Skip to main content

Tom Cotton Should Go

(An excerpt from a hypothetical) Open Letter to Saddam Hussein (from sometime pre-2003 invasion):


It has come to our attention while observing the discussions concerning your possible programs of weapons of mass destruction that you may not fully understand our constitutional system.  Thus, we are writing to bring to your attention two features of our Constitution -- the power to make binding international agreements and the power to make war -- which you should seriously consider.
...


(In case you can't read between the lines, you are an idiot that could not possibly have asked any of the lawyers in your country that specialize in international law ... or your U.N. Ambassador ... or any 1L ... or even most high school students that paid attention in Civics ... or, you know, read the document yourself.)


(Also, this has absolutely nothing to do with internal politics, and you should ignore the fact that I'm a junior senator who just started my first term, that I actually don't know what the deal is going to be, and that, despite what might seem obvious wording in the Constitution, in practice the provisions I cited are not going to matter as far as the impact of the Executive decision.)


(And, to anybody else reading this open letter, I absolutely do not mean to scuttle any deal... except any besides the hypothetical one I would make, if anybody cared about my opinion.  Unlike the President, I love America, and I would only undercut the President if I thought it would make America stronger.  Really.  And that's what this letter is designed to do. I promise.)


Any Junior Democratic Senator

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The problem with fundamentalism, part 2: Religious fundamentalism

This is the second part of a two part series where I discuss the problems I see with two prevalent forms of fundamentalism (the first discussed Constitution and fundamentalism: http://amusingbeam.blogspot.com/2012/05/problem-with-fundamentalism-part-1.html ).  In this part, I will be discussing biblical fundamentalism.  I will be referring to sources more frequently here, as I cannot claim the expertise I could for the last installment. Let me start by saying that I understand this is an extremely controversial topic, especially the stance I am taking.  My goal is not to offend, but it is instead to discuss why I think a fundamentalist approach to the Bible (and, in some respects, any text) has insurmountable problems.  I think that most Fundamentalists I know are quite willing to discuss why they believe their hermeneutic approach is the correct one, so my hope is that they are equally sanguine when someone explains why that pathway seems problematic. Here is t...

Finding facts and data about COVID-19

It's easy to find thoughts on COVID-19, but hard to parse through it all.  This series is my attempt to give my view of the state of knowledge about COVID-19, as of late July and early August  through late 2020. Here are the entries (these will become links as I post the others): Finding facts and data about COVID-19 (this one) Why COVID-19 is much worse than the seasonal flu Testing, contact tracing, and quarantining The path to vaccines To wear a mask or not Deaths and long-term impacts Economic and secondary impacts Safely co-existing Bots and divisiveness Leadership You need to find reputable sources for data.  People are rightly skeptical of what they see online.  In fact, the World Health Organization has declared that, beyond the pandemic, there is an Infodemic, which is “a surge of information about COVID-19 that has made it hard for people to know which news and guidance about the virus is accurate.” If you are actually interested in how to find the best new...

Controlling speech is rarely the solution

This is the sixth installment of a series of posts on lessons we progressives should take on the election. The overview is here . We really need to stop trying to control speech.   I get it: Free speech is tough, and it always has been. We don’t make speech free because it is weak – we make it free because it is strong, and “bad” speech can be really hurtful.   But one of our societal values has been that we learn to have thick skin, and we don’t try to exercise control over what others say. This doesn’t mean that we don’t have counter-speech. Free speech isn’t speech without consequences , it’s speech without control .   So if you say something that is jerky, the correct response is for someone to say you are being a jerk, and that’s completely within the spirit of free speech, which goes both ways.   What is not okay is to say that the person cannot speak AT ALL. We should let people say hateful and hurtful things, and then get good people to denounce ...