George Galloway blasts the Senate

georgeob1 wrote:

An ordinary guy would simply say "I agree". Blatham. however tags on enough qualifiers to drain all the satisfaction out of it . I will qualify that anyone in a position of dorect accountability to elected officials does indeed have more right to speak with publicly-conferred authority than the rest of us slobs. The essential point remains - Amnesty international speaks with no more authority than (say) Bill O'Reilly.

That thin veil pulled over your posts to suggest yourself a rational thinker is threadbare, Ollie.

0 Replies

WhoodaThunk wrote:

McTag wrote:
WhoodaThunk wrote:

What's truly "tasteless" is when armchair admirals such as yourself feign shock and dismay over that which you know is not true, at least not true to the extent you maintain.

Indeed, standards have fallen and they are on the floor about you.

Why is that, McTag?

There's so much blustering right-wing bollocks on this page I don't know where to start. I have neither the time nor the patience to start to unpick it.

Taking one point: I think, contrary to the statement above, things (conditions and behaviour of gaolers in detention facilities, behaviour of troops on the ground, outrages against civilians etc) are much worse than we can know here...we get very filtered, one-sided, managed news.

Only GIs who were dumb enough to photograph what they were doing, hit the headlines and received the censure they deserved.
You assume everyone else is behaving properly.
I assume something different.

Your stock reply, McTag, when confronted with reality: things are much worse than we know, your media twist the facts, anyone who disagrees with me is morally bereft.

Baloney.

As for the "dumb GI's" you mention, sure, they made mistakes and paid the price, but at least they have the bollocks to perform a thankless job despite the constant carping of bollock-less armchair admirals here and in the cozy, safe confines of far-off countries.

Errrr....incorrect as usual. While not a pacifist, I urged them not to go, remember? The invasion is illegal and immoral, remember? The allies have no business being there.
The "thankless task" they are performing is self-imposed. I begged them not to do it.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

Quote:
...anyone in a position of direct accountability to elected officials does indeed have more right to speak with publicly-conferred authority than the rest of us slobs.

george

I'm not sure this is coherent. Perhaps there's a bit of a mix here in different species of 'authority'...political authority, moral authority and authority in the sense of possessing knowledge. And you also bring in the aspect of speech 'right(s)', perhaps not the best word.

Surely, the only senior 'authority' an elected official (or his agents) might validly claim would be legislative - laws, procedures, etc. - dominance in bossness, if you will. But the other species of 'authority' don't arise here. An elected official has no particular moral authority simply as a consequence of his election, nor is he likely to become any smarter or more knowledgeable except in specific, limited ways (he learns about foreign affairs, say, or he gains uniquely privileged information).

Even in this last instance, we cannot validly grant (nor can he claim) to have authority such that his statements ought to be given more credence than others who aren't elected. Nixon, Meese, Liddy, and Chuck Coulson versus The Washington Post, to take a case near and dear. Credibility doesn't blossom from out of an election result (even if the fertilizing agent is abundant).

And adding in the notion of speech 'right(s)' here gets close to some claim that elected politicians and their agents somehow possess more 'right' to talk to citizens than those who are unelected. There's a downright naughty idea.

We are getting rather far from the original point about NGO's, but I do concede the validity of your observations. What is "moral authority" anyway? I think it derives from acknowledged consent of the people and accountability to them. More seek it and claim it than have it. Some (such as Amnesty International) merely pretend to have it. Liddy & Coulson didn't have it , but Nixon and Meese certainly did - as is confirmed by the contemporary historical record.

I agree that many elected politicians are - in the eyes of some - figures of contempt. You put Nixon in that category - I put Senators Reid, Kennedy, Schumer, Boxer there, along with relics like Jimmy Carter. However there are likely some who see them differently. It's a big country - hell, there's probably someone out there who doesn't see Kennedy as a superannuated bombast and Boxer as a stupid, vain midget.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

...position more slobs.

Sincerely...george

George...are you o.k.? Laughing

Blatham Wrote:

"I'm not sure this is coherent. Perhaps there's a bit of a different species in the ass, perhaps not the best."

Blatham, are you o.k.?

"Surely."

Just checking, carry on.

"The only senior 'authority' an elected official (or his agents) might validly claim would be legislative - laws, procedures, etc. - dominance in 'blossness', if you will."

Did you say "blossness"?? Isn't that what Charlie on Mr. Magoo used to say? Hey bloss! Hey bloss! Laughing

"But the other species of 'authority' don't arise here."

Oh yes they do!

Blatham Wrote:

"An elected official has no particular morals."

Blatham, that's not nice...go to your room young man.

Adding in speech right here, get close-

George wrote:

Here's a downright naughty idea...Turtleete is a stupid, vain midget!

WHAT?! You bastid. I might be vain, but I'm no midget! Laughing

George and Blatham, if you want me to stop chopping up your threads you must give me..amm (thinking)...a squillion dollars...in the next 10 seconds...or else.

I hope I got my quotes correct. Laughing

0 Replies

turtlette wrote:

georgeob1 wrote:
...position more slobs.

Sincerely...george

George...are you o.k.?

Blatham Wrote:

"I'm not sure this is coherent. Perhaps there's a bit of a different species in the ass, perhaps not the best."

Blatham, are you o.k.?

"Surely."

Just checking, carry on.

"The only senior 'authority' an elected official (or his agents) might validly claim would be legislative - laws, procedures, etc. - dominance in 'blossness', if you will."

Did you say "blossness"?? Isn't that what Charlie on Mr. Magoo used to say? Hey bloss! Hey bloss!

"But the other species of 'authority' don't arise here."

Oh yes they do!

Blatham Wrote:

"An elected official has no particular morals."

Blatham, that's not nice...go to your room young man.

Adding in speech right here, get close-

George wrote:

Here's a downright naughty idea...Turtleete is a stupid, vain midget!

WHAT?! You bastid. I might be vain, but I'm no midget!

George and Blatham, if you want me to stop chopping up your threads you must give me..amm (thinking)...a squillion dollars...in the next 10 seconds...or else.

I hope I got my quotes correct.

Did I miss something in the night?

Damn ... I hate it when Big Brother takes out that big electronic eraser.

0 Replies

You know, I was wondering the other day just what the heck Bush will do after his presidency is over. He won't write any books, at least not until microsoft word comes out with a full-blown thinkcheck function. An acting role in a Herbie movie might work. One little prediction though...clearly, there is an unwritten rule that after serving in a senior governing capacity, you keep your mouth shut as regards criticism of your replacement's policies and performance. He'll break this rule. None of which I'd have bothered to mention except for the midget stuff preceding.

You still, I think, conflate two notions.

Quote:

What is "moral authority" anyway? I think it derives from acknowledged consent of the people and accountability to them.

That's not moral authority. That's power - but power gained in a manner which you and I consider morally justifiable or valid (consent of the community). There's a difference here. A corrupt official, though fairly elected, loses any moral authority when corruption is revealed (actually, when it is perpetrated) and that might be long before (if ever) he is removed from his position of power. This follows in the same manner where a scientist's 'authority' in his speciality area will be diminished where he's found to have faked research or findings or credentials or where he has been significantly incompetent, that is, his authoritativeness or believability is damaged - we have reason now to distrust what he says and what he concludes. A political figure who is deceitful and dishonest loses moral authority relative to the instance and circumstance.

You may not hold that there is any moral 'truth' outside of power. Your pope would likely not agree. Nor would I, though just what the heck we might mean by 'truth' in this case ain't simple or obvious. Actually, Chomsky makes a very interesting address to this old question suggesting we might look to a similar sort of innate scheme or capacity as that which underlies language.

0 Replies

ps

On the NGO question... there's a real matter of objectivity here. We don't put an accused murderer's family into the jury (or judgeship) hearing his case for a good reason. We also don't allow the murdered victim's family in either, for the same reason. Any government executive branch is functionally a special interest group and the balance of powers structure of your constitution reflects the real need to temper or constrain or overview that special interest. An opposition party(s) and an independent press and community organizations such as NGO's are potentially contrary, but valuably so, voices. An NGO has as much moral authority (though not power) as any government SO LONG AS they remain truthful and credible RELATIVE TO whom they criticize.

0 Replies

pps

george...you've stimulated a very interesting notion, interesting to me at least.

I'll wager that this conflation of moral and political authority is a common feature of military indoctrination and operation, perhaps a 'necessary' feature.

0 Replies

Blatham - the eminent historian Paul Johnson (who never served in any military forces) attributes the ongoing debacle in the EU precisely to the complete divorce between current political and moral authorities:
_____________________________________________________________

"There is another still more fundamental factor in the EU malaise. Europe has turned its back not only on the U.S. and the future of capitalism, but also on its own historic past. Europe was essentially a creation of the marriage between Greco-Roman culture and Christianity. Brussels has, in effect, repudiated both. There was no mention of Europe's Christian origins in the ill-fated Constitution, and Europe's Strasbourg Parliament has insisted that a practicing Catholic cannot hold office as the EU Justice Commissioner.

Equally, what strikes the observer about the actual workings of Brussels is the stifling, insufferable materialism of their outlook. The last Continental statesman who grasped the historical and cultural context of European unity was Charles de Gaulle. He wanted "the Europe of the Fatherlands (L'Europe des patries)" and at one of his press conferences I recall him referring to "L'Europe de Dante, de Goethe et de Chateaubriand." I interrupted: "Et de Shakespeare, mon General?" He agreed: "Oui! Shakespeare aussi!"

No leading member of the EU elite would use such language today. The EU has no intellectual content. Great writers have no role to play in it, even indirectly, nor have great thinkers or scientists. It is not the Europe of Aquinas, Luther or Calvin--or the Europe of Galileo, Newton and Einstein. Half a century ago, Robert Schumann, first of the founding fathers, often referred in his speeches to Kant and St. Thomas More, Dante and the poet Paul Valery. To him--he said explicitly--building Europe was a "great moral issue." He spoke of "the Soul of Europe." Such thoughts and expressions strike no chord in Brussels today."

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110006831
_____________________________________________________________

0 Replies

Well that's interesting. I bet Goethe played no part in the discussions Friday between M Chirac and Mr Blair.

Goethe-hell maybe.

Ha! I made a joke.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

You still, I think, conflate two notions.
Quote:
What is "moral authority" anyway? I think it derives from acknowledged consent of the people and accountability to them.

That's not moral authority. That's power - but power gained in a manner which you and I consider morally justifiable or valid (consent of the community). There's a difference here. A corrupt official, though fairly elected, loses any moral authority when corruption is revealed (actually, when it is perpetrated) and that might be long before (if ever) he is removed from his position of power. This follows in the same manner where a scientist's 'authority' in his speciality area will be diminished where he's found to have faked research or findings or credentials or where he has been significantly incompetent, that is, his authoritativeness or believability is damaged - we have reason now to distrust what he says and what he concludes. A political figure who is deceitful and dishonest loses moral authority relative to the instance and circumstance.

You may not hold that there is any moral 'truth' outside of power. Your pope would likely not agree. Nor would I, though just what the heck we might mean by 'truth' in this case ain't simple or obvious. Actually, Chomsky makes a very interesting address to this old question suggesting we might look to a similar sort of innate scheme or capacity as that which underlies language.

In teresting points. However, apart from theological considerations, moral authority is just the ability to influence others. it is a form of power, but not al power springs from moral aquthority and some is quite utterly devoid of it. The power of moral authority in this sense springs, in part, from the consent of those so influenced by it. I do think the Pope would agree with this formulation.

In the military and in business moral authority is indeed an important element of power and effective management. In these situations it usually springs from either unususl ability or the perception of the leaders willingness to himself accept the same standards he demands of others and to acknowledge his errors just as he points out those of others. My experience ihas been that this is more or less the same in the military as in commercial life, except that the lack of it generally has more immediately corrosive effects on the organization than in business.

Paul Johnson is one of my favorite commentators and historians.

Interesting comments also from Helen on the materialist character of today's EU. I agree fully.

0 Replies

Helen, my sweet

I'm not sure Mr. Johnson is much esteemed as an historian, at least outside of Heritage Foundation fans, newsmax readers, and WSJ editorial staff. Here's a touch of the fellow from a recent Commentary piece following after the Indian Ocean tsunami. Theodicies are kind of fun in the manner of angel counting and I'm sure george and I could engage frankapisa in hours and hours and hours on any one of the little beggars coughed up over the last two centuries by folks who get a little shakey in the absence of a protective daddy in the sky.

Quote:

0 Replies

Quote:

In teresting points. However, apart from theological considerations, moral authority is just the ability to influence others. it is a form of power, but not al power springs from moral aquthority and some is quite utterly devoid of it. The power of moral authority in this sense springs, in part, from the consent of those so influenced by it. I do think the Pope would agree with this formulation.

Nah, he wouldn't. A gang of Hell's Angels bikers can be quite content in their consensual obeisance to the hairy-knuckled guy sitting in the big chair of the clubhouse. Anyway, nice to see you and my condolences for your friend.

0 Replies

Yes and the top dog of that group of Hell's Angels may well exert a good deal of moral authority over his followers - other types as well perhaps, but without moral authority that particular tribe would not likely tolerate him for long.

It appears you have quite a different definition in mind. Perhaps you would concede moral authority only to those who exude values you think fitting. Is that the case? If so from whence does this authority come? The god of Progressive thought?

Clearly you are not an admirer of Paul Johnson. I liked the piece you quoted. What part do you find objectionable? What alternate explanation do you offer? While the circles of his admirers you described are certainly lofty ones, there are many more. I do recommend his history of the 20th century, "Modern Tomes" - a very good read.

Thanks for the kind words. The guy to whom I referred is indeed facing a tough situation - one for which the answers are no more readily available than for the tsunami victims.

0 Replies

Quote:

It appears you have quite a different definition in mind. Perhaps you would concede moral authority only to those who exude values you think fitting. Is that the case? If so from whence does this authority come? The god of Progressive thought?

What is the sound of one deckhand napping?

In whom or in what one might justify moral authority (that is, who might say that x is good and y is bad?) is indeed the question. I'm dubious of (actually I reject) anyone's claim to certainty on the matter, including my own. Whether 'moral truth' rests on anything other than preference is the problem. My intuitions suggest that it does, but that's really all I can muster to support my position.

But consent/agreement cannot be our criterion. In what manner would you hold that Osama, who has a consensual relationship with his followers, is a moral authority? You wade into a species of moral relativism immediately with this formulation.

All I think you are doing here is carving out a very teenie portion of human interaction (power differential - who is leader, who is follower) and giving it a moral blessing where that relationship is consensual. Fine, but that's almost nothing. That leader and his happy followers might proceed a la Pol Pot.

And no, I don't think much of Mr. Johnson. There's a big fat elephant sitting in the middle of the WSJ piece that Helen quoted, which I'll get to tonight when I get home if I have time. But the piece I quoted where he offers up the typical theodicy re the tsunami victims I consider infantile and cowardly. Worse, it facilitates a scheme of thinking which can justify the cluster-bombing of children, women, babies and men and call it 'godly'.

0 Replies

"Gorgeous" George Galloway was on our major TV political comment weekend programme today, talking among other things of his forthcoming lecture tour- he is doing a series of one-man shows, including questions and answers audience interaction, "from Glastonbury to Cincinnatti".

So he'll be coming to a theatre near you, soon. Check it out.

0 Replies

Maybe Springer can book Galloway when he's in Cincy ...

0 Replies

McTag wrote:

"Gorgeous" George Galloway was on our major TV political comment weekend programme today, talking among other things of his forthcoming lecture tour- he is doing a series of one-man shows, including questions and answers audience interaction, "from Glastonbury to Cincinnatti".

So he'll be coming to a theatre near you, soon. Check it out.

At least Galloway won't be performing for "invite only" audiences unlike some politicians who shall remain nameless (but AirForce1 made my trip back from LA 1-1/2 hours late.)

0 Replies

How many Air Force 1's are there?

0 Replies

Richard Dawkins made an excellent observation (in my view) of the tsunami/God thesis.

Quite simply, it was not an act of God. But 911 was.

0 Replies

George Galloway blasts the Senate

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know