Skip to main content

Lockbox

Some people keep their brains in a lockbox. They never use it. Too many people, especially those in positions where intelligence and wisdom are critical, just don't have it. I've decided Robert Reich is one of those people. There were a million things wrong with the war in Iraq, from whether it was morally justified, to whether particular actions in its conduct were moral. Fair enough; we could discuss that for weeks, and I'd likely agree with much of it. What I will not abide is the claim that Saddam Hussein did not possess weapons of mass destruction. He most certainly did. There are people disarming his vicious designs as we speak, and making sure that no one steals raw materials used in their construction.

Bush absolutely told the truth on this point. Whether that constitutes a sufficient cause for an invasion and occupation is certainly debatable. I'm just tired of political arguments that are, "We should do x, because so-and-so is a bad person, and he opposes it." You don't know Dick Cheney; it may comfort you to think he is an unfeeling troll that no sane person loves, but that isn't remotely true, and, more importantly, that's not a real argument for anything. Same goes for our current president. The merits or demerits of whatever he proposes have nothing whatsoever to do with how you personally feel about him. Just think on that.

Besides, who is Reich trying to convince? He's not running for anything. Other folks seem so firmly convinced that Republicans are morally defective, why bother burnish your alleged conservative bona fides? I'd just rather not argue with someone so certain of his moral superiority.

I would hope that I could listen with some detachment to Hillary Clinton. She might say something useful.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

We Don't Need No Magisterium: (Jason's Version) (But Actually, We Do)

Hilarious Com-Box Quote of The Day: "I was caught immediately because it is the Acts of the Apostles, not the Acts of the Holy Spirit Acting Erratically."--Donald Todd, reacting to the inartful opposition of the Holy Spirit and the Magisterium. Mark Galli, an editor at Christianity Today, had suggested that today's "confusion" in evangelicalism replicates a confusion on the day of Pentecost. Mr. Todd commented after this reply , and the original article is here. My thoughts: By what means was this Church-less "consensus" formed? If the Council did not possess the authority to adjudicate such questions, who does? If the Council Fathers did not intend to be the arbiters, why do they say that they do? At the risk of being rude, I would define evangelicalism as, "Whatever I want or need to believe at any particular time." Ecclesial authority to settle a particular question is a step forward, but only as long as, "God alone is Lord of the con...

What I Should Have Said

 I was functionally fired from my teaching job in November, 2024, after an unjust administrative "process" initiated by HR , and triggered by false accusations the content of which I was never told. My "defense" therefore could have no reasonable basis or direction. I won't say the name of the Local Education Agency, but the town where I lived and worked was Cheraw, South Carolina. I think that once I was on administrative leave, they could use nearly any indiscretion of mine as the final straw to remove me. I did connect with students on social media in protest, and I did express hope that I would quickly be returned to the classroom. The principal of the high school where I worked--a true lackey of the bureaucracy, and fully committed to educational ideas, methods, and solutions that don't work--also allowed his personal dislike of me to take the form of a belief that I was a substandard teacher. He gave me an unsatisfactory review on October 12, and we ha...

Who Is Out Here Having Sex And Children With People They Don’t Like?

 And look, I’m not married. I’ve never been married. I have no children. I didn’t choose that; things just worked out that way. If you must know, I haven’t had sexual intercourse either. I probably should say “coitus,” so I am not arguing with some progressive activist about what “sexual intercourse” means. But I figured out from influencer videos or something what a “dead bedroom” was. Unless a couple mutually agrees that they don’t want to have sex/coitus anymore (hopefully to pray and serve) this is usually bad. I’ve known enough couples that it’s probably an indicator of trouble, especially for couples who are still able to have children. Is it really that wild to at least hope that Mr. and Mrs. Vance love each other? That a fourth child yet born at least might indicate that they enjoy each other?  Children are definitely not responsible for their parents’ happiness. That’s absolutely true. But wouldn’t any child hope their parents were happy, when they came into being? As...