George Will says he Obama administration has "Tincture of Lawlessness."

[Are_grits_groceries]

Anyone, said T.S. Eliot, could carve a goose, were it not for the bones. And anyone could govern as boldly as his whims decreed, were it not for the skeletal structure that keeps civil society civil -- the rule of law. The Obama administration is bold. It also is careless regarding constitutional values and is acquiring a tincture of lawlessness.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/13/AR2009051303014.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

Where was Will when the Bush administration was lawless??? They didn't have a tincture. They were brightly colored in lawlessness. I want to see him write a few columns about that. It's not like Cheney isn't out there giving him plenty of amunition.

[geckosfeet]

1. Will accusing the Obama administration of corruption. This is rich.

I can't stand this smarmy mama's boy - and this article has the flavor of vitriolic screed. It has the rank stink of racist hate and fear mongering for wannabe intellectuals. Wall street bankers with forelocks? Will expresses anti-semitic roots clearly and without reserve.

Will accuses Obama of everything from socialism to corruption to lawlessness to disregard for legal contracts. He should have finished up by saying Obama eats live kittens for breakfast.

[Demeter]

2. Will Is an Expert on This, so He Should Know!

Too bad he isn't in line for prosecution.

[hobbit709]

3. "Tincture of Lawlessness."

:wtf: is that? Does it come in a dark blue glass bottle like tincture of iodine or what?

[elleng]

6. Absinthe?

.

[RandomThoughts]

4. With a few thoughts on what is law, and lawlessness

Because of how many laws exist, and what law is, and the complexity of which actions, like contracts are 'law' and which are bought. I think on this topic alot. So without touching on specific issues Will brought up, but instead by talking about what law might be, I had this thought.


Maybe following the law

Includes, and may first be about, following the moral laws of just behavior between people. And if civil laws are set to make excuses to avoid moral actions, then it becomes a choice of laws. Protect the wealth of the status quo based on laws that used money to create the laws, or protect the many of society from unjust laws.

This is where the lawyer can fail, if he only thinks on written law without morale context. This is how insincere loop holes can be used to avoid the spirit of how a law was intended to solve a societal problem, or protect people from actions they themselves may not realize are wrong.

Of coarse within all this you have to decide what is morale. And if that decision should be made by the many people, or a few.

Might law be more then what is written, might it also be truths that are thought on, felt, and known, and also agreed upon by the society they govern or protect?

However, if a law was made by best good faith thought and reflection of a free society, then it would also uphold the spirit of what is best for society. While laws made in secret to protect a few, bought or coerced into existence, could be legal laws without the support of society, nor the creation of society, making them questionable as true laws.

wow, how could that be, with the importance of law, how could I make an argument that some laws might not have value? Because if I believed they did not have value, I would offer challenge to them in open forum, where open discussion could think and decide if true law is able to be bought or if it should be a consensus of what is best for society.

How could I think to believe in civil disobedience, when I support the reestablishment of law that was broken by the breeches of the Bush administration? I can do this because in the best effort view of society, and my own thoughts of what is right(which is why I do not decide, but instead believe society should, with real information and the learning, make the decisions necessary), the laws Bush ignored and broke were, when they were followed, both legal, reviewed, and followed the best spirit of moral behavior of society, as agreed upon by most of society in open forum.

So civil disobedience is a test of a law, to see if it also matches the societal standard, by that challenge, people see the law by the exposure the publicity gives it. From there many people can choose to change it or allow the law to stand. Note that civil disobedience actions are not based on not following law through secrecy, but by changing law by open discussion on its value in its current state. Bush however used secrecy, since he did not believe the law should be challenged, just ignored.

Through civil disobedience and breaking laws, you actually support law if done in the open willing to accept consequences, in an effort to change laws if they are deemed unjust.

So in Will's comments on contract law, it is possible some people believe the changing of contract law, or union contracts(since that is commonly done also), by the claim that the contracts may not be for the good of society, that fact, leads to those laws being challenged. And then in the light of that challenge, the distribution they enforce can be viewed by 'many' and society can decided if it should stand or if it is unjust and should be changed.



EDIT:
Bush by breaking laws of wars of aggression, and torture, has challenged many laws, if there is no consequences to his actions, then his uncivil disobedience has defeated the laws in the view of society. And those laws no longer exist. So what does society say about his comment by action that those laws should not exist? What say society on the view of torture and wars of aggression? What world should we all live in?

What say society on not enforcing environmental protections? What say society on using the justice department to further the gains of the Bush Political party? What say society on thwarting investigations from SEC into bank fraud and a form of theft from pensions to a few bankers?

Should the laws Bush has claimed should not exist, be allowed to fall?

And in the context of Will's comment, and from the other side, should laws of distribution systems, that have hurt all of society, be allowed to be changed.

[izquierdista]

5. Absolutely right!

The erudite Mr. Swill should know that "tincture" is a dilute solution, which after the full strength stuff of the Bush years, is a welcome change. I hope that Obama can continue to dilute the lawlessness of the Bushies, until they reach the method detection limit.

[Hamlette]

7. The dishonest right strikes again, catch this "lie" from the column

In February, California's Democratic-controlled Legislature, faced with a $42 billion budget deficit, trimmed $74 million (1.4 percent) from one of the state's fastest-growing programs, which provides care for low-income and incapacitated elderly people and which cost the state $5.42 billion last year. The Los Angeles Times reports that "loose oversight and bureaucratic inertia have allowed fraud to fester."

But the Service Employees International Union collects nearly $5 million a month from 223,000 caregivers who are members. And the Obama administration has told California that unless the $74 million in cuts are rescinded, it will deny the state $6.8 billion in stimulus money.

end quote

Will writes these two paragraphs so ppl who are not paying attention will think the union stands to lose $5 million a month.

Actually, the cutback is 1.4% of $5 million a month or about $70,000. Not $5,000,000.

So, with the HONEST numbers in that paragraph, that the union stands to lose $70,000 of its $5,000,000 from these union members, do you think Obama's actions were prompted by:

1. Saving the union 1.4%, a small portion of its dues from caregivers, not all members, just caregivers. OR

2. The fact that California was cutting $74 million in medical aid to INCAPACITATED people????? The most vulnerable among us.

[Supersedeas]

14. same ole George -- stealing Carter's debate prep and handing them to his GOP handlers

[Arkana]

8. Right.

Is that so? Then I guess George Will has "Tincture of Whinypantslosercausemyguylostandlostbadly".

[grantcart]

11. Actually he went way beyond 'tincture'

a slight infusion, as of some element or quality: A tincture of education had softened his rude manners



Not a slight infusion but a complete overblown invasion.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

9. How I will celebrate the day George Will and Cokie Roberts retire

(and Maureen Dowd, too) and we won't have to listen to any more of their empty, self-important posturings.

[Jennicut]

12. Me too. Are there any two reporters on Earth who have less of a soul then these two?

They truly are so empty its pathetic.

[old mark]

10. Well, George, I see you are still an asshole...at least you are consistant. nt

[Orsino]

13. Obama should check himself...

...when he makes George Will look sorta-almost correct. Will is a hypocrite's hypocrite.