Some evidence Russ Feingold is opposed to the concept of war:
It's tough to claim opposition to the concept of war on one hand while being supportive of the means through which war is funded and stockpiled on the other.I guess it might possibly be, if that were really the case.
You know your argument is in serious jeopardy when you need to entirely fabricate a double standard in the very first sentence.
I suspect Senator Feingold is a relatively philosophical fellow and has studied and contemplated history and has, like many of us, come to the admittedly lamentable conclusion that preparedness for war, at least, is both inevitable and necessary.
And, as one of Wisconsin's federal representatives, he might be inclined to, where possible, secure those inevitable production jobs for his State and, once having done so, be further inclined to tout the success of that manufacturing facility in providing those jobs.
Would Russ Feingold be even more pleased if Oshkosh Corp. was a maker of papier-mâché flowers and Valentine's Day cards that play Kum ba ya when you open them up? Perhaps he might be. But, for better or ill, that isn't quite how humanity has tended to operate.
The author is majoring in political science and legal studies.Oh Dear Merciful God in Heaven Above.
3 comments:
He's harmless enough, we PoliSci folks never get real jobs after graduating.
You wrote:I suspect Senator Feingold is a relatively philosophical fellow and has studied and contemplated history and has, like many of us, come to the admittedly lamentable conclusion that preparedness for war, at least, is both inevitable and necessary.
HA! He is a jock! If you see him in person you would know that he is a serious jock. He cannot be considered by any stretch to be a philosophical fellow that would use words like 'lamentable' and 'preparedness'.
If you have not seen him,please attend one of his listening sessions. He is intelligent and thoughtful but he is a jock at heart.
Well I did say relatively philosophical, but I didn't say relative to whom. I've been to a listening session (and posed a question) and seen a few more online.
What I know of Feingold (and what I know of many others held in -- shall we say -- less high regard) I've always been very impressed with, as impressed as I've been with any national political figure.
He operates on principle. He's often "maligned" as a liberal but is actually quite conservative when it comes to, for example, distrust of the government's access to personal privacy.
It took a lot of constitutional courage to vote down the USAPATRIOT Act. While it's true that Feingold's position was supported by the ACLU, it was the conservative Rutherford Institute that published the most substantively scathing criticism of the Act, not the so-called "left" (there's no left in this country, except in the imagination of the average Fox News host).
And Feingold just signed a brief to the U.S. Supreme Court arguing -- among other things -- that the Second Amendment protects the right to arms in preparation for battle against international foes. Now how could a Tea Partyer not get behind that?
Anyway I don't believe being a jock and being philosophically minded are mutually exclusive.
Post a Comment