General Taguba's report is worth reading, just to appreciate the magnitude of the screw-up. It really got to me, particularly this bit: Master-at-Arms First Class William J. Kimbro, US Navy Dog Handler, knew his duties and refused to participate in improper interrogations despite significant pressure from the MI personnel at Abu Ghraib.
He said "no" to the bastards. They wanted to use him and his puppy for evil, but he understood that he was his dog's conscience and his country's representative. It was just that easy (or that hard) to take personal responsibility, know one's duties, and say no.
I guess what upsets me most is that there's little indication elsewhere in the report that the MI people had to threaten or pull rank to get cooperation--- they just showed up and the MPs willingly turned into thugs.
I'm reminded of a recent medical marijuana case in Calfornia (Ed Rosenthal, I believe) where the judge refused to allow any evidence about the grower's motivation, and instructed the jury to ignore any comments the defense made about California law. And not one of the jury found the courage to say "no" despite their misgivings, and their claims after the trial that they would have acquitted "if only they had known". They knew. They lacked--- not the courage, for there was no threat, but the intelligence and simple decency--- to do what they felt was right.
It's very annoying to me that all these apparations are believed to be the Virgin Mary, when there are so many other saints to choose from! How does one tell it isn't, say, Saint Catherine of Alexandria? Or one of the other Marys?
Randolph,
I'm not Mris, but I'm close. :)
I don't think it's a case of "believing Christians ignor[ing]" liberal Christian candidates. As Lydia has hinted, there is a very real feeling that those who disagree with the fundamentalist Christian viewpoint are not "real" Christians. Conservative Christians are thus unlikely to be swayed by the existence of liberal Christians. Liberal Christians do tend to vote for liberal candidates.
The real puzzle here is why (white) mainline Protestants and (white) Roman Catholics tend to vote conservatively. (See this survey for some numbers from the 2000 election.)
I suspect part of the reason is that "morality" (unfortunately in the staying-away-from-icky-stuff-I-would-of-course-never-do sense, rather than the love-thy-neighbor sense) matters a lot in Christian voter's minds. The Republican party has successfully sold itself as the party of moral values. But maybe I'm being unduly influenced by my own conservative Christian background.
I think another piece of the puzzle is simply that conservative Christians make a bigger stink because they believe they have more to lose. If one side believes it is in a life-or-death struggle for truth and the other believes that plurality is not all bad, which is going to be more active? There may also be some media effect--- those with conservative views because of their Christianity are "conservative Christians" while those arriving at opposite conclusions are just "liberals".
| Year | Number of comments posted |
|---|---|
| 2004 | 4 |
Total: 4 comments. View all these comments on a single page.
The most recent 20 comments posted to Electrolite by Mark Gritter:
Show all comments by Mark Gritter.