1. I mus not make racist comments.
2. I mus not make racist comments.
3. I mus not make racist comments.
4. I mus not make racist comments.
5. I mus not make racist comments.
6. I mus not make racist comments.
[...]
99. I mus not make racist comments.
100. I mus not make racist comments.
Saturday, April 14, 2007
Monday, April 2, 2007
IMPEACHMENT: Politics, Opinion or Criminality?
My assumption is that Impeachment is as much a social phenomenon as a legal phenomenon, an assumption I think shown to have some empirical validity in the Clinton Impeachment, where the (R)epublican legal gambit failed in the face of Clinton's rising popularity. However, I am wondering if the current social and legal rolls around Impeachment have switched. In an article entitled BYU Campus Protests Dick Cheney Speech, I wonder if I am seeing just such a roll reversal.
Even though 'criminality' and 'impeachment' were not directly used in the article, what does it mean that such a conservative school, in such a conservative state, when reacting to Cheney's 'politics', is making just such a concept distinction in fact, if not in name ...? If, when looking at Cheney, the distinction between political bias and criminality is now part of the discourse at Brigham Young University, can the social 'acceptance' of the act of Impeachment be all that far behind, generally?
Even if 'neutral' BYU administration, like the 'neutral' MSM, is 'refusing' any qualitative assessment of illegally in Cheney's 'politics', what does it say about the country's mood, that these politically, very conservative students, don't seem as amorally vacuous or as intentionally ethically bland ...?
When Cheney makes public appearances, such questions seem to come to light. Maybe we'll find with Congress's willingness to use its subpoena power, Cheney's secrecy was 'warrented'.
Snerd
Even though 'criminality' and 'impeachment' were not directly used in the article, what does it mean that such a conservative school, in such a conservative state, when reacting to Cheney's 'politics', is making just such a concept distinction in fact, if not in name ...? If, when looking at Cheney, the distinction between political bias and criminality is now part of the discourse at Brigham Young University, can the social 'acceptance' of the act of Impeachment be all that far behind, generally?
Utah has consistently supported the administration, delivering President Bush his largest margin of victory in any state in 2000 and 2004. In Utah County, home to BYU, about 85 percent of voters chose the Bush-Cheney ticket in 2004.
Richard Davis, a political-science professor and adviser for the college Democrats, said the uproar over Cheney's visit is evidence of a rift within the school and church that belies the faith's larger claim of being politically neutral.
"He should be invited to come. He should speak. But let's not send the signal that we're abandoning our political neutrality," Davis said. "There is no political gospel in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."
The church has a policy of political neutrality and issues an annual statement declaring that both major political parties include ideals that Mormons could embrace.
[...]
"We recognize that members of our campus community are entitled to their opinions," said university spokeswoman Carri Jenkins. "Political neutrality does not mean there cannot be any political discussion."
Even if 'neutral' BYU administration, like the 'neutral' MSM, is 'refusing' any qualitative assessment of illegally in Cheney's 'politics', what does it say about the country's mood, that these politically, very conservative students, don't seem as amorally vacuous or as intentionally ethically bland ...?
When Cheney makes public appearances, such questions seem to come to light. Maybe we'll find with Congress's willingness to use its subpoena power, Cheney's secrecy was 'warrented'.
Snerd
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)