With declarations of inevitability by the advocates for same-sex marriage coupled with accusations of bigotry leveled against those who wish to defend marriage as an institution that necessarily includes participation by people of differing genders it can be daunting to stand up in defense of heterosexual marriage. I was impressed with the way Jeffrey Thayne presented a defense of marriage being a necessarily heterosexual institution that showed that such a position need not be based on bigotry. His description of a companionate view of marriage versus a conjugal view of marriage got me wondering – what are we fighting for if we oppose the idea of gay marriage?
Month: June 2013
I was intrigued by a recent article on the Art of Manliness about the male desire for true brotherhood. It discussed what I have chosen to refer to as intentional brotherhood (that is the most succinct of a variety of terms that seemed to be applied to the idea being presented). The article discussed the origins of that natural desire and also ideas for how to find or foster bonds of intentional brotherhood. To put that in context, when speaking of finding those bonds of brotherhood the author and commentors frequently pointed to church groups and fraternal organizations (e.g. Elks, Moose, Rotarians, Freemasons, Knights of Columbus, or college fraternities).
The whole concept was interesting but it also reminded me of the idea of Master Mind groups (sometimes called mutual improvement societies) that the Art of Manliness wrote about a few years ago. I’d like to explore how those two concepts relate to each other, how they differ, and whether there is any connection between either of them and the theological concept of priesthood quorums. I would also like to have others share their perspectives on the relationships between the three concepts.
I was listening to Doug Wright this morning talking about the John Swallow situation and I found myself laughing at the linguistic gymnastics he was engaged in trying to discuss the situation without suggesting that impeachment might be the proper course of action to untangle the mess that Mr. Swallow has created.
I can’t decide whether the verbal somersaults were a result of Mr. Wright trying to appear unbiased while secretly agreeing with the Eagle Forum that impeachment should be reserved as a tool we use after we know an official is guilty of serious crimes such as the FBI might investigate or if it was simply a result of Mr. Wright not understanding that being personally impartial does not require the pretense that the facts of the situation be impartial – as if there are facts in favor of Mr. Swallow the way there are so many facts that clearly demonstrate that a legislative investigation is already warranted. Of course there are many unproven allegations out there but there are enough allegations backed up with enough evidence to clearly warrant an investigation by the House.
Here is my unbiased (and unvarnished) opinion. Unless the House is able to investigate and prove that the many emails, recordings, and receipts that we already have in relation to Mr. Swallow’s interactions with Mr. Jensen and Mr. Johnson were fabricated then Mr. Swallow has clearly violated the public trust and should not hold any position of public trust – even if everything he did was technically legal as Mr. Swallow obviously believes (which is why he insists on directing our focus to the existing investigations by the FBI – which necessarily cannot address the issue of public trust).
I don’t know if John Swallow’s attorneys are honest (like many people) in mistakenly conflating the opening of impeachment proceedings with the potential outcome of conviction and removal from office or if they are simply perpetuating that misconception in the hopes of protecting their client. Either way, it is once again time to try to clear up that misconception.
The attitude from Mr. Swallow’s attorneys is quite clear in their letter:
“This discussion about impeachment is based on innuendo and unsupported allegations in the press from indicted and convicted felons and a few political enemies of Mr. Swallow,” attorneys Rod Snow and Jennifer James said.
I would expect exactly that attitude from any attorney regarding their own client. The problem is that it misrepresents the situation. Some of the allegations do come from indicted and convicted felons but beyond those indicted and convicted felons the allegations are also coming from many others – not just “a few political enemies.” They may choose to describe everyone who has made allegations as a political enemy but the number of people making allegations can hardly be quantified as “few.”
Curt Bentley has an excellent post in which he discusses the issue of reforming the caucus system. I really appreciate the methodical approach he has taken to examine the issue. I completely agree with each of his guiding principles and while I suspect I am more comfortable with the caucus system in its current form than he seems to be, I also want to see it strengthened through some reforms that will make it better at promoting voter participation and issue-centric campaigns. I agree with his assessment of what the caucus system does well and with his conclusion that dumping the caucus system entirely is not the way to go. As for his assessment of what the caucus system doesn’t do well, I have some thoughts I’d like to share and I sincerely hope that Curt and others will share their feedback on those thoughts.
When the news began about accusations against John Swallow his first response was to dismiss the allegations based on the tainted source from which they sprang and then duck his head and send out lots of emails about what “he” was doing for the state. When the volume and variety of allegations increased Mr. Swallow adopted a new standard answer which sounds reasonable on the surface but is likewise meant to distract from the issue arising from the multitude of allegations. His standard andwer is that he has done nothing illegal and therefore he will not resign. Holly Richardson does a great job of explaining the standard which governs the impeachment process and that standard is “high crimes and misdemeanors” not “committing illegal acts.” In doing so she illuminated the way that Mr. Swallow is using his standard answer to deflate the very appropriate calls for impeachment by playing on a general misunderstanding of what constitutes “high crimes and misdemeanors.” Let me start by making this very clear. We tend to think of high crimes being obviously criminal like murder but the fact is that obviously criminal acts such as that are felonies and felons are not even allowed to vote, let alone hold office. Lesser criminal acts are classified as misdemeanors so having ruled those out we can understand that “high crimes” are acts which may not even be actionable in the criminal system. As Holly points out, they are issues such as “breaches of ethical conduct, misuse of power, and neglect of duty.”