torture reflection
On Saturday, I drank a Harp Lager with my next door neighbor. We're sitting there watching the Wisconsin/Iowa game when he turns and says to me, 'I don't like Cheney's position on torture.'
He went on to clarify. 'The detainees are all covered by the Geneva Convention,' he said. I made sure my beer was on his tab and then I told him he was full of shit.
I'm joking. Relax. I explained the Conventions don't apply since al Qaeda terrorists [1] don't wear uniforms, and they [2] target and kill civilians.
He didn't like what I said. And I didn't like that he didn't like what I said.
The notion that being nice to the Muslim extremists is going to help us win the War On Terror is naive. How many times have we discussed this very topic here @ R.F.L.? Reasoning with people who behead their enemies? Are you serious? What's the point? You might as well just chop off your own head right now.
Get it over with.
Understand that I don't advocate torture, but what I do advocate is not telling the world what our soldiers and our military can and cannot do in the midst of a world war. Imagine not being able to bluff when playing poker. Same thing. Besides the sheer force and power of the American military, the hidden value in the unknown makes our enemies fear us, too. All of these things, brought together, makes the world respect us.
Why do we want to give them access to the American judicial system? We don't want to try them in American courts of law. We cannot allow the terrorists to use the laws of our Republic against us.
Okay? Got it? There'll be a pop quiz tomorrow. Moving on --
I'm in a reflective mood today, so please, bear with me. I'd also like to talk about the meanings (and usage) of the following words:
Progressive -- 'favoring or promoting change or innovation.'
Conservative -- one who is 'averse to change and holds to traditional values and attitudes.'
These monikers, used in combination with the party signifiers 'Democrat' or 'Republican,' I believe, are badly misused. The word 'progressive' is becoming less synonymous with Democrats and 'conservative' doesn't adequately describe Republicans.
How could the Democrats possibly be described as being progressive while opposing Social Security reform? Protecting the status quo is in no way progressive. Fear-mongering and hate-mongering can, in no way, be described as being progressive. The idea-less Democrats can't be viewed as being progressive these days. Waiting until '06 to unveil their 'plan,' like Chuck Schumer said last week and like Howard Dean told Tim Russert yesterday, isn't progressive.
In the same vein, how could President Bush possibly be described as 'conservative' when he remains radically committed to changing the world? 'Neo,' or 'new,' for neo-conservative, doesn't really do it either. No, I think when you take into account the entire Bush agenda, the President would have to be described as a progressive.
Of course, critics will say, 'of course, Kent. Bush can't be described as a conservative, especially when he spends like a drunken sailor, and the deficit is out of control and he's never vetoed any spending, and blah, blah, blah.'
The deficit can be explained in one word: War. And deficits don't matter, either, due to the incredible American economy, which is why it's so important to keep the tax burden low.
I might include this stuff on tomorrow's pop quiz, too, so do your homework and read this post again.
P.S. Iowa beat Wisconsin, 20-10.
He went on to clarify. 'The detainees are all covered by the Geneva Convention,' he said. I made sure my beer was on his tab and then I told him he was full of shit.
I'm joking. Relax. I explained the Conventions don't apply since al Qaeda terrorists [1] don't wear uniforms, and they [2] target and kill civilians.
He didn't like what I said. And I didn't like that he didn't like what I said.
The notion that being nice to the Muslim extremists is going to help us win the War On Terror is naive. How many times have we discussed this very topic here @ R.F.L.? Reasoning with people who behead their enemies? Are you serious? What's the point? You might as well just chop off your own head right now.
Get it over with.
Understand that I don't advocate torture, but what I do advocate is not telling the world what our soldiers and our military can and cannot do in the midst of a world war. Imagine not being able to bluff when playing poker. Same thing. Besides the sheer force and power of the American military, the hidden value in the unknown makes our enemies fear us, too. All of these things, brought together, makes the world respect us.
Why do we want to give them access to the American judicial system? We don't want to try them in American courts of law. We cannot allow the terrorists to use the laws of our Republic against us.
Okay? Got it? There'll be a pop quiz tomorrow. Moving on --
I'm in a reflective mood today, so please, bear with me. I'd also like to talk about the meanings (and usage) of the following words:
Progressive -- 'favoring or promoting change or innovation.'
Conservative -- one who is 'averse to change and holds to traditional values and attitudes.'
These monikers, used in combination with the party signifiers 'Democrat' or 'Republican,' I believe, are badly misused. The word 'progressive' is becoming less synonymous with Democrats and 'conservative' doesn't adequately describe Republicans.
How could the Democrats possibly be described as being progressive while opposing Social Security reform? Protecting the status quo is in no way progressive. Fear-mongering and hate-mongering can, in no way, be described as being progressive. The idea-less Democrats can't be viewed as being progressive these days. Waiting until '06 to unveil their 'plan,' like Chuck Schumer said last week and like Howard Dean told Tim Russert yesterday, isn't progressive.
In the same vein, how could President Bush possibly be described as 'conservative' when he remains radically committed to changing the world? 'Neo,' or 'new,' for neo-conservative, doesn't really do it either. No, I think when you take into account the entire Bush agenda, the President would have to be described as a progressive.
Of course, critics will say, 'of course, Kent. Bush can't be described as a conservative, especially when he spends like a drunken sailor, and the deficit is out of control and he's never vetoed any spending, and blah, blah, blah.'
The deficit can be explained in one word: War. And deficits don't matter, either, due to the incredible American economy, which is why it's so important to keep the tax burden low.
I might include this stuff on tomorrow's pop quiz, too, so do your homework and read this post again.
P.S. Iowa beat Wisconsin, 20-10.
posted by Kent at 1:18 PM
4 Comments:
I'm ready for the quiz.
Dems are not against Social Security reform, they are against Social Security phase out, which is what Bush was pushing for.
No.
He was--and hopefully will again-- advocating private accounts, which would be great, since, historically speaking, the market always provides a positive r.o.i.
I know you are a reasonable Dem. From what I can tell you are extremely fair minded. But the vocal members of your party are, in fact, very much opposed to ANY type of S.S. reform.
I like your blog, you make some very poignant remarks, seem to be fair-minded and intelligent. I want to point out one very naive comment you made however. 7th paragraph, last line, "makes the world respect us." Maybe 50 years ago they respected us, when the presidency was revered as a position of integrity. It's one thing to be radical and set out to change the world, it another to do it at someone else's expense. Both in lives and money. The world outside this country holds us in contempt. We may still be powerful, but it may be too much for our own good. I see it as the beginning of the end if we continue down the path of radical dominance and don't move into a more "conservative" position.
Bruce,
First, you took the line 'makes the world respect us,' out of context. I was referring to terrorists only fearing and respecting power. Fearing and respecting military might.
That fear and respect, however, dramatically wanes when we are perceived to be too weak to treat the enemy the same way they treat us. The public debate on torture weakens our position in the global W.O.T.
Second, are you implying that President Bush has no integrity? That's a far-too-convenient Liberal talking point, completely unfounded and still unproven.
Third, you claim that the 'world holds us in contempt.' I disagree. The word is jealousy. And it's not a new phenomenon.
Thanks for stopping by. Hope to see you again.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home