Tuesday, July 18, 2006

Still Deeper Embarrassment for My Country

I bet a lot of Republicans think it's hilarious that we have a frat boy as our President. They probably think that other countries are just cesspools to be treated like dirt. Is it appropriate for our President to use foul language in the presence of world leaders? How about giving Chancellor Angela Merkel an uninvited neck rub? This isn't a Pink Panther movie, it's reality, people!!!

Now, it looks like the Bush Administration has lost its bid to throw out the Geneva Conventions:
The Pentagon has acknowledged for the first time that all detainees held by the U.S. military are covered by an article of the Geneva Conventions that bars inhumane treatment, according to a memo made public on Tuesday.
So, we've spent the last 5 years abusing human rights in order to gain what? Nothing. The policy is overturned because it has been shown to be both useless and illegal. How much damage has been done to the reputation of the United States by this utter incompetence in executing foreign policy? Could Osama bin Laden have asked for more? I doubt it.

How about this?
McConnell, R-Ky., the second-ranking GOP leader in the Senate, said the 5-3 court decision "means that American servicemen potentially could be accused of war crimes."

"I think Congress is going to want to deal with that," McConnell said on NBC's "Meet the Press." He called the ruling "very disturbing."
This sad excuse for a human being is upset because American servicemen might be accused of war crimes. He's not concerned about whether war crimes occurred, but whether they might be accused even if they're guilty. Senator, some American servicemen are guilty of war crimes, and they should be dealt with as war criminals. To fail to do so, would bring dishonor to all American servicemen. Are American war criminals exempt from accountability? You don't have to be a foreigner to be sickened by politicians like McConnell.

8 comments:

Holopupenko said...

How about Clinton "doing it" with a young woman almost half his age in the Oval office? Is that not "embarrasing"? Probably more so than what you're railing against. And, yet again, you condemn in absolute terms the actions of the President when you have no objective basis to do so... per your own words.

Doctor Logic said...

That's your apology for Bush? Clinton was worse?

That wouldn't be a good defense of Bush even if it were true. Clinton was one of America's greatest Presidents. He's intelligent and has worked diligently for peace and the well-being of Americans. Bush is the worst President ever. Worse than Nixon.

Clinton's affair was a personal failure, not a public one. No one outside of the White House would have been harmed had his affair remained a secret. Not so for Bush. Bush is notorious for his official misdeeds (Katrina, Iraq, 9/11). Of course, if you want to talk about Bush's off-the-record personality, go right ahead. Bush is an apathetic, cold-hearted, foul-mouthed, dry (?) drunk, ex-coke-head who wishes he could be as good as Clinton.

And you're still on some bizarre "absolute terms" trip. Give it up, it's making you look silly. Expressing my opinion isn't the same as claiming an absolute truth. People don't care whether bad behavior is bad in absolute terms. They care whether it is bad in subjective terms. All I'm doing is calling their subjective attention to Bush's badness. People like you who find nothing to complain about in the man and his policies won't be sympathetic to my opinions. That's fine. Reading this blog is not mandatory. Go back to your own blog, a.k.a. the "no free speech zone".

Holopupenko said...

If, as you admit, "it's my opinion," then it has no truth objective truth content. In other words, your opinion is meaningless, empty, void of content, worthy of being ignored. You make assertions as if they were the truth, and then admit they're mere opinion. Memo: truth is not about personal opinions. So, why shold anyone listen to opinions that can never rise to the level of a truth?

"No free speech zone"? My blog is my private space -- not subject to the government's or your personal criteria. And yet, I'm not surprised you're so confused over this...

Ken Brown said...

holopupenko,
I don't know you from Adam, but it strikes me that for all your claim to defend absolute morality, you seem to be a relativist when it comes to your favored president. What difference does it make if Clinton was a better or worse president? Is Bush excused for trampling human dignity and the constitution, because Clinton had an affiar? Give me a break!

By the way, I voted for Bush.

Holopupenko said...

Ken:

Please point to any evidence in these comments that suggests Bush is my "favored president." Seems you're reading into my providing a counterpoint to DL's admitted near worshipping ("one of America's greatest Presidents") of his favored president.

Please also provide an example in these comments that suggests I "defend absolute morality." Read carefully my first comment: it took DL to task precisely because HE employed absolutist moral categories against Bush (which he later qualified and reduced to "personal opinion"). Expanding upon this: I pointed out to him the contradiction he imposes upon himself by his own words (see his previous posts on moral relativism), namely he claims there is no OBJECTIVE basis for moral claims, and yet feels perfectly at home making ABSOLUTIST claims against Bush... and then runs into the hole of "personal opinion" when confronted with that contradiction... which leaves no room for seeking objective truth.

That is why all his bellowing (again, per his own words of "personal opinion") is empty, meaningless, and devoid of truth content.

Doctor Logic said...

Holopupenko,

You write down the words, but you don't seem to understand them.

No, there isn't any objective truth to moral claims. Got that? Good.

Now, what does this claim have to do with persuasion? People care about the subjective preferences of others. If they don't, the other folks can make them care. Savvy?

Holopupenko said...

DL:
     If, as you claim so very unpersuasively, that there are no objective truths to moral claims, then what possible reason is there to trying to persuade someone or for that someone to listen? Moreover, if you claim there are no objective truths to moral claims (which means there are no objective truths upon which morals can be based) then your trying to persuade me as to the "truth" content of your position is utterly empty and self-stultifying.
     Frankly, I don't care to be "persuaded" by subjective content. (Why should I be? What possible claim can they have on me or anyone else if they're "subjective"?) I don't care about your "personal opinions" (the label you yourself used to qualify your Bush bellowings). I'm interested in objective truth—moral or otherwise... and, even after all these exchanges, I'm surprised you are not.

Doctor Logic said...

H,

I can easily believe that your natural inclination is not to respect the desires of others, e.g., the food they want, the clothes they want, the music they like, preferred appellations, desired use of personal space, etc. All that silly, annoying subjective content that we have to put up with from friends, family, neighbors and so on.

You fail to comprehend that most people want to do good by other people. Moral persuasion is an appeal to this instinct. Appeals by Christians to Muslims (and vice versa) can be persuasive when the persuader appeals to values already held by the persuadee. Persuasion does not derive purely from the claimed objective nature of their positions because neither side recognizes the other's moral authority.

If I tell you that you should stop being rude, it will only be persuasive to you if you care about being polite and respectful. In your case, that won't happen, but many others will care, even if their philosophical views are diametrically opposed to mine.

Even violence is an appeal to values held more dearly by the other side. People often value their livelihoods more than they value abstract positions. Not always, but often.

So, I don't expect you to become a moral relativist (not explicitly, anyway). You value your "Christian hero" persona too much.

However, you might care about not making such a fool of yourself, and not being so bigoted and hypocritical. I think that even you don't like to think of yourself as having those attributes.