When I wrote my January 22, 2010, article entitled "There is no 'war on terror,'" I believed that no one could or would argue that declaring a "war on poverty" meant that the government could then shoot poor people in the streets or imprison them on the accusation of being poor without a trial.
I might have been wrong.
Speaking about poor people and welfare, Andre Bauer, Republican Lt. Governor of South Carolina and candidate for governor of that state, said on Thursday, January 21, 2010, that his grandmother had informed him he should " ... quit feeding stray animals. You know why? Because they breed! You're facilitating that problem if you give an animal or a person ample food supply. They will reproduce, especially ones that don't think too much further than that."
Apparently, Lt. Governor Bauer believes that the solution to poverty is to starve the poor people until their reproductive organs cease to function.
One may argue that I am taking his comments "out of context" or that "he didn't really mean that." I disagree. I think the comments are in precisely accurate context and that, yes, that really is what he believes, even if it isn't exactly what he said.
The notion that the idea of feeding stray animals and therefore allowing them to breed more stray animals would come to his mind when thinking about poor people fully reveals the context and opens a wide window to know how he feels about poor people. Other human beings. Not to mention hungry and homeless dogs.
According to his web site, "André is a member of Union Methodist Church." Well. I see.
Now, according to the Today's New International Version of the Holy Bible, Jesus of Nazareth told a rich young man, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven."
I guess Jesus hadn't had the benefit of knowing Lt. Governor Bauer's grandmother. Apparently, she would have set the young preacher straight on what a mistake it was to give to the poor. Thank goodness she was around to help out little Andre.
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Friday, January 22, 2010
There is no "war on terror"
One of the few things on which Rush Limbaugh and I agree is that "words mean something."
When a word is used divorced from its true meaning, it can create all kinds of havoc. When it is used divorced from its true meaning on purpose, it is often a lie. The speaker intends you to believe something that is not true, based on what the speaker says.
Let us be clear. There is no war on terror in the literal, military sense. There can't be. It isn't possible. That is not what the word means.
The phrase "war on terror" has been used the way a magician uses his hat. He puts one thing in, and takes something else out, and hopes the audience will believe they are the same thing.
Words have meaning. The New Oxford American Dictionary tells us the meaning of the word "war."
n a state of armed conflict between different nations or states or different groups within a nation or state [emphasis added]: Japan declared war on Germany; Iran and Iraq had been at war for six years.
SPECIAL USAGE
- a particular armed conflict: after the war, they emigrated to America.
- a state of competition, conflict, or hostility between different people or groups [emphasis added]: she was at war with her parentsa price war among discount retailers.
- a sustained effort to deal with or end a particular unpleasant or undesirable situation or condition: the authorities are waging war against all forms of smugglinga war on drugs.
That is what the word "war" means.
Terror (or terrorism) is not a nation or a state. It is not a group within a nation or state. It is not even a person or a group of people.
Unless the conflict is between nations or states or groups within nations or states, it is not war in the literal, military sense. And, thus, it does not invoke either the rules or the law of war.
Just as a "war on drugs" does not allow the government - any government - to shoot down suspected drug dealers without trial, the "war on terror" does not allow the government - any government - to shoot down suspected terrorists. Just as the "war on poverty" does not allow the government - any government - to capture and imprison poor people until the end of the "war on poverty," the "war on terror" does not allow the government to capture and imprison terrorists until the end of the "war on terror."
Would anyone seriously argue that if the government announced a "war on bank robbery," that the government could, merely because of the announcement, shoot suspected bank robbers on sight, or keep them imprisoned indefinitely without any criminal charges and without a trial?
Terror (or terrorism) is a tactic. Like "sneak attack" or "frontal assault" or "carpet bombing."
Terror (or terrorism) may be illegal, but it also may perfectly legal.
If two nations are at war, a soldier of one nation can legally sneak into the barracks of the soldiers of another nation and blow himself up, killing them in the process. If he could succeed at that, it might create a feeling of terror among his enemies. "We are not safe anywhere!" It would be terrorism as a tactic, and the soldier commiting the act would be a terrorist, but it would not be illegal.
On the other hand, if the person blowing himself up were not a soldier, or his country was not at war with the soldiers in the barracks, or, even if they were, he walked into an orphanage and blew himself up, that would be exactly the same act - terrorism - but it would be a crime.
No one would suggest that the government could now employ its soldiers to shoot anyone that someone in the government thought might walk into an orphanage and blow himself up one day. Or even imprison them without a trial.
George Bush put the phrase "war on terror" into his magician's hat. When he put it in, it had one meaning, a meaning that did not invoke the rules of war. A metaphorical meaning. But, when he pulled it out of that hat, he had changed the meaning to a literal meaning, one that did invoke the rules of war, and hoped no one would notice. But, "war on terror" did not, does not, and cannot have that meaning. It was not, is not, and can never be a literal, military war.
And Barrack Obama is just as bad and maybe worse, because he's continued to use the phrase "war on terror" with George Bush's impossibly incorrect meaning. I think George Bush knew better, but I admit, he wasn't very good with English. I'm convinced that Barrack Obama, intelligent, educated, constitutional law scholar that he is, knows better.
And that makes it a lie.
When a word is used divorced from its true meaning, it can create all kinds of havoc. When it is used divorced from its true meaning on purpose, it is often a lie. The speaker intends you to believe something that is not true, based on what the speaker says.
Let us be clear. There is no war on terror in the literal, military sense. There can't be. It isn't possible. That is not what the word means.
The phrase "war on terror" has been used the way a magician uses his hat. He puts one thing in, and takes something else out, and hopes the audience will believe they are the same thing.
Words have meaning. The New Oxford American Dictionary tells us the meaning of the word "war."
n a state of armed conflict between different nations or states or different groups within a nation or state [emphasis added]: Japan declared war on Germany; Iran and Iraq had been at war for six years.
SPECIAL USAGE
- a particular armed conflict: after the war, they emigrated to America.
- a state of competition, conflict, or hostility between different people or groups [emphasis added]: she was at war with her parentsa price war among discount retailers.
- a sustained effort to deal with or end a particular unpleasant or undesirable situation or condition: the authorities are waging war against all forms of smugglinga war on drugs.
That is what the word "war" means.
Terror (or terrorism) is not a nation or a state. It is not a group within a nation or state. It is not even a person or a group of people.
Unless the conflict is between nations or states or groups within nations or states, it is not war in the literal, military sense. And, thus, it does not invoke either the rules or the law of war.
Just as a "war on drugs" does not allow the government - any government - to shoot down suspected drug dealers without trial, the "war on terror" does not allow the government - any government - to shoot down suspected terrorists. Just as the "war on poverty" does not allow the government - any government - to capture and imprison poor people until the end of the "war on poverty," the "war on terror" does not allow the government to capture and imprison terrorists until the end of the "war on terror."
Would anyone seriously argue that if the government announced a "war on bank robbery," that the government could, merely because of the announcement, shoot suspected bank robbers on sight, or keep them imprisoned indefinitely without any criminal charges and without a trial?
Terror (or terrorism) is a tactic. Like "sneak attack" or "frontal assault" or "carpet bombing."
Terror (or terrorism) may be illegal, but it also may perfectly legal.
If two nations are at war, a soldier of one nation can legally sneak into the barracks of the soldiers of another nation and blow himself up, killing them in the process. If he could succeed at that, it might create a feeling of terror among his enemies. "We are not safe anywhere!" It would be terrorism as a tactic, and the soldier commiting the act would be a terrorist, but it would not be illegal.
On the other hand, if the person blowing himself up were not a soldier, or his country was not at war with the soldiers in the barracks, or, even if they were, he walked into an orphanage and blew himself up, that would be exactly the same act - terrorism - but it would be a crime.
No one would suggest that the government could now employ its soldiers to shoot anyone that someone in the government thought might walk into an orphanage and blow himself up one day. Or even imprison them without a trial.
George Bush put the phrase "war on terror" into his magician's hat. When he put it in, it had one meaning, a meaning that did not invoke the rules of war. A metaphorical meaning. But, when he pulled it out of that hat, he had changed the meaning to a literal meaning, one that did invoke the rules of war, and hoped no one would notice. But, "war on terror" did not, does not, and cannot have that meaning. It was not, is not, and can never be a literal, military war.
And Barrack Obama is just as bad and maybe worse, because he's continued to use the phrase "war on terror" with George Bush's impossibly incorrect meaning. I think George Bush knew better, but I admit, he wasn't very good with English. I'm convinced that Barrack Obama, intelligent, educated, constitutional law scholar that he is, knows better.
And that makes it a lie.
Monday, January 11, 2010
Happy New Year
I should have done this earlier, on New Year's Day to be precise, but, better late than never. I hope.
Happy New Year! May God bless the entire world in 2010! No exceptions.
Happy New Year! May God bless the entire world in 2010! No exceptions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)