This shows there are some divisions in the GOP.
David Luban, Just Security: The Case Against Serving
In a powerful essay written half a century ago, Hannah Arendt warned about lesser evils (pp. 35-36):
If you are confronted with two evils, thus the argument runs, it is your duty to opt for the lesser one, whereas it is irresponsible to refuse to choose altogether. Those who denounce the moral fallacy of this argument are usually accused of a germ-proof moralism which is alien to political circumstances, of being unwilling to dirty their hands. …
Politically, the weakness of the argument has always been that those who choose the lesser evil forget very quickly that they chose evil. …
Why do they forget? It isn’t hard to fathom. Once you are inside, your frame of reference changes. The work is challenging and invigorating and cutting-edge. You see that many of the people you’re working with are decent and likable. You tell yourself that decent people like these wouldn’t do anything indecent. Gradually your moral compass aligns with theirs (and you don’t notice that theirs are simultaneously aligning with yours); and gradually all your moral compasses align with The Program. You develop team spirit, and you don’t want to let your team down by shirking; you can’t be a nay-sayer on everything. You lose your sense of outrage, which is, after all, a feeling we experience when we see something abnormal. Once the abnormal becomes routine, outrage fades.
So the alarm is going up from people in the security field and people who know actors sounded out about positions in the Trump administration.
It turns out that the LOTE decision has to do with whether you think you have the power (and are not deluded) that you can change policy from within the structures.
Note that the ICS at Purdue University has scanned in the Arendt document to require that it be printed of rejiggered with a PDF editor.
“Note that the ICS at Purdue University has scanned in the Arendt document to require that it be printed of rejiggered with a PDF editor.”
Is this what you meant to write or did you mean something else? I am not following it.
I always thought the LOTE argument was to vote in the current election or situation from an Hippocratic stance to do the least harm as possible. Then immediately do your best to form a better alternative be it in an existing party a stronger wing or building a better third party. It is what is so frustrating about the delusional Left. I don’t know how many “I’ve voted 3rd party for years or decades.” Ok you voted, BFD what have done? Why is the Green, Libertarian or your preferred alternative still the island of misfit voters? So many of these voters and Internet poseurs don’t like the actual nitty gritty of persuasion and politics is beneath them. I have no idea how they delude themselves into thinking they are accomplishing a damn thing. They always bemoan the stupid voters. Yes, the voters might be stupid, but it is your job to make them less so.
Did you click the link and look at the PDF?
It should be obvious what I meant if you did that.
Or what I’m seeing with my configuration is different from what you are seeing.
Yes I can’t read the Arendt essay. Did you mean reconfigured? Maybe I have this wrong but rejiggered is like when you jury rig something and it is a physical thing like move furniture around in your living room. Reconfigured is more for ideas and abstract thoughts when referring to computer systems. Although, I have seen both used relatively interchangeably.
It should read ..”for printing it needs to be reconfigured (or rejiggered) for a PDF printer.” If I understand you correctly. However, the axis is off and I can’t read it.
What you have to do is save the PDF and print it. It prints a two page spread landscape on 8 1/2 x 11 paper. I really don’t need an editor if someone does look at the file displayed in the link.
I don’t have a printer, but I think I read it when I was researching Arendt’s work and Raul Hilberg’s a few years back.