Wednesday, February 02, 2005

Keeping On Keeping On

I can’t stomach it. I hate him so much. So much so that I know it must be irrational. But he’s made me this way dammit! I’m going to try to sound rational, however, and I’ll start by saying that I think it’s a good thing that Saddaam is out of power. I think it’s good that Iraqis are voting. I think it’s good that this country is finally starting to talk about our responsibility to others as moral leaders.

Let me briefly clarify my meaning of “moral” and then, “leaders”…because with the current misuse of “moral” so often occurring, it’s worth a moment to explain my sense of the word. “Moral”, as an adjective, is that which is right and good, and manifests deontologically. There is no reliance of our understanding of a moral act for it to be so. That is, a moral act is moral because of the nature of the act, not because of the motivation of the actor, nor because of our knowledge of its morality. Further, those salient features that make a moral act moral must combine in such a way as to lend to human flourishing by instantiating generosity, justice, liberty, and equality.

“Leaders” as I use it here, are those that deny the easy road of moral relativism, and acknowledge that no oppressed person wants to be oppressed, regardless of their reliance on a culture and systems that demands their oppression. These leaders are willing to act, as moral agents, by demanding institutions (governments, companies, anything entity with infrastructure) to promote human flourishing by creating structures of existence that promote generosity, justice, liberty and equality AND eradicating those practices that fail to stand up to the human flourishing test.

Okay, enough of my drivel. So let me ask you, who do you suppose spoke these words last month?

We will persistently clarify the choice before every ruler and every nation: The moral choice between oppression, which is always wrong, and freedom, which is eternally right. America will not pretend that jailed dissidents prefer their chains, or that women welcome humiliation and servitude, or that any human being aspires to live at the mercy of bullies.

We will encourage reform in other governments by making clear that success in our relations will require the decent treatment of their own people. America's belief in human dignity will guide our policies, yet rights must be more than the grudging concessions of dictators; they are secured by free dissent and the participation of the governed. In the long run, there is no justice without freedom, and there can be no human rights without human liberty.


I don’t want to pick a fight here, but HELLO Democrats! Freakin’ Dubya said it!! What the F? No wonder we’re getting our asses kicked. I swear to god, I have no idea what the hell Dubya is talking about, because I KNOW he gives a full-on rats ass about women. I know this because of his attacks on my personal rights. I KNOW that Dubya must be kidding himself, if not me, when he talks about knowing that human beings do not aspire to live at the mercy of bullies. I know this because I am living under his bullying ass. And no one says a word about it. And he and his meany friends keep winning, and keep using their power and keep on keeping on.

5 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

He said it because it was "written" for him. Doesn't mean he believes it. In fact, all us "GOD" hating liberals KNOW that he doesn't believe it. I'm still waiting for him to declare martial law and then make himself King. So not funny, I know.

kds

6:44 AM  
Blogger mister williams said...

He and his advisor know how to politic. That's the problem we Dems (or maybe we should start calling ourselves Dims, or maybe even Thems, since our tolerence seems to be a problem for most) have misunderestimated the skill of this administration. They keep their image shining bright by staying on message even in the midst of controversy. You and I may recognize how his bullying effects others, but for those who don't have any direct contact to the consequences, they are stalled by the question of whether or not what the president is doing *is* moral. By then he's already twenty yards down the field (sorry for the sports reference. Go Eagles). This administration knows that in the deluge information and misinformation coming spewing out of every oriface of the media the vast majority will be too overwhelmed to stake out an opinion. This is why the gay marriage issue worked so well; when the public opinion is mired in a quandry of big issues such as war, stem-cell research, the economy, it's easy to rally supporters with simple play ground tactics: us against them. It's even easier when the sides were divided in a good book that lets people know its blessed to hate others. Now there's a clear morality.

10:23 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm wrestling with the idea that we have a right to appoint ourselves as moral leaders for other countries ... I imagine that Bush will conveniently appoint himself a moral leader when it comes to countries that the US can benefit from, or Bush feels has slighted the US (like IRAN). What about North Korea? China? Countries that have the means to fight back?

Off the subject a little, but referring to Mister Williams post about how clever the Bush administration is in regard to politics - pretty clever that anyone over 55 can take comfort in the knowledge that THEIR Social Security won't be messed with - what a good way to get the AARP off your back. Damn Karl Rove!

Donna

4:03 PM  
Blogger Anthony said...

I like GW. But seriously, how are you being bullied? Just because people don't agree with you or policies you support? I have been to Iraq. I saw how people were murdered. Americans do no know bullying.

3:05 PM  
Blogger Aerenchyma said...

One need not be murdered to be bullied. GW has bullied me by supporting big business over me at every turn. He's bullied me by lying to me about his motivations in going to war and calling me unpatriotic for not supporting it. He's bullied me by taking away my civil rights through the Patriot Act and telling me that if I don't applaud these infringements, I'm un-American. He's bullied me by appointing radicals to the federal bench that have no interest in protecting my constitution and then calling me non-bipartisan for not supporting their approval by my representatives. He's bullied me by attempting to use the constitution of these fine United States as a tool to TAKE AWAY RIGHTS of Americans though his endorsement of the horrible anti-gay marriage amendment. THE CONSTITUTION FOR CRYING OUT LOUD--To TAKE AWAY rights! Unthinkable! Yeah, he's a bully. It’s not that he disagrees with me, like President Reagan and I. No, it’s that he LIES to me and claims he’s representing me and “protecting me” and then, when I speak, he calls me names, “Unpatriotic!”, “Un-American”, and uses mean rhetoric to silence me, “If you’re not with us, you’re against us”, when “us” is this country of mine, my home—the home that I love, composed of people that are united through the very liberties that Bush tries to take away at every turn.

7:57 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home