Home
Yesterday was a fascinating day for me. I wrote a little blog post earlier in the week in which I said President Obama should be fired for putting resources behind medical marijuana prosecutions in California. And then the Internet puked on my shoes. (See my post below for all of the fun.)

It seems some clarifications are in order.

Sorry I Confused Some of You

You can see from the many comments on this blog, and on the other Internet sites that linked to it, that people had very different interpretations of what I wrote. The people with good reading comprehension correctly understood my point: Jailing an American citizen for no reason other than political gain is a firing offense.

The people with bad reading comprehension, and the people who saw nothing but the confused summaries and tweets from those people, interpreted my argument as saying Romney is likely to be softer on drugs than Obama. And based on that misunderstanding, people concluded that my endorsement of Romney was the stupidest opinion in the galaxy. They'd be right if that had been my reasoning.

The fascinating thing here is that I believe the source of confusion is that people literally don't recognize objectivity when they see it. I got a lot of comments along the lines of "You say X is true and then in the same paragraph you say Y." What I actually said is "X is likely to be true, but here's an argument for Y." That's how objective people talk. They make a prediction and then explain why it might be wrong. That's the only way you know all sides have been considered. Partisans and non-thinkers say, "My prediction is 100% certain."

If I were to say the weather in California is good, but today it is cold and foggy, about 20% of readers would say, "Make up your mind! First you say the weather is good and then you say it is cold and foggy! You make no sense!"

Bad Analogy People


The people who aren't good with analogies waded in next, pointing out that President Obama killed U.S. citizens abroad because those citizens were part of a terrorist organization bent on the destruction of the United States. While that situation is worthy of discussion, it misses the central point of my post. There's a big difference between protecting the country and expecting some political gain from doing so versus jailing a small businessman in California for political gain while not even pretending it benefits the country. I expect my president to do some nasty stuff in my best interest. I don't expect him to do nasty stuff to citizens for no reason other than his own reelection interests. The latter is a firing offense.

The Law is the Law

The next thing that fascinated me is the number of people who said President Obama is obligated to pursue legal action against medical marijuana dispensaries in California because the law is the law and we can't have our leaders picking and choosing which ones they support.

To the people who hold that view, I wonder what country you have been living in. In the real world, legal resources are always limited, and leaders at every level of the legal system make choices every day about what is important enough to pursue and what is not.

As I write this, every police chief in every district is looking at his resources, looking at all the work his office is charged with doing, and deciding that something on the order of 50% of what the legal code asks him to do is simply impractical. So he focuses his resources on the 50% that are his highest priorities.

While the law is the law, the more important fact is that the budget is the budget. We elect our leaders to set priorities and act accordingly. The point of my post is that President Obama is using the country's limited resources to shut California dispensaries - possibly the country's lowest priority - for no reason other than political gain. In the process, he's putting a small businessman in jail for 10 years to life. That's a firing offense.

On my side of this debate is a Harvard-trained lawyer by the name of President Obama. During his first campaign for president he promised he wouldn't waste limited government resources pursuing medical marijuana cases. I'm not a Harvard-trained lawyer so I will take his word for it that a president can choose to ignore low-priority prosecutions without violating his oath.

The President Doesn't Personally Put People in Jail

Some commenters mocked me by arguing that the President doesn't control federal law enforcement at the granular level. You can't blame him for every decision made in the field. He's not personally slapping handcuffs on perps. True enough. But in the case of California dispensaries, he authorized the flip-flop in policy from ignoring the situation to going after them. Holding him innocent from the logical repercussions of his policy is like saying history should cut some slack for Pol Pot because he didn't personally kill anyone.

The Lesser Evil Argument

Supporters of President Obama argue that firing the President FOR ANY REASON means accepting a devastating alternative in a Romney presidency. While I applaud the complete dismissal of morality in the interest of practicality, let's take a minute to see if the practicality argument is so cut and dried.

My observation is that voters often - perhaps usually - don't get what they think they voted for. Nixon surprised everyone by getting cuddly with China. Bush Junior turned from isolationist to military adventurer. Obama went from weed-friendly to badass destroyer of state-approved dispensaries. Some fiscal conservatives have blown up the budget while some free-spending Democrats balanced it. If you think you can predict how a candidate will act in office, you might need a history lesson, or perhaps a booster shot of humility.

Now consider Mitt Romney, the most famous chameleon of all time. I submit that a hypothetical Romney presidency would be nearly impossible to predict with any accuracy. In each of his past leadership roles he has morphed into whatever the job required. During the primaries, his job required him to be far right. In the general election we see him drift toward the center, or as his advisor famously said, "Shake the Etch-a-Sketch." It would be naïve to assume Romney wouldn't shake it again once elected, given that even non-chameleon presidents do so.

Romney knows that the electorate is full of idiots and he needs to be a gigantic liar to win their votes. I totally get that. The funniest part is his budget plan that he promises to describe in detail after he gets elected. Dumb people see this as "He has an awesome fiscal plan!" Democrats see it as "He's a liar with no plan!" I see it as "You know I'm a brilliant and experienced turnaround guy. I know how to do this sort of thing. And if I give details now it just paints a target on my back. So chill."

In any event, Congress will be the ones who decide on the next budget. It will probably look similar no matter who gets elected. I don't believe, for example, that a Romney budget would overfund the military. Congress would moderate that, and Romney probably doesn't mean it anyway. Remember, his job today is to lie to get elected. His job once elected is quite different.

I also have no faith in my ability - or yours - to compare Obamacare (essentially a Romney plan) to how healthcare might change under a Romney administration. If you think you know the answer to that question, you're kidding yourself.

Some Democrats say the biggest risk in a Romney presidency involves Supreme Court nominees. But I think we saw after the unexpected opinion from Justice Roberts on the Obamacare ruling that the court has a built-in safety net against being too blatantly partisan and destroying its own credibility in the process.  I think the risk of a conservative-heavy Supreme Court ruining the country by adhering too slavishly (irony!) to the Constitution is low. You might not like some of their rulings, but they probably won't kill you. And if we are being objective, a court with too many lefties would have its own risks.

You're Endorsing Romney to Cut Your Rich Guy Taxes, Bastard!

Some folks suspect that I'm a weasel-bastard who is using the California dispensary issue as a smokescreen for bobbing to the right so I can save on taxes under a Romney administration. There's no defense against an accusation that I have secret motives, but let me describe the economics as I see them.

Over my career, my net worth has moved in lockstep with the overall economy. So whatever plan is good for the entire country is probably the one that helps me most, no matter what my tax rate is. And realistically, given a choice between taxing the rich, including myself, versus taxing people with no money, I don't see a choice. Even Romney knows we can't grow our way out of the problem. He's not an idiot; he's just a guy who needs idiots to vote for him.

So no, I don't see a scenario in which someday I am flying my diamond-encrusted helicopter over the rioting masses of starvation-crazed ex-middle-classers and thinking to myself that things worked out well for me. I don't see the option of living the good life at the expense of the 99%. That's not even a thing. I stopped working to satisfy my personal cravings years ago. Everything I produce and everything I earn these days is for the benefit of others. So I don't mind higher taxes on the rich if it makes sense for the country. With the exception of M.C. Hammer, the rich get richer no matter what the tax rates are. I'm afraid that won't change regardless of who gets elected.


Update:

Where's your evidence that President Obama is enforcing drug laws in California for political reasons alone?

What other reason is there? And remember that your answer has to account for the fact that President Obama has never bothered to explain his unexpected change of policy. Nor has anyone in his administration explained it.

I think it is fair to say President Obama didn't learn anything new about the dangers of medical marijuana in California that he didn't know before he got elected. If he did receive new information, he could simply point it out to defend his change of policy.

Californians voted to legalize medical marijuana dispensaries after considering all factors from freedom to health and safety to economics. Our prior governor, Republican Arnold Schwarzenegger, signed a law decriminalizing possession of small quantities of marijuana with a classic summary: "No one cares if you smoke a joint." (It's funnier when you imagine it in Arnold's accent.)

The medical marijuana dispensaries have now operated long enough that we can see their impact.  So far, it seems that dispensaries raise tax revenues, reduce crime in their neighborhoods, and help a lot of patients find relief. Dispensaries also keep their customers away from shady dealers who might offer more harmful drugs. The dispensaries probably have no appreciable impact on supply. Illegal marijuana is easy to obtain just about anywhere.

The trend toward full legalization of medical marijuana is accelerating all over the country for the same reasons that swayed Californians. I see no reason the trend will reverse. Does it make sense to send someone to jail for a crime that will likely become a non-crime during the jail term? What kind of leader devotes resources to that?

Have you ever met someone who smoked a lot of marijuana, as President Obama did when living in Hawaii, while simultaneously holding the view that the people who sold it to him should go to jail? I don't know the exact answer to my own question, but I'm guessing the number is near zero.

Now let me confuse the readers coming over from Daily Kos, Huffington Post, Gawker, Mediaite.com, and some of the other Low Information Voter sites. I'm going to display something called "objectivity." It involves discussing the odds that I might be wrong. It does not mean I just changed my mind. It means I'm attempting to consider all sides. Here goes. . .

There is some chance - I think a very small one - that President Obama has a non-political reason for cracking down on California's medical marijuana dispensaries, although I can't even imagine what reason a liberal  ex-stoner  with a budget problem might offer. If he chooses to tell the public his reasons, I will happily reassess my opinion. But keep in mind that one of my neighbors down south is about to go to jail for ten years to life because of President Obama's decision to devote limited Federal resources to prosecuting dispensaries. When a president doesn't offer reasons for jailing Americans, you have to call that a firing offense. (Saying he is following the law isn't a reason. Federal resources are limited and citizens expect their leaders to ignore low priorities.)

In summary, if President Obama is devoting limited federal resources to go after marijuana dispensaries for no reasons other than political gain, including, for example, attracting campaign funding, he should be fired. If he has a reason for jailing a small businessman, and he chooses not to share it, that too is a firing offense.

Why do you keep ignoring third-party candidates?

The best way to fire an incumbent president who is running for reelection is to vote for the only candidate with a realistic chance of beating him. If a voter switches from Obama to Romney it causes a two vote difference: one less vote to Obama and one more for Romney. Moving one vote from President Obama to a third party candidate is a one vote difference in the competition between President Obama and Romney.

And frankly it makes a stronger statement to endorse Romney since I disagree with most of his stated policies. It underlines the difference in importance between a true firing offense and policies you believe would be less desirable than the alternatives.

If my endorsement carried any weight whatsoever, I'd consider backing a third-party candidate. But no one will change opinions based on what I blog about. So I have the freedom to write whatever has the most entertainment value for me, with the hope you'll enjoy the show too.

You're crazy when you say a good reason to believe Romney won't be a disaster as president is that he's lying about what he would do in office.

I'm betting that a chameleon will stay a chameleon. That's his history. He adapts to whatever situation he's in. The alternative is to believe a candidate for President will do all the things he promises during the campaign. How has that worked out for you?

Update 2:


Single issue voting is stupid

I agree. One must always look at the big picture. That's why I'm glad O.J. Simpson got acquitted of criminal charges for allegedly murdering his ex-wife. He only had one bad day. You also have to consider his football records.

When Bill Clinton said, "It's the economy, stupid," I took that to mean the economy is just one issue among many. I don't know how else to interpret that.

I also think Nixon got a bum deal with that Watergate thing. That was just one mistake.

If President Obama decides to give our nuclear codes to Iran, let's agree to count that as one mistake that should be weighed against all of his good work. For example, there's the time he recycled, and the time he could have lied but didn't. So that's two good things versus one bad thing.

[sarcasm off]

WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU???!!! OF COURSE ONE ISSUE VOTING MAKES SENSE IF THE ISSUE IS BIG ENOUGH!

I think we're all on the same page now. So let's focus on whether the one issue I raised in my offending blog post - that President Obama is effectively sending a guy to prison for no reason other than political gain - and see if that crosses the line for you. Do you want to live in a world where your President can incarcerate citizens for no reason beyond political gain?

Now you might say President Obama is just doing what the law requires when he puts resources behind closing marijuana dispensaries. I dismissed that argument above. (Summary: We expect our leaders to focus their limited resources on high priorities. To willfully do otherwise for political gain, and put people in jail in the process, has to be a firing offense in a free country.)

If you think the one issue I'm talking about is drug policies, and you believe both candidates will have similar policies, then of course that one issue should not sway your decision. But that isn't the one issue I'm focusing on.

My one issue involves President Obama jailing a citizen for naked political gain. You can argue whether my facts and assumptions are correct, but I don't think you can dismiss it as just one issue among many. Jailing a citizen for no reason other than political gain has to be a firing offense. I'd like to believe every citizen agrees on that point.




 
Rank Up Rank Down Votes:  +467
  • Print
  • Share
  • Share:

Comments

Sort By:
Oct 19, 2012
For me, you lost me completely when you said in response to my post that the majority of Americans disagreed with the law you said he was upholding just to get elected. You can't have it both ways. How is it politically expedient to go against the opinions of the majority of voters?

I think you just tried too hard on this one. Let it go. If you like Romney, vote for Romney. Remember, when you get to the polling booth, they let you vote for whoever you want to. They don't ask for a reason.

[See the comment above yours. Liberals will support him no matter what. But if he's hard on so-called crime he might pull in a few extra moderates. -- Scott]
 
 
+10 Rank Up Rank Down
Oct 19, 2012
Just to use your own metaphor against you.

You've advocated for firing the CEO because he killed somebody to advance his career. Then you turn around and endorse a replacement who has assured us he will kill people to advance his career and who belongs to and is endorsed by a club of people that have all killed people to advance their career, just because you think there's a small chance when he gets the job he won't actually do what he says.

Um, why not pick somebody who has consistently been against murder all along rather than picking a guy just because you hope he'll spontaneously develop a conscience?
 
 
Oct 19, 2012
That's fine to think Obama's support of the war on drugs is a firing offense (I myself am horribly disappointed in him on the issue), but it makes no sense to then endorse somebody else who is almost certain to be as bad or worse. If that's going to be the singular issue by which you give your endorsement, give it to somebody that actually supports decriminalization, like Gary Johnson.

You criticize others for logical fallacies, but you're guilty of creating a false dichotomy yourself.
 
 
Oct 19, 2012
My reason for being upset with your endorsement of Romney lay mainly with the fact that your argument seems to imply that you'd be much more comfortable with the 3rd party candidate, Gary Johnson, a former Republican who actually IS for medical marajuana, as opposed to Romney who is against all such programs .. and as a Mormon doesn't drink alcohol or coffee either.

Did you actually think that Romney would be LESS likely to prosecute the same people that Obama has? I realize that you are probably of the opinion that someone with no realistic shot of being elected should be considered, but someone with your broad reach could push some real alternatives to the "same old" the politicians have been giving us as mainstream candidates.
 
 
Oct 19, 2012
@dooby

as you said, assuming obama was just bribed by big pharma and that was his motivation...

what is obama doing to prevent big pharma from blowing their money on new research of more drugs that overlap marijuana?

if the problem is bribery from big pharma, and you are willing to work with bribed politicians, then the solution is to cut off big pharma's motive so they stop bribing on this issue.

as long as they invest in development, they will vehemently expect protection of the market.
 
 
+1 Rank Up Rank Down
Oct 19, 2012
Well I'm don't think I fit into any of those categories. I realize you had to generalize, and I didn't read through everyone's comments like I'm guessing you did, but I'm guessing there must be others that saw it in a category closer to me than those. Knowingly breaking federal law and getting in trouble for it is not completely immoral for the people who decide to enforce those rules regardless of promises made. You break a federal law, you are taking a known risk with defined consequences. As for priorities of enforcing that law over others for political gain I don't see that as negative as you. I think there are bigger issues in the US that Obama was trying to address and I think he knew the way things were going he couldn't tackle all the controversial ones and still be elected to a second term. I think some of those issues he had promised might be addressed differently in a second term. I have no evidence of that and I have no way of knowing it is true, but even if he doesn't that doesn't change the fact that I don't think what he did was immoral for any reason besides breaking a promise. Maybe that is a promise that was broken that you think is worth getting fired over, but I don't think it is unrealistic for others not to. As for Romney, like I said in my comment for the last one, I don't have much against him. Overall I think he has done pretty well in his past positions and handles things logically. I also am in a position where I occasionally conduct interviews. He has not behaved like someone I would be comfortable hiring through an interview process. The things he has said to get this job, I to a certain extent have to take his word for as something he would do. He decides not to do those things he should have told us differently what he wants to do and maybe I would be OK voting for him. I find it more likely he did the things he did in Massachusetts because he was dealing with a liberal majority more so than those were the things he wanted to be done. Once president he doesn't have to follow what people from that state want. Similar to how Reagan acted as Governor of California vs President of the United States.

Overall I respect you choosing Romney to vote for, but I get the impression that you expect people to agree with your reasoning for it. I'm sure I'm misinterpreting you to a certain extent though because I'm sure the focus is more towards though that more strongly disagree with you.
 
 
Oct 19, 2012
uhg, Nov 7 cannot come soon enough. Every one can put down their favorite brand of kool-aid, dry up and regain a bit of common sense. Then let the politicos, no matter who they are do special interest business as usual... industry over people. You only have two cherry picked options that are given to you (realistically) and either option will turn out the same... Nothing promised will happen and the country will continue to implode. Stop acting on the emotion of "your" party and personal wants (you're not going to get it) and use some logic. Control a large portion of an industry then you can actually make a real difference by your action.

Fool me once shame on you, fool me again shame on me...
 
 
+10 Rank Up Rank Down
Oct 19, 2012
@nitsudima, your assumption that this was motivated politically for votes is probably incorrect. Most Americans (70% by some surveys) support medical marijuana. My own assumption is that this has nothing to do with votes, but more likely is being done at the request of big pharma, that understandably doesn't want to compete with a cheap natural weed for the business of the most expensive health care consumers of all - cancer patients. If you just look at the costs of the drugs that some people are using cannabis to replace, the numbers really are staggering. And many of the cancer patients not only seem to think they're saving money, but getting better outcomes. Why wouldn't some drug companies quietly ask the government to make this disruptive competitor go away? I don't fault them at all, but I do fault the President for seemingly favoring their interests over those of patients.
 
 
+3 Rank Up Rank Down
Oct 19, 2012
Now that you've changed out of your puke-soaked shoes, the Internet will now soak your new ones for equating Obama with Pol Pot.

Have a nice day!
 
 
Oct 19, 2012
Bravo, Scott. Well said.
 
 
Oct 19, 2012
Sorry, one more comment - also fitting into the cynical low moral standard vein. It appears that the only offence worthy of 'firing' an elected politician that a large number of people agree on is adultery, and even that wasn't enough to kill Clinton's or JFK's career.

Go figure.
 
 
Oct 19, 2012
Hey, you left out my category - The cynical low moral standard arguement (perhaps I was the only one) that argues that neither the murderer CEO or the punitive President should be fired for those reasons, as long as they give the results I want from them. Not to say that I condone the behavior, but thats for the law to sort out.

Put this another way. If I had an employee that was a confessed murderer, but was aquited on a technicality, it would be wrongful dismissal for me to fire him for that reason. I'd be rightly sued.

I could of course fire him if he was convicted, but otherwise, as long as he was doing the job he was hired for, then there is no question.

What you are really arguing is that it is the duty of the President to not commit injustice for personal gain. This is a valid arguement, and I agree with it, but the electoral is free to disagree at their own choice.

It is also a valid arguement that what the President did was entirely legal, though not morally right, and it is up to each voter to decide whether the President is justified in the act. The anaolgy here would be if a CEO of a non-union company cut the health benefits of thousands of employees - probably resulting in at least one preventable death. Morally, this is not right, but from a business point of view, it may be justified.

Scott, your arguement for 'firing' the President for this offence is valid - but it is completely subject to your own value system, and therefore cannot apply on a broad scale.
 
 
-5 Rank Up Rank Down
Oct 19, 2012
[Reading comprehension: Fail -- Scott]

Please re-write the sentence to reflect what you actually said in the article then. Do enlighten us.
 
 
+14 Rank Up Rank Down
Oct 19, 2012
I'm also floored by those sites' inability to quote or comment on your post with any sense of proper context. I'm am, however, still a bit confused about your belief that Obama committed an fireable offense.

Nixon committed such an offense when he authorized the Watergate break-in. Reagan committed it when he authorized the sale of arms to Iran to fund the Contras (although he was smart enough not to make audio recordings of his conversations with Col North or others and otherwise maintain some sort of plausible deniability). Those were instances where the law was broken. Obama hasn't broken any laws, but enforced them.

Now, I do understand your argument about intent. If his intent was to serve justice, then there certainly has been no fireable offense. This does show a change from Obama's earlier stated policy of not challenging the state laws, but you yourself are on the record as saying that it's illogical *not* to change your mind when given new information. What that new information might be we (or at least I) don't know, but I assume there was some. It might have been that this dispensary guy was looking for a legal fight to get the Fed vs State issue resolved, and he made himself too much of a nuisance to ignore. (That might explain why there haven't been lots of similar raids across the state.) An explanation for the flip-flop would be nice, but as this isn't a big wedge issue in this election, we're not likely to get one.

If Obama's intent was political in some way, then yes his motives can be questioned. But again, his actions were legal -- it's not like he had a goon squad come in and kidnap this guy in the middle of the night -- so IMO that does not make this a fireable offense. Douchebaggy, yes; fireable, no. Also, I don't see any political gain here. Is he looking to get some extra votes in CA, where he's likely to win anyway? Or is he looking to gain some "tough on drugs" brownie points nationally? If so, he's doing a lousy job of spinning this -- the only place I came across this case through my regular browsing is your original post. It's not causing much of a blip on the national news unless you're following drug crime and enforcement already.

Finally, regardless of intent, this man's life is not yet ruined. There will be appeals, and if he doesn't get off entirely, his sentence may not be the maximum. And let's not forget that he could have avoided sentencing altogether by taking a deal similar to those offered to the other defendants. Which goes back to my theory that this particular guy was making too much noise to be ignored because he wanted to go to trial.

That's all speculation on my part; I clearly don't have perfect knowledge of the incident. But from what I have been able to tell, the actions do not reflect poorly on the President. They make me wonder why he changed course, but they don't make me want to fire him.
 
 
+21 Rank Up Rank Down
Oct 19, 2012
My test for whether or not to vote for Romney is essentially, would he sign the Ryan budget? As the answer appears to be yes, I must vote against him. But I won't fall into the trap of assuming I have to vote for Obama. I decided a while ago that, as a Californian who is as personally disgusted with the crackdown on medical marijuana as you appear to be, my vote will belong to Jill Stein, the Green Party candidate.

How galling is it to know that California can be screwed by the very politicians in DC that we support, solely because our vote is so guaranteed to continue supporting them? We're like the abused wife who keeps running back to her abusive husband.

Think about this: in 2010, we had a proposition on the ballot that would have made marijuana totally legal, for any purpose, for anyone over 21, provided they weren't using it around kids or while driving. We were on track to approve it too, until Eric Holder threatened us with serious DoJ consequences if it passed. It failed. But this year, there are 3 states that are planning to do pretty much the same thing, but Holder isn't sending letters to any of them. And why? Because one of those states is Colorado, and those votes MATTER. CA can go screw itself, but Colorado is like the prettiest girl at the ball. Obama and his officials don't dare do anything to upset beautiful Colorado, because Colorado is a frikkin swing state!

I want every American's vote to matter, but before that can happen, we have to get rid of the electoral college. Until then, whatever donor's promise Obama is keeping by shutting down dispensaries is going to be far more important to him than how people of California feel treated by his administration.

I cannot follow you in your endorsement of Romney because he picked Ryan as his vice president and all of his foreign policy advisors served as Bush's foreign policy advisors. I don't care if he's a chameleon whose positions are essentially unknowns, every president is extremely influenced by their advisors, and it's his advisors' track records that I'm relying on. But I don't have to vote for Obama either, and I don't have to sit out.
 
 
-4 Rank Up Rank Down
Oct 19, 2012
"A leader should be fired for committing a LEGAL act that has negative consequences if I do not have direct knowledge that his motivation is not selfish."

-Scott Adams, 2012.

[Reading comprehension: Fail -- Scott]
 
 
Oct 19, 2012
You are still making the same unsound logical leap: Obama committed a fireable offense, therefore you should vote for Romney.

I will concede that you make the best case I've seen yet for Romney.

[That's not the leap I'm making. My reasoning goes more like this: Two candidates who had a chance of getting elected were running. One disqualified himself by jailing an American citizen for personal gain. But on a positive note, the remaining guy might not necessarily be the nightmare you fear. -- Scott]
 
 
Oct 19, 2012
=Holding him innocent from the logical repercussions of his policy is like saying history should cut some slack for Pol Pot because he didn't personally kill anyone.=

I wonder how many readers (here and from other sites) had to Google 'Pol Pot' as they read that line.

 
 
-2 Rank Up Rank Down
Oct 19, 2012
So your whole argument comes down to political motivation, not whether it's right or wrong, is that correct? In other words, if Obama's internal motivation had been different, you would not have condemned the act? In that case can you please expound on 1) How one differentiates between political and apolitical acts and motivation; 2) what % "political" someone's motivation has to be for an act to qualify as "bad"(because surely you don't believe the world is black and white and any decision is just one or the other), and 3)how you, Scott, know exactly what that percentage is for any given person making a given decision? this applies to Obama's decision in this and other cases and romney's decision in the past, along with his campaign promises.

[Yes, motivation is always the key. It's legal to kill in self-defense but not legal to kill for money. On the dispensary issue, I would be satisfied with President Obama giving a public reason for his change of policy. If it sounds plausible, even if I don't entirely believe it, I'd give him a pass. If your leader won't explain his reasons, you have to fire him. -- Scott]
 
 
 
Get the new Dilbert app!
Old Dilbert Blog