Imitatio Christi

Tortured Reasoning

    I must say that the continuing debate on torture has had quite a revelatory effect for many folks, me included.  The extent to which those who wish to defend the previous administration are willing to go to offer justification has been nothing short of dizzying.  Noonan wants us to "just move along," though she seemed to have sung a different tune on less serious past indiscretions by opposite party characters.  One expert assures us that while water-boarding might be torture when some folks do it, it isn't when we do. Why?  Because our lawyers were careful to make sure we stayed within legal boundaries.  This post from Andrew, conveying the comments of one of his readers is well worth reading.  The claim is a simple one:  whether we torture has more to do with the kind of people we are, than with the kind of person our prisoner is.  And, you know, perhaps at core that is what we all realize, and those who continue to offer a defense simply are unwilling to accept what they have become.  Here is the link.

More on Torture

    I wasn't planning to post today, but this summary from Andrew, with a link to the piece by Rich persuaded me otherwise.  I have argued that torture is an excellent tool, if you have a conclusion you want someone to "confess" to.  Seems this was a primary motivation of the previous administration.

Inequality: The Gift That Keeps on Giving

    We do enjoy living under the illusion that we are a country of equal opportunity.  I have often argued that this is simply not so.  There are, as in all cases, some outstanding examples of those from lower classes making their way to the top of the income ladder.  The question is not whether, in a country of 300 million, you can find some anecdotal evidence of those from the bottom making it to the top.  The question is how the statistics work out:  just how often does it happen and does that sort of frequency really support the claim of equal opportunities?  Well, read this and let me here your thoughts.  Key comment:

One of the most remarkable findings from the Pew Charitable Trusts' Economic Mobility Project is that a child from a family in the top income quintile who does not get a college degree is more likely to wind up in the top income quintile himself than a child from a family in the bottom income quintile who does get a college degree...

The Meaning of Success and Failure

    I have been pondering for some time now the comments of some on the right, most notably Limbaugh, that they hope that Obama's policies fail.  It really is worth thinking for a minute about what exactly they are saying and to play out the implications of the sentiments these comments reveal.
    To begin with, the comments are generally along that lines of saying something like, "Do I hope Obama's policies succeed?  Of course, not, I hope they fail!"  Well, let's focus on the outcomes intended by the various economic policies Obama has put forward.  In short, those policies are intended to have the outcome of avoiding a severe economic depression and of restoring economic vitality.  If the policies he has launched succeed, what will be the outcome?  Well, we will avoid a severe depression, which means, for example, that unemployment will top out at a lower rate.  In turn, this means less suffering for those who might otherwise have become unemployed.  Similarly, having things improve more quickly means that those who have already become unemployed will be able to find jobs.  Less homes will be foreclosed upon, less folks in bread lines, more folks off unemployment compensation sooner, etc. 
    Realizing these things leads one to ask exactly why some one would not want those outcomes.  Why would Limbaugh et al desire higher and longer levels of unemployment?  Why would they desire to see more homes foreclosed upon?  Why would they want to see more folks lose insurance coverage and the attendant suffering that goes along with that?  We should make no mistake about this, a naked claim that one hopes Obama's economic policies fail is directly transferable to a claim that one desires to see increased levels of human suffering.  We, likewise, ought not to be the least bit bashful about pointing out these implications and connect them directly to the folks who are making these outrageous claims.
    In all fairness, we should recognize that it would be fairly easy for folks like Limbaugh to offer a much more reasoned claim.  For example, they could say something like, "I am firmly committed to conservative policies and, as such, I firmly believe that human suffering will be minimized by adopting conservative policies.  If I am correct, then Obama's policies will fail. However, my first priority is to see beyond my own ideology to hope that whatever best alleviates human suffering is adopted and succeeds as quickly as possible."  Of course, a blowhard like Limbaugh, who makes a living on stirring up folks by pontificating on exxagerated claims can hardly afford (literally, afford) to make these more reasoned claims.  His success depends on being outrageous, not reasoned.  "Talent on loan from God."  One wonders what God is going to say about how he used it when he returns it.....
    When you get a chance, be sure to point out these implications.  Remind folks that ideological blinders (or, even simple profit motive) force folks to make these sorts of unfortunate claims, and remind them, especially in Christian circles, that our first goal is NOT defending ideologies but rather to defend human flourising.

The Torturous Issue

    I have posted with some frequency over the last few years on the issue of torture by the previous administration.  I am sorry I was not active when Obama signed the executive order correcting at least some of these abuses, though I did blog on it elsewhere.  As the battle heats up, however, I must say it is becoming increasingly difficult to listen to the specious arguments put forward in attempt to justify doing nothing about it.  Andrew had several important and helpful posts today. Let me draw attention to a some of them.
    First, this one makes an important point about the potential uses of torture.  As I have reported earlier, torture is notoriously unreliable if what you want is accurate information, but if what you want is to get folks to say particular things, then it is highly dependable.  If you want to provide testimonial support for something you already take to be true, then you could torture folks until they confessed to whatever you needed to "prove" your beliefs.  Andrew suggests this as Cheney's motivation.
    Second, notice how these quotes from Peggy Noonan stand in such stark contrast. Is there any better definition of an idealogue than that an idealogue is one who can shape arguments for "your position of the day," even if your "position of the day" yesterday was quite the opposite.  It does pain me deeply to see a Christian playing this game.
    Finally, another profoundly distrubing contradiction.  If you are a political official, one is being "shrill" if one insists that we actually hold persons accountable.  If, however, you are a "common folk," the only way to be "serious" on crime is to insist on the harshest penalties.  I'd love to hear your thoughts on these.

Heeee'sss Baaacckkkk

Hey, folks, while the re-start up will be slow, I am back in the blogging business!  Spread the word.