http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2008/03/14/mccain-and-hagee/ n. the principle of good order<br /><br /> "Observe the strange inversion of all order and sense! Dignity debased; how vilely is the function of a consul prostituted!" ~The Craftsman Mon, 15 Mar 2010 21:47:02 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2008/03/14/mccain-and-hagee/comment-page-1/#comment-9907 Eunomia » Actions Are More Important Than Words Fri, 04 Apr 2008 00:07:22 +0000 http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2008/03/14/mccain-and-hagee/#comment-9907 [...] Last month, I said something quite similar: Such is the strange nature of what counts as “controversial” in our discourse: advocating aggressive war, the bombing of civilians, torture and the possible first-strike use of tactical nukes are all considered debatable positions on policy and have all been offered by major candidates for the Presidency either during the campaign or in their previous work, but to engage in intemperate and indeed appalling rhetoric that will actually harm and maim no one is evidence of the need for exclusion from respectable society.  There is something deeply wrong about those priorities that seek to police thought, but which do little or nothing to challenge advocacy for deeply immoral actions.  If the one merits being driven out of the debate, how much more should the other merit even more severe consequences?  [...] [...] Last month, I said something quite similar: Such is the strange nature of what counts as “controversial” in our discourse: advocating aggressive war, the bombing of civilians, torture and the possible first-strike use of tactical nukes are all considered debatable positions on policy and have all been offered by major candidates for the Presidency either during the campaign or in their previous work, but to engage in intemperate and indeed appalling rhetoric that will actually harm and maim no one is evidence of the need for exclusion from respectable society.  There is something deeply wrong about those priorities that seek to police thought, but which do little or nothing to challenge advocacy for deeply immoral actions.  If the one merits being driven out of the debate, how much more should the other merit even more severe consequences?  [...]

]]>