Idiots

Where did you read that quote? I am interested in the whole article/context. Linky, linky?

From an AP story on the Lansing State Journal page:
Justices step into battle on church-state

76% is the _vast_ majority?

It is when 51% is a 'mandate' ;-)

Ummm. Texas State Board of Education-approved mathematics? Or would that be "neomath?" :-{

I dunno.

By their fruits you will know them. Syria out of Lebanon. Palestinian elections. Successful Iraqi elections. Saudi Arabia and Egypt making (small) concessions to democracy. That's some good foreign policy right there.

Maybe his domestic policy is similarly foresighted.

By their fruits you will know them.

So, then death and lies?

The ends don't justify the means.

Politically the ends sure do justify the means. That's the only criteria we've ever judged our leaders on. Kant and philosophical mumbo jumbo to the side intentions, and even means, matter less than results. The buck that stops with POTUS could be blame or credit.

He's already being hailed as the next Reagan.

Well, I suppose I'm just going to have to disagree with you on that.

... I also don't really see being hailed as the next Reagan as a compliment ;-)

Take war, Unless you are a total pacifist you've got to accept war as a case of ends justifying the means. Naive young men die or kill other naive young men in defense of a national interest.

And maybe your tune on Reagan will begin to sweeten once you get used to his benevolent smile beaming down from Rushmore.

Syria out of Lebanon

Syria isn't out of Lebanon. Syria has agreed to a "phased withdrawal." Which means "Withdraw a few troops until the street protests taper-off." In no meaningful way has Syria relinquished control of Lebanon.

Palestinian elections

The election occurred because Arafat died. U.S. policy had nothing to do with it.

Successful Iraqi elections

Successful? Well, OK. There were elections, most people voted, hardly anyone was killed. But, those elections have not resulted in a government, only in a group of people with titles and no authority.

With the exception of Iraqi elections, it seems questionable to state U.S. policy as a causal agent for any of them (unless you are implying that the U.S. killed Rafik Hariri?). The ends may well justify the means, but I'm waiting for somebody to demonstrate that the current Administration's means have lead to these ends.

In fact, as far as I can see, the events presented as desirable outcomes of President Bush's far-sighted policies aren't the outcomes President Bush stated were his goals. From the "Axis of Evil," we've removed Iraq. In hindsight, Iraq was never a threat. We are repeating the actions we took prior to attacking Iraq, leading Iran to believe, justifiably, that they will be attacked. We've prompted North Korea to declare the existence of it's nuclear weapons and, apparently, convinced Kim Jong Il of our intent to attack North Korea, as well. Nowhere was there mention of Syria, Lebanon, or Egypt. Palestine was mentioned only in the expected/required weekly statement that Israel and Palestine should cease hostilities and return to negotiations. If one is to apply the "ends & means" test, shouldn't the ends in question be the ones the means were meant to accomplish?

Reagan will begin to sweeten once you get used to his benevolent smile beaming down from Rushmore.

Or when he appears on currency? ;-)

I don't think either is likely to happen any time soon.

Maybe his domestic policy is similarly foresighted.

It is foresighted. I'm just opposed to who it's set up to benefit in the long run (hint: if you didn't save over $10,000 with the Bush tax cuts, it's not you).

Good grief. Of course the ends accomplished needn't be the ones he meant to accomplish, so long as they are good ends he will reap the benefits, and rightly so. The president gets credit for what happened on his watch regardless of the role he played.
Determining causality is tricky business and people don't have that kind of time, so people tend to assign credit, or blame, with a generous hand.

Then we should also give lots of credit to Clinton for making the internet good.

Oh and to every president who hasn't had a major terrorist attack under his watch. ;-)

To make plainer the war example.

Consider Phelb^h^h^h^h^h WWII. Looking back just about everyone is in favour. But still it was at its core lots of naive young men killing other naive young men in pursuit of the honorable goal of not letting Hitler run things. That war also involved some deception on the part of the president to get us in on. Even before Pearl Harbor there was little doubt whose corner the American gov't was in.

Once we replace that woman with Reagan, the dollar coin will actually take off.

That is where the initial payoff is, it is true. But that money won't lie idle, it will buy yachts and limos that need captains, drivers, and cabin boys. Monies saved by corporations will go to increased hiring and wages. The mighty engine of the American Economy, already speeding, will hurtle toward the future, dragging the rest of the world economy (forward) in its wake.

Did you know D. Borst quit teaching and is in his first year of law school? Madness.

No. Money saved will fund moving jobs to cheaper-labor countries or executive compensation plans. From there it will go to dividend-earning investments because of crazily-lower taxes) or other funds to be passed on to the next generation of the privileged (secure with thoughts of no inheritance tax).

Of course, if you've studied economics, you'll point out that that money being available to businesses will lower interest rates and help spur business activity (as there will be a greater supply of available capital). Unfortunately, this is more than offset by the increased government borrowing that is at least partially a result of the tax cuts.

If you think about it from the other direction ... tax cuts for the poor and middle class yield increased spending for goods and services on a larger scale numerically. This creates business opportunity and thus also pushes the economy forward (along with additional social and economic benefits, but this comment is long enough already).

I never actually met D. Borst (yes, I'm an old man).

It would be nice if you decided to stop being pseudo-anonymous, though.

Maybe we can put his face on the 360 Billion dollar bill...

Nobody wants to carry a coin when there's a bill...replacing "that woman" won't change that fact.

Who are you?

A few words on means and ends.

"We cannot think first and act afterwards. From the moment of birth we are immersed in action and can only fitfully guide it by taking thought."
-Alfred North Whitehead

That perennial question, "Does the end justify the means?" is meaningless as it stands. the reald and only question regarding the ethics of means and ends is. and always has been, "Does this particular end justify this particular means?

Life and how you live it is the story of means and ends. The end is what you want and the means is how yuo get it. Whenever we think about social change the question of means and ends arises. The man of action views the issues of means and ends in pragmatic and strategic terms. He has no other problem; he thinks only of his actual resources and the possibilities of various courses of action. He asks of ends only whether they are achievable and worth the cost; of means, only whether they will work. To say that corrupt means currupt the ends is to believe in the immaculate conception of ends and principles. The real arena is corrupt and bloody. Life is a corrupting process from the time a child learns to play his mother against his father in the politcs of when to go to bed; he who fears corruption fears life.

Goethe said "Conscience is the virtue of observers and not of agents of action;" in action, one does not always enjoy the luxury of a decision that is consistent both with one's individual consciensce and the good of mankind. The choice must always be for the latter. Action is for mass salvation and not for the individual's person salvation. He who sacrifices the mass good for his personal conscience has a peculiar conception of "personal salvation"; he doesn't care enough for people to be "corrupted" for them.

I'd just like to note that this thinking contradicts Reformed theology.

Having just attempted to actually spend a dollar coin, I can report that every vending machine in this building is a Reaganista . . .