Barry, what you seem to miss in this discussion is that it is not about RULES you think Obama is so smart to ignore, it is about ideology, the core values of your political compass, a general framework from which an administration will make policy on a political spectrum from left to right. Everyone has a political compass from which they chart the course of their decisions in life. Whether you buy a red car or a blue car you base your decision on values, experience, what you feel attracts to that comports with your taste. Choosing red or blue has nothing to do with RULES. Find your political compass, everyone has one. http://www.politicalcompass.org/iconochasms
Many progressive liberals voted for Obama believing he would promote a liberal agenda. I supported Hillary believing she would promote a liberal agenda in the tradition of FDR and Truman because she had a history of advocating for women and children. She stood for something she believed in and I respected her for that. I have always been a Democrat and I supported Hillary believing she had the core values of a Democrat which comports with my values. I didn't support Obama because he had no history of standing for anything and I could not discern core Democratic values in him. I always thought he was an empty-suit that would blow in which ever direction the wind blew. And your discussion on this topic today affirms my suspicions of him. I never thought he was the liberal that some of the progressives thought he was. So if Sotomayor doesn't turn out to be the liberal SCOTUS that the left had hoped, I won't be as disappointed at they. Pragmatism in politics, yields weak leadership, and destroys trust of the people who voted for you. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_re...@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > This is an equally unsane response in my > > opinion. It brings us back to previous > > arguments on this forum between those who > > are committed to reliance on axioms and > > those who are committed to "doing the > > right thing," as it appears to be the > > right thing at the time, even if that > > goes against an axiom they believe in > > generally. > > > > I am of the opinion that the former approach > > (relying on axioms or dogma or moral codes > > exclusively) is equivalent to fundamentalism. > > And that thus it is not a Good Thing. > > > > One of the things that I most admire in Obama > > is that he is *NOT* committed to axioms. He > > is a pragmatist, one whose action in the > > moment considers all of the factors impinging > > on the decision at that moment. Some of these > > factors are axioms that he holds to be true, > > but others *are* pragmatic, and if one is > > committed to the concept of "doing the right > > thing," I don't see how they can support the > > fundamentalist notion of "always following the > > axioms." > > > > For example, as I mentioned before in a dis- > > cussion with Edg, and as he replied to by > > ignoring it completely :-), what if you believe > > in a general axiom of "Thou shalt not kill?" > > Now imagine that you -- believing that -- find > > yourself in a position where you have the oppor- > > tunity to kill a terrorist just before he sets > > off a bomb that could kill hundreds or thousands > > of people. > > > > What's a believer in axioms to do? > > > > A believer in pragmatism and being "in the moment" > > would assess the situation from *all* sides. The > > believer in "axioms only" would probably cause > > the deaths of hundreds or thousands of people. > > One learns a lot about "morality" and "codes > of conduct" and "axioms" and "rules" when work- > ing with Artificial Intelligence. Part of my > job is to work with "rule-based systems," for > example a Human Resources application based > on one of our products, JRules. > > Think about such a Human Resources system. It > is based -- by necessity, because laws are > involved, and heavy penalties for violating > them -- on a set of rules. Rules like "If you > miss too many days of work we can legally fire > you." Or "If you are caught with an unlicensed > piece of software on one of our computers we > *have to* fire you." > > The first thing you notice when you try to > implement such a rule-based system is that these > rules are *contradictory*. Some of them cannot > coexist at the same time, honoring both. For > example, does the rule about missing too many > days of work still apply if you contract a > serious illness? Does it apply if you are preg- > nant or caring for a newborn? Does the rule > about illegal software still apply if the person > was specifically asked to review it as part of > their job? (This last one actually came up in > one of the companies using our software; it > allowed them to come to a sane resolution of > the situation, whereas "following the rules" > would not have.) > > In AI rule-based systems, rules are not sacro- > sanct. They can't be, for the above reasons. > Rules can be "relaxed" or they can be broken. > When several rules conflict, and cannot all be > obeyed at the same time, rule-based systems show > the need for *prioritization* of the rules, and > for specifying *which* rules are more important. > > THIS is the process I am speaking about when I > rail against people who claim that "following > the rules" or "believing in axioms" or "being > true to one's campaign promises" or such guff > are Good Things. The people who believe this > are fundamentalists who obviously live in a > theoretical dream world and have never had > to implement a real-world rule-based system. > > If they had, they would know that it CANNOT > BE DONE. Rules *always* conflict. They are > created in private, in theory, by people who > invent them based on some theoretical and, of > necessity, partial view of the reality that > the rules are designed to "police." Then the > reality hits the fan, and the rules don't > work exactly as they were intended to. > > A fundamentalist would deal with that situation > by following the rules and considering them > sacrosanct, no matter what the real-world sit- > uation is. > > A pragmatist would realize that any axioms or > rules are *theoretical*, and that the real-world > situation and its various, ever-changing priorities > *take* priority. Given a choice between "following > the rules" and "doing the right thing," those who > blindly follow the rules almost never do the > right thing. >
