Alarming News: I like Morgan Freeberg. A lot.
American Digest: And I like this from "The Blog That Nobody Reads", because it is -- mostly -- about me. What can I say? I'm on an ego trip today. It won't last.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: We were following a trackback and thinking "hmmm... this is a bloody excellent post!", and then we realized that it was just part III of, well, three...Damn. I wish I'd written those.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: ...I just remembered that I found a new blog a short while ago, House of Eratosthenes, that I really like. I like his common sense approach and his curiosity when it comes to why people believe what they believe rather than just what they believe.
Brutally Honest: Morgan Freeberg is brilliant.
Dr. Melissa Clouthier: Morgan Freeberg at House of Eratosthenes (pftthats a mouthful) honors big boned women in skimpy clothing. The picture there is priceless--keep scrolling down.
Exile in Portales: Via Gerard: Morgan Freeberg, a guy with a lot to say. And he speaks The Truth...and it's fascinating stuff. Worth a read, or three. Or six.
Just Muttering: Two nice pieces at House of Eratosthenes, one about a perhaps unintended effect of the Enron mess, and one on the Gore-y environ-movie.
Mein Blogovault: Make "the Blog that No One Reads" one of your daily reads.
The Virginian: I know this post will offend some people, but the author makes some good points.
Poetic Justice: Cletus! Ah gots a laiv one fer yew...
Boortz, I believe (and I could be wrong), is not giving proper credit; I heard this described word-for-word on Mike McConnell’s show as he recounted a verbal he had with a prior caller. And he probably got it from somewhere else, too. But heck, maybe that was Boortz.
It’s a wonderful scenario because it’s completely irrelevant whether it is a likely one or not. It is constructed to showcase the inner decency, or lack thereof, of the players within it…and it has complete license to do that because it is constructed to confront an errant philosophy designed to make us good people. So to those who say it shouldn’t count because it’s improbable: Yes, maybe you’re right, but it’s all about stopping us from becoming a society of monsters, and keeping us all wonderful. So let’s put some quality thought into defining exactly what a monster is, and what a wonderful person is. You started the dialogue. I think Boortz just managed to finish it for you.
Let’s try a little scenario here. No fudging. No “buts.” This is your scenario … if you don’t want to accept it as-is, then walk away.
Scenario: Your spouse and child have been kidnapped. They’ve been buried alive in a box. They have enough air and water to last a day or so. You have someone in your custody whom you know with absolute certainty can tell you where your family members are buried. Now .. what are you going to do to get the information you need to save your spouse and child. Don’t give me this “call the police and let them deal with it” scenario. You know that the police are bound by the rules … but are you? Will you put a washcloth over this person’s face and pour water on it? No? Will you point a gun at his head and tell him that he has seconds to live if he doesn’t give up the information? No? Would you start breaking this thug[‘]s fingers – one-by-one – until he gives you the information you need? No? Are you kidding me? Well … tell you what. Why don’t you call your spouse and children into the room right now and read this to them. Tell them that if [it] was they who were buried in that box waiting to die that you wouldn’t torture someone to save their life. Tell them that this guy would walk away with every body part [intact] .. no scratches .. no broken bones. You would do nothing to frighten this man into thinking that his life is in danger. Why you wouldn’t even po[u]r water on his head. Tell your family members [they] would just have to die before you would do anything closely related to torture to the man who had the information that could save their lives. Tell them that — and then live with the look in their eyes. Tell them that — and then live with the knowledge that they know what a wuss you are.
Me? I’m just not the nice reason you are. I can’t think of a single thing I would not do to this man if it would give me the information I need to save my wife and daughter. Get out the glass rods and the bamboo shoots. I’ll need some pliers and a blow torch as well. When it’s all over, and my family is sa[f]e, I’ll let the jury decide.
The only thing that would’ve made it better, aside from maybe fewer typos, would be a reference to the “get medieval on yo’ ass” scene from Pulp Fiction (NSFW language behind that link).
History is chock full of stories about entire societies catching raging white-hot cases of Goodperson Fever and then becoming monsters as they try to become good people. Generally, they don’t become monsters as they do things to defend the innocent from the guilty; they become monsters when they put too much work into trying to impress each other with obsequious, ineffectual and/or ironic platitudes and gestures.
The early casualties, ironically enough, are Sen. Kerry’s beloved shades of “nuance.” Attention-seeking is the primary goal, and so when Big Bad Bart comes to town and the Sheriff takes that long walk down the main thoroughfare to challenge him to a gunfight — nothing about Big Bad Bart, be it large or be it small, can ever be bad. If there’s something bad about Big Bad Bart, to notice it and say it out loud, would defeat hours of prior effort at this attention-getting game…and the same goes for noticing anything good about the Sheriff. So everything about the bad guy is good, and everything about the good guy is bad. There can be no exceptions. Because every little thing that comes out of the attention-seeker’s lips about the subject, has to be something that will provide the highest level of assurance that more attention will be coming. He wants to be asked “What do you mean by that?” over and over again.
They end up flipping reality upside down like a pancake. They seek attention, and because they seek attention it becomes desirable to see some “other side” of what is plainly good, and also the “other side” of something else that is plainly evil. They become Isaiah 5:20 people.
And that’s just about where we are with this torture debate. That’s my opinion, anyway. Your mileage, so the saying goes, may vary.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Great example but it’s not really the point of the “torture” debate in my opinion. There’s very little doubt that those opposed, or rather opposed to verbally agreeing with getting “medieval”, would in fact do many things they would never envision doing or at least admit to envisioning.
No, what the debate is really about is the ‘appearance’ of being above that type of human behavior, the ‘feeling’ of being morally superior to the waterboarding, Neanderthal crowd. Let’s face it, ‘feeling’ is what is most important to those who preach moral equivalences, are the wonderful ‘citizens of the world’ and who believe ‘terrorists are just victims of an economic situation caused by the imperialistic America’.
The argument is never about what the argument is about, no. Rather the argument is about them feeling good about themselves trying to make others look bad while they get to appear to be better people.
Yup, appearance and feelings, let’s not facts get in the way of a good argument.
- tim | 09/01/2009 @ 10:40This is why it is important to elect people of high character to high office, especially the Presidency.
The reason is, no, in general, we don’t torture. As a matter of fact, except for a very few specific cases, we go out of our way to avoid it.
But we hire these people to make judgement calls on the outlier cases. When we say, “we don’t torture”, that means “when you’re a prisoner, that won’t be a part of your punishment” like it is in more barbarous cultures.
But to say you’d never, NEVER do it, EVER — first of all, nobody believes that Any government would never do it, EVER. Nobody but nobody believes that. They all assume that in a case where the bad guy is bad enough and won’t reveal further plans by his organization, that it’s going to happen. They may not want to know about it, they may want to pretend it doesn’t happen. But they all know it does. Everywhere. If they say otherwise they are lying. This moral posturing is just that. Moral posturing.
People who draw a moral equivalence between the Bush Administration torturing a known terrorist to get whatever information we might need to head off other attacks and Saddam Hussein raping family members in front of family members and putting live people in wood chippers because he doesn’t like them are moral posers. They KNOW there’s a difference, and if their guy was in they’d be mum about it.
Bill Whittle summed it up very well:
- philmon | 09/02/2009 @ 08:34I should add that the reason they feel comfortable with this head-in-the-sand moral posturing is they know that their chances of ever having to make that trade-off moral decision is next to nothing.
When one is the President of the United States, your chances of having to face that dilemna are far, far greater. And you’ve been hired to decide.
- philmon | 09/02/2009 @ 08:40I hate to be a pest, but I need to include yet one more relevant quote:
- philmon | 09/02/2009 @ 08:49Wow, that’s a good one. Belongs on a tee shirt. Maybe a coffee mug.
- mkfreeberg | 09/02/2009 @ 10:13