?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Yet another stupid Ramirez cartoon - The online computery journal thingy of a turtle

(Recent Entries) (Archive) (Friends) (Profile) (KT's website)

Jan. 7th, 2008

01:41 pm - Yet another stupid Ramirez cartoon

Previous Entry Share Next Entry

The Ramirez cartoon printed in today's Houston Chronicle is unwittingly a perfect encapsulation of why we're even having a debate about whether torture is bad, a perfect encapsulation of the widespread neocon mindset that allows such a barbaric practice to exist.

It shows the Capitol Building, with a voice inside saying, "We would never pour water up someone's nose for 30 seconds to prevent 9/11 and save 2,996 lives." Wow! We could have prevented 9/11 by pouring water up someone's nose? Sounds like... magic! Also sounds totally disconnected from reality. Who could we have tortured to prevent 9/11? Osama bin Laden, perhaps. Certainly not Saddam freakin' Hussein. And how would torture have helped, given that confession obtained under duress is so unreliable it's not even admissible in court?

(I mean heck, this is even demonstrated in Star Wars! Darth Vader tortures Princess Leia and even threatens to blow up her home planet to get her to tell him where the rebel base is, and she says "Dantooine". And, guess what, the rebel base is not on Dantooine.)

And that's not even to mention the numerous "suspected terrorists" who are being tortured now in Guantanamo, many of whom, perhaps even most, are likely innocent and have no information to give.

So, in conclusion: why does the Chronicle print this trash? As Joe the Liberal Eagle keeps saying, "Liberal media, my tailfeathers."

(9 comments | Leave a comment)

Comments:

[User Picture]
From:deckardcanine
Date:January 7th, 2008 08:31 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Some conservative I know maintain that torture is effective for interrogation as long as you (1) ask the right questions (nothing broad like "Tell me what you know") and (2) know already that the torturee knows the answers to your questions, which is why it should never be done to mere suspects. But then there's the problem of many of them believing that few if any of the torturees are mere suspects.

I notice that you don't even go into the fact that Ramirez's cartoon cannot possibly be perceived as funny or clever even by fellow conservatives.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:athelind
Date:January 7th, 2008 08:55 pm (UTC)
(Link)
You overestimate the American Neo-Conservative. The "humorists" of that subculture think that "Liberals are traitors" is punditry at its highest, and think that those who don't laugh simply have "no sense of humor".
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:nefaria
Date:January 8th, 2008 12:51 am (UTC)
(Link)
Just curious, do you feel third trimester abortions constitute torture?
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:normanrafferty
Date:January 8th, 2008 01:38 am (UTC)
(Link)
If a third-trimester abortion would've stopped 9/11, then it's not torture.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:deckardcanine
Date:January 8th, 2008 03:03 pm (UTC)
(Link)
That's quite a tangent. It's not like Gitmo is threatening abortions to get prisoners to talk.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:nefaria
Date:January 8th, 2008 05:21 pm (UTC)
(Link)
My assertion is that it's inconsistent to disapprove of the nonlethal torture of a probably-guilty person with the intent of saving many lives but to approve of the lethal torture of an innocent unborn child with the intent of saving one woman's reproductive freedom.

Of course, most liberals think a fetus has 0% humanity until it's completely outside the womb, so my argument would only hold water with fellow conservatives, and I think I'm the only one who frequents KT's journal.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:deckardcanine
Date:January 8th, 2008 07:15 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Actually, I'm pro-life myself.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:kinkyturtle
Date:January 8th, 2008 08:30 pm (UTC)
(Link)
All this is completely irrelevant to my point, which is that half this country voted a crook into the White House, a liar, chickenhawk and war criminal, and Ramirez's cartoons are a symptom of the disease.

And while we're talking inconsistency, I suppose we could bring up the Republican party's habit of insisting that if a woman gets pregnant, she MUST carry it to term and have a baby, but then cutting back on the kinds of social services meant to help her take care of the baby once it's born.

There is some merit in the question underlying your original comment, though: is third-trimester abortion cruel? I don't know, I'm no scientist. Is the fetus an actual baby after the brain forms? I don't know. Maybe. But before the brain forms, definitely not. So I advocate that if a woman wants to have an abortion, she should do it as early as possible. Indeed, most women do. The vast majority of abortions are performed during the first trimester.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:thecanuckguy
Date:January 9th, 2008 02:35 am (UTC)
(Link)
I think the "Liberal media, my tailfeathers" quote only holds water depending on where you live. Unfortunately, you are surrounded by Bush country. I'm thinking I'd rather see pro-Bush drivel in the Chronicle then a single word against Bush in the Chronicle and have to live in the ensuing riot zone.

However, I assume that the main dailies in places like Boston or San Francisco would be characterized as "liberal media". (Granted, I very seldom read American papers, unless you count the Onion.)

But to summarize: Why doe sthe Chronicle print that trash? Because Houston is fulla Bushies (of course, you know this already.) They print something against Bush, their readership drops. They know what side their bread is buttered on.
(Reply) (Thread)