The whole piece is pretty great, and I urge everyone to read it. I picked out this part because I think that the responsibilities of citizenship need to emphasized. It is a weak to lambaste crooked politicians, while doing nothing to rid ourselves of them. It is demagoguery to blame Washington (or Austin) and pretend as though you have zero say in who gets to live there. Take back your name.This is not only a problem for Rick Perry. We live in a democracy. It's on all of us. If Texas really did kill an innocent man, that's a terrible tragedy. But if Texas and its governor lack the courage to face the truth and deal squarely with it, the tragic act will be magnified by deep and lasting disgrace, and we will all stand condemned by our collective moral cowardice
« The Slow Jam As A Battle Rap | Main | Pick 'Em Ratings! » Texas Justice30 Oct 2009 04:15 pm
Rod Dreher offers up some, even if Rick Perry can't:
Comments (19)Post a comment |
Today's Headlines From The Atlantic |
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
L'etat c'est moi. Or from a less royalist pov, we get the government we deserve.
I agree with this. Most people, when it gets down to it, seem to be fine with torture too
L'etat, c'est nous.
Well, and I would argue -- as I have already argued here and at my own place re: Roman Polanski http://emilylhauserinmyhead.wordpress.com/2009/10/01/roman-polanski-and-us/ -- that even before we get to the question of the crime committed (the execution of an innocent man, or the rape of a child), we have to ask a simple question: Do our laws mean something, or don't they? Does the American system of justice matter to us, or not?
I'm a life-long Democrat who opposes the death penalty under any circumstance, and no one is particularly surprised to learn that people like me have a particularly powerful sense of repulsion over this case -- but every American, of any political stripe, should be horrified. This is bad for all of us, no matter if we are in Texas, Illinois, or Alaska.
Either our legal system means something, or we can do away with it at will. Either it matters whether a person has actually committed the crime of which s/he has been accused, or not. It is -- and I say this quite genuinely -- un-American to think that any person or any idea is above the law.
And "innocent until proven guilty" is a fairly important piece of the American legal framework.
I'm sorry, I hate to be cynical about this, but they simply don't for a meaningful amount of cases.
Here's the thing: when people get scared, the veneer of civilization starts to get pretty thin. And crime scares people. They get a very skewed feel about crime because it's the sensational murder type cases that get reported. And I don't even blame the media for reporting them because a sensational murder really is news, despite or because of its being pretty rare. Where media should be blamed is not pounding home the true level of crime, but to be honest I'm not sure that would help. For most people, if you read that crime is down and then read about a murder, its the murder that sticks in your gut-level feelings about law and punishment.
Ok, you're right, but at the same time: Isn't that what we're supposed to be fighting? I mean, the union won't perfect itself on its own -- and I think this may be TNC's point, or at least part of it. If this matters to us, and it should, we need to take back our name. Not just point to the failures of the system.
Dreher has written a lot of silly, and at times in my opinion glibly harmful things, but on this he is on point (though I don't quite get given his Christian belief system why for him eye for an eye trumps other forms of punishment). This article reminds me, however, that people with whom I fundamentally disagree on most issues have something to say that should make me pause before casting judgment in ad hominem fashion, and I can't help but admire how TN by his example extends the possibilities for us.
Dude, it's a labor. A constant labor. And I screw up a lot. I flame people in comments when i shouldn't. I take things personal when I shouldn't. And I end often saying, "My fault, that was too harsh" or even "My fault, I was wrong to say that."
If I thought it easy, it wouldn't be worth mentioning. But then, it's why you're making the big bucks.
And I, for one, am grateful that TNC gets properly compensated and thus wakes up every morning atop his reservoir of filthy billions before taking a leisurely money swim, Scrooge McDuck style.
More seriously, thank you, TNC, for doing the hard work of sorting wheat from chaff in these intertoobz. Dreher is definitely one I pass on unless you or Sully to referrence him, but the referrals never disappoint. Momentary glimmers of classy conservatism are rare treasures.
the hard work is much appreciated, and I think that making these kinds of errors/slips in public and then caring enough to make it right sets an important example. All too often people don't try to learn new things, to extend themselves into the unknown, because they fear making mistakes and looking foolish. But without this kind of disciplined ethical labor we are doomed to more of the same. And as you have noted earlier without the passion, dare i say love, the work will fail to move/inspire. that said next time someone throws out comments about raping black children I vote for less leniency and more hammer.
You have no idea how refreshing it is to see this. EVERYBODY should be aware of this, and how it resounds in them. It sure does in me. I wish I could remember it more often.
I co-sign this.
The curse of cynicism. Texans seem so used to corrupt, manipulative politicians that they seem to put up with them for generation after generation.
Likewise, both Afghanistan and Iraq have been ruled by the flagrantly corrupt for centuries. Yet, we interfere with them either by accepting the corruption (Cheney & the CIA, apparently) or by assuming that they'll change overnight if we just set a good example (Bush, Wolf, and the fools they put in charge of American "aid.")
Yup, that's us. We're just so used to our corrupt state government (you know, about as much as NY, Chicago, all of New Jersey and Louisiana voters are) we've just given up entirely on electing anyone new. I'm so sick of defending my state against people who have no clue what they're talking about. Yes Perry's a jackass and he needs to run the Willingham case by independent observers and we need to reconcile or remove the death penalty from our justice system, but lay off on "people just need to do this" or "people need to do that". We tried to vote him out, and we failed. We're going to try again. He doesn't need a majority to win the governorship. At some point, look at the rules and tell me how all us cynics down here in Texas are keeping Perry around. And come on, generations? At least we have political movement between parties, unlike some states. Two words: Ann Richards.
Anyway, sorry, that has nothing to do with my broader point. The idea of corruption that we just ladle about without regard for what it means.
I've always found "corruption" to be a silly charge to level against anyone, because it means so little. What we mean when we say "corruption" is something far more mundane and sinister at the same time. No one just becomes corrupt. It happens over time. Corruption is a massive gray area, full of half-made choices, white lies, simple gifts and stupid decisions that sometimes end up snowballing into full-blown networks (see NJ). Corruption reigns where the law is least explicit.
To call the Willingham case "corruption" is wrong. Perry is covering his ass. Perry is nepotistic. Perry is despicable and immoral for his actions on re: Willingham. But Perry is not corrupt.
/off soapbox
The Dallas Morning News had a good front page article summarizing and chronicling the case.
It is a weak to lambaste crooked politicians, while doing nothing to rid ourselves of them.
What is it that we should be doing? The most obvious answer is to elect different politicians, but a choice among two parties generally does a very poor job of spanning the space of problems to be solved. What do you do when the representatives of both parties have failed, e.g. Guantanamo? How does one build a political coalition strong enough to effect real change on one topic when so many choose to spend what influence they have on any of dozens of other issues that they prioritize? These are ludicrously difficult questions, from where I stand; I think their difficulty are at the root of much cynicism and complaint.
"What is it that we should be doing?" if you pay attention to the parts of this blog, including the comments, that aren't caught up in "demagoguery" you will come in contact with valuable insights into the many ways in which people here are seeking to create/enjoy meaningful experiences and commmited relationships. Sometimes these have do with direct acts of obvious political significance, dealing with politicians/political systems. But more often with questions of what choices/activities bring value to one's daily life, to one's community. If you start to focus your efforts at this kind of personal/daily scale than the questions are less "ludicrously difficult" but more significant, in that one can have an actual impact. So to borrow a phrase the personal is political and personal choices have a kind of ripple effect in the public realm. The best way to 'convert' people is by offering them a living example of a life worth living. Together we can offer each other a variety of perspectives and experiences, and become a kind of collective of ethical experimenters (or if you prefer existential detectives) in the possibilities and difficulites of living a good life, from entertainment to political organizing, or not.