Posted by Benjamin on: 11.06.2007 /
Today the Senate Judiciary Committee votes on whether to move along the nomination of Judge Musakey for Attorney General. On Saturday, I read the quote below from George Bush’s weekly radio address, urging the Committee to vote in favor of Musakey’s nomination. Then I went and reread Bush’s 2001 inaugural address. Then I inexplicably started weeping, and had to call Megs to come comfort me. The juxtaposition of the hope with the reality was just too much for me, I guess..
| George W. Bush, November 3, 2007: Since I sent his nomination to the Senate, Judge Mukasey has provided nearly six hours of testimony. He patiently answered more than 200 questions during his hearings, and he responded promptly to nearly 500 written questions. Yet some senators are working against his nomination because they want him to take a position on the legality of specific techniques allegedly used to question captured terrorists. As Judge Mukasey explained in a letter to Judiciary Committee members, he cannot give such a legal opinion for several reasons. First, he does not know whether certain methods of questioning are in fact used, because the program is classified, he’s not been given access to that information, and therefore he is in no position to provide an informed opinion. Second, he does not want our professional interrogators in the field to take an uninformed opinion he has given in the course of a confirmation hearing as meaning that any conduct of theirs has put them in legal jeopardy. Finally, he does not want an uninformed legal opinion to give terrorists a window into which techniques we may use, and which we may not. That could help them train their operatives to resist questioning, and withhold vital information we need to stop attacks and save lives. |
George W. Bush, January 20, 2001. America, at its best, is compassionate. In the quiet of American conscience, we know that deep, persistent poverty is unworthy of our nation’s promise. And whatever our views of its cause, we can agree that children at risk are not at fault. Abandonment and abuse are not acts of God, they are failures of love. And the proliferation of prisons, however necessary, is no substitute for hope and order in our souls. Where there is suffering, there is duty. Americans in need are not strangers, they are citizens, not problems, but priorities. And all of us are diminished when any are hopeless. Government has great responsibilities for public safety and public health, for civil rights and common schools. Yet compassion is the work of a nation, not just a government. And some needs and hurts are so deep they will only respond to a mentor’s touch or a pastor’s prayer. Church and charity, synagogue and mosque lend our communities their humanity, and they will have an honored place in our plans and in our laws. Many in our country do not know the pain of poverty, but we can listen to those who do. And I can pledge our nation to a goal: When we see that wounded traveler on the road to Jericho, we will not pass to the other side. |
Leave a Reply
Comment by: Rachel
1 11/6/07 6:03 PM | Comment Link |Wow. What an amazing contrast, Benjamin. I actually voted for GWB the first time around and I had such high hopes for “compassionate conservatism.” Now we are not only passing to the other side of the Jericho road; we are the robbers who beat the man and left him to die.
Comment by: David H
2 11/6/07 9:25 PM | Comment Link |The above epitomizes why I loath politics. It is all and perhaps only about lies. The liars become so caught up in the process that they perhaps lose the ability to even know they are lying. I sincerely doubt George W. and his followers would even be able to recognize (or at least admit they see) the awful contradictions between those two speeches. In all likelihood they would argue that both are perfectly justified and completely true — both in word and deed. Thus we have what we now have in this country.
Today is election day in my state. I feel its contradictory nature deeply every year. Politicians posture about hope for the future while wallowing ever deeper in the cesspool. Americans talk about how this year will change everything while voting for people who are not like them and who few trust.
There must be a change, but everything tells me there won’t be because there is too much at stake in maintaining this corrupt, broken down system that represents no one who is common.
It is difficult to not lose hope in a nation that would elect someone who dragged us into a monumental mess and then, fully aware of how that happened, elect him again. But if that one man were the only problem, perhaps it wouldn’t be so bad.
However, none of that takes away from my responsibility to help the wounded traveler on the road. And if I help him, when and where I find him, then in that there can be some hope. It isn’t much, but I tend to dwell too much on the mighty acts of a few big men. Maybe such hope will always be false. I feel innately that the best deeds will always be the small ones done by little people. They may not be seen (at least not as easily) but they are real and have greater tendency to change both the receiver and the doer.
Comment by: Benjamin ady
3 11/7/07 9:05 AM | Comment Link |David,
do you know that lovely quote from Lord of the Rings (the books) about how the really important stuff needs to get accomplished by the small and lowly, while the eyes of the great are occupied elsewhere? I’ll have to track it down for you.
It hadn’t even occurred to me that some people would have no incongruence at all between the two quotes. Now that you pointed it out, I suppose you’re right. That’s shockingly sad to me again, because a big part of my innate skill/motivation is spotting such discrepancy.
Comment by: David H
4 11/7/07 12:41 PM | Comment Link |I love LOTR. I’ve probably read it 30-40 times and never once felt like dressing as a hobbit or elf (though I was guilty of playing Dungeons & Dragons during college). JRR Tolkien had quite a bit of insight into humanity and human motivations.
I work with a highly conservative man who worships (probably literally) George W. Bush. He would insist that Bush, as well as he has been allowed, has kept the spirit of his inaugural address. He would say Bush has remained true to his compassionate conservatism and, reading the statement for its final intent, if there has been failure to care for the downtrodden it has been by “Church and charity, synagogue and mosque (and) our communities.” Bush would probably insist that it isn’t the job of government to care for societal ills.
Still there are contradictions between the two quotes that strikes me. Bush might insist he personally cares about people even as he opposes governmental involvement with social issues. However, his willingness to ignore human rights and treat people according to national and international laws would seem to belie that assertion. Or, at least, he is willing to sacrifice those “personal” beliefs in order to protect the country (doubly ironic since this nation has enshrined the very human rights he says must be sacrificed in order to save it). Most important, though, is that what someone says is not nearly as important as what they do. You can talk about human dignity all you want, you can talk about compassion and justice til the end of time, but if what you do doesn’t demonstrate that conviction then most intelligent and compassionate people will consider you deluded at best and more than likely a liar.
Comment by: Benjamin Ady
5 11/7/07 9:46 PM | Comment Link |david
this is completely off the subject. but do you know where I could go to find answers to the question “What are the humanitarian consequences of the U.S. led sanctions against Iran?”?
Comment by: David H
6 11/8/07 11:57 AM | Comment Link |Which sanctions, those imposed recently or those imposed years ago? Have there been others? Sorry, thinking outloud.
I’m not sure there is much definitive on the subject of humanitarian consequences of the US led sanctions against Iran if you are talking about those unilaterally imposed just a week or so ago. These most recent US sanctions may be largely window dressing in terms of real effects. It is speaking loudly but without any stick.
I believe there were sanctions imposed after the Shah was deposed and hostages taken. There may be more written on that subject, but the long-term affects appear to have been small (Iran has a strong economy that has stumbled recently more to internal mismanagement than anything happening in the outside world).
The problem with any assessments of potential results from the new sanctions will be weeding through the information plants and spin-doctoring sure to be coming from both sides on the subject.
All that said, if there are going to be any real losers, they will come first from the millions of refugees now in Iran.
Comment by: Elaine
7 11/9/07 11:04 PM | Comment Link |Benjamin - when you spoke of weeping - I was reminded of how distraught I was the day GWB was elected for a 2nd term.
In reading through this blog, I was struck by how the book I am reading fits (for me) with this topic. I am reading “Influencer” by Kerry Patterson, Joseph Grenny, David Maxfield, Ron McMillan, and Al Switzler. Here is a section, I just read –
First, we must understand how people can abuse others without feeling bad. The mechanism that allows people to act viciously, but with impunity, is actually quite simple. When we see less of the humanity of another person or when we disrespect people, it becomes easy for us to dismiss our actions toward them. We’re nice to good people, but bad people, well, they deserve whatever we give them.”
It went on to talk about a study conducted by Albert Bandura. “He asked, “Can a one word label that minimizes a victim’s humanity turn good people into perpetrators?”” The answer was yes.
It resonates with me how much of the ills of the world are attributable to “seeing less of the humanity” of others. This applies not only to Iraq War, but also all oppression - racism, sexim, ageism, and more…
Comment by: Rachel
8 11/10/07 10:03 AM | Comment Link |How about the word “terrorist”?
Comment by: Elaine
9 11/10/07 3:12 PM | Comment Link |yes, Rachel - any word that dehumanizes another - helps distance us from their humanity and helps us justify our “bad” behavior toward them.
Would calling them fathers and mothers, sons & daughters - instead of terrorist - change our actions and way of speaking - move us closer to a collaborative solution?
I believe it would.