|
So, we had a visit on the premises by one
Michael "Faster Please" Ledeen, of the American Enterprise Institute and National Review Online . We're very full of
ourselves right now, practically bursting at the seams at moving in such
impressive circles with all the other intellectual sophisticates. Be as big as
Glenn
Reynolds or Daily psyKos in no time at all. You all
shouldn't be surprised if we don't raise the rates by some
20-30%.But we are also instructed
that pride goeth ever before a fall, so we're putting on our sumo wrestling suit, just in case. We're also
pretty sure that we owe our sudden blaze of glory to the kindness of others, for which we give thanks, as
always.We are now officially done
with the sovereign "we" for this
posting.--------------Hate
to start off with a wank
(ed:
actually, you started with a boast. Author -
sheddap!),
but you can file this bit of the post under the category of "Institutions I used
to respect for their intellectual consistency even while roundly disagreeing
with nearly everything else they tried to do"
category.Uh,
what?Right - Amnesty International
and the ACLU. AI did the dirty work of getting down on their hands in knees in
some of the worlds most horrible places and shining the flashlight on things
that the world's most beastly tyrannies would rather have left swept under the
carpet. The ACLU defended people that no one else would have stood besides,
people that they no doubt loathed personally, because of the fact that even the
most loathsome among us has the right to speak his mind unmolested. So I didn't
particularly agree with them fighting for the right of Nazi's to march through
Skokie, Illinois (of all places, home to no few
concentration camp survivors). You could disagree, as I did, with the idea of
defending the rights of such odious people, even while admiring the underlying
consistency of the ACLU's motives. After all, Thomas Jefferson
wrote:"... let them
stand as monuments to the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated
where reason is left free to combat
it."And that's ordinarily good
enough for me.But then of course,
last week Irene Khan, the spokesperson at AI, declared that the Guantanamo detention had
become the moral equivalent of Solzhenitsin's gulag. Not merely "tantamount" to
a gulag. The 21st century's equivalent. Same thing. No
diff.This is more than merely absurd . It's nuts, at so many different levels.
Tens of millions of people died in the gulag system, a system
designed
by the state to fulfill that purpose. No one not snuggling up in the hall closet
with tinfoil hats can claim anything near the same purpose or effect as what is
being done down in Gitmo with those who decided to throw down their weapons
rather than run into the hail of bullets on the battlefield of the GWOT. So it's
more than a merely invidious comparison, it's a deeply stupid one. One that
reflects poorly on the cognitive skills of the
speaker.And here's the next thing: I
understand. I get it. I know that thoughtful people are concerned. I've got my
own concerns, too. It's very close to absolute power the jailers down there
possess. We all know what level of corruption attends to absolute power. And:
I know that the US makes a tempting
target in this regard. If you're an AI type, you can rail against the machinery
of Saudi slavery or Cuban dissident-smashing and know that it will get
you absolutely nowhere in the real world. On the other hand, while rubbing the
collective face of the US population in the filth of Abu Ghraib = Guantanamo =
The gulag-sytle moral relativism has at least a chance of getting a nibble of
remorse, and who knows? Maybe some reformative action. Could happen.
Still:Let's not get our skirts blown
up entirely over our heads. Let's try to keep some sense of perspective. Let's
let words continue to have meaning. Let's keep in mind the fact that
having spent that moral currency on giving the koran-kicking jailers down in
Gitmo the big kazoo, that we've essentially written the real psychopaths a
carte
blanche to keep the murder machine going.
With actual people twisting in the rack. They're not just culturally offended,
in those places. They're screaming out loud and making a mess of themselves, the
poor bastards. But, really, who are
we to judge? After all, if the US is the world's second greatest violator of
human rights, as AI states, who among us has the right to question the minor
leaguers?Regrets for the language up
front, but it's just fucking stupid, is
all.Ah, feckit. Oh yeah:
The ACLU
-Well. They've successfully petitioned to have more
pornography from a year and half ago at Abu Ghraib released into the world.
Because the public has a right to know I guess, and who had any idea that stuff
like that happened? It's possible I suppose that there's at least one or two
froth-mouthed jihadists out there who haven't yet got a reason to blow
themselves up in an Iraqi schoolyard. And it is, I suppose, to be hoped by the
ACLU that this might just put them over the edge. You could get
lucky.Dude - we know. We got it. Bad
things happened. Pay attention though: The wheels of justice turned. None of
these pogues got promotions. Some of them are serving time. Others are in the
dock. What did we not learn last year that these new photos will
reveal?And by the way, exactly how
is this old-news-is-no-news story of Iraqi citizen abuse at the hands of US
military miscreants an issue for the
American
Civil Liberties Union? Exactly what constitutional rights were infringed upon,
out in the Iraqi desert?Not to
excuse criminal behavior - no need to: We're doing a fine job prosecuting that
already. Just want to understand
whose side they're on. Because we're in a freakin' war, maybe they've heard the
rumors. And I wanted to know who they thought should win. The folks who kick the occasional koran , and try to hide from
the act? Or those that cut the heads off of helpless captives, and post it on
the internet. Just wanted to be
clear.Oh, by the way: Hat's all the
way off to the WaPo: A paper that, despite its undeniable tilt, manages to keep
both feet firmly planted in reality world. Good job,
fellas.----------------Ah,
but now I'll be reprimanded for questioning someone's patriotism, no
doubt.Well, since I'm on about that
anyway, how about
this?-
The airplanes of Aero Contractors
Ltd. take off from Johnston County Airport here, then disappear over the scrub
pines and fields of tobacco and sweet potatoes. Nothing about the sleepy
Southern setting hints of foreign
intrigue. Nothing gives
away the fact that Aero's
pilots are the discreet bus drivers of the battle against terrorism, routinely
sent on secret missions to Baghdad, Cairo, Tashkent and Kabul. (emphasis added -
duh!)
-
No. Nothing but an article in the New York
Times.
-
This almost defies parody. Almost. I mean - it is
the New York
Times.
Of all people, you'd think that maybe they'd understand that there's an actual
war on. That people are actually dying in it. You'd think maybe they'd be on
board for the big win. Want to maybe let the secret arm of the government which
prosecutes the war on terror to, you know, do it covertly. Because now that you
and I know exactly which company does the work here, and how and where they do
it, our lives are immeasurable enriched.
Immeasurable: Because you can't measure "nothing."
Which is what it means to us.
-
But a measurable benefit to the foe.
-
Just don't get it, is all.
-
OK, again, I got it: You just report the news
without fear or favor. Don't care who wins the war on terror. Citizen of the
world, and all that. Dispassionate observer, uninterested reporter. Very
well.
-
So why'd your paper endorse Senator John Kerry for president last fall? Is
it possible you'd care more about who won a national election that who won the
war the nation is embarked upon? Really?
-
How does that work? Inquiring minds want to
know.
-
-------------
Maybe it's all a part of the same "Big Throat"
circle jerk that's going on in all the interested cells. This is serious
inside-baseball stuff - who really cares any more? Ever since the 70's, the cub
reporter's wet dream has been to be the next guy to get a deputy director of the
FBI to spill the beans on a sitting president, thereby Rocking The Seat Of
Government, publishing a best seller and moving into the window office all in
one fell swoop. It's a pretty big act to follow, which is why you can maybe
sense the hysteria in the current "pick-a-noun-and-affixe-the-syllable-'Gate'"
behind it mode of reportage.
-
And does anyone else feel that maybe the shine has
gone off the Woodward-Bernstein camelot just a little bit to know that Deep
Throat was just another Washington bureaucrat that was pissed off that he got
passed over for promotion? Not saying that the man didn't do a good thing in
bringing down a corrupt administration. Just saying he didn't do it on the way
to sainthood.
-
Although I did find it just the teensiest bit
ironic that Tricky Dick himself it was that spoke in Felt's
behalf when he was found to be treating the constitution somewhat
loosely. Wonder how that felt, over in the defendant's chair, knowing both sides
of the tale?
------------------------
All
right, that's it. I've got a great deal more to say, but we're out of time.
There's a family to snuggle, and maybe even DVD's to watch. Who can
tell?
Check back in some other time,
if it suits ya. I'll be here 'till Tuesday. Try the veal.
|
