|
·support our
troops, support Bush, support Cheney, support victory in Iraq, support victory in Afghanistan,
Clinton Liebrary, http://PoliSat.Com
, PoliSatDOTcom, Salute America's Heroes, Fallen Heroes Fund, oppose Gore's Global Warming theory, support milblogs, Michael Yon, Pat Dollard, BlackFive, MilBlogs, MilBlogging, Michael Yon, Mudville Gazette, HotAir.Com, JawaReport, PajamasMedia , VictoryCaucus , VetsForFreedom ,
FreedomsWatch , DayByDayCartoon , WrennCom.Com , Video , Political Satire, Politics, News, oppose MoveOn.Org, oppose Code Pink, oppose DailyKos, oppose ANSWER, support PoliSat.Com, support WrennCom.Com, ·
|
|
|
Home ·
Posts: Current /Recent · |
|
Nov. 16, 2004 #01: Political
Satire/Commentary where satire is always commentary but commentary isn't always satire™ (but
we're confident you'll know the difference) Search
PoliSat.Com Home Tell
a friend about PoliSat.Com Subscribe
Permanent link to this installment in PoliSat.Com's
Archives Google-News
list of recent updates About
author, Jim Wrenn.
Condoleeza
Rice, whom George Bush nominated to succeed Colin Powell as Secretary of State, would be deemed
unqualified for such position by a President John Kerry.
Condoleeza Rice lacks the qualifications that a President John Kerry would desire for a Secretary of
State: An ability to simultaneously occupy opposite sides of all issues until hindsight
reveals which position was least subject to criticism. She has the vision to see long-term
benefits through the lens of short-term challenges. It's often said that fear of failure is
the greatest enemy of success, but fear of blame for failure is an even greater enemy. This
latter fear is one of Kerry's greatest flaws. His fear of criticism in hindsight constricts
his vision of the future. In his mind, the theoretically perfect solution is almost always the
enemy of the sensibly good solution.
Today, Kerry said he plans to return to the Senate and "continue fighting" for the
"same issues" for which he has spent a career fighting. What are those issues?
One senses that if Kerry were forced to make an instantaneous decision on most vital issues, he
would more often than not make the right decision, but if he were afforded time to contemplate all
the pros and cons, he would more often than not make the wrong decision or suffer the intellectual
paralysis of being unable to make any decision at all, the latter of which is often the most
disastrous type of "decision." When circumstances denied him the opportunity for
nuanced contemplation, he braved enemy fire to save a comrade, but when circumstances afforded him
the luxury of opportunistic reflection, he made statements supporting enemy propaganda by his
broad-scale defamation of his comrades.
Rice, unlike Kerry, was no stranger to adversity during her formative years. She was able to
envision a future of liberty despite being forced to view it through a lens of harsh
oppression. She understands what Kerry, Kofi Annan and Jacques Chirac do not: That
liberty is the foundation of stability rather than vice-versa.
Rice: A Stable Staple.
Says Dubya, "I'll bring to the table
a leader both willing and able
the wold to entice--
That leader is Rice,
whose staple is vision that's stable."
Her life is a powerful sign
that liberty can't be consigned
to privileged few--
A value she knew
when freedom to her was denied.
Today, much is being said about the need for "stability" in Iraq in order for liberty to
take hold. The opposite is true. Terrorist intimidation can produce stability but not
liberty. Just as a neighborhood infected with a mob "protection" racket must be
willing to endure and support application of force (i.e., law enforcement) to eradicate it in order
to become free of it, a country infected with tyrannical forces must be willing to endure and
support application of force to eradicate them in order to achieve stabilization of liberty rather
than tyranny.
Application of a long-term, hindsight evaluation of Rice's philosophy in contrast to Kerry's is
revealing. Rice favored Reagan's theory that an aggressive buildup of our military strength
was the key to ultimately producing a mutual build-down of nuclear weapons by the Soviet Union and
the United States; Kerry adopted the opposite view. Rice understood that removing Saddam
Hussein from Kuwait was essential to preventing Hussein from acquiring virtual control of all
Mid-East oil revenue in order to build a gold-plated, nuclear-armed totalitarian state that would
have decidedly tilted the balance of history against the forces of liberty; Kerry adopted the
opposite view. Rice understood (as did Rumsfeld, Cheney and Bush) that 9-11 made it obvious we
no longer enjoyed the luxury of gambling that we would know enough about Saddam Hussein's
capabilities and intentions far enough in advance to prevent them and that, therefore, we'd better
act "sooner" than "later." Despite initially appearing to embrace
such view, in hindsight Kerry adopted the opposite view.
--Jim
Wrenn, Editor at PoliSat.Com
Installment
immediately preceding the one above, go
here.
Recent
Political Satire/Commentary Animations-- See
thumbnails below GoogleAds (below).
Recent
Political Satire/Commentary Animations-- Click image to play.
Mor
e
Animations: Text-Index/Images-Index.
Other sites that feature
PoliSat.Com's Political Satire/Commentary-- Click here
to view our Affiliates page.
Questions for Americans:
Shouldn't
we be at least as generous in supporting the families of our troops killed or injured while
serving our country in Afghanistan, Iraq, in America and throughout the rest of the world as we were
for the families of the victims of 9-11? Here are some suggestions:
*Salute
American Heroes* *Support
Fallen Heroes Fund*
Shouldn't
we recognize that many, if not most, instances of foreign anti-Americanism in the late 20th Century
(like most of the foreign anti-Americanism today) focused reactionary rage against maintenance of,
and willingness to use, human-rights-respecting power against forces that oppose liberty and favor
the "stability" of the status quo? See a retrospective
on Ronald Reagan. Shouldn't we recognize that despite arguments to
the contrary by devotees of the United Nations that the world remains a yet-to-be-civilized place in
which the wise exercise of human-rights-respecting power more than intellectual sophistry can best
assure the survival of liberty?
Shouldn't
we recognize that "property rights" are among the most fundamental of "human
rights" and are therefore vital to the survival of liberty? See "'Life,
Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness' versus 'Life, Liberty [and] Property.'"
Questions
for secular thinkers:
Shouldn't
secular thinkers be at least as respectful towards ordinary people of faith as George
Bush is towards ordinary secular thinkers, and shouldn't ordinary secular thinkers
repudiate fanatical secular fundamentalists at least as firmly as Bush repudiates fanatical
religious fundamentalists? Shouldn't secular fundamentalists learn to recognize the
unscientific nature of their own leaps of faith before throwing stones at unscientific leaps of
faith by ordinary people of faith? See satire/commentary about Secular
Fundamentalists and Religious Fanatics.
Shouldn't
people professing to be secular thinkers learn to understand the difference between science and political
science (i.e., politicized science)? Shouldn't radical environmentalists learn
to understand that their views are little more than modern forms of pantheism?
See Satire/Commentary about Pantheopians. Shouldn't they learn
to objectively and scientifically scrutinize theories such as Global Warming at least as rigorously
as they scrutinize "creationism"? See "Global
Warming or Scientific Flatulence?" See also the commentary on proposed "climate
stewardship" legislation and the animated illustration, "Goblins
of Globalized 'Warming.'"
Shouldn't
people professing to be secular thinkers learn to understand that what science reveals about human
evolution supports, rather than undermines, the sensibility of a rebuttable presumption that
monogamous, heterosexual marriage best serves the interests of children notwithstanding the
sensibility of recognizing civil unions to accord comparable (but not identical) privileges
to mutual-support partnerships? See commentary "Evolution
versus Revolution" and the animated illustration, "Devolution
versus Evolution."
Questions
for people of faith:
Shouldn't
people with faith that a Deity created free will recognize that compulsory piety would be offensive
to such Deity?
Shouldn't
people with faith that a Deity created free will recognize that political compromises limiting the
power of government to compel conformity with theocratic doctrines over which other people of faith,
as well as secular thinkers, can reasonably disagree would not be offensive to such Deity?
See commentary about our Founding
Documents, the Constitution and the Creator.
Donate your frequent-flier
miles to military personnel to return home from port of reentry on leave:
www.HeroMiles.Org.
|
·support our
troops, support Bush, support Cheney, support victory in Iraq, support victory in Afghanistan,
Clinton Liebrary, http://PoliSat.Com
, PoliSatDOTcom, Salute America's Heroes, Fallen Heroes Fund, oppose Gore's Global Warming theory, support milblogs, Michael Yon, Pat Dollard, BlackFive, MilBlogs, MilBlogging, Michael Yon, Mudville Gazette, HotAir.Com, JawaReport, PajamasMedia , VictoryCaucus , VetsForFreedom ,
FreedomsWatch , DayByDayCartoon , WrennCom.Com , Video , Political Satire, Politics, News, oppose MoveOn.Org, oppose Code Pink, oppose DailyKos, oppose ANSWER, support PoliSat.Com, support WrennCom.Com, ·
|
|
Other sites that feature
PoliSat.Com's Political Satire/Commentary-- Click
here to view our Affiliates page.
