|
·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 · |
|
Dec.
8, 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.
Prisoners--
Torture versus harsh treatment; Thumbs on the Scales of Justice; Abu Ghraib, Iraq, Special Forces,
Afghanistan, Baathists, Terrorists, ACLU, ICRC, UNHRC, Kofi Annan, Ted Kennedy.
Again there arises an asymmetrical chorus of outrage over claims that American troops failed to
treat prisoners properly by refusing to cut out their tongues, cut off their hands, cut off their
ears, dip them in acid, hang them from ceiling fans, throw them from second-story rooftops and then
behead them as do our devoutly religious adversaries. What's the world coming to?
There are signs of hope for a "fair and balanced" view of these issues. In San
Francisco, a group of homosexual men staged a protest against the International Committee Red* Cross
(ICRC) classifying as "torture" the practice at Guantanamo of forcing the terrorists to
wear ladies' lingerie. A spokes-being for the group said, "We know the difference
between torture and fun-- wearing a business suit is torture, but wearing Victoria's Secret lingerie
is fun. Those terrorists need to 'get a life.'"
A group of porn "stars" staged a sit-in and then a lie-in, which, in past tense became a
lay-in, protesting the ICRC's classification as "torture" the Abu Ghraib practice of
forcing prisoners to lie naked together. A spokes-being for the porn "stars" said,
"If all the terrorists would learn to lie naked together, they wouldn't want to wear clothes
anymore and then they'd be easy to spot trying to sneak into airports."
The United Nations Human Rights Commission (UNHRC) launched a full-scale investigation of an
allegation that a Special Forces member actually socked a prisoner in the face. A
news report that the UNHRC considered such conduct to be a "war crime" under the Geneva
Convention prompted Muhammad Ali to call a press conference to explain that George Foreman, one of
the strongest boxers ever, had punched him in the nose yet he (Ali) mocked such mild treatment by
asking Foreman, "Is that the best you've got?"
Meanwhile, the ACLU, having become envious of the enormous publicity being reaped by the ICRC vowed
to never again be outdone in expressing outrage against the treatment of prisoners by American
troops. When a reporter asked the ACLU spokes-being whether it was expressing asymmetrical
outrage-- i.e., more outrage at harsh treatment meted out by American troops than at
beheadings, mutilation, etc. by the Baathists and terrorists-- the ACLU spokes-being indignantly
explained: "Our priority is education! Everyone already knows it's barbaric to cut
off tongues, ears, limbs and heads but not every knows it's barbaric to force devoutly religious
terrorists to wear women's lingerie."
Meanwhile, Al Jazeera used a special feature on such barbaric practices as an opportunity to
introduce the popular Arab network's newest News Anchorman even though that
special report (here)
is quite out of date. Anonymous sources indicated Al Jazeera had been delaying the selection
of a new anchor in hopes that Dan Rather would make himself available, but when Rather's
"resignation" announcement revealed his plans to continue working for 60 Minutes after
leaving the CBS Anchor desk, the top executives at Al Jazeera knew they would have to settle for the
next best candidate on whom they could count to regularly present "the truth" to battle
the "lies and distortions" by Fox News. (However, anonymous sources deep inside Al
Jazeera have told PoliSat.Com's Middle East Bureau Drawer Chief that the real reason they object to
Fox News is that they have too many Foxes presenting the news, which is deeply offensive to the
devoutly religious Arab males in the "Arab Street.")
--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.
end
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.
