 |
0.00
(0 votes)
You must login to vote
|
|
|
"On Torture + Other Forms of Raw Entertainment"
By Fritzwilliam
Why will a dog sometimes lick itself?
A.
Because it can.
Why do cops often beat up on the homeless?
A.
Because there's no one to tell them they can't.
----
Why are governments so quick to raise taxes?
A.
Because they can.
Why are cops so quick to use deadly force?
A.
Because there's no one to tell them they can't.
----
Why do so many people continue driving drunk?
A.
Because they can.
Why do speculators continue driving up prices in critical food and energy markets?
A.
Because there's no one to tell them they can't.
----
Why does puerile youth engage in graffiti?
A.
Because it can.
Why does the elite ruling class engage in war?
A.
Because there's no one to tell it it can't.
----
Why do used car dealers continue selling lemons?
A.
Because they can.
Why do drug companies continue selling death to an unsuspecting public?
A.
Because there's no one to tell them they can't.
----
Why do moms insist that kids clean up their rooms?
A.
Because they can.
Why do real estate predators insist on getting rich through the pain and suffering of others?
A.
Because there's no one to tell them they can't.
----
Why are the CEOs of failing corporations hauling down seven figure salaries even as their questionable leadership skills are responsible for leading their companies into bankruptcy?
A.
Because they can.
Why are NARCs and in some cases local prosecutors hauling away six and seven figures worth of so-called, "dirty money," then rewarding themselves with new condos, yachts and exotic cars?
A.
Because there's no one to tell them they can't.
----
Why would a President get his country involved in an international game of "chicken" even after being warned repeatedly by multinational journalists such as Fareed Zakaria that the means do not justify the ends.
A.
Because he can.
Why, then, would a President begin a program of illegal (warrantless) wiretapping of ordinary American citizens as well as unconstitutional arrest and detention of suspected enemy combatants while using universally condemned practices of extreme human degradation and torture(1) on those suspects?
A.
Because there was no one to tell him he couldn't.
----
And finally. . .
What's up with those who would amend the U.S. Constitution on exclusionary(2) grounds when dealing with basic equal rights(3) simply because those rights are at odds with their own parochial religious views?
A.
Hey. . .sounds to me like a personal problem. Maybe it's because there's no one around to remind them of a couple of old narratives: "Judge not, lest ye yourself be judged," and "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."
----
(1) As one would expect, the President has denied that anyone is or ever was being tortured under his administration as a result of being captured on the field of battle, which would equate, one must assume, to a seizure or an abduction that might take place anywhere on the globe, seeing that the war we're in has been dubbed the "Global War on Terror." But that's only the first of this administration's "torture" problem. The second part leads to a ruse that wouldn't surprise even a fifth grader. Can't you just hear Bush saying, "Define torture. Go ahead, I dare yuh." Well dust off your Webster's, Mr. President, because the Abu Ghraib/Gitmo story is one that could truly go places, having the potential to make Watergate look a bit like an ice cream social and one that will bear following very, very closely.
(2) The words, ". . .dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal," was at the time of Thomas Jefferson's writing disingenuous at best, definitely exclusionary and bigoted at worst. What?. . .was this intended merely as the universal masculine form? Well, clearly there were African-American slave men around at the time--Jefferson's included--so I think we can dispense with that idea. It's also notable that women would mark the passage of more than a century and a half for a share of this "equality." But even that did not bring half of the country's population completely into the fold inasmuch as the ERA--the Nineteenth Amendment to the Constitution--is still hanging around, unratified. Could it actually be that we need a separate amendment to the Constitution in order to deal with the word, "men," and thereby prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex (Equal Rights Amendment)? [Had the word "everyone" been used in place of "all men," official curtailment of one's equal rights would require government denial of the presence of "one's self," essentially. In other words, in order to deny us our equal rights, government would first need to deny that we exist as humans, and therefore, under the new wording, the only wall of separation between peoples, genders and various personal identity traits would be the one between the living and the dead. Much more cut-and-dried, you see, which is why, I'd posit, that usage like 'everyone,' or 'all people' was purposely avoided.]
(3) And just when you thought it was safe to go back into the Constitution, it would seem that we now need to go back and deal with the phrase, "on the basis of sex," [the wording used in the 19th Amendment.] Fine. But does it end there? Not on your life. No one ever dreamed there would be "others" out there. Uh-h huh. Someone forgot to take into account the phrase, "on the basis of sexual orientation." Question: Why *didn't* we use the word, "everyone" back when we had the chance? Actually, the answer is pretty much "self evident," is it not?
(1), (2), (3) You bet freedom isn't free. But the price of freedom preservation [pre-George W. Bush] is miniscule compared to the cost of freedom restoration [post-George W. Bush].
----
Copyright (c) 2008 F. William Bracy
All rights reserved.
------
Fritzwilliam
|
Related Items
|
|
|
|
The Education of Mark Levin
