Lady Sheherazahde's Journal

(via fritterfae) Ah The Onion the print media version of The Daily Show



"Some moderates who believe the country is not yet ready for full homosexual library-card access are proposing to state and local lawmakers a compromise solution in the form of a limited-access "Short-Term Government Literacy Loan" card. While the card would grant some borrowing privileges, it would have higher late-return penalties, shorter borrowing times, and may not be recognized as valid by all libraries within the municipality in which it was issued."

It's Time to Appoint a Special Prosecutor to Investigate the President's Actions With Respect to the NSA's Warrantless Wiretapping
By JENNIFER VAN BERGEN
----
Wednesday, Mar. 01, 2006

The debate in Congress - and in the media - over the NSA surveillance program has ranged over many specific subtopics, but in the end, it comes down to one fundamental question:

Did the President break the law?

In this column, I will analyze this question - and argue that, indeed, he did.

I will also argue that, accordingly, an independent special prosecutor must be appointed to investigate and, if appropriate, prosecute those responsible for the violation -- including the President and those who knowingly carried out his orders in violation of the law. And the proper response, after that, may well be impeachment.

The President's Duty is To Uphold the Law - Not Break It
( Read more... )
It's Time for a Special Prosecutor to Be Appointed

Congressional investigation of the NSA matter may occur - there have been promising signs - but even if it does, a special prosecutor should be appointed as soon as possible.

The President didn't just ignore FISA: He committed a crime by violating it.

An intentional violation of FISA is a felony, punishable by "a fine of not more than $10,000 or imprisonment for not more than five years, or both."

That means not only that the President appears to have committed a crime, but also that he appears to have committed an impeachable offense. An indictable offense qualifies as among the high crimes or misdemeanors for which impeachment is possible.

With the Executive plainly subject to an intense conflict of interest, the appointment of an independent special prosecutor - as occurred in the Valerie Plame leak case - is necessary. But unlike in the leak case, here, the entire Executive branch, including the Department of Justice, is implicated. So, to ensure fairness, Congress or a court must mandate the appointment.

If the President can intentionally violate the laws of this nation, then the fundamental structure of our government has been forever altered.

WARNING! Satire! (via kenshardik)


( Read more... )

and then there is this

The world is not a fair place, it gives us no guarantees of fairness, but it is part of our social contract to try to be fair with each other. We say that we want what is fair, but that isn't true. We want what is best for us, but we will settle for what is fair. Fairness is a social virtue.

In his book, "Moral Politics: What conservatives know that liberals don't", George Lakoff gives this definition of fairness. "Fairness is about the equitable distribution of objects of value (either positive of negative value) according to some accepted standard."

In short, moral action is fair distribution.
He lists ten models of fairness. I will reproduce his list here:
1. "Equality of distribution (one child one cookie)"
2. "Equality of opportunity (one person, one raffle ticket)"
3. "Procedural distribution (playing by the rules determines what you get)"
4. "Rights based fairness (you get what you have a right to)"
5. "Need-based fairness (the more you need the more you have a right to)"
6. "Scalar distribution (the more you work, the more you get)"
7. "Contractual distribution (you get what you agree to)"
8. "Equal distribution of responsibility (we share the burden equally)"
9. "Scalar distribution of responsibility (the greater your abilities, the greater your responsibilities)"
10. "Equal distribution of power (one person, one vote)"

I believe that there are fewer basic models, and many of the ones he listed were variations on others. Here is how I describe the basic models of fairness.
"Equal distribution" (everyone receives an "object" of equal value)
- Equal distribution of opportunity (one person, one chance) (2)
- Equal distribution of responsibility (one person, one task) (8)(10)
- Equal distribution of resources (one person, one cookie) (1)
"Scalar distribution" (the greater the qualification, the greater the compensation) (you get what you deserve)
- Scalar distribution by need (the more you need, the more you get) (5)
- Scalar distribution by ability (the more you have, the more you get) (9)
- Scalar distribution by virtue (the more you give, the more you get back) (6)
"Procedural distribution" (the rules determine what you get)
- Procedural distribution by right (you get what the culture has decide you are entitled to) (3) (4)
- Procedural distribution by contract (you get what you have agreed to get)(7)
- Procedural distribution by might (in the absence of rules you get what others can't stop you from taking) (you get what you can take)

One thing that is obvious from this is that it is possible for something to be fair in one model and unfair in a different model. While it is possible for different models to produce the same results, it is more likely that they will produce different results. When people using different models come to different conclusions as to what is fair it is unlikely that the issue will be resolved to the satisfaction of both. When we do not feel that we have been treated fairly we call that injustice.

Because conflicting models of fairness exist it is not possible for everyone to feel fairly treated all the time, injustice is unavoidable. It is inevitable that someone will feel that they were not treated fairly. As long as there is more than one model of fairness this will never change.