Wednesday, September 14, 2005

A Mathematical Proof of The Absolute Moral Authority of Saddam

P Bryon writes to tell me that Mother Sheehan has taken her "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" American tour to the capital of NY state, where she is assembled with her band on their tour, which is winding its way to DC.

It got me thinking back to some of Professor Vic's comments in regard to my posts regarding Mother Sheehan, where he suggested that having lost a son in Iraq, Sheehan has gained some level of moral authority in regard to our foreign policies; of course, I took the view that having lost her marbles when she lost her son, any claim to moral authority is rather stretched. In any event, I read recently that Maureen Dowd, perhaps the dumbest editorialist ever to live, did her best to cement that notorious claim for herself by remarking in a column that Sheehan had absolute moral authority as a result of having lost a son.

Of course, 2000 mothers have lost sons now, which gives us 2000 women running around with absolute moral authority. I suppose I am fine with that as long as none of them are Hillary. But what happens if they disagree? By all appearances the other 1999 don't agree to the extent that they want to make a public spectacle of themselves. And can I use the fact that the Wife of Hatcher doesn't have a fallen son to counter her claims to absolute moral authority? "Take out the trash." "You take it out - you're not the boss of me - Cindy Sheehan is!"

There are so many ways to point out that Dowd's claim is perhaps the dumbest ever, but here is one that cuts the heart of the matter: Saddam lost two sons to Bush's war for oil - does that give him twice the absolute moral authority of Mother Sheehan? Maybe not, because he is not a mother after all. Maybe fathers only get a fraction of absolute moral authority per son killed. But he is a freedom fighter - just ask Mother Sheehan and Michael Moore. And that has to count for something!

5 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Only wish that Barbara could have been granted the same moral authority - oh wait - Daddy kept him out and of course we won't ever know what happened the last eight months of his tour in the guard. 'In the interests of National Security' those documents (the ones that document how he has been AWOL for over thirty years) are sealed in Daddy's presidential library. Before we get to ridiculing someone who has lost a relative, perhaps we should examine the lies and profiteering that caused that loss. Only in the truth can we regain our legitimacy.

2:20 PM  
Anonymous MFH said...

It's very refreshing to note that the same old reframes are offered on our President. Liberal Playbook:

If it's arguing about use of our arm forces: bring up National Guard Service

If it's about moral authority: bring up cocaine use or drunk driving

If it's about domestic policy choose from the following: a)evil republicans giving to the rich;b)planned cuts in medicare/social security; c)working for big business and not the people;

If it's the environment: a)what was cheney meeting with those bigwigs of O&G b)we're going to destroy the nature preserves of Alaska; c) governor of Texas..need we say more

My boss always says...never let a good story get in the way of the facts...damn if I can't figure out why he's still actually a republican.

3:26 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I can't imagine the grief of the loss of a child. Grief does different things to different people. I will not judge Sheehan for doing what she thinks she must to honor her lost son.

The loss of a child, however, does not make her smarter. It is not like she has suddenly become Henry Kissinger because her son is gone. While I refuse to judge the woman, I don't have to agree with her because of her loss.

I do believe the members of the anti war movement that are taking advantage of Ms. Sheehan in her time of sorrow are reprehensible.

4:50 AM  
Blogger Incredible Dirigible said...

Re. Cindy Sheehan, enough is enough. Her son was an adult and a volunteer. By joining the service, he knew there was risk involved, & he was willing to accept that risk.

I wonder if it bothered Ms. Sheehan (& those of her ilk, like the initial anonymous poster) that President Clinton dodged the draft, & then deployed the military overseas like 40 times!

8:47 AM  
Blogger Hatcher said...

Funny you should mention the media recounts. This is from an article on NRO critical of claims Krugman made in a recent column (and probably 20 before that, given that he is a colossal bore):

Even taking account of the critical importance of the word “full,” it remains a lie to say that “Two different news media consortiums ... both found that a full manual recount would have given the election to Mr. Gore.” One of the two consortiums — one led by the Miami Herald and which included USA Today — found no such thing.

This consortium recounted the votes under four standards, ranging from lenient to strict. According to USA Today on April 3, 2002, “By three of the standards, Bush holds the lead. The fourth standard gives Gore a razor-thin win.”

What does Krugman say about that? More lies. Krugman wrote on Monday, “Two out of three hypothetical statewide counts would have given the election to Mr. Gore.” Reality: There were not three counts, there were four. And three out of four went for Bush, not Gore.

Those four counts, however, were not the “full” recounts that Krugman thinks “should have been.” Nevertheless, he lied about them. And even this consortium’s “full” counts — those that dealt with “overvotes” in addition to “undervotes” — don’t support Krugman’s claims. According to USA Today on May 10, 2001, again there were four standards (not three). The winner was “Bush, under the 2 most widely used standards; Gore, under the 2 least used.”

So “full” recount or not, it was an outright lie for Krugman to claim that “both” consortiums named Gore the winner. But what about that second consortium, the one that included the New York Times?

According to the Times itself on November 12, 2001, the most that can be said is that “Mr. Gore might have won if the courts had ordered a full statewide recount of all the rejected ballots ... The findings indicate that Mr. Gore might have eked out a victory ... ”

So with all that, let’s see what remains of Krugman’s lie. Under the recount process ordered by the Florida Supreme Court, both consortiums agree that Bush would have won. Under the “full” recount process that Krugman thinks “should have been,” one consortium gives the election to Bush under the more widely used standards, and the other consortium only finds that Gore “might” have “eked out” a victory.

Here is the link: http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_luskin/luskin200508240848.asp

11:13 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Sign up for my Notify List and get email when I update!

email:
powered by
NotifyList.com