of propaganda if they know anything about history.
In applying this to Bush – yes, he is a political whore. Even Condi (whom I could love as pres) had the audacity to claim Islam was all about peace. Holy hell, even the republicans have knelt at the altar of the PC media and are telling lies. Yes, he’s a whore. You nailed it correctly, though, Knemon, when you said for Bush to tell the truth, he would be labelled a nazi.
The truth means less than name-calling? I refuse to kneel. I won’t have the PC lies to wipe off my chin. I won’t trade the truth for convenience.
More allies in muslims than enemies? (laughs) Pure fantasy. Do you understand taqiyyah?
1) Re abortion: I’d rather not be drawin into a reductio ad absurdum argument (“Would you sleep with me for a million dollars?” “I suppose I would” “How about twenty bucks?” Slaps his face. “Well, we’ve established your profession, we only have to negotiate a price”).
Somewhere between zygote and newborn is where you draw the line. I would personally draw it at the point where the fetus can live on its own outside the mother’s body. But this issue transcends rationality and logic — it is much more intuitive and extra-rational than that.
Re Jesse Jackson: he’s not a leading Democrat, he’s a clown. He is the Pat Robertson of the left.
2) “Working poor” is a very real term. Ask someone who works for Wal-Mart or the Post Office and uses food stamps.
3) Distribution of tax cut benefits under Bush: Mr. Thrash is factually incorrect. The bulk of the benefits went to the top 10% of the population.
4) No supersizing? Bill Clinton would never stand for it. Regulating SUV’s? You can go to the dealer and buy every Ford Explorer on his lot. I’ve never heard of a bill which would regulate either food or SUV’s.
5) Clint: right you are about Lewis Carroll. When I said that his works were not the predecessor of communism, I should have written that they were not the cause of it. Sort of like saying that Jonathan Swift’s “Modest Proposal” is not the predecessor of cannibalism.
I agree about not wanting to argue about abortion – I don’t care enough about it to make it an issue, and it’s the law. We can drop it.
However, your claim that I’m factually incorrect about the tax cuts ignores the actual tax cuts. Hype: richest 10% (or whatever miniscule rhetorical % makes the most anxiety) Truth: The rate reductions affected the middle and low income earners the most. Scroll down to Chart 2 here.
I’m not making up wishful fantasies when I claim the tax cuts were good and benefitted the poor. The hype about the richest blah blah is just so much political hype – and I fully scorn anyone who indulges in it.
At least we agree Jackson is a clown. Okay, another example of a leader with that kind of disposition is Kweise Mfume – and he’s an elected rep.
Okay, if you don’t keep up on the news, I guess you wouldn’t have heard about the assault on “big food.” Try here and definition here and more here and the assualt plan here and here and here and more nanny-state socialism here and tax the hell out of them here…
Have I given you enough, or do you need more?
We all need to take the blinders off and have the courage to rescue the truth from the politically correct s***-pile of lies.
Breakfast 12-05-2005
Try one of these specials with your breakfast:
Orca (Respectful Insolence) looks at fighting cancer
Performancing says less is more
Merri Musings looks at the cost of Christmas
Riding Sun feels vindicated about not liking the Aeon Flux movie
De…
Thrash:
re: taqiyyah…
Sure, there’s some pretending — on our side as well. How happy do you think we really are about the human rights situation in Pakistan?
But are you suggesting that the entire genocidal war between Iraq and Iran twenty years ago was purely a farce in order to get us off our guard? How about the bitter hatred between Shiites and Sunnis in Iraq at the moment? When Islamic terrorists blow up Islamic worshippers in front of their mosques in Iraq… are the victims part of the conspiracy to fool us as well? When Shiite members of the new Iraqi security forces detain the very people our military is fighting, and (perhaps, allegedly) treat them brutally… are both sides play acting for our benefit?
The new security forces in Iraq vastly outnumber the so-called “insurgents” — and they’re on our side in, at the very least, this battle of the larger war. Whether they will truly be our allies in the long term remains to be seen, but they are certainly not our enemies now.
A billion muslims aren’t all at war with us. I agree that it’s more than a little silly to keep chanting “Islam is a religion of peace” as though that will make it so, but remember that formally speaking Judaism is a religion that stones adultresses to death, as well as anyone who disrespects his parents; the Church of Latter Day Saints is a religion of polygamy; and Christianity is a religion that is strongly against wealth and commerce. Faiths change and develop over time, and every believer has his own set of beliefs, often quite different from that of other adherents of the same nominal faith. Islam is no different in this respect.
1) The White House document in Mr. Thrash’s post is misleading. It is true that marginal income tax rates decreased for the lowest income earners. However, income tax is a smaller percentage of the tax burden of lower income taxpayers, because a higher percentage of their income is paid in FICA, sales taxes, and other regressive taxes.
The more important criterion is whether the tax burden was reallocated among different income levels. Because of the Bush tax cuts, the wealthy paid a smaller part of the overall tax burden than was the case under Clinton:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/08/16/politics/main636398.shtml
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61178-2004Aug12.html
2) Re fast food: as far as I could tell from the links provided, there has yet to be a tax on baconchilicheeseburgers, or even less exalted food. There will always be people who propose all kinds of things, and some of them will be the mayor of Detroit. However, this is not a serious movement, and it is not getting anywhere.
“The more important criterion is whether the tax burden was reallocated among different income levels.”
Why?
I’m not sure I disagree with you, but … why?
Well, let’s suppose for the sake of argument that you believe that a certain allocation of the tax burden is fair. For example, perhaps you would think that the top ten percent of household income should be responsible for 25% of the total tax burden, and the 80-90% homes should pay 20%, etc. Let’s also suppose that this was the status quo ante before Bush came to Washington.
If you saw the allocation deviate from that — in this case, so that the top 10% might have their burden reduced from 25% to 20% — you might think that this unfairly shifts the burden.
Perhaps you think that the burden should have been changed — or perhaps you favor a flat tax. Those are different questions. The issue here is whether the allocation changed, and in this case it definitely did tilt from the rich to (predominantly) the middle class.
Mark, good choice for the award. He maybe should have been the first choice. I can hardly stand to look at or listen to the troublemaker.
CARNIVAL OF THE CLUELESS #24
Captain Renault: Major Strasser has been shot. Round up the usual suspects. (Casablanca, 1942)
We have plenty of the “usual suspects” in this, the 24th edition of the Carnival of the Clueless. Hall of Famers Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, and…
Peter-
Should we read anything into the fact that you failed to mention by far the largest of the regressive taxes? (Hint: it’s one that President Bush proposed making substantially less regressive, only to be verbally tarred and feathered by dems.)
The gas tax?
Hate to admit it, but that’s a tax I like. Because oil is a finite resource — and because we import most of it — I think it is reasonable not only to use the gas tax to raise revenue, but also to increase it to limit demand for oil. I don’t like taxes any more than anyone else does, but you have to raise the money somewhere, and in my view a higher gas tax is better than, say, increasing marginal income tax rates.
The fact that the gas tax is regressive is, I think, outweighed by the advantage of decreasing oil consumption.
Peter, your answer makes me realize we’re talking (again!) at cross-purposes.
You say the relative burden is the more important datum … I don’t think it is. This is something I don’t think either of us will convince the other of.
I’d say, if (as a lowest-bracket taxpayer) my rate is decreasing by more than Scrooge McDuck’s (for argument, let’s say from 25 to 20% vs. 38 to 35%), that’s what’s important to me.
I’m no economist, but I have noticed my (lowest-bracket) taxes are lower, and my refunds much higher, since Bush’s plan has gone into effect.
I guess next you’ll tell me that, if the top bracket hadn’t been reduced at all, the lowest bracket could’ve been lowered to 8%, or 4%, or just plain eliminated (ie the first 25k or whatever of one’s income would be tax-free).
By the same token, if you raised the top rate back to where it was in the 50s, you could drastically lower everybody else’s taxes, in theory. But there are only so many rich folk out there – I’m skeptical that we can balance the whole budget on their (silk-clad, uncalloused) backs.
Classical Athens funded its state projects something like that – there were few taxes on hoi polloi; instead they hit rich people up, on an ad hoc basis.
It … didn’t work out too well.
P.S. – I’ve seen lots of liberals mocking the tax cuts by saying that the lower-income taxpayers only got savings of $300, or $500, or whatever.
Well … when you make less than 20 k a year, $300 is a lot of money. “No, don’t you see!” they’ll respond. “If we were still taxing the rich at 39%, we’d be able to give you ever so many more ‘free’ goodies! You idiots! What’s the matter with Kansas?”
Maybe someone will one day be able to make this pitch in a more constructive way. Warner might be that guy. If I were you, come primary time, I’d vote for him. (Heck, if Virginia – where I’m moving in two weeks – is an open primary state, *I* might vote for him).
This thread has gone on quite a while … maybe it’s time to let it die, and agree to disagree.
Hey, what are you talking about, let it die? I’m still paying attention!…
[...] You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your ownsite. [...]