House of Eratosthenes

On this issue of so-called torture. This is why I folded my arms across my chest and faced away while everyone else joined in on the party. There are a few other reasons too, but this is the big one.

“I obviously don’t want to torture any prisoners. There is a long list of areas that we were in disagreement on,” [Sen. and Presumptive Republican Nominee John] McCain said of [President George W.] Bush.

Fox interviewer Chris Wallace asked McCain if he was suggesting that Bush did want to torture prisoners.

“Well, waterboarding to me is torture, OK?” McCain responded. “And waterboarding was advocated by the administration, and according to a published report, was used.”

Bush has said the United States does not practice torture. But the Central Intelligence Agency has admitted using waterboarding, a form of simulated drowning, and a recent Justice Department probe cited cases of sleep disruption, “short shackling” and other physical techniques against terrorism suspects captured after the Sept. 11 attacks.

To me, this is the very essence of liberalism. To pull some kind of rule out of your ass, along with a definition to a word that doesn’t make much sense, or any sense at all. And then to say, now that I got that rule pulled outta my ass, everything takes a back seat to it no matter what.

And to not put any thought into where exactly that puts you. Okay…we don’t torture…torture is ANYTHING you can do to someone I wouldn’t want to have done to me. Well? Isn’t that what he’s saying? If I don’t wanna have it done to me, then it must be torture. So that’s our rule. I want it done to me, you can go ahead and do it to these guys — if I don’t want it done to me, then you can’t.

And don’t worry about the ticking time bomb scenario because it isn’t going to happen. Nor will anything that resembles it meaningfully. There. I just kind of pulled that out of my ass, too.

Liberal. Completely liberal. And this annointing of Saint McCain as some kind of a demigod uniquely qualified to decide these situations because of what he went through back in Nam, that’s liberal too. I don’t buy it. For one thing, I have the God-given right and privilege and obligation to noodle this stuff out between my left ear and my right one. That’s become a conservative value today; it’s supposed to be a liberal one, but the liberals gave it up with all their bullying about this guy’s Nobel peace prize, and that guy’s “doing so much for the planet,” and some other guy being such a wonderful President (to our liberals) — that they’ve positioned themselves atop the argumentum ad verecundiam fallacy as a way of shutting down debate. Where McCain’s campaign intersects with the torture issue, that’s exactly what this is. He has his opinion; any opinion held by any of the rest of us, isn’t worth anything unless we were in the Hanoi Hilton with him.

The truth of the matter, though, is that his experience doesn’t qualify him to have this opinion. If anything, it leaves him with a lot more explaining to do because at the time he was captured, the United States was a signing party to the Geneva Conventions. Now, admittedly, having not been there, my knowledge base is inferior, but it seems to me the operative question is: How much good did that do Sen. McCain in those dark days of his? And the answer would appear to be…not a whole hell of a lot. So shouldn’t he understand, better than anyone else, that this high-minded “United States Does Not Torture” rhetoric is just meaningless symbolism and nothing more? Shouldn’t he understand especially that expanding our definition of torture, and then resolutely insisting we still don’t do it, is particularly unlikely to win us any friends?

This is serious stuff, because if you say “The United States Doesn’t Torture Except In Certain Circumstances” that doesn’t mean a whole lot, nor is that the pledge anyone expects to be made, or to make. This is about absolutism. It’s about extremism. Just like banning the death penalty — it’s about the word never. And just like the death penalty, it’s all about saying the lives of United States citizens are worth a limited amount, so they can be subordinated to something else.

It’s all about cheapening life. It’s completely at odds with his pro-choice position.

Update: Since he done gone ‘n ticked me off, the day after I declared my support for him — you see, bandwagoneers, it does work the way I told you it works! — I went and changed my logo. The fine folks at IMAO speak for me. They usually do.

It even matches my color scheme; almost precisely. Hope nobody gets the idea that I’m the guy who designed it.

Tremble before the wrath of The Blog That Nobody Reads, Maverick.

Eh. I’m kinda with Dennis Miller on this one.

I gotta believe McCain would come through on the ticking time bomb scenario, and I’m cuttin’ him some slack for livin’ at the Hanoi.

It might go sorta like, “What else we got besides waterboardin’, boys?! This man is the key to savin’ Pheonix!”

But as I’ve said before, though I disagree with him on this point, he’s not a total liberal loss. He has some conservative values, and his opponent has none. In fact, he has anti-conservative values.

I do like the new bumpersticker look, though.
- philmon | 09/02/2008 @ 21:06
…and I’m cuttin’ him some slack for livin’ at the Hanoi.

Okay, I understand the compulsion. But it’s purely emotional. On a logical level, I addressed how this doesn’t add up. Plus, the narrative is just too convenient. Oh, he’s got this deeply personal tragedy that happend to him, and because of THAT he realized torture is wrong.

Well what he realized is that it hurts like a mo-fo. You don’t need to be captured by the Cong to figure that out. So he didn’t realize squat. I know that seems tactless, and I guess it is. But it’s true.

Compared to Obama, he wins hands-down. We ALL agree on that one. But voting for him over The Messiah is kind of like killing a weed by chopping away at the leafy bits. The democrat who got nominated in 2008 was the most liberal democrat; the Republican who got nominated in ’08 was the most liberal Republican. That right THERE is the root of the weed. That’s what has to be killed.

Liberalism is all about eradicating values first, and humanity right afterward. Somehow, it has come to be synonymous with moderation and compromise. It falls to conservatives to define what is right and noble about their platform…and whenever the time comes for them to do this, all they can do is act like liberals so that liberals will like ’em better. And the torture situation is a perfect example of this.

McCain doesn’t deliver a meaningful shift away from that. Gov. Palin does.
- mkfreeberg | 09/03/2008 @ 00:15
Yeah, I agree with you. I’m just not overly worried about this particular point. He’s still willing to call “evil” and he reportedly has a temper. Plus I think he’s a good man in the old sense of the word … where the word “man” still meant something.

And I could be wrong. It’s just a hunch. But I tend to follow those.
- philmon | 09/03/2008 @ 10:15
Well to be fair to McCain, I think he’s confounding a consensus here because he exists not at one extreme or the other, but somewhere in between. Just like all real things.

He does pander, though. …to provide gratification for others’ desires — m-w.com. People who criticize my criticism of him, tend to manufacture this falsehood that he ranks highly on the list of principled people, who act out of those principles they have. Reality is unkind when used as a testing agent against such a statement. I chose the torture issue as an example, because to a lazy intellect it seems this is where McCain is the most principled. But to a more viligant intellect, it may be the one issue on which he does his most energetic pandering.

(IMHO, the issue on which McCain does the best job at remaining true to his principles, without pandering either in form or in substance, would be abortion. But that’s a different, albeit somewhat related, topic.)
- mkfreeberg | 09/03/2008 @ 10:59
OK Morgan, we get it. We got it, a long time ago, that Sen. McCain is not the ultimate Conservative.

Are just now figuring this out? I fail to see the need to bring this up now. What is it you are trying to accomplish?

It’s as if you’re trying to get someone else nominated. That you’re going to go down yelling and screaming till someone else comes along to “save the day” and gives us the “true” Conservative that will be worthy of electing.

The timing of this, immediately after finally posting your support for the Republican ticket, is slightly suspicious. As if you were trying for some impact to throw us all off. Sorry, but it comes off a little contrived, though hope I’m wrong.

I’m tired of it all. McCain is the choice. Period. The end. Story over. To keep rehashing his faults doesn’t accomplish anything at this point. Fred is on board, why can’t you be?

Hell, he wasn’t my first choice either, I voted for Romney. He lost. I’m voting for McCain. I don’t feel the need to criticize all his faults at this point of the game. When he’s elected, we’ll have plenty of time for that.

Rant over.
- tim | 09/03/2008 @ 11:43
You absolutely, positively NEED to listen to what your boy Fred said last evening in St. Paul, if you haven’t already. Thompson’s speech just might help you clear up any remaining reservations you have about McCain, given the respect you have for Fred.

The salient point, Morgan, is that you… and every other human being… are NEVER gonna agree with anyone 100% of the time. I don’t share McCain’s views on waterboarding, either. I don’t particularly like his views on immigration, nor his views on drilling in ANWR. But… contrasted to Obama, McCain is an absolute political SAINT.

Keep in mind what happened to the last guy who was absolutely perfect: the Romans crucified him a couple of thousand years ago. And that remark is absolutely apropos of nothing, except for the fact I think you’re looking for a political Jesus.

I’m trying my level best to understand your issues here. But your constant carping is wearing my patience thin. Paper thin. And your new logo? Cute.

Just sayin’, with ALL due respect.
- Buck | 09/03/2008 @ 11:46
Well, now. Tim and I are on the same page, eh? Note the time of our two posts… he beat me by a mere three minutes. Synchronicity, and all that. 😉
- Buck | 09/03/2008 @ 11:52
Buck,

You’re trying to understand my position but I’m wearing your patience paper-thin by explaining it?

How’s this. Conservatism, to me, is a rejection of populism; populism is the premature abridgement of reasoned discourse, based on the flawed notion that if enough people agree on something, then everybody should.

And when McCain goes populist on an issue, it grates on my nerves, just as it grates on your nerves when I don’t fall in lock-step with him on everything.

I would remind the two of you gentlemen, that in this country we question our leaders. When we disagree with them, we talk it out — the leaders may make a decision on one thing or another for the day, but it’s not up to them to end all debate on it just because they’re the leaders (which McCain isn’t, just yet). I would further remind you, that this offshore drilling imbroglio, in which McCain correctly decided to go ahead & reverse course on it and take his lumps for doing so, is a perfect example of what I’m talking about.

Since that was a rather unusual thing for him to do, it seems to me this is an especially legitimate concern to have. I’m no longer suggesting people should stay home, or write in Daffy Duck’s name as an acceptable response — because of the VPILF — but I don’t think shutting up & piping down is an acceptable response either.

As an aside, a huge thank-you to AF Capt. Buck for his service to the country.
- mkfreeberg | 09/03/2008 @ 12:19
Buck, Tim, I think our humble host is not preaching in this case, he’s just ranting. He still doesn’t see himself as a leader of men. The Recruit is allowed to grumble in the bilge, the Captain cannot share his fears with his men. The internet gives us no set course or rank, to warn us or make sure. Relax, our host is on your side, but like any yin soul, he wants it to be better.
- Robert Mitchell Jr. | 09/03/2008 @ 12:19
You’re trying to understand my position but I’m wearing your patience paper-thin by explaining it?

Explanation is one thing, harping yet another. I’ve been with you throughout this whole campaign season, and we’ve exchanged our views… sometimes ad nauseum. The point Tim and I make is there comes a time to STFU and get in line, to be blunt. Don’t misunderstand me: I think it’s a great good thing you’ve come around and aren’t advocating a vote for Bob Barr, or Daffy Duck (I repeat myself). And, as Tim said: We get it. We got it. What good does it do to belabor the point?

Speaking of SN1… he left for The Sandbox yesterday. I believe he intends to keep his blog while he’s deployed. But I’ve heard THAT song ‘n’ dance before. I hope he means it this time.

Mr. Mitchell: re: your point about the captain. You’re a wise man, indeed. And yeah, I know Morgan’s trying to make it better. That’s we DO, innit? 😉
- Buck | 09/03/2008 @ 12:32
That’s we DO, innit? 😉

There’s a missing “what” in there. Some place.
- Buck | 09/03/2008 @ 12:34
Yes, it’s a valid rant, and a Yin rant, but like the best of Yin rants it’s based on cause and effect. And I see it as a continuation, Buck, of your arguments while you were laboring to bring me into the fold — namely, that IF Obama wins, THEN we are screwed.

IF we do not torture…and IF we define torture to be anything done to others that you don’t want done to you and I don’t want done to me — THEN we interrogate detainees by sitting on our asses and waiting for them to talk when they want to.

And IF we do that, THEN we’re pretty much not learning anything.

And IF we aren’t learning anything from them, THEN we jettison an enormous asset that has, to date, been instrumental in making inroads on the war on terror.

And IF that’s what McCain represents, and he gets no resistance from anyone about this, THEN that invalidates an important part of the reason for electing him. With all those IF-THENs it really doesn’t matter if I’m ranting or preaching. It doesn’t even matter how tired one is of hearing it. (Truth never cares.) The question, in my mind, is if this is a proper time to point it out.

Maybe it isn’t. But IF it isn’t, THEN when is the correct time?
- mkfreeberg | 09/03/2008 @ 12:39
Mr. Mitchell, point taken.

See Buck’s response, dude says it better than I and we’re on the same page.

I’m just pissed about this whole Palin assault currently taking place, I just would like those of us on the same side to rally and stay focused. Especially this week of the convention, a little unity would do us ALL good (*cough, cough*).

I realize Morgan that “it’s not up to them to end all debate on it just because they’re the leaders”. You’re putting words in my mouth or McCain’s. I just don’t see the time for debate as right now. Give it a rest. Restart after the election, after Maverick is sworn in or at least next week. That’s all I’m saying.

Now if you want to slam Obama…
- tim | 09/03/2008 @ 12:53

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent

Items of Interest

Monthly Archives

What They Say

Links

Here’s Where He’s Way Too LiberalTuesday, September 2nd, 2008

Here’s Where He’s Way Too Liberal
Tuesday, September 2nd, 2008