A really interesting blog post from Stanley Fish. Thought you all might find it engaging.
Adam, this might be something interesting to raise in your literature and law class this semester. Just thinking.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Way Better Blogs
Posts
Blog Archive
-
▼
2009
(121)
-
▼
January
(11)
- "Cello Scrotum" turns out to be a hoax
- The Apple Wheel
- The Bacon Explosion!!
- Meathead Alert!
- Well Done NY Times
- Mike's Hard Lemonade....Really?
- A Pirate Boogaloo!!
- Spain to take on Jesuit Murders
- Why do we do some of the things we do?
- I Don't Know If This Is A Good Idea
- "Don't tell me what I know and don't know; I know ...
-
▼
January
(11)
4 comments:
This is interesting, but as usual, Fish is arguing about categories rather than events or relationships. He's right that Burris isn't being seated because of a "taint" (*snicker*), but the taint is not merely Blago's lack of virtue. It is the process of selecting the person to fill the position to which Burris has been appointed that is tainted. Fish is quite right to take Reid et al. to task for saying "Blagojevich appointed this guy. Blagojevich is bad. Therefore, this appointment is bad." I don't think that's entirely what they're saying, though. I mean, they're not saying Blagojevich is bad because he solicited a hooker or bought cocaine with taxpayer dollars. They're saying he's bad because he's on record trying to manipulate the appointment process to his personal financial gain.
This is not a question of virtue. It's a question of the integrity of the process. Blago's appointment shouldn't be ignored because he's ethically impure. It should be ignored because he's been ethically irresponsible in making the appointment.
That's a fair point. But what I wonder is if "the process" were investigated more rigorously throughout the country how many other politicians could be accused of making similarly compromising decisions? That is, to say, is this appointment "tainted" because Blagojevich made the process unethical, or simply because he got caught making the process unethical. My guess is that this quid pro quo happens much more (albeit not as explicitly) than anyone would like to admit.
By the way, I'm not really trying to defend the man (especially because he's making even British poetry look bad now!), I just think it was an interesting distinction that Fish was pointing to.
I agree w/ Grawlix. This appointment is tainted. Blagojevich is indicted exactly because he sought to manipulate, and gain from, the Senate appointment. In any other situation, Burriss is probably an excellent appointment. But when the process has been sullied, anyone appointed under that banner is suspect.
Further, to contest what Fish is saying, I don't think it's fair to take a person's entire life story into account when judging the "worthiness" of their actions. But in cases of elected officials, certainly from the time said office was attained, ie inauguration, they are to be held accountable.
In answer to Paddy, I think you're right. This probably happens a lot, although it is probably a bit more subtle. Not to excuse that it happens. But yes, Blago is in trouble specifically because he got caught. Something his stupidity didn't help, ie telling his associates on the phone "you gotta act like everyone's listening" while being recorded.
Post a Comment