[Flem72]

Zelandakh, on 2013-May-29, 08:09, said:

Here's a better question: is it better to fake (or withhold) evidence with the intention of causing (poiltical) harm to an opponent than to fake (or withhold) evidence with the intention of avoiding (political) harm being done to yourself or an ally? It seems that the former is regarded as normal politics while the latter is seen as a serious crime. Would it not be fun for the Democrats to start inquiries into some of the ridiculous claims made by Republican opponents? There must surely be some laws about this sort of thing that can be dredged up.

Maybe you'd care precisely to describe the situations to which you refer? just so your (implied) assertions can be evaluated?

My general view: Politics is the dirtiest game. Played largely by lawyers, it is open to the same kinds of abuses that haunt the legal process, and it is virtually free from any kind of monitoring -- except when someone is put in a position where s/he thinks s/he HAS to testify or leak. And for the record, this administration is better at no-holds-barred politics than any in my memory.

[Winstonm]

Flem72, on 2013-May-29, 10:22, said:

And for the record, this administration is better at no-holds-barred politics than any in my memory.

Quoting "The Untouchables" - "You're not from Chicago."

[Flem72]

Winstonm, on 2013-May-29, 10:39, said:

Quoting "The Untouchables" - "You're not from Chicago."

Understand. But I spend/have spent a lot of time there. I'm reminded of a piece I read somewhere, before BHO actually, that analyzed last-half 20th century Chicago politics in light of what the pols learned from the mob: Isolate the head guy except for a couple of chief "deputies" and operate under established priorities/rules/guidelines more or less independently and as aggressively as conditions will allow, Us vs. Them. Allows the formation of a bunch of mostly independent entities linked pretty much only by bag men and cash flow. Sound familiar?

[GreenMan]

Flem72, on 2013-May-29, 16:15, said:

Understand. But I spend/have spent a lot of time there. I'm reminded of a piece I read somewhere, before BHO actually, that analyzed last-half 20th century Chicago politics in light of what the pols learned from the mob: Isolate the head guy except for a couple of chief "deputies" and operate under established priorities/rules/guidelines more or less independently and as aggressively as conditions will allow, Us vs. Them. Allows the formation of a bunch of mostly independent entities linked pretty much only by bag men and cash flow. Sound familiar?

Yes, it does; you've described the Reagan Administration to a T.

[Flem72]

GreenMan, on 2013-May-29, 18:46, said:

Yes, it does; you've described the Reagan Administration to a T.

cute.

[dwar0123]

Flem72, on 2013-May-29, 19:49, said:

cute.

I think you would be shocked if you could see yourself through my eyes. How often you make points that you clearly intend as devastating blows to liberals that appear in my mind only to reinforce my worst opinions of the right by reminding me so strongly of their behavior.

[blackshoe]

dwar0123, on 2013-May-30, 10:40, said:

I think you would be shocked if you could see yourself through my eyes. How often you make points that you clearly intend as devastating blows to liberals that appear in my mind only to reinforce my worst opinions of the right by reminding me so strongly of their behavior.

Clearly labeling someone as "left" or "right" defines his intellect, his erudition, and the validity of his opinions.

[dwar0123]

blackshoe, on 2013-May-30, 10:43, said:

Clearly labeling someone as "left" or "right" defines his intellect, his erudition, and the validity of his opinions.

Clearly it does for you

Not sure how you could possible take that away from what I said as I was being very specific in directing my comments at an individual based on their posting history.

I seem to be making the same point twice, cute, it must be a thing with me.

[blackshoe]

I suppose I asked for that. Sheesh. Try to make a joke...

[nige1]

Flem72, on 2013-May-28, 17:31, said:

Repeating: The rules of engagement in any conflict are established by the least-principled participant. Conflicts involving the interests of nation-states are all dirty in one way or another b/c the stakes are ultimate. Even a relatively insignificant sovereign act, such as the negotiation of a treaty, is a conflict between competing interests that will not lead to a zero-sum outcome. Interesting and ever-present moral question in the most significant of sovereign conflicts: In order to preserve the constitution, does one take action directly at odds with its fundamental values and ideals? It's a Col. Jessup kind of commitment; let's hope most called to make it don't trivialize it as did the good colonel. IOW, if you are going to sin, sin big.
OTOH, I suppose one could simply take the high ground and withdraw from the conflict. IMHO, we call that "losing."

I fear Flem72 may be right. The human race deserves it's likely downward spiral to extinction if we continue to support Machiavellian governments who decide, pragmatically, to keep overtaking each other in the descent to the lowest depths of immorality.

[dwar0123]

nige1, on 2013-June-04, 09:54, said:

I fear Flem72 may be right. The human race deserves it's likely downward spiral to extinction if we continue to support Machiavellian governments who decide, pragmatically, to keep overtaking each other in the descent to the lowest depths of immorality.

What a depressing view to take on humanity that is entirely unsupported by evidence. If humanity is on a path to extinction down an ever circling descent to the lowest depths of immorality, Genghis Khan must logically have been a saint and the epitome of human population must have been far in the distant past.

Human morality is chaotic and individual. As an average over time I would surmise it has improved, maybe not much but to suggest it is continuously declining is absurd. Maybe it has declined during our life time, but our life time is such an insignificant period of time and hardly proof of long term trends.

[Winstonm]

You do not take into consideration that many assume an idealistic notion of morality that is constant. It is against this artificial concept of morality that people compare now to say, the 1950s, and claim a lowered standard of actions exist.

[dwar0123]

Winstonm, on 2013-June-04, 16:05, said:

You do not take into consideration that many assume an idealistic notion of morality that is constant. It is against this artificial concept of morality that people compare now to say, the 1950s, and claim a lowered standard of actions exist.

Out of curiosity, do these people think a lower standard of actions exist now despite or because of improved gay, feminist and racial rights.

[Winstonm]

dwar0123, on 2013-June-04, 16:17, said:

Out of curiosity, do these people think a lower standard of actions exist now despite or because of improved gay, feminist and racial rights.

In my experience, they think it is because of those rights.

[mike777]

Winstonm, on 2013-June-05, 20:06, said:

In my experience, they think it is because of those rights.

What?

I think those in Benghazi are against these rights...strongly against.

We choose not to try, I mean try and protect those for these rights and 4 Americans died.

Please keep in mind these killers are against these rights at the point of a gun.

[Zelandakh]

Benghazi was clearly a protest against gay rights...

[hrothgar]

mike777, on 2013-June-05, 20:27, said:

What?

I think those in Benghazi are against these rights...strongly against.

We choose not to try, I mean try and protect those for these rights and 4 Americans died.

Please keep in mind these killers are against these rights at the point of a gun.

I think that you are both missing the point of the original post.

People who claim that the US in the 1950's was morally superior to (current) decadent times ignore the fact that the US in the 1950s really sucked if you weren't a white male...

[ArtK78]

Much of what America fights for in all of its armed conflicts and other conflicts is to preserve the rights of its citizens and, to a lesser extent, the rights of everyone worldwide.

As has been alluded to, the rights being fought for may change over time. I don't believe that anyone fighting in World War II believed that gay rights were part of the America that they were fighting for.

One thing is usually true - those who we fight against are often against many of the rights that are part of the American way of life.

[Feel free to add red, white and blue here. Patriotic music, while appropriate, is optional.]

[onoway]

hrothgar, on 2013-June-06, 03:33, said:

I think that you are both missing the point of the original post.

People who claim that the US in the 1950's was morally superior to (current) decadent times ignore the fact that the US in the 1950s really sucked if you weren't a white male...

although that's likely true and not only in the US, I have to bring in an article I ran across yesterday about a former Canadian politician, now long gone. At present in Canada we are going through a bunch of wailing about patronage appointments, misuse if not fraudulent accounting of funds and other such business-as-usual-but-this-time-you-got-caught shenanigans. Back in the day we had at least one politician who had some sense of morality beyond whats in it for me: (I somehow lost the title, it's about Stanley Knowles.)


I track down Susan Mann and she says, yes, the story I have heard is true.
And yes, it does say something about public service and what that has changed over the years.

"You hate to say it is a generational thing, that Canadian politicians no longer understand public service," says the former vice-rector of the University of Ottawa. "But it's hard not to come to that conclusion.

"I mean, what ARE they thinking?" Now, Susan Mann has had an illustrious career - vice-rector at U of O, President of York University, successful author - but I have contacted her not with an academic question, but one about Stanley Knowles.

The Member of Parliament for Winnipeg North Centre for nearly 40 years. The United Church minister who lost but one election between 1942 and 1984.

I once heard a story about Stanley Knowles and I've been wondering recently if it were true. I contacted Mann to find out.

There are plenty of Stanley Knowles' stories out there. His knowledge of Parliamentary tradition and procedure was legendary. It is said he could bring government business to a halt with one, well-researched question.

"Stanley could ask questions that terrorized the government," remembers Mann. "Questions today, well they're not really questions, are they? It's all partisan chest-thumping." Knowles was first elected to Parliament in 1942, a United Church minister who had been raised in abject poverty after his father lost his machinist's job during the Great Depression.

He was a CCF member, later an NDP, and he famously fought for the introduction of the Canada Pension Plan, speaking of his father while he waged his battle on the Hill.

He was well-respected by all members of the House and when he had a stroke in 1981 Pierre Trudeau created the position of "table officer," so Knowles could continue to sit in the House of Commons.

He cut a daunting figure, sitting at the clerk's table on the floor of the House of Commons, a tall, whippet-thin man with an ill-fitting suit and a church minister's steely, parsimonious stare.

And he was parsimonious. That is also legendary.

Lunch for Stanley Knowles was a sandwich and bowl of Jell-O from the Parliamentary cafeteria. He would read newspapers after others had finished with them.

He brought his family for that first session of Parliament in 1942, but never would again, appalled at the cost to the treasury of keeping two separate residences.

Yes, you read that last part right. Although he was ENTITLED, Knowles never used taxpayer's money to pay down a mortgage on a second house in Ottawa.

Which brings me to the story I once heard and need Susan Mann to confirm. She laughs when I bring it up.

"Yes, it's absolutely true," she says. "Can you imagine ANYONE doing that TODAY?" Then she starts to tell the story. About meeting Stanley Knowles in 1942, the recently elected Member of Parliament coming to her parent's house in response to an advertisement they had placed.

She jumps back and forth while telling the story - Stanley Knowles is making porridge for her before she heads off to school. Stanley Knowles is teasing her dad about getting him a Senate appointment one day, so he won't have to work so hard.

Dinner-table conversations about the Great Pipeline Filibuster of 1956. Afternoon tea and Knowles nibbling away at an Arrowroot biscuit.

Have you figured it out yet? The question I am about to ask?

No? Well, here goes:

"So it's true then Susan? Stanley Knowles boarded with your family?" And Susan Mann answers:

"For more than 40 years." Imagine that. An MP boarding while staying in Ottawa.

Close your eyes and see if you can imagine Mike Duffy, Patrick Brazeau, Mac Harb or Pamela Wallin doing the same thing. BOARDING with a family. Making porridge for the kids on a school day.

(Want more fun? Keep your eyes closed. Now imagine Mike Duffy eating an Arrowroot biscuit.) Anyway, Stanley Knowles passed away in 1997 and Mann says it is a good thing he is not around to see what has happened to Canadian politics, not here to read the news stories coming out of the Senate, Quebec, Ontario, the PMO.

He would be appalled," she says. "Honestly, this would have broken his heart." Public service then and now. Thought you might like to see the difference.

[Zelandakh]

And do you think things are genuinely different now, or just that journalists make greater efforts to expose skandals? An early Canadian example (from wiki).