Thursday night, my husband went with several other family members to the opening of the Indianapolis Indians’ baseball season. As he–and several media outlets–subsequently reported, Governor Pence also attended, and the announcement of his presence generated loud and emphatic boos from the assembled crowd.
That booing underlines a political lesson we might sum up as: live by social issues, die by social issues. (I may be “over-analyzing” this; if so, chalk it up to twenty years of teaching public administration.)
Here’s what I mean: When we elect people to administrative offices–mayor, governor, President–we rarely base our subsequent evaluations of their job performance on the efficiency or effectiveness of the agencies controlled by those offices. Ideally, of course, we would, but most of the time, we aren’t in a position to know whether the city issued improper drainage permits, or the state failed to enforce environmental standards, spent limited resources on frivolous lawsuits, etc.
Unless we are members of a constituency that is directly aware of or affected by administrative incompetence, we are unlikely to recognize it, so we generally don’t base our opinions or cast our votes on the basis of perceived management skills. We don’t even base our votes on candidates’ policy preferences–unless those policies implicate so-called “hot button” issues.
This dichotomy between the mundane, albeit important, administrative skills needed for effective governance and the passions that characterize disputes over social issues poses an under-appreciated danger for culture warriors like Indiana’s Governor.
Run-of-the-mill administrative incompetence is unlikely to motivate widespread passionate opposition, no matter how damaging and/or costly poor governance may be.Over-the-top forays into the culture wars, however–especially when those highly-visible and clearly unconstitutional efforts can be shown to do real damage to the reputation and economy of the state–can generate significant public hostility, as we have recently seen in North Carolina, Mississippi and–of course–Indiana.
Voters and baseball fans don’t boo someone for poor management skills (even though that would warm the cockles of a public management professor’s heart). Voters do, however, feel strongly about arrogant ideologues who feel entitled to tell them how they should conduct their lives.
There’s a reason for all those “Pence Must Go” signs.
And for “boos” at the baseball game.
I have had one of those signs in my front yard since last summer. It will stay there (unless someone decides to steal it) until he is out of office. He is not only incompetent but is compromised by the dark money that he depends on to keep him in public office. Mismanagement is one thing. Doing real and lasting damage to the state’s economy combined with the damage to women’s health and the destruction of public education through vouchers and charter schools has to put him at the top of the worst governors in Indiana history and that is saying something.
You’ve got to do more than put signs in your yard and yell “boos.” Did Indianapolis win the baseball game by yelling “boos” at the opposition? I doubt it.
Governor Daniels also received boos at an opening game at Vic Field one year—or was it two years? Then again, Philadelphia football fans one year pelted Santa Claus—who is rumored to commit multiple home invasions down people’s chimneys each year to indiscriminately bestow gifts on children—with snow balls. Unfortunately, Hoosier children did not receive a lot of gifts from Governor Daniels.
It’s a lot easier to lose than to win. It’s also a lot safer.
The other side doesn’t react to the losers. But they do to the winners. Down deep, most of us know that.
Marv is exactly right! Politicians know it does not matter….
I, too, have had a “Pence Must Go” yard sign since last summer that will stay until he has gone…including the next four years if he (Lord help us) is reelected in November. I am not on the inside of his administration, doubt I could stomach it or not be mentally, emotionally and seriously physically effected by the destructive actions they embody. I am, however, very familiar with the basis of his administrative system due to lasting 2 years, 3 months and 11 days before total physical collapse and disability due to stress in the Goldsmith administration which was the onset of the current GOP leadership. Before you ask; yes, I was trying the entire time to find another job but during those years the private sector put little trust in hiring former local government employees. And, yes, this is connected to the Pence administration and Ballard’s as well as Daniels’ as it is a continuation of his brand of administration and with many of the same appointees.
On the other hand, I asked a politically active friend about Barack Obama when he first appeared on the scene; she said that other than his inexperience, she trusted his qualifications. She sent me “Dreams From My Father” and “the Audacity Of Hope” for my birthday in 2008; his first book showed his blue collar, at times poverty-ridden, but very interesting childhood. “The Audacity Of Hope” hooked me totally; I have watched for almost eight years – from the outside of his administration – as he has tried to live up to his continuing audacity, hoping both parties will sit at the bargaining table to find solutions to our problems. I have the same hope but it is waning. Pence and his cronies seem to work in the other direction; seeking ways to destroy hope and control by snaring staunch Republican voters in this pseudo-religious Bible oriented state. You must admit Pence has worked diligently to earn those “Pence Must Go” yard signs and the “boos” at the opening game of the Indianapolis Indians.
“This dichotomy between the mundane, albeit important, administrative skills needed for effective governance and the passions that characterize disputes over social issues poses an under-appreciated danger for culture warriors like Indiana’s Governor.”
In the above paragraph from Sheila’s blog, the most important part being, “…disputes over social issues poses an under-appreciated danger…” The referred to social issues encompasses our personal lives, our disputes were too weak and those in authority under-appreciated the dangers till we were made the national laughing stock with Pence’s RFRA’s anti-LGBT stand, the incredibly invasive anti-abortion law, both resulted in enacted laws and the latest, Indiana has the highest school voucher rate in the nation. He has thrown the true Christians and all other religious believers to the lions – the lions being the GOP led Senate and House locally. Too bad it was only “boos” thrown his way Thursday night!
Lets not forget the damage Pnece has brought onto public education. The ISTEP mess, voucher expansion, the unethical people he has appointed to the State Board of Education. BOO!
We would like our struggles with the Religious Right/Far Right to be like a “video baseball game”that we can play from the comforts and SAFETY of our own homes. Does that make good sense? It doesn’t to me.
Thanks,
and thank G=d for baseball!
JoAnn,
You would make a great investigative reporter.
We really must watch what may happen to our future regarding the election of U.S. Senators and Representatives this fall.
Jim Banks is even MORE conservative and dangerous than Pence. He was the first state senator to author an abortion bill – it didn’t pass. Then he was called up for National Guard duty last fall and managed to get his wife elected to take his place while he was gone. She not only supported the RFRA, but she voted against the fix. They are both very dangerous people and if Jim Banks gets elected he will work to damage the entire country.
He is backed by Americans for Prosperity (Koch brothers), the Tea Party and the Club for Growth. Those are just a few of his extremely conservative connections, but very powerful ones with a lot of money.
Nancy,
“Jim Banks is even more conservative and dangerous than Pence.”
You’re 100% right. It’s getting much worse.
Donald Trump has easily taken the game to a new level. He talks and looks like a ranting Mussolini. And becomes a presidential front-runner who speeds up the pace for eventual victory but, possibly, for another Republican teammate who is more dangerous than he is while the Democratic Party self-destructs in a fratricidal battle between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders.
Keep believing the polls. I’m just kidding.
Mr Pence is determined to move your great state backwards to Gilded Age. There are scenes from that time I too would like to bring back. The ones where scurrilous politicians were tarred and feathered, as well as booed.
One of the points that’s easily missed is that virtually all of our institutions are today bureaucracies meaning that their size makes them beyond the span of control of people. That’s not necessarily all bad and can’t be helped anyway.
The greatest portion of their output is day to day production following policies and practices and their institutional culture. Sort of like our individual lives. We sleep and eat and shop and transport with very little thought and originality.
But at the elected top in the case of democratic government are the policy makers who conceive, word and debate and decide policy aimed at redirecting their slow reacting ship for the long term future, sometimes in response to culture or technological environmental change, sometimes because someone has an actual original idea.
In big bureaucracies those policy changes are years in the making, years in implementation and actually effect the production of the bureaucracy for decades.
All of the while the minions keep on making under old policy until new policy gets enforced.
Comparing democratic government to business we get to hire and fire the government policy makers but have no choice in the capitalist business policy makers. Under democratic socialism the elected government policy makers are the business policy makers.
Duane,
“The ones where scurrilous politicians were tarred and feathered, as well as booed.”
Thanks. Now we’re starting to go somewhere. You have to deliver the right message. We’re not exactly talking to “rocket scientists.”
There are some things that are fundamentally governmental functions, including defense, education, law and order, infrastructure, and environment. When you have an anti-government group in charge of your government they seek to hamstring all of the functions of government first by cutting budgets to limit the ability of the agencies to enforce regulations.
This is particularly evident with EPA today. This tactic of limitation hasn’t stopped the Congress from calling the EPA to task for failures like lead in the drinking water. The goal of the dog and pony show is to point out just how inept the EPA is at even the basic tasks, like clean water. This piles up evidence that EPA should be shut down, right?
They have done the same thing with schools and infrastructure. They’ve managed to privatize the punishment part of crime and punishment with private, for profit prisons and they are edging closer to the disappearance of the public shool system.
They stay in power by courting people who only care about abortions and gays. They point to the boogeyman every election cycle and their voters come out in droves. Meanwhile, people who say they care about good governance stay home waiting for somebody else to take care of these pesky “social issue” conservatives.
Pete, BSH et al
After observing your exchanges (Pete & BSH) yesterday, I thought you would appreciate the following. It’s from a transcript that has never been published: THE CENTER DIALOGUE by Harvey Wheeler which was “Written in Commemoration of the Seventy-fifth Birthday of Robert M. Hutchins (January 17, 1974). I guess I’m partially publishing it now.
“…….Equally essential to this achievement is another feature. It rests upon the distinction between two different types of knowledge: the difference we have in mind when we use the two words WISDOM and SCIENCE. There cannot be any doubt that both of these words refer to something equally real and equally important in human experience. The trouble is that while we all would agree that wisdom exists and even can be recognized when presented to us, the problem is that there is as yet no reliable way in which wisdom can be created and augmented.
Science, of course, is just the opposite. Science thrusts forward relentlessly into the unknown. Its growing complexity makes it virtually impossible for the outsider to understand, no matter how wise he may be. Yet on the other hand, the one thing we moderns feel absolutely competent to produce, at almost exponential rates, is science. In short, we are confident we know how to educate men of science, but we readily admit we have no way of educating men of wisdom.
Although we do not know nearly as much as we should about how to teach practical philosophy, still there are a few propositions we can make about it. Wisdom concerns knowing how to make choices and how to govern actions, as opposed to knowing about things. It is acquired through an intense personal effort. It consists of a participational as well as an intellectual element. That is, only rarely–if at all–can one acquire practical wisdom solely through books. What is required in addition is exemplification, dramatization, and most of all, participation in the creation of the exemplary manifestation of wisdom.
Reading a book is a spectator sport. True, there is some involvement of the reader, but the fact remains that the reader’s creative participation is not necessary to the mere ingestion of the information available from books. Just the opposite occurs in the dialogue. The dialogue is both creative and cooperative. Plato contrasted it to ERISTICS, a form of battle in which “victory” means besting one’s opponents, rather than cooperating with them to produce wisdom.
The eristical process is not necessarily injurious to the accumulation of a scientific knowledge. On the contrary, the progress of science is often pictured in terms of the warring of competing opinions in the so-called “marketplace of ideas.” The assumption underlying such a notion is that one idea deserves to win–deserves to defeat all others– and that rigorous intellectual warfare will reveal which this is. This is the “liberal” and the scientific approach to the advancement of knowledge. But it does not apply to wisdom, nor to practical philosophy. On the contrary, the acquisition of wisdom is virtually foreclosed by the INDIVIDUALISTIC QUEST FOR PERSONAL VICTORY.” pp. 27-29.
Harvey Wheeler was one of our great political scientists. He was the Program Director at The Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions in Santa Barbara, California. It became “the center” for the great minds of the world to congregate for discourse from the mid 50’s up until the end of the 70’s. Harvey was, also among many things, one of my three partners in The Political Epidemiology Institute. Unfortunately, he died in 2004, the same year another partner, my companion, started her long battle with Parkinson’s.
One of Harvey’s last wishes was for me to restart The Center, but things have changed too rapidly for that to occur. In my estimation, Sheila’s Blog is my last, best hope for a discourse on democracy’s future if you can continue to put up with me. Time is running out.
Please excuse the continual use of men. The paper was written over 40 years ago. The feminist movement was just in its beginning. It appears from my research that women were excluded from the dialogues at “The Center” back then. However, Harvey was for women’s equality, I know that much.
Sheila correctly laments that government is too big for ordinary citizens to know what is going on in the everyday things governments do. The bad news is that it can get worse. Recently Sheila ran a piece on trade agreements and the TPP. Should we become signatory to that agreement in its present form (to which I am opposed), we would be inviting foreign tribunals to override local ordinances and state laws in our own country in suits for damages, mandates etc. in a breathtaking loss of our sovereignty and right to make and enforce our own laws. After all, one can attend a hearing for zoning change and be heard on a proposed neighborhood land use change, but tell me how a citizen in, say, Omaha, can attend a secret hearing of a foreign tribunal (which may be held in Bangkok, for instance), in which the foreign corporation doing business in Omaha is suing for damages against the American zoning authority and/or city or county or other such authority who refused to allow a slaughterhouse next door to a church or school in Omaha. Sound ridiculous? Take a look at what we know is in the TPP.
The TPP as currently constituted would give a right to the foreign corporation to override local zoning board jurisdiction or, failing that, sue the zoning board or other appropriate jurisdiction for damages for profits they would otherwise have made. That amounts to, I say, an intolerable loss of our sovereignty and if for no other reason, I think that is sufficient for rejection of the TPP.
Of course, adoption of the TPP gives American multinationals the ame rights to invade the sovereignty of signatory states, and you can be sure that such corporations (especially banks) with their armies of lawyers will be invading such supposed sovereign rights of capital-poor signatory states in short order.
I think the TPP is a corporate front for expansion of its tentacles rather than a trade proposal.
In the piece just written and in the next to last paragraph I wrote ame for same. Take note. Mea culpa. GES
Gerald, there were much simpler times where all government was local, tribal. We became many more and better informed about the ways and nature of the Universe and applied them to living and, voila, state and colonial government was born to manage the space and interface between tribes. Than national and then world government, the UN.
Just as in 1776 colonies mistrusted federal government so now many nationalists mistrust world government.
In the due course of time though, providing that we don’t destroy each other first, powerful world government will be a necessity.
Global trade agreements are merely small steps towards that inevitability.
Marv, one point about science which I don’t believe is in disagreement with your postings.
None of it is invented by man. If it had an inventor it would be God but we’ll never in life be able to distinguish conclusively between He and mere happenstance.
We discover and apply what’s always been true in the a Universe to our lives. The Universe is more and more modeled in a human abstraction called science.
One additional point Marv building on your post. Wisdom is different than science in that wisdom pertains to humanity while science is universal. It’s the same everywhere there is.
Pete,
Yes, I’m aware that scientists discover that which has always existed.
The question is ‘should the scientist use his discovery for good or for evil’? And, moreover, how does the scientist discern the difference between good and evil? Serious questions abound. Who decides what is ‘good’ and who decides what is ‘evil/bad’? What is the timeline on the shelf-life of measuring good? Is it good today, or is only good in an unknown future time which invariably lies so far in the future that we will not be around to assess its goodness?
Please know that the terms ‘good’ and ‘evil’ are simply descriptors of easily comprehended ideas and are not used in any theological fashion.
And, by the way, is there a scientific definition of the ‘greater good’ that is frequently tossed around as a concrete and tangible entity? Is the ‘greater good’ one of those mystical terms like Heaven which cannot be scientifically determined because no one has returned to describe it? Or, is the ‘greater good’ similar to a corporation, an entity of unknown people who are not individually responsible for the larger entity’s actions?
Checks and balances are so important.
Gerald; having worked in Indianapolis City Government for 20 years, I want to thank Sheila for making the comment and you for calling attention to it. “Sheila correctly laments that government is too big for ordinary citizens to know what is going on in the everyday things governments do. ”
The daily workload for support staff alone in government offices is not only heavy but, being government work, makes it doubly important to get it done on time and correctly. What is done in government at all levels effects the lives of thousands of residents and much of it is controlled by rules, regulations, ordinances and/or laws. We need to be aware of WHY we are doing what we are doing as well as HOW to do it; the eventual outcome can, and often does, become public.
Scientists don’t get to choose between good and evil discoveries. Knowledge is neutral.
Businesses or governments hire engineers to create things from what science learns for their own purposes. Often times different governments and businesses will use the same scientific knowledge to create both good and bad things which is in the eye of the beholder. For instance nuclear power and nuclear bombs. Are nuclear bombs good or bad things? So far only good. The two used saved millions of lives in WWII. Unless you were there.
Good and evil are intentions and often what’s good to and for me is bad to and for you.
That’s why “good” and “evil” are largely so abstract to me as to be quite useless.
On the other hand “empathy” is not abstract and useful in guiding intentions.
BTW BSH I agree that joint decisions, as required by democracy, are essential and provide the ultimate checks and balances leading to empathetic intentions.
Pete,
We all understand that a scientific discovery is neutral; it simply is. Beyond that, when those scientific discoveries are put into practical application, we meet the question of whether applications are directed toward ‘good’ or directed toward ‘evil/bad’.
By the way, both the concepts of ‘good’ and ‘evil’ are abstract just as ’empathy’ is abstract. By that I mean that ’empathy’ is subjective, cannot be measured and is dependent upon the variables of those who would use the term.
Pete,
“That’s why “good” and “evil” are largely so abstract to me as to be quite useless.”
I agree they’re abstract but “good” and “evil” are not useless terms. That’s why we better not jettison practical philosophy as Harvey Wheeler was trying to tell us.
As BSH has just stated, “Checks and balances are so important.”
I brought home my “Fire Mike Pence” sign from the rally for women’s rights and put it in a window where no one can touch it.
Watching the news coverage of Pence being booed by the fans at the ballgame, I noted that the reporters tried to diminish it by reporting that the fans also booed because they didn’t win tickets to another game. They also under-reported the number of people attending the rally and then tried to diminish it by over-reporting that “dozens” of counter-protesters had also shown up at the rally. I was there; I saw – maybe – six, and nearly all men.
Of course, no surprise. We know that independent news reporting doesn’t exist in this town.
To continue my short course on the Civilization of the Dialogue from Harvey Wheeler’s “The Center Dialogue.” No offense taken if you want to skip it.
“It is easy to see how strangers happening in for only one or two days might think our cross-questioning and discussion procedure is no different from the academic game of intellectual ping pong familiar from the university seminar. However, the longer one observes the Center process the better one understands that the Center dialectic is quite different from that of the academic seminar. In fact, sometimes a Center member seems hardly to be talking to the speaker of the day at all. Rather, his “true” conversation seems to be taking place with someone else. That is, there appears to be a separate dialogue at the Center. It can be thought of as being imminent in every particular dialogue that takes place, though it actually materializes only on very rare occasions.
Of course any such mystical notion seems preposterous on its face. It may remind some of the Christian idea that the Church is not a building or an association but rather the “mystical body of Christ.” According to this notion, Christians who gather for worship do so to unite themselves with this mystical body and also with a higher principle that transcends themselves and their capabilities. Of course, it would be stretching credulity entirely too far to associate the Center dialogue with something so immaterial–I suppose today one must add so archaic –as the Church.
But aside from any such ethereal transport, the Center dialogue takes place day in, day out. Sometimes it is good, mostly it is disappointing. But it does not pay to decide too quickly which is which. For it may be precisely a “bad” dialogue that sometime in the future will issue in the finest fruits. There is an aspect of continuity and abidingness that seems to express itself cumulatively over the years, despite the almost random assortment of topics that follow each other in disorderly procession through the Center’s conference chamber.” pp. 23-24
Thinking of conversations that occur in large groups, whether cocktail parties, professional get-togethers, or Online blogs, I’m sensing a natural division of conversations within the groups.
There are those who prefer a conversation about ‘people’, and there are those who prefer a conversation about ‘ideas’ with no mention of peoples’ names.
This is only an observation. Am I the only person to observe this difference?
A few days ago, I reported all the visitors to http://www.EthicalFront.net were coming from Nuremberg. Today it appears they’re all coming from Munich at the present time.
I wish Americans had the same immunity against Fascism that many Germans still have because of the Nazi regime. But we don’t and I’m afraid we’re going to regret it in a big, big way.
I worked for nearly all my working career mainly for very large Multi-National Companies in the finance industry. We had technicians like myself, management and support personnel. The CEO’s came and went and usually brought along their buddies from the old company they worked for. Any changes that were going to be made were dictated from the top down. Those of us at the grunt level knew what was going to work and what would not with our customers. However, if you did not get on board you were not a team player and tick mark went next to your name if only a mental one by the boss.
A leader can and will set the tone for the organization there is no doubt Richard Nixon set the tone for what would be his own demise. A leader may not know everything that goes on but in the case of a Governor, or President the tone is set by the leader.
BSH,
BSH,
Ideas are much safer than “names.” “Names” can get you into a lot of trouble. At the present time, ideas probably won’t bite back . I will assure you the right “names” will.
As I mentioned yesterday, Bill Moyers described Texas Judge Paul Pressler, the top operative in the Southern Baptist Convention, as a “fascist” in “The Dallas Times-Herald.” [Pressler was also a member of the “shadow cabinet” of George Bush #2]. It was a very expensive thing to do. Moyers had to pay for the expensive centerfold advertisement in “The New Republic Magazine” to defend himself against the magazine’s attempted character assassination because of his expose of Pressler. The magazine wouldn’t allow him to respond otherwise. I heard the ad cost $5,000.00. I haven’t been able to verify the cost.
By the way, as far as I know, there was no attempt by Judge Pressler to sue Moyers since he was only speaking “truth to power.”
There’s so much of history wherein good and evil is purely in the eye of the beholder or beneficiary. Is being carnivorous good or evil? Depends which end of the fork you’re on.
That’s why I believe that morality = empathy. If you are doing unto others as you would have them do unto you your morality will come out fine.
Louie, Pence strikes me as a pretty simple man trying to earn a living. To do that he needs votes. Unfortunately he’s in the grip of the Peter Principle and trying to ascend beyond his competance.
So be it. Any good boss would either fire him or raise his level of competance or put him in a job that he can do.
Hoosiers have to be good bosses to make democracy work.
I’d fire him both as a boss and a voter.
Pete,
“There’s so much of history wherein good and evil is purely in the eye of the beholder or beneficiary. Is being carnivorous good or evil? Depends which end of the fork you’re on.”
“That’s why I believe that morality = empathy. If you are doing unto others as you would have them do unto your morality will come out fine.”
And the African-American community would have been better off waiting for the EMPATHY that you’re talking about. In other words, they should have just forgot about GOOD or EVIL. Is that what you’re trying to say? I’m dumbfounded. Actually, maybe I shouldn’t be when I think abou it.
Marv, I just don’t find the abstractions “good” and “evil” very useful.
Empathy is real for me as are “rights” and “freedom” which empathy demands.
List things that you’d want others to do unto you. Wouldn’t honoring your rights and allowing you to freely be, be on the list?
Pete,
Do you really think we’ll let you off so easy by your mention of whether being carnivorous is good or evil, or more precisely a diet congruent with one’s anatomy? Seriously, that question can be answered by science if you consider the comparative anatomy and physiology of the various mammals. By way of checking the oral cavity, the dentition, the mandibular function and capability, and assessing the enzymes present in the entire digestive system from the oral cavity through the gastrointestinal system, it can be ascertained whether a carnivorous diet is one’s best choice based upon one’s anatomical capabilities.
BTW Marv. Empathy is what leads to morality. Laws that are just are also moral and therefore empathy based. Not all laws are yet just and that’s why our work will never be done. That’s what keeps Sheila highly compensated as a blog writer.
BSH, I didn’t know that I was on a hook.
Pete,
“List things that you’d want others to do unto you. Wouldn’t honoring your rights and allowing you to freely be, be on the list?”
Does lynching belong in the “good” or “evil” category or just in the “rights” or “freedom” category? In other words, say for example, I’m a Klansman and I feel it’s okay to lynch Jews and Blacks. Do I now have permission to do so since you honor my rights and allow me to freely be? So I can just forget “good” or “evil.” Thanks a mil. I appreciate your encouragement.
Am I putting words into your mouth? Since we’re into baseball today, please tell me where I’m off base?
Pete,
Seriously, I now understand you better. I see where you’re coming from. I’m coming from a different place that’s all. We both know, neither one of us is going to change. Understanding is always a good thing. Thanks for being so candid.
I would not like anyone to hang me so it is moral for me not to hang others.
Religions teach morality and that’s one way to bring it about for some.
Governments pass enforceable laws to bring about moral behavior so that’s another way.
Our laws have been largely based on the Golden Rule as a moral commandment but they are sometimes slow to catch up. But as MLK said “The arc of the moral universe is long but it bends toward justice”.
All based on do unto others…….
Pete,
You wrote “Governments pass enforceable laws to bring about moral behavior so that’s another way.”
Pete, think about what you wrote.
What government passes laws to bring about moral behavior? Who precisely determines what is moral behavior?
A word of explanation. I try not to be religious because religion almost always is to some degree immoral. I try to keep my intentions moral which to me connotes spirituality.
Evil and good are religious labels and I just don’t find much use for them.
All good law and policy is aimed at justice and is therefore moral. Not all laws are good because we are imperfect at democracy and hire some immoral policy makers.
The test is the golden rule.
Again, “The arc of the moral universe is long but it bends toward justice.”
If anyone’s religion teaches them to use good and evil as labels for others, that faith is their choice. I don’t want anybody telling me what choice I should make so I don’t tell others.
Seems so simple to me.
BSH if you can point out laws that aren’t just we can talk about why they aren’t and where we failed democracy and freedom in bringing them about.
Pete,
“Seems so simple to me.”
You’re right. It is very simple looking ONLY from a scientific standpoint. That’s what Harvey Wheeler was pointing out in his essay, which I discussed today. Too simple.
Hey guys; what happened to “Baseball and Politics”?
JoAnn,
“Hey guys; what happened to “Baseball and Politics”?
The baseball game was a metaphor. Some of us related more to the BASEBALL part and the “boos” and you and others related to the POLITICS and Pence. That’s all. Maybe a discussion about the “boos” was more conducive to a “spirited dialogue” than the rehashing of another instance of Pence’s political incompetence. This is only my opinion. I’m sure there are others.