Search
Archive Calendar
| M | T | W | T | F | S | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | ||||
| 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 |
| 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 |
| 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 |
| 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | |
Archives
Categories
- A Government That Can Force You to Buy Health Insurance Can Make You Do Anything (3)
- a protein wisdom philosophy primer (3)
- academics (25)
- armadillo (8)
- Friday Fiction 100 Word Challenge (51)
- from the protein wisdom conceptual series (136)
- identity politics (33)
- If Republicans Win the Senate in 2014 (1)
- in which celebraties comment on current events (67)
- language / intentionalism (88)
- legal (6)
- My brief conversations with inanimate objects (130)
- NSA / FISA (46)
- One Term to Serve, the 2012 Revival (6)
- Overheard in a Fallujah bunker (27)
- Poems from 196x, Revised by the Ghost of Richard Brauti (27)
- protein wisdom's DNC coverage (30)
- protein wisdom's RNC coverage (29)
- protein wisdom: the movie Lists (20)
- Provocateurism (16)
- real-time empirical observations (51)
- red pills found behind the sofa cushions (42)
- Scenes from my driveway (61)
- Talking back to 80s music (41)
- The Martha Stewart Chronicles (58)
- The protein wisdom interviews (10)
- The protein wisdom original poems (142)
- Uncategorized (20,046)
- Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance, abridged (34)
Recent Comments
- In The Mailbox: 02.28.23 (Afternoon Edition) : The Other McCain on Hey, longtime pw readers…
- In The Mailbox: 12.23.22 : The Other McCain on Patrick J. Carroll truly IS a sad, embittered psychopath
- Danger on Patrick J. Carroll might be a psychopath
- Danger on Patrick J. Carroll might be a psychopath
- In The Mailbox: 07.18.22 : The Other McCain on Patrick J. Carroll might be a psychopath
There is also that rumor out there that Bush wil be post-humously (so to speak) impeached by a new, more heavily controlled, democrat congress.
They must be right because they feel so strongly about it.
Tom Sowell knew this two decades ago: “Diversity” is ideological conformity hiding behind superficial differences.
Diversity is okay as long as everybody thinks like DU.
…for certain non-standard values of “think,” of course.
I’m sure outside of me (and I’m just a-trolling), there will be a ton of diversity from the PW commentariat. Probably as much as there is on DU!
By the way, the President was given an authorization to use force, not a command. It was his decision to go to war, not Congress’s (that would be called a “declaration of war”).
In any event, the point is moot; the DU folks might think trying him is a fine idea, but no real prosecutor could or would try Bush on war crimes. It’s legally impossible due to his sovereign immunity. I suppose the Hague could, but contrary to popular thought, the DU does not control the Hague.
Now, trying Rummy, Cheney, and Bush on violating US law with regard to their torture meetings is a far more interesting legal route. Illegality is not part of one’s official capacity, as we recall from the jihad against President Clinton I. The President would be difficult to convict due to the fun legal arguments he could marshal and the support of the wingnut base (which would re-discover its 2004 era love for him).
I think the absolute beating history will give him, plus his fear of a Pinochet-esque retirement will be the most the President suffered, but I’d sure like to see the real Decider, err Cheney, explaining himself in front a jury for his alleged crimes. That would be some serious fun.
DU : Think = Paramecium : Waltz
So, the AUMF doesn’t qualify because it didn’t contain the magic words specified in the Constitution?
Which are…?
I await evidence to support this.
You know, after at least “>151,000 violent deaths and the displacement of 4.5 million, I don’t think I care that the KRAZY moonbats at DU think that the Iraq invasion was a war crime.
Yeah, how dare they examine the law! Bastards!
Source for “151,000 violent deaths” claim:
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/NEJMsa0707782
AJB – Thanks for sharing.
Seems like AJB’s source used the following methodology. Take Lancet number, and divide by 4.
Seems like AJB’s source used the following methodology. Take Lancet number, and divide by 4.
You can’t argue with math.
That is funny, why even bother polling someplace like Democratic Underground? You already know where they are coming from. That is like doing a poll at Free Republic or Little Green Footballs asking: Do you have a favorable opinion of Ted Kennedy? Nancy Pelosi?
I bet there would be a REALLY diverse set of answers there. I am sure people would hem and haw and really give thoughtful, complex consideration before answering (giggles).
Jeffersonian: Yeah I remember that quote. I am thinking that when he said that he was throwing the baby out with the bathwater. He has always been stung by the coldness of the academic community to his being a conservative black man (and one of the finest economists since Hume). I am stung by it as well. But I am not going to attack the idea of diversity based on my own experience with condescending liberal academics who like to tell people what their ideology should be. That is just silly. Snotty academics and diversity are two different things.
Diversity is an essential American concept. It is what we thrive on. Hell, what is the alternative to diversity?
Webster’s Dictionary defines diversity as:
1. of a different kind, form, character, etc.; unlike: a wide range of diverse opinions.
2. of various kinds or forms; multiform.
MSN Encarta says:
1. variety: a variety of something such as opinion, color, or style
a city of great cultural diversity
2. social inclusiveness: ethnic variety, as well as socioeconomic and gender variety, in a group, society, or institution.
The University of Iowa’s Diversity Statement says:
Diversity includes, therefore, knowing how to relate to those qualities and conditions that are different from our own and outside the groups to which we belong, yet are present in other individuals and groups. These include but are not limited to age, ethnicity, class, gender, physical abilities/qualities, race, sexual orientation, as well as religious status, gender expression, educational background, geographical location, income, marital status, parental status, and work experiences. Finally, we acknowledge that categories of difference are not always fixed but also can be fluid, we respect individual rights to self-identification, and we recognize that no one culture is intrinsically superior to another.
My question is, what is a preferable alternative to diversity, since diversity is such a laughable, silly concept.
Lisa, the problem isn’t in the definition. it’s in the “enforcement”.
so, AJB, what’s the minimum number of deaths and displacements that would qualify something as a “war crime”?
My question is, what is a preferable alternative to diversity, since diversity is such a laughable, silly concept
I do not think that anyone here would argue that diversity is necessarily a bad thing. In most places, it makes for a richer experience. However, in modern practice, diversity has been wielded like a cudgel, and mandated such ideas and concepts as hate speech laws, complete lack of intellectual diversity, etc …
Diversity by definition, an in practice, do not square with each other.
Maggie I agree that enforcement of diversity is kind of stupid. If I have a business and I want to hire culturally diverse employees because it will appeal to my customers, then fine. But telling some guy in a pretty homogenous town in Iowa to go find and hire some Pakistanis at his feed store or else is another thing altogether. LOL.
But I think that someone seeking to promote the goodness of diversity by making it COOL to learn about and hang out with people who are from different ethnic or cultural backgrounds than you is doing a good thing.
Liberty to decide for yourself?
They have diversity programs in Iowa?
Feed corn or sweet corn ?
There is nothing in the idea of diversity that says that you cant decide for yourself. Two different arguments. Apple, meet orange.
Apparently so, JD. I laughed at that, too.
[…] Right Wing News; H/T: Dan on the main floor.) Posted by Naftali @ 6:26 pm | Trackback Share […]
“My question is, what is a preferable alternative to diversity, since diversity is such a laughable, silly concept.”
My question is, “who fucking cares”?
Diversity training in what passes for public schooling these days, is nothing more than indoctrination. Quite frankly I just wish they’d try teaching kids something like oh I dunno, math or something maybe?
DU…damn them thinned skin folks. I was denied privileges to post there in about the third post…and I am a “liberal” eh? I must have said something less than positive about a Clinton awhiles back.
Equal time: I lasted a shorter time at Free Republic.
Diversity not allowed at either place.
Bah, Lisa.
Our beef is the use of “diversity” to mean “refusal to make moral choices.” People who shriek that Cheney is a war criminal, and at one and the same time are prepared to provide a sympathetic platform for the leaders of Hamas (and you know damned well they would), are not “celebrating diversity”, they are abandoning their responsibilities as human beings and citizens to distinguish between good and evil.
And no, they cannot evade that judgement by crying that “good and evil are culturally determined.” In the first place, at a fundamental level it’s a lie, even by their own definitions; otherwise there couldn’t be a “Universal Declaration of Human Rights.”[1] In the second place, part of the reason for the existence of the position(s) they fill is the need for definitions of such things — they aren’t being tolerant, they’re copping out, refusing to perform the duties of their office out of sheer laziness. And the worst part of that is that they end up doing it anyway. If Abbas would be welcome on campus but a Marine General would not, the philosophical judgement is emphatic and visible for all to see.
So no, we don’t object to diversity, although we might quibble (at least) with the desirability of seeking diversity as an end in itself. What we despise is scare-quoted “diversity”, meaning in practice that a Muslim in full Arab gear is encouraged where a Christian wearing a cross is subject to discipline for “threatening”, and the University’s recruiting arm is in legal trouble if the freshman class contains fewer than 127.3 black males on the ground that it isn’t diverse enough.
Regards,
Ric
[1]Which is mostly bullshit. Its content pretty well exemplifies my thesis, in fact. But they can’t have it both ways — either a “universal” doctrine exists, or it does not.
Regards,
Ric
Dogmadave, you’re not diversity. You an entirely different prefix altogether.