Let’s say you had a friend who starting going to lodge meetings. At this lodge, anti-Semitic remarks and jokes are made routinely by known neo-Nazi sympathizers. Suppose also that, after telling you all about this anti-Semitism, your friend returned to the lodge, not once, not twice, but on numerous occasions week after week. You might reasonably infer one of three things: 1) your friend is a neo-Nazi; 2) your friend inexplicably tolerates heavy doses of anti-Semitism; or 3) your friend puts up with anti-Semitism because he believes he can benefit from the folks at the lodge in some way.
When you ask your friend about his continued association with the lodge he doesn’t offer any alternative reasons. So, it is still not unreasonable for you to infer that it’s either 1), 2), or 3)—none of which are very good (as in upright) reasons for consorting with neo-Nazis. Indeed, you would have every reason to question this association until which time your friend offered a more satisfactory explanation. Perhaps his response to you is: "It’s none of your business."
But surely his possible embrace of neo-Nazi doctrine is your business if you’ve made a commitment not to be friends with anti-Semites. So, his dealings with the lodge might give you reason to discontinue your relationship with him. In fact, you may – justifiably – decide not to be friends with him anymore at all until he explains his association with a group you find so unsavory—maybe even immoral. You have your principles after all.
Now, weeks have turned to months have turned to years—twenty years, let’s say. Your former friend returns to you after those many years and says: "I’d like for you to write a letter of recommendation for me." You see, there’s this great job he’s trying to get. But you reply: "I’d like to write that letter for you, but I still have so many questions about that neo-Nazi lodge."
"Don’t worry about that," he replies. "That’s water under the bridge. I stopped going to that lodge a couple of years ago." At first, he doesn’t tell you he stopped going because he had disavowed the beliefs he may have once had in common with the lodge membership. He doesn’t tell you he stopped going because he no longer found the lodge useful in furthering his career (though you do suspect the lodge had recently become a career liability). In fact, he doesn’t give you any good reason at all and – apart from some hemming, hawing and disavowals that seem too little, too late – he is unable to tell you whether he ever shared the views of the lodge all those years he was a member.
So, in the absence of any good explanation, do you have a duty of any sort to write him that letter of recommendation? At best, you have incomplete information. At worst, your friend is either an anti-Semite and/or an opportunist.
Nevertheless, people eventually come along and say that because you have refused to write the letter and because you question your former friend’s association with the lodge, you have committed a fallacy. "That’s guilt by association" they say. But is it? Why would one go to a lodge for twenty years unless he either wanted to draw from the wellspring of neo-Nazi fraternity, or expects some type of personal gain? (No alternative theory about your former friend – like going under cover for the FBI or Southern Poverty Law Center – seems to make much sense.)
The people who are accusing you of "guilt by association" are not only being rash. They, themselves, should be questioned for their want of skepticism; ready, as they are, to sign that letter of recommendation without further reflection. That is, if they suspend their questions about your former friend’s possible extremism and eagerly recommend him for the job, then you are right to question their scruples, too. After all, they’re putting pen to paper on his behalf. They have refused to ask the tough question: Doesn’t people’s desire for personal gain sometimes get them to hide their most cherished beliefs when it seems expedient? It’s been known to happen.
As you move forward this election season with serious questions about the goings, doings and core beliefs of political candidates – including their records, past associations (not to mention the kind of political opportunism that comes with the territory) – don’t let people make you feel as if you’re doing something wrong. You’re not. You’re doing the best you can with what information you have, none of which requires you make leaps of faith. And when too many questions linger, sometimes – sadly perhaps – appearances are all you have to inform your judgment.
Finally, we should also remind ourselves that when these kinds of questions come up in campaign ads, it is part of a healthy national conversation and a thorough democratic process. While it can get unpleasant, even ugly, it’s all the by-product of a society that values and protects free speech—warts and all. Your questions, as well as those raised by partisan enemies, represent healthy skepticism … even if that skepticism eventually translates into a vote for someone that captures your trust more than your imagination.
-Max Borders
(Great post … suppose you had a friend…)
Ask Obama WHY he Voted FOR The Cheney Energy Bill (H.R. 6) passed in 2005)
Ask Clinton WHY she Voted AGAINST The Cheney Energy Bill.
Ask Obama if he is aware of the fact that nuclear waste disposal has been a 50 year
continuing NIGHTMARE; as exemplified by Rocky Flats and Hanford, Washington?
Ask Obama if its true that his legislative experience in the Illinois Legislature consists
of: 26 Bills, all passed in ONE year, AND if ANY of those 26 bills was Originated by, or, written by him.
HERE”S THE REAL ANSWERS:
WHY is MSNBC/NBC SO PRO-Obama, So Anti-Clinton?
ANSWER: Because Obama is PRO-Nuclear & he voted FOR the Cheney energy Bill; Clinton is NOT Pro-Nuke & Voted AGAINST the Cheney Energy Bill.
GE owns MSNBC/NBC … & Thanks to the Cheney Energy Bill is planning to reap BILLIONS in proftis (Risk-Free) from building 29 new nukes AND from 30-40 years of Higher Electricity Rates.
Other participants in Cheney’s NExt Big MONOPOLY POWER
—ENERGY RIPoff—
Excelon Corp. of ILLINOIS, Westinghouse (Owner of CBS), Entergy (owners of many utilities in the Southern States); 3 consortiums of nuke industry corporations.
McCain voted for the Cheney Energy Bill & has already said on the campaign trail: I have to remember to say … its absoultely necessary for …us… to build nuclear power plants.
GE, et al … Are running Obama AND McCain for President.
If you think nukes are ok… just GOOGLE: Rocky Flats Denver plutonium, and, Hanford WA nuclear waste.
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
Obama claims 7 years experience in the Illinois legislature – Working Across the Aisles, Bringing people together to get good CHANGES passed -as exemplified by 26 good bills with his name on them.
A Chicago reporter says all 26 bills were passed in ONE Year, and they were NOT Obama’s.
http://wweek.com/editorial/3418/10516/
EXCERPTS:
But what’s interesting, and almost never discussed, is that he built his entire legislative record in Illinois in a single year.
Republicans controlled the Illinois General Assembly for six years of Obama’s seven-year tenure.
Then Emil Jones Jr. (became the Senate Majority leader), He became Obama’s kingmaker.
Jones appointed Obama sponsor of virtually every high-profile piece of legislation, angering many rank-and-file state legislators who had more seniority than Obama and had spent years championing the bills.
During his seventh year in the state Senate, Obama … sponsored a whopping 26 bills including many he now cites in his presidential campaign when attacked as inexperienced.
Working Across the Aisles/
Making CHANGES = ZILCH
Taking Credit for Other People’s Work/
INTEGRITY = ZERO
——– —– —– —– ——
Still have any doubt this election is about GE Cheney … “the establishment” … running Obama AND McCain for President in order to assure themselves of Pulling Off Cheney’s NEXt Big Energy RIPOFF?
You think Obama’s 20 year “friendship” with the Rev. Wright makes people suspicious of his … spiritual … beliefs?
Just Wait until his 20 year “friendship” with Rezko … shows up on your TV screen – AFTER he gets the nomination, or, AFTER he’s OUT of the race:
GOOGLE Info about: The 3 friends who attended engineering school in Illinois: Rezko Alsammarae Auichi:
Auichi (still a billionaire) convicted in a French court of MASSIVE fraud/looting involving
ELF a French petroleum company and the UN Oil for Food program.
Rezko business partner.
Alsammarae – convicted in an Iraq court (under its current govt) of LOOTING the Iraq ELECTRICITY Grid [while he was Minister of Electricity … He was Appointed Electricity Minister by the Bush/Cheney … Coalition Provisional Authority]. Rezko was…allegedly…his partner in LOOTING the electricity grid, and partners in planning to build a power plant in Iraq.
Last week’s NEWS from the Rezko trial … you didn’t see on TV:
Federal prosecution witness testified that Obama and his wife DID attend a party at Rezko’s home thrown in honor of Auichi.
Obama has previously said: He doesn’t remember meeting Auichi.
The MEDIA is NOT asking him this question: Did you and your wife attend that Party?
Another prosecution witness testified that REZKO told him not to worry about the upcoming trial because the White House was going to fire the prosecutior (Patrick Fitzgerald) – to kill the criminal prosecution of Rezko.
COMMON DENOMINATOR : Natonal AND International ***ENERGY RIPoffs ***, Power Plants, Massive LOOTING – involving Bush/Cheney admin/ Rezko/ GE – That’s a WHOLE LOT of REALLY BIG DIRT all the CORRUPT Politicans and their CORRUPT Media are desperately trying to keep covered up. Obama is part and parcel of it.
SAME Media that sold you Bush (2x). SAME Media that sold you on the Iraq War.
IIts Corporate-Controlled Media PROPAGANDA …. Designed …. to get YOU to “elect” a President who will COVERUP the PAST Bush/Cheny/Rezko LOOTING OF IRAQ …. and ….Pull Off the FUTURE Cheney nuke ENERGY RIPOFF.