![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
pecuniumThe most recent flap about the religious beliefs of John Kerry (and how this supposedly makes it impossible for Catholics to vote for him, and remain catholics) has been irking me.
Why is it, I rhetorically ask, that Kerry's beliefs on abortion and gay marriage make it impossible for Catholics to vote for him, but Bush's views on the death penalty and agressive war don't disqualify him?
For a more complete lowdown (and funny as all hell if one is an educated Catholic, or religious historian George Bush, Heretic at NewDonkey.
To avoid making another political post, I was having turbid dreams this morning... end of the world stuff, with Jobian interactions with God (I took him to task for His wanting to wipe us out and start over... He made us, He has to live with us... it made more sense in the dream) and I awoke, in that state of reverie, realising that the Right knows is is going against the tenets of the Nation and the meaning of the Constitution; at least the ones at the top (reading Is that Legal, and Orcinus will tend to make one less sanguine about the future of the republic, but I digress).
When someone writes a law, they know that difficulties will lead to the courts reviewing it. It's one of the checks in the system. So when someone starts writing a law which tries to exclude itself from those checks, one has to wonder why.
The Right will say it's to prevent, "activist judges" from misinterpreting the law. But that's tough. The Constitution gives them the power to do that, and the truth of the matter is that it hasn't been happening, at least not to the detriment of the causes they espouse.
With the judges appointed to the federal bench, under both Clinton and Bush, it's also going to happen less and less. Which means they can only think the laws they are proposing are so severely out of step with the Constitution that even their pet judges will balk at them.
That's a scary thought.
The laws they are proposing Pecunium are even scarier. As I've said before, Nehemiah Scudder is waiting in the wings.
Why is it, I rhetorically ask, that Kerry's beliefs on abortion and gay marriage make it impossible for Catholics to vote for him, but Bush's views on the death penalty and agressive war don't disqualify him?
For a more complete lowdown (and funny as all hell if one is an educated Catholic, or religious historian George Bush, Heretic at NewDonkey.
To avoid making another political post, I was having turbid dreams this morning... end of the world stuff, with Jobian interactions with God (I took him to task for His wanting to wipe us out and start over... He made us, He has to live with us... it made more sense in the dream) and I awoke, in that state of reverie, realising that the Right knows is is going against the tenets of the Nation and the meaning of the Constitution; at least the ones at the top (reading Is that Legal, and Orcinus will tend to make one less sanguine about the future of the republic, but I digress).
When someone writes a law, they know that difficulties will lead to the courts reviewing it. It's one of the checks in the system. So when someone starts writing a law which tries to exclude itself from those checks, one has to wonder why.
The Right will say it's to prevent, "activist judges" from misinterpreting the law. But that's tough. The Constitution gives them the power to do that, and the truth of the matter is that it hasn't been happening, at least not to the detriment of the causes they espouse.
With the judges appointed to the federal bench, under both Clinton and Bush, it's also going to happen less and less. Which means they can only think the laws they are proposing are so severely out of step with the Constitution that even their pet judges will balk at them.
That's a scary thought.
The laws they are proposing Pecunium are even scarier. As I've said before, Nehemiah Scudder is waiting in the wings.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Re: Part 1
Date: 2004-10-23 06:14 am (UTC)I don't think that's the case; which means discussing a draft is a fair question. Certainly we need more troops than we have right now.
The closest thing we got to threat was a warning that there might be some mustard. The warnig was about that solid. I was running V Corps HumInt OB, there was expectation of chem or bio... to mention nukes was to get giggled out of the tent.
And what would have been in it for us if we had? Oh, the good opinion of the world, a real coalition, Hussien rendered impotent, without our destabilising the region, and removing the focus of our efforts against the people who attacked us on That Tuesday, the avoidance of the damages being done to my/our Army, some 1,000+ casualties we didn't have to spend, a few hundreds of billions of dollars we could have better spent in other ways?
Those are the benefits which come off the top of my head.
That's the biggest thing I don't understand about this war. Hussein had been long overdue a spanking--we should have invaded in 95 or 96 IMHO. There were ample reasons to attack. I will never understand why the Administration used as the primary pretext the hardest thing to verify and the easiest thing to hide.
Have you seen the Suskind article in the NYT Magazine from last week? I think it explains it.
Suskind has asked a question, which reflected some doubts about some policy the adminstration was in favor of,"The aide said that guys like me were 'in what we call the reality-based community,' which he defined as people who 'believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.' I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. 'That's not the way the world really works anymore,' he continued. 'We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality."
It really does seem the people in charge think that way.
TK
Re: Part 1
Date: 2004-10-23 08:22 am (UTC)I don't think that's the case; which means discussing a draft is a fair question. Certainly we need more troops than we have right now.
Yes--but Kerry states, as if it is a fact, that the Administration is definitely going to institute the draft immediately upon reelection. That is just as bogus as most of the rest of the garbage the two canidates have been slinging at each other.
Do we need a draft? No. Do I want to deal with a bunch of sullen assholes who don't want to be in the Army, after removing the chain of command's authority to chapter out soldiers for misconduct and failure to adapt (which would remove the point of a draft). Thank you, but no. I'd rather deploy twice as often in a smaller professional army than to deal with some idiot in my squad who is nursing a conscript syndrome. The Army is not so much short on privates as it is short on experienced NCOs and that a draft will not fix.
The closest thing we got to threat was a warning that there might be some mustard. The warnig was about that solid. I was running V Corps HumInt OB, there was expectation of chem or bio... to mention nukes was to get giggled out of the tent.
My understanding is that the closest thing to a nuke program Iraq had was a couple shady PhDs on long-term retainer, but without much to do. And I don't know much about the raw intel--by the time it gets folded, spindled, and mutilated by every S2 in the chain of command and gets spat out to us, it has lost all connection with reality on the ground. As well as having lost any timeliness it might have once had. But the point stands--most people expected gas and maybe bio.
Hussien rendered impotent, without our destabilising the region,
How would Hussein been rendered impotent by letting him keep playing the same shell game he had been playing? And when was the region stable?
'We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality."
That's scary. The really scary part is that I don't see a real alternative.
Politician-wise, the anti-war crowd near as I can tell consists of two segments.
1)The Withdraw Now crowd, which would invalidate everything we have done over the past year and a half.
2)The I Don't Have A Plan, But I'm Pissed At Bush crowd. They are connected enough to reality to realize that having committed to Iraq we have to finish the job. But they don't really know how to do that, and can't articulate what they would do differently, other than the conviction that if Bush were removed the situation would miraculously improve.
Kerry falls into the latter.
I'm a single issue voter. Which candidate do I feel most comfortable returning to Iraq under? Because barring an Act of God, I'm going back at least once or twice. Kerry voted against funding the Iraq operation. He has also consistently voted against military appropriations bills through his career in the Senate. He has opposed both military pay raises and weapons systems. If I vote for him, I am voting against my own interests, and I won't do that.
Re: Part 1
Date: 2004-10-23 04:14 pm (UTC)I haven't seen Kerry say a draft will be immediately re-instated. What I've seen is accusations that it is being willfully ignored until after the election, and that with the present op-tempo, either a larger final manning has to be authorised, or a draft needs to be considered.
But the point stands--most people expected gas and maybe bio.
There are two points. One is the common perception, the other is the understanding of those who had better knowledge. Mine was that if those in my level of understanding (who've already had some spindling done) didn't really expect it (and only made plans for that which was possible, even though not likely) those higher up knew at least that much, and chose to discuss things which, q.e.d., they knew to be false, e.g. Cheney saying a nuke in Times Square, courtesy of Baghdad, was possible.
How would he have been rendered impotent? That question has a supposition that he wasn't already. His army was a shambles, the dreaded WMD didn't exist and bin Laden had issued fatwa calling him an apostate; only to be helped because we were worse.
As for regional stability... it was looking better in '99, and now... can you honestly say it's no worse than it was?
As for the things you say you believe about Kerry. I've looked at the parent bills, and at the reasons behind his votes... I don't see what you see. For a quick summa, take a gander at FactCheck.Org. Because Bush hasn't been so great to us, all things considered.
As for the alternatives, nope, we are going to be dealing with the mess for awhile (though it's possible the gov't elected in Jan will kick us out, which will solve one problem, but not the rest).
I too am a single issue voter... what will best serve the Republic, and right now, Bush ain't it. The sense he has tha this gut is the best way to make decisions, his insularity (for all his life) from the direct conssequences of his actions, his overwhelming secreretiveness, his unwillingness to admit to error; or re-evaualte his positions, inability to make those responsible for failure accountable (and the willingness to harm national security for political advantage, or revenge [viz. Valerie Plame]) and, and, and... make me convinced he, and; at this point, his party, need to be removed.
TK