Comparing Apples and Rocks

Here is Newsweek's Michael Isikoff's opening paragraph of a short article telling us about the Justice Dept.'s review of the legal work of OLC attorney's:

For weeks, the right has heckled Attorney General Eric Holder Jr. for his plans to try the alleged 9/11 conspirators in New York City and his handling of the Christmas bombing plot suspect. Now the left is going to be upset: an upcoming Justice Department report from its ethics-watchdog unit, the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), clears the Bush administration lawyers who authored the “torture” memos of professional-misconduct allegations.

Having actually read the memo's on enhanced interrogation - not "torture" - I would have been amazed to find a result by any neutral agency that was different. What really struck me about the above paragraph was Isikoff's incredibly inappropriate comparison between complaints about dangerous procedures with far left complaints about an outcome that they wanted. It is comparing two completely different things as if they were mere polar opposites along a linear scale.

The right's complaint as regards the Undiebomber is that valuable intelligence of the kind that could save American lives was not farmed. We now know that is because, after a year in office, Obama has utterly emasculated our national security apparatus, at least as regards interrogation of captured enemy combatants. As to KSM, the complaint was about giving him a civilian trial that would risk exposing national security secrets and that would provide KSM with the world's greatest platform to spread al Qaeda propaganda. The right's complaint, in both instances, is about what procedures will best protect our nation.

The left's complaint is of a wholly different cloth. The left wants an outcome - the lynching of the OLC attorneys. They want the blood of those attorneys and they do so wholly irrespective of the law regarding what does and does not constitute "torture." The left, from Obama on down, have demagogued this issue, slapping a bald label on enhanced interrogation of "torture." They have used it as a tool to crush the right politically, regardless of the ramifications for our national security. Thus Isikoff forecasts their unhappiness that the final bloodbath will be denied them.

How Isikoff conflates these complaints and casually reduces them to their lowest common denominator is troubling indeed. It gives moral relevance to two things that stand on wholly different moral planes. But then again, that seems to be a habit of those on the left.

Read More...

Summary only...

Evil, Moral Relativism, and Clarity

The differences could not be more stark:



(H/T Gateway Pundit)

Read More...

Summary only...

Moonbats Flying Over Georgia

John McCain, who has a long history of concern over Russian designs on its former satellites, and especially Georgia, has been on top of the crisis posed by the Russian invasion of Georgia since day one. He issued another statement today in the WSJ outlining the steps the world should be taking to respond to Russia's invasion. Obama's initial response to the Russian invasion was, to put it kindly, feckless. And now both the Obama camp and the far left have just gone into the moonbat stratosphere trying to spin all of this.
____________________________________________________________

The left's reaction to Russia's invasion of Georgia is an exercise in appeasement and moral relativism on an insane level. We start with Jack Cafferty, who displays a degree of insipid moral relativism that is rarely seen outside of a Kos Diary:

McCain condemns Russia, supports Iraq invasion

FROM CNN’s Jack Cafferty:

“In the 21st century, nations don’t invade other nations.”

So says John McCain, as part of his tough talk about Russia’s attacks on Georgia. In calling for Russia to get out, McCain says he doesn’t think we’ll reignite the Cold War, but that you can’t justify the “extent and degree” of Russia’s intervention in Georgia. The presumptive Republican nominee insists that we need to make sure that in the 21st century, we all have respect for the sovereignty and independence of nations.

Say what? The United States invaded the sovereign nation of Iraq more than 5 years ago. And you, Senator McCain, were all for the idea. You voted for the war, remember? At the time, McCain insisted that the U.S. needed to act before Saddam Hussein could develop more advanced weapons. And since then, McCain has remained steadfast in his support of arguably the biggest foreign policy blunder in the history of this country. At one point, McCain said U-S troops could remain in Iraq, a sovereign nation, for 100 years.

When it comes to punishing Russia for its actions, the Arizona Senator says its potential membership in the World Trade Organization should be reviewed along with its membership in the G-8. He believes an international peacekeeping mission should be sent to Georgia and that NATO should re-consider adding Georgia and Ukraine to the alliance.

Here’s my question to you: Is John McCain hypocritical to condemn Russia for invading Georgia when he voted to invade Iraq?

Wow. How far in the post modern tank do you have to be to exhibit this degree of moral relativism? Leaving all else aside, if McCafferty actually needs someone to spell out the differences between the invasion of Iraq taken in response to a belief that Iraq was a rogue nation with WMD and Georgia, a pro-Western democracy that is under attack from an imperialist Russian oligarchy (or mafia, take your pick), he is utterly clueless. And one wonders why Cafferty is picking out McCain when Cafferty's chosen One is parroting McCain now?

Then there is Andrew Sullivan, who obscenely attempts to tries to paint the fact that McCain knows foreign policy and is acting with decisiveness as a negative:

He's despatching Lindsey and Joe as emissaries to the country immediately. He's on the phone with Sakashvilli daily. He's giving press conferences. He's warning of a new Tsarist empire. You can tell what sends him into high-energy zones: a clear enemy abroad. He knows black and white; and he knows war. It gives him clarity and strength. Up next: Iran and China. Oh, the conflicts we can have ...

If this is the dynamic you want to see in the next president, McCain is your man.

That's right Andrew, Obama's feckless initial response to Russia's invasion is just what we want in a President. God forbid we have someone in the White House who understands what is happening on the foreign stage and is willing to defend democracy. Sullivan seems to be so smitten with Obama that his columns these days amount to political pornography.

These are only a part of what's going on as the left ascends into the moonbat stratosphere. Hot Air has the story of Susan Collins claiming that McCain's "beligerance" has made the situation worse, while Obama's measured approach is the appropriate one.

The AP's Peter Yost ran an insane story accusing McCain of crafting his pro-Georgia policy based on the advice of one of his campaign staff, a person who worked for a firm that has lobbied for Georgia. The fact that Georgia is a pro-Western democracy apparently does not enter into the equation. Likewise, Mr. Yost fails to note that McCain's positions have been consistent for over a decade and that McCain's staff also has sevral people who have, in the past, lobbied for Russia. Even the NYT, who argue for appeasement and who equate McCain's long distrust of Russia with the "neocon" position, doesn't take jump off into the deep end with Mr. Yost on that one.

Big Lizards has a must read on this. He takes on the AP article as well as the many others on the moonbat left who are attacking McCain for, as he puts it, "democracy mongering."

Read More...

Summary only...

Truth & Honesty - Left & Right

Progressives are less honest than conservatives; those who consider themselves morally superior yet without a strong ethical foundation valuing honesty and truth find it acceptable to act dishonestly to achieve their ends. Is any of this a surprise.
______________________________________________________

Let me preface this by saying that I have a tremendous respect for anyone who value honesty and who puts principle over expediency, whether I agree with them or not. That said, it seems that the progressives who inhabit our modern left are, with but a few notable exceptions, seem to have little use for intellectual honesty and love to pose upon the moral highground. Lastly, I am very wary of psychological studies or polls that attempt to define desirable or deragatory characteristics to people on the basis of their political leanings. I am blogging the studies below because I believe they merely support my own conclusions after years of observation - and I do try to maintain an open mind and I do value intellectual honesty.

A study was released recently measuring predisposition to honesty and integrity broken down by the individuals self described political leanings:

The headline may seem like a trick question — even a dangerous one — to ask during an election year. . . . Yet there is a striking gap between the manner in which liberals and conservatives address the issue of honesty.

Consider these results:

Is it OK to cheat on your taxes? A total of 57 percent of those who described themselves as “very liberal” said yes in response to the World Values Survey, compared with only 20 percent of those who are “very conservative.” When Pew Research asked whether it was “morally wrong” to cheat Uncle Sam, 86 percent of conservatives agreed, compared with only 68 percent of liberals.

Ponder this scenario, offered by the National Cultural Values Survey: “You lose your job. Your friend’s company is looking for someone to do temporary work. They are willing to pay the person in cash to avoid taxes and allow the person to still collect unemployment. What would you do?”

Almost half, or 49 percent, of self-described progressives would go along with the scheme, but only 21 percent of conservatives said they would.

. . . The World Values Survey found that those on the left were also much more likely to say it is OK to buy goods that you know are stolen. Studies have also found that those on the left were more likely to say it was OK to drink a can of soda in a store without paying for it and to avoid the truth while negotiating the price of a car.

Another survey by Barna Research found that political liberals were two and a half times more likely to say that they illegally download or trade music for free on the Internet.

. . . A study in the Journal of Business Ethics involving 392 college students found that stronger beliefs toward “conservatism” translated into “higher levels of ethical values.” And academics concluded in the Journal of Psychology that there was a link between “political liberalism” and “lying in your own self-interest,” based on a study involving 156 adults.

Liberals were more willing to “let others take the blame” for their own ethical lapses, “copy a published article” and pass it off as their own, and were more accepting of “cheating on an exam,” according to still another study in the Journal of Business Ethics.

Now, I’m not suggesting that all conservatives are honest and all liberals are untrustworthy. But clearly a gap exists in the data. Why? The quick answer might be that liberals are simply being more honest about their dishonesty.

However attractive this explanation might be for some, there is simply no basis for accepting this explanation. Validation studies, which attempt to figure out who misreports on academic surveys and why, has found no evidence that conservatives are less honest. Indeed, validation research indicates that Democrats tend to be less forthcoming than other groups.

The honesty gap is also not a result of “bad people” becoming liberals and “good people” becoming conservatives. In my mind, a more likely explanation is bad ideas. Modern liberalism is infused with idea that truth is relative. Surveys consistently show this. And if truth is relative, it also must follow that honesty is subjective.

Sixties organizer Saul Alinsky, who both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton say inspired and influenced them, once said the effective political advocate “doesn’t have a fixed truth; truth to him is relative and changing, everything to him is relative and changing. He is a political relativist.” . . .

Read the entire article. Another study was done several months ago that found those who belive they hold the they are morally superior are, unless also holding a stong ethical inclination towards honesty, can easilly rationalize cheating and lying to accomplish their morally superior ends.

None of this should come as a surprise. Whatever the left may have once been, it is now a party for whom the ends justify the means. They have, in large measure, left intellectual honesty by the wayside.

Read More...

Summary only...