Are they trying, in other words, to save lives?

So the potential for saving lives is the yardstick by which we measure whether or not torture is acceptable?

Why aren't we torturing people to stop genocide in Darfur? Oh, right; they're not Americans? So we're really torturing for our Country?

This cuts to the heart of what it means to be an American. As Anne-Marie said in her post:

We are prepared to do such things because we are trying to protect the lives of our people. Lives that, contrary to everything we have been taught to believe as Americans, are suddenly more important than our values.

I love my country dearly. But when I think about what it means to be proud of America, what does that mean? Am I exhulting in living within some geographical boundaries? America's geography is in many places breathtakingly beautiful, among the most beautiful in the natural world. But that's not what makes me proud to be an American.

Is it the people? I'm not really fond of abortion clinic bombers and ideologues who rant about the possible sexual orientation of the fuzzy puppets and animated characters that populate a few of our culture's childrens shows (the ones which aren't more focused on explosions and combat). Although, I think we have just as high a proportion of "nice" people as any other country, I have to say that The People aren't "it."

That pretty much leaves The Values. You know, a nation whose very existence was justified by a call to defense of "certain inalienable rights... Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" (not property, as Locke would have had it -- sorry Republicans and Libertarians).

A nation whose highest law sought to establish a more perfect union that those which preceded it. A nation where protection from unreasonable searches and seizures are is a basic right. Where cruel and unusual punishment (torture fits that description, doesn't it?) is forbidden by our highest law! A nation, some of whose founders argued against a Bill of Rights -- not because they were opposed those rights, but because they were afraid that people would think that those were the only individual rights that our basic law protected!

Like everyone else here since 9/11, I've been confused. But what confuses me most is why so many of us are so afraid of death -- which many of our founders willingly accepted to give us all the gift of a nation founded on these principles; a death which potentially awaits each of us at every street crossing, every beach, on every morning commute -- that we are willing to forsake the very values that our founders risked their lives for and which truly separate our nation!

"The terrorists" or "the extremists," as I guess we're now calling them, can only destroy our bodies. We're the ones destroying what our country stands for, and thus the country itself.

Wouldn't it be heartbreaking if our Nation went from being one to which everyone aspired because of the elevation of Liberty and the rule of law above all else, to the place where bad (and some innocent) people preferred to be tortured, because we practice torture of a slightly less cruel variety than some others?

Posted at July 29, 2005 7:48 AM in response to The Dulling of Outrage

If we attach the referent "what the document means to me" or even "what it means to 'competent' speakers now" to the term "the meaning of a document," don't we risk losing sight of the goals that motivated the writing of the document(assuming that the goal is not explicit*)?

As usage of the terms in the document changed over time, the "external meaning" of the document could change such that it no longer served the goals it sought to, e.g., the President's war powers and the evolving definition of "war" -- does the President have the right to hold drug dealers as "enemy combatants" in the "war on drugs?" There doesn't seem to be anything that says "no" in this example other than "that's not what the authors meant by 'war'."

* Not that explicit goals necessarily get you there either, e.g. the "progress in the sciences and useful arts" clause in Article I, Section 8 and the lack of any test in copyright cases to determine whether the legislation promotes or ihibits progress -- the assumption that copyright, even for the "limited time" of "some finite time long enough that no further conceivable commercial value exists" inherently promotes progress.

Posted at April 12, 2006 10:41 AM in response to Meaning Ain't In the Head

I'm trying to understand how this contradicts Michael's post; if the employee's income is X+Y, and the employer is only on the hook for X, isn't that indirectly a subsidy to the employer of Y? It seems like the only way the answer is no is if the employer wouldn't have to pony up Y if the government didn't (because the labor market was slack enough that they could find some other employee to do the work for < (X+Y), for instance).

Posted at March 31, 2006 12:36 PM in response to Krugman Gets It

But it's worth noting that while there are many people who dissent from the way things work in this country, it's pretty rare to find someone who actually disagrees with the values inherent in the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence or any of the other founding documents.

It seems increasingly easy to find such people, actually. I would argue that the notion of polity that our founding documents envision is distasteful to a very sizeable minority of citizens.

Also, I think people really underestimate the divisiveness of linguistic differences among populations. I personally believe that linguistic differences (rather than strictly ethnic ones) are as divisive if not more so than religious issues, and I think that this is what the difficulties in Canada and Spain are really about. 

Posted at March 31, 2006 12:56 PM in response to Multiculturalism is Hard

Any law which cannot be enforced (no matter how correct the motivation behind the law may be) is bad because it a) wastes resources that could be used to pursue some other, actually obtainable objective, and b) helps to further a culture of lawlessness generally.

Posted at March 28, 2006 10:41 AM in response to Creating a "High Wage- One Tier Labor Market"

I understand how that system works, and accept it even when it doesn't go my way. That's called a principal.

What you have is called whining.

No, a principal is the guy who runs a high school (FACT).

You have a really arrogant style of argumentation for someone with such a poor grasp of grammar, vocabulary and logic (FACT!).

Sorry to advance such an ad homimen line myself, but I guess you've set the tone of the debate.

Posted at February 14, 2006 2:55 PM in response to Statement from Paul Hackett

Let me break it down for you, the following are FACTS:

1) there are limited resources for Democratic candidates.

You got me there. I'll even stipulate that their are limited resources for Republican canditates, aid to foreign countries, food for the poor and Christmas gifts for our kids each year.

2) Hackett is a very poor fund raiser relativly. He does not have the funds to go the campaign distance not has he demonstrated good fund raising ability relativly.

Well, the article in the Akron Beacon-Journal reported that Brown had only raised about 7 percent more than Hackett, others here have stated that Democratic party and Brown operatives were actively exerting pressure on donors not to give to Hackett, so it seems to me that Brown is only a marginally superior fundraiser, if at all. But I forgot, you have a priveleged, all-caps relationship with the FACTS, so I must have missed something.

3) While Hackett has been campaigning for a long time, and Brown has not, their popularity according to polling data is equal. Therefore, it's fair to say whichever candidate the party backs, it's an equally popular choice with Ohioans.

4) Brown has much more experience campaigning, is a better fundraiser, and has more experience as a legislator, all qualities which generally make a big difference, especially in debates against opponents, the likes of which Hackett has yet to face.

I don't think you've shown that Brown's a better fundraiser. Mike DeWine has experience governing, so if that's the best metric of quality I guess Ohio voters can stick with him. As far as debates go, we could have let Brown and Hackett debate each other, and then the people of Ohio could have picket the winner themselves.

Which gets to my overall point, which is that it's a FACT the only real way to tell who Ohioans would like more would be to have a primary election, and then a general election. But that won't happen now.

I really don't like the idea that some party bosses get to choose who gets to run

Oh, and who should choose? You? Or maybe we should divide ourselves and campaign resources to make it easier for the GOP? Or maybe campaign funds grow on trees?

That's my point. The people get to choose, in an election. We don't divide ourselves to make it easier for the GOP, we do it to pick the best candidate. Sure, it would suck if the Democrats beat each other up so much in the primaries that neither could win in the general election. You seem to think that the solution to that is to not have primaries. Another solution would be for Democrats to run in the primaries on substantive differences rather than tarring each other, building up their party while positively accentuating their differences, then letting voters decide was more qualified. Imagine, if they were both upstanding respectful and ran a good race, maybe the voters would actually end up respecting the winning candidate more, not less.

The funding issue is a non-issue. People will fund the candidates they prefer. If the party wants to hold off on donating until after the primaries, fine. If they don't want to wait, fine, run ads targeting DeWine's weaknesses until after the primary. I gave a lot of money in small donations in the '04 cylcle, and a lot of other people did too, but you can't count on donations and participation like that unless you actually run candidates that people respond to. I am not going to line up behind someone because the DNC tells me to. DNC mail, like RNC mail or any other NC mail goes straight into my garbage can without being opened.

This is pretty straight forward. It's not complicated or difficult to understand. We need to run the stronger candidate and have limited resources for a very tight race where any Democratic candidate is down.

You can be as patronizing as you want, but your argument looks weak in light of recent elections where this kind of cautious, triangulating strategy failed repeatedly. Hackett came very close in a heavily Republican district. Here in PA, Joe Hoeffel did very well against Specter even though he was relatively unknown and vastly outspent. How does the party reward people who can excite the grassroots like this? Support the other guy. It's a winning strategy clearly, Democrats should stick with it.

In the meanwhile, those of us capable of dealing with more than one issue at a time will still do what's possible where possible.

Yep. You'll sell out your principles when it's convenient. I'm sure that's precisely what voters here in PA and across the country are looking for in Democrats, and leaders in general (don't think the voters can't tell). Casey will get my vote, but only because Santorum is so horrible, and if a third party candidate comes along who is better, I will vote my concience, Democrats be damned. If they want my vote, field a better candidate. I want problem-solvers and people who represent my values in office, not some guy who just happens to put a D- in front of his name when he votes for legislation which screws me over.

Posted at February 14, 2006 2:16 PM in response to Statement from Paul Hackett

It is a FACT that repeatedly shouting FACT does not mean one has actually proved anything is a FACT.

Posted at February 14, 2006 12:28 PM in response to Statement from Paul Hackett

Well, I agree with you in general that perceptions from the primaries can carry over to the general election.

But I can't get behind your conclusion that "[w]hen strapped for cash and when coming from behind, parties need to put all they have behind one person," sorry. The issue here is who gets to decide who that one person is, the people or "party leaders?" I don't know a thing about Sherrod Brown, he may be a great candidate and a swell person. But he had announced that he wouldn't run. Hackett was running. Then Sherrod Brown, apparently sensing that DeWine could be defeated, entered the race, and now "party leadership" has decided who the candidate should be despite the fact that both Hackett and Brown trailing DeWine in the polls by percentages near the margin of error of the poll and have raised similar amounts of money. If anything, this decision seems to be based on Sherrod Brown's larger amount of cash on hand.

I really don't like the idea that some party bosses get to choose who gets to run; just like I can't stand that here in Pennsylvania Casey is being rammed down our throat (to the point that in the media one hears talk only of Santorum being in a race against Casey despite the fact that people like Chuck Pennachio have been actively campaigning and Casey hasn't run a single ad). Yeah, great, Casey leads in polls without having had to campaign. So, in Pennsylvania we will have a pro-life Senator elected in '06 -- but probably not Santorum -- because Democrats believe he can win (despite the fact that they supposedly believe in choice).

Democrats, the party who stands up for what they believe in -- except when it's not strategic. Too much strategy, not enough backbone.

Posted at February 14, 2006 12:24 PM in response to Statement from Paul Hackett

There is this thing called primaries...

Posted at February 14, 2006 10:30 AM in response to Statement from Paul Hackett