3.14159265 …

The area of the circle of the barrel of a gun

The Third Geneva Convention forbids the inhumane treatment of prisoners of war. This treaty was signed by nearly everybody — more than 120 nations — including the United States, whose ratification of it made it legally binding in this country.

The Third Geneva Convention provides an unambiguous legal framework, so it becomes an obvious first response to the appalling question: Why is torture unacceptable?

Torture is unacceptable because it is illegal. You're not allowed to torture another human being.

That's a sufficient answer — it clearly and categorically explains that torture is, in fact, forbidden. But it is not a complete answer.

The legal framework provided by the Geneva Conventions is not the only, nor the primary, reason that torture is unacceptable. The Third Geneva Convention was officially adopted in 1929 (and revised in 1949), putting this legal framework into place. Does that mean that torture was OK — permissible, acceptable, human and humane — before 1929?

No. The Third Geneva Convention did not create the prohibition against torture, but rather acknowledged it and enshrined it in international law. This legal recognition of the prohibition is a source of authority for its enforcement, but it is not, in itself, the source of the prohibition.

What, then, is that source?

The prohibition against torture arises from the dignity of the individual, which exists independent from and prior to any legal framework, national or international.

Some people know this, and some do not.

In 1929, 128 nations officially adopted the Third Geneva Convention, mandating and encoding, among other things, the prohibition against torture. Good for them. But those 128 nations no more had the power to create such a prohibition than they would have had the power to deny its existence.

It is simply a matter of fact, like the value of pi. The value of pi is not dependent on your knowledge, recognition, acceptance of or opinion about its existence. You are free to ignore it, to reject it, to prefer that it were something other than what it is. But you are powerless to change it or to cause it not to be. The same is true for the dignity and rights of the individual.

Some people know this and some people do not. But its truth, again, is not dependent on their knowing it.

There will always be those who claim this is not the case.

"I have a bigger gun than you do," they say, "so what I say goes." And by authority of this brute strength they may claim that individuals possess no rights nor dignity other than what they deign to allow. By authority of this brute strength they may claim that the area of a circle is equal to the square of the radius times the age of the king's oldest daughter. By the authority of this brute strength they may claim that black is white, up is down, freedom is slavery and ignorance is truth. And with enough power, enough brute strength, they may be able, for a time, to pretend that this is so and to force others to pretend as well. They can create a fantastic world of make-believe and force others to live in it, but they cannot change reality itself.

No one has a big enough gun to do that.

The area of a circle is πr2.

You're not allowed to torture another human being.

You're not allowed to kill civilians.

Whether you like it or not.

  • L

    You’ve drifted off the subject. (As did I, since I let you draw me there.) Bugmaster had made a point about rights. You provided what you thought was a counterexample, based on your claim of its universal practice (although not acceptance) in society and history. The fact is that there are many such practices about which the same can be said which are clearly not rights. I gave you some examples. Therefore, you cannot claim abortion — or, more to the point, anything at all, including free speech — as a right on that basis. That simply isn’t what a right is.

  • bulbul

    You can’t judge the validity of what you want to call a “right” by its historical prevalence.
    and
    That simply isn’t what a right is.
    Actually, I would argue that it is. There are countless of examples of various proclamations of indepence, declarations renouncing allegiance, letters of grievances and rebellion and various other historical documents in which people assert their rights based solely on tradition and what you call historical prevalence.

  • aunursa

    As opposed to not being entitled to the Geneva protections.
    Which means… what exactly? For example, the Nazis tortured and shot every ‘illegal combatant’. The current administration leaves the shooting part out and replaces it by jailing them without trial. So what if someone is not entitled to the protection under Geneva?
    It just means that the prisoner is not entitled to rights on the basis of the Geneva Convention. It doesn’t necessarily mean that the prisoner has no rights. It doesn’t mean that the detaining power can do anything it wants. The prisoner may enjoy rights that are covered other (national or international) laws or treaties.

  • Jesurgislac

    You’ve drifted off the subject. (As did I, since I let you draw me there.)
    True. ;-)
    You provided what you thought was a counterexample, based on your claim of its universal practice (although not acceptance) in society and history. The fact is that there are many such practices about which the same can be said which are clearly not rights. I gave you some examples.
    None of which were in any way equivalent to abortion, of course, since all were based on the misperceived idea that for a woman to have the right to bodily autonomy is somehow equivalent to a violent criminal attack on someone else.
    This is actually a good example of how rights work: there are Christians who argue that a same-sex couple’s right to marry is an attack on their right to religious freedom: just as there are men who argue that a woman’s right to choose is somehow an attack on their right to make decisions for a woman. (This applies, of course, equally to “men’s right’s activists” who commonly want the right to be able to tell a woman to have an abortion, as well as to “pro-lifers” who commonly do not care about decreasing abortions or about child welfare, but only about punishing sexually active women.)
    Therefore, you cannot claim abortion — or, more to the point, anything at all, including free speech — as a right on that basis. That simply isn’t what a right is.
    Actually, it is – once you stop comparing basic human rights to criminal behavior. You’re trying to argue that we can compare human attempts to take things (or rights) from other people (such as “pro-lifers”, anti-marriage Christians, wife-beaters, child abusers, thieves, slave-owners, murderers) with people asserting their own right: women choosing to terminate unwanted pregnancies, same-sex couples getting married, women choosing to divorce, children being listened to about child abuse, slaves running away from their owners – and of course the right of people not to be stolen from, not to be murdered.

  • aunursa

    You are making the classic mistake of every fundie
    You are descending into namecalling and stereotyping. [sigh]
    You seem to want to believe that there is a third situation, where the detaining power can be certain that their captive is not a PoW: but there is nothing in the text of the Convention to support that notion.
    I’m just asking if there is anything in the text that invalidates such an understanding.

  • Wool

    Jesurgislac writes:
    ————————-
    L, believe me, I know that no argument will convince people who think of women as incubators that the right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy is a basic human right.
    ————————-
    You’re apparently not much good at listening to people who don’t see the world in so strictly black-and-white a way as you do. That might be why none of your arguments convince them.
    There’s a lot of room in the grays in between the positions for meaningful conversation and perhaps even convincing.
    Insisting that “it’s an either-or position” forces people to take sides, and a lot of them – even ones like myself who in a court or a legislature would likely support what you’d like to see – aren’t going to choose your side.
    But then, you know you’re right, and everyone who believes differently… oh well.

  • Beth

    I’d like to return to the concept of inalienable rights, which some seem to have misunderstood. If you have inalienable rights to life and liberty, that doesn’t mean I can’t kill or enslave you; it only means that if I do, I’m violating your rights, no matter what our government says about it.
    I’ve always taken “endowed by their creator” as poetic fancy, intended to convey that these are inherent rights. They aren’t be granted by kings or priests, and can’t be removed by them (they’re un/inalienable). In social studies class, they always distinguished between “rights” and “privileges”. The former are absolute and exist no matter what the government says, while the latter exist only when authority chooses to bestow them. (Driving, we were taught, is not a right but a privilege.)
    BTW, the Declaration doesn’t start with “We The People”; that’s the Constitution. The Declaration begins, “When, in the course of human events….”

  • Jesurgislac

    Aunursa; I’m just asking if there is anything in the text that invalidates such an understanding.
    Weren’t you (earlier) arguing that if it wasn’t in the text, it wasn’t there?
    Nowhere in the text does it say that the detaining power can just decide, without bothering with a competent tribunal, that a captive is not entitled to be treated as a prisoner of war.
    Further, we have the recent and real world example of what happens when a detaining power ignores Article 5 and declares captives not to be prisoners of war without the process of a competent tribunal to determine their status: Guantanamo Bay, where it is acknowledged even by US military tribunals that many of the captives there were wrongly imprisoned.

  • L

    Jesurgislac, you still aren’t hearing me at all. Pro-life advocates are convinced — absolutely convinced — that abortion is precisely a “violent attack on someone else”. That is the entire basis of their position. It’s not about anyone’s “bodily autonomy” since the fetus is not seen as part of the woman’s body. To come at it from that direction is to entirely miss the point.
    And you still have not noticed that in terms of “rights” you haven’t come up with a convincing definition. You appear to be saying that they’re behaviors that are evinced in every human society in all historical eras — as long as you approve of them (abortion, free speech) but not if you don’t (murder, theft.) That’s not good enough. If you’re going to posit “rights” as an abstract moral entity, you need more to go on than your (or anyone else’s) personal approval.

  • bulbul

    You are descending into namecalling and stereotyping. [sigh]
    Nope, identifying a problem.
    In any case, I apologize for the ‘fundie’ part. I didn’t mean to say you were a fundie, just that in this particular instance you think like one.

  • bulbul

    Pro-life advocates are convinced — absolutely convinced — that abortion is precisely a “violent attack on someone else”. That is the entire basis of their position. It’s not about anyone’s “bodily autonomy” since the fetus is not seen as part of the woman’s body.
    Sorry L, I can’t remember if you were around for and took part in the great Empathy (part 4) debate of 2006. If you didn’t, then you missed the part where Jesurgislac argues that not even the pro-life advocates believe that the fetus is “someone else”, i.e. a person.

  • bulbul

    I’m just asking if there is anything in the text that invalidates such an understanding.
    Here’s an idea: why don’t you go and read the text and tell us when you find out.

  • bulbul

    I’ve always taken “endowed by their creator” as poetic fancy, intended to convey that these are inherent rights. They aren’t be granted by kings or priests, and can’t be removed by them.
    Exactly. To push the metaphor Bugmaster and I have been using: I say that even if both the US and the EU decided to revoke the articles of their basic laws which protect freedom of speech, I would still have that right. Bugmaster says that should that happen, the right to free speech would simply cease to exist.
    In social studies class, they always distinguished between “rights” and “privileges”.
    That’s a good point. A perfect example from the Middle Ages: per its founding charter as a Free Royal City, my hometown and its citizens had the right to elect a city council and a mayor and thus govern their own affairs. The town and its citizens also had the privilege to force every merchant traveling through the city to sell his merchandise to any of the town’s citizens at a ‘reasonably low’ price. The abovementioned right was violated several times, but in the end always upheld. The abovementioned privilege was revoked some time in the 17th century.
    Then again, the line between rights and privileges can be very thin. Consider marriage: until relatively recently, some people had to obtain a permission to marry, either from their employers or from their families. Such permission could be – and indeed often was – denied.

  • Jesurgislac

    L: Jesurgislac, you still aren’t hearing me at all.
    Actually, I was trying to change the subject back to “rights”.
    Pro-life advocates are convinced — absolutely convinced — that abortion is precisely a “violent attack on someone else”.
    Of course I don’t believe that “pro-life” activists really believe this: they don’t in any way act as if they do, only as if this is a convenient and good-sounding excuse for persecuting women for having sex. We discussed this to death, as Bulbul points out, in Empathy (part 4), not even six months ago. I doubt if any of the regulars want to revisit the argument. Ampersand of Alas a Blog outlined the problems any serious person has with believing the “pro-life” claim about a week after the argument began on Slacktivist.

  • L

    The only “pro-life activist” I know personally believes exactly as I described, but it would not be surprising to learn that he’s atypical. Most of those I know who are pro-life are not activists, and also see it the same way.
    I looked at that blog with the table. Not a single line on it represents the pro-life position per se with any fairness. Some of them aren’t even characteristically pro-life. No wonder it comes to the conclusion it does. It’s designed to lead the reader down a garden path. It describes portions of the neocon agenda fairly well, but very few pro-lifers I know are neocons.
    But again, you skipped around the main point, which is that what you have chosen to call a “basic human right” is predicated on a completely arbitrary standard. It’s logically fallacious.

  • bulbul

    which is that what you have chosen to call a “basic human right”
    Which one would that be?
    completely arbitrary standard
    I.e. “the historical prevalence”?

  • none

    Not a single line on it represents the pro-life position per se with any fairness. Some of them aren’t even characteristically pro-life. No wonder it comes to the conclusion it does. It’s designed to lead the reader down a garden path.
    Yep.

  • Beth

    I agree that historical prevalence is not a good yardstick for determining basic human rights. Otherwise, we’d have to include rape as a human right, since it’s been not only widely practiced, but socially supported in many parts of the world through many periods of history. I also don’t believe that abortion is a “basic human right,” only that it can’t be outlawed without violating basic human rights like the right to bodily autonomy and the right to reproductive autonomy. I think most people can easily recognize basic human rights when applied to themselves (even if they can be remarkably blind about them in relation to others), and most would be outraged if the government tried to tell them what they can and cannot do with their own bodies, or to dictate their reproductive choices.
    Consider marriage
    I don’t see that as a basic human right either, for the same reason I don’t see killing civilians as a “basic human wrong.” Both deal with societal constructs, and therefore cannot be ‘inherent’. I don’t even see how basic human rights require it, as is the case with abortion. Rather, it comes down to a question of justice. Society and government choose to recognize some committed domestic partnerships and grant special benefits to those who engage in them. It is unjust and wrong to arbitrarily deny those benefits to certain classes of people.

  • L

    I.e. “the historical prevalence”?
    Not just that, or Jesurgislac would be forced to concede many atrocious behaviors as basic rights.

  • bulbul

    Both deal with societal constructs
    Again, our entire society is a construct, starting with our institutions and all the way down to our language (shut it, Chomsky fans). The whole concept of “rights” is ‘artificial’ and human societies could very well be ruled by the principle of the strongest.
    I also don’t believe that abortion is a “basic human right,”
    Neither do I. But I do believe that making choices concerning one’s body is one of the many things which fall under the heading of “liberty”.
    Society and government choose to recognize some committed domestic partnerships and grant special benefits to those who engage in them.
    I’ll get to that once I get some sleep. For now, two questions: Does marriage necessarily include any benefits? And what about the right to own property, is that a societal construct, too?
    It is unjust and wrong to arbitrarily deny those benefits to certain classes of people.
    Ok, what about being treated fairly? Is that a right?

  • L

    Beth: Yes, we’re on much firmer grounds discussing these things in terms of justice (or perhaps wisdom) rather than “rights”. “Rights” has become so over-used in recent decades that it’s almost meaningless.

  • Beth

    bulbul,
    The whole concept of “rights” is ‘artificial’
    That would be Bugmaster’s position, but I thought you believed the opposite.
    Does marriage necessarily include any benefits?
    Definitely, in the US at least. It includes tax breaks, insurance coverage, etc.
    And what about the right to own property, is that a societal construct, too?
    Yes, although denying someone property which is necessary to their survival would violate another basic human right.
    Ok, what about being treated fairly? Is that a right?
    That’s one I’ll have to sleep on.
    L,
    “Rights” has become so over-used in recent decades that it’s almost meaningless.
    Sadly, I agree.

  • Bugmaster

    Bah, I always get the opening lines of the Declaration and the Constitution confused.
    Anyway, let’s pretend for a moment that free speech is an innate human right that exists independently of our social conventions. Humans are endowed with free speech in the same way they are endowed with mass or height. However, in the empire of North Oppressia, free speech is ruthlessly suppressed by the government; the few dissidents who dare exercise their innate right are sent to concentration camps or shot. Let’s call this grim scenario “Situation A”.
    Compare Situation A to Situation B: free speech is a social convention. As it happens, North Oppressia does not subscribe to this convention. Free speech is considered immoral and is highly illegal; the government ruthlessly oppresses the few dissidents who disagree, usually by shooting them or sending them to concentration camps.
    What’s the practical difference between A and B ? How could we even tell which situation is taking place in our world: A or B ? And if there’s no practical difference, what does Occam’s Razor tell you ?

  • Jesurgislac

    Bugmaster: What’s the practical difference between A and B ? How could we even tell which situation is taking place in our world: A or B ?
    If free speech is a societal convention, and North Oppressia does not have that societal convention, then virtually no one except people who were brought up outside North Oppressia social conventions will feel any need to exercise free speech. Cannibalism is a social convention; the US does not have that social convention, and the number of people in the US who eat other human beings each year is… well, something less than a whole number, I think. (In cultures where cannibalism is a social convention, accepted and fully supported, most people are cannibals…)
    If free speech is an innate human right that exists independently of our social conventions, North Oppressia will have to continually keep shooting people and imprisoning people for exercising free speech: not all their attempts to impose their authority will be able to suppress free speech entirely.
    That’s how you could tell the difference. Which do you think is the case?

  • Jesurgislac

    L, I’m just choosing to abandon the pro-choice/”pro-life” argument, without prejudice, since I’m finding the “rights” argument much more interesting. OK?

  • aunursa

    Weren’t you (earlier) arguing that if it wasn’t in the text, it wasn’t there?
    With regard to rights specified, yes.
    Nowhere in the text does it say that the detaining power can just decide, without bothering with a competent tribunal, that a captive is not entitled to be treated as a prisoner of war.
    The text specifies what to do if there is doubt as to the prisoner’s status. Apparently the Convention doesn’t specify what to do if there is no doubt.

  • aunursa

    I’m just asking if there is anything in the text that invalidates such an understanding.
    Here’s an idea: why don’t you go and read the text and tell us when you find out.
    I did. It doesn’t say.

  • Jesurgislac

    Aunursa: The text specifies what to do if there is doubt as to the prisoner’s status. Apparently the Convention doesn’t specify what to do if there is no doubt.
    No, you’re misreading it. The text of Article 5 specifies what to do if there is doubt that the captive’s status is that of prisoner of war under Article 4.
    If the Detaining Power believes it can be certain that the captive is not a prisoner of war, then evidently there is doubt that the captive’s status is that of prisoner of war under Article 4.
    There is no way out of Article 4 except through Article 5.
    Therefore, it doesn’t matter how certain the Detaining Power is that its doubts about a captive’s status are correct: in order to remove the status of PoW from a captive, the detaining power must form a competent tribunal to determine that a captive does not fall under Article 4 and is therefore not entitled to the protection of the Geneva Conventions.
    You’re trying to put something into the text of the Geneva Convention that just isn’t there. Why are you trying to do this? What is your problem with the clear process outlined in the Geneva Convention?

  • bulbul

    Beth:
    That would be Bugmaster’s position, but I thought you believed the opposite.
    Well, I do. Here’s how I see it: Bugmaster believes that what we call “rights” are in fact “privileges” in your sense, privileges which can be revoked at any time. In his view, all rights are inalienable. I too believe that rights are a social construct, in much the same way our language is or Pi: once the concept has been thought, there is no going back. We can’t just return to the times before language or try to find a way around calculating the circumference of a circle without using Pi.

  • Beth

    If free speech is an innate human right that exists independently of our social conventions, North Oppressia will have to continually keep shooting people and imprisoning people for exercising free speech
    I agree. I believe there’s something deep in the human psyche that makes self-expression necessary to our well-being. Still, I don’t know how to measure or prove that, and I’m not even 100% certain that my belief isn’t simply the result of social imprinting.
    bulbul,
    I’m still a little confused, but I kind of see what you’re getting at. If no one had ever measured circles and compared radii to areas, Pi would not exist. On the other hand if all human knowledge were lost and some future civilization performed the same measurements, they’d come up with the same ratio. I think something similar is true with inalienable rights. I think that any human society anywhere (and probably even animal societies, if they thought in those terms) would come up with a set of essential rights much like our own. Pi and rights aren’t equally measurable, but I think they’re equally universal. I suppose that was Fred’s original point.

  • malpollyon

    Those arguing the existance/nonexistance of ‘rights’ would be well served by reading “On Liberty” by John Stuart Mill (actually *everyone* would by well served by reading it, but I digress). He starts from the premise that ‘rights’ don’t exist of themselves, but justifies them pragmatically.

  • bulbul

    Correction:In his view, all rights are inalienable.
    I meant “alienable”
    Beth: precisely. Once again, you manage to express my thoughts more eloquently than I could ever hope to… :o)

  • Bugmaster

    I too believe that rights are a social construct, in much the same way our language is or Pi: once the concept has been thought, there is no going back. We can’t just return to the times before language or try to find a way around calculating the circumference of a circle without using Pi.
    Be carefil with Pi itself; I know some people who would argue fervently that Pi is a universal constant that exists regardless of what we humans think.
    Anyway, as I understand it, you’re saying that human dignity is a social construct that, once invented, can never be forgotten. If I understand you correctly, then we pretty much agree — except that I believe that this construct can be forgotten, or rejected outright.
    Anyways, you and I are making a much weaker statement than Fred, who argues (if I understand him correctly, again) is human dignity is a universal constant that exists independently of whatever humans think.

  • aunursa

    If the Detaining Power believes it can be certain that the captive is not a prisoner of war, then evidently there is doubt that the captive’s status is that of prisoner of war under Article 4.
    Neither Articles 4 nor 5 specifies how to determine whether there is doubt.
    What is your problem with the clear process outlined in the Geneva Convention?
    A clear process in support of your position would be if Article 5 indicated, for example, that each prisoner is to be presumed as belonging to a protected category under Article 4 unless and until a competent tribunal determines otherwise.
    But it doesn’t say that.

  • Jesurgislac

    Aunursa: A clear process in support of your position would be if Article 5 indicated, for example, that each prisoner is to be presumed as belonging to a protected category under Article 4 unless and until a competent tribunal determines otherwise.
    That’s exactly what Article 5 “indicates”, Aunursa. I don’t know how on earth you can claim it doesn’t.

  • firefalluk

    Torture is unacceptable because it is illegal. You’re not allowed to torture another human being.
    No, no, no – Torture is illegal because it is unacceptable, not the other way around*. It is unacceptable because it is ethically reprehensible, or if you prefer, it is evil, vicious, and counterproductive (so both wrong and stupid).
    *compare it to speeding, which is illegal but hardly unacceptable.

  • Jesurgislac

    Aunursa, just to recap: you have now had Article 4 and Article 5 of the Geneva Convention explained to you every whichway I can possibly imagine explaining it. You’ve been unable to come up with any text in the Convention to support your position, which appears to be that if the detaining power claims it’s certain that its captives are not prisoners of war, the detaining power doesn’t have to go through all that tedious process of competent tribunals. Nevertheless, you appear to be determined to stick to that position, and your last comment strongly indicates that you are arguing in bad faith, as you flatly lie about what the relevant articles of the Geneva Convention actually say. I am not prepared to continue to argue with you unless you are prepared to acknowledge that your argument is an attempt to circumvent what the Geneva Convention requires, rather than your current pretence that you just don’t understand what it requires.

  • Beth

    Thanks, malpollyon. I’ve been thinking that whether basic rights are inherent or not, it would be better for all of us to behave as if they are. It will be nice to read the work of someone who’s thought about that more deeply.

  • Bugmaster

    I’ve been thinking that whether basic rights are inherent or not, it would be better for all of us to behave as if they are.
    I’m just concerned that this will lead do complacency: “oh, our human dignity is innate, so there’s nothing wrong with mandating strip-searches on airplanes — they’re no threat to our inaliable dignity !”
    Additionally, if human rights are not innate, and we behave as though they are, we are heading down a dangerous path, where we start to believe in certain moral absolutes without any reasoning behind them. This works well when our moral absolutes are good, such as “free speech is paramount” or “the hungry must be fed”; this works a lot less well when our moral absolutes are suspect, such as “communists are evil”, or “if you’re not with us you’re against us”, or even “my god exists, yours does not, die infidel”. There needs to be a mechanism for distinguishing good moral precepts from bad ones.

  • aunursa

    That’s exactly what Article 5 “indicates”, Aunursa.
    No it doesn’t.
    As you have now accuse me of arguing in bad faith, I don’t think there is anything to be gained by our continued discussion of this subject.

  • Jesurgislac

    I don’t think there is anything to be gained by our continued discussion of this subject.
    Well, no, there’s not. You say “No it doesn’t!” I’m tired of quoting the text of the articles at you to show that it does. You can’t quote any text from the articles to support your argument, all you can do, apparently, is keep saying “No, no, no, it doesn’t, it doesn’t it doesn’t!” Whether or not you are arguing in bad faith (and I apologize if you’re sincere about all this) you have to admit that it’s all a bit pointless on my side when all you can do to support your argument is keep saying “No” to my lengthy explanations.

  • aunursa

    you have to admit that it’s all a bit pointless on my side when all you can do to support your argument is keep saying “No” to my lengthy explanations.
    It’s a matter of interpretation. I don’t accept yours and you don’t accept mine.

  • Duane

    So, who won?

  • Jesurgislac

    So, who won?
    :-D
    I think we have to call it a draw if we think in “win-lose” terms, which just shows how limiting such terms are.
    I’m right, of course. Aunursa’s “interpretation” is based on nothing she can point at, merely (my guess) the wish to believe that the US has not been breaking the Geneva Convention now since late 2001. Whereas I can show (and have shown in mindnumbing detail) exactly how the Geneva Convention works, both literally from the text, and in context of what has been the tradition of Western European justice for many centuries before the US adopted it for their judicial system.
    But, if we think of it as a “fight”, it was a draw, because Aunursa would not give in and admit she was wrong.

  • aunursa

    I’m right, of course.
    Everyone who ever wrote an op-ed or letter to the editor or website comment or blog feels exactly the same way.
    But, if we think of it as a “fight”, it was a draw, because Aunursa would not give in and admit she was wrong.
    She?

  • Duane

    She?
    You do kinda write like a girl.

  • bulbul

    So, who won?
    How about we convene an independent jury?

  • Duane

    How about we convene an independent jury?
    I’m biased.

  • bulbul

    I’m biased.
    These days, who isn’t?

  • Duane

    These days, who isn’t?
    It’s unfortunate Republicans created such a partisan world. It’s about to bite them in the ass in November. Then we can all go back to being slightly left-of-center moderates.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X