Yeah, I like Rush Limbaugh, but I''m not pleased with his position on this matter. He is acting like we are all being a bunch of cry babies and groveling and its no big deal.
What went wrong with these people? The chick who posed with the man pyramid and a dead corpse was a manager for Papa John''s before she was called up. I think a lot of people were National Guard types and never expected to do anything other than lose a couple of weekends a year.
I''m so furious about this I could spit. Those prisoners were the types that would set up bombs and blow up soldiers. Now they will be ""compensated"" and released to kill again. All because some neanderthals can get their jollies off naked men, boys and corpses.
""Softening up"" means sleep deprivation, it doesn''t mean making them do a man sandwich.
The chick who posed with the man pyramid and a dead corpse was a manager for Papa John''s before she was called up.
She also got charged yesterday and is four months pregnant with a child of one of the other perps in the photos (the dude with the blue rubber gloves, I think). If you had three months ago tried to sell this as a story idea for JAG or Navy NCIS, they''d''ve laughed you off the studio lot.
""Softening up"" means sleep deprivation, it doesn''t mean making them do a man sandwich.
If this weren''t a serious and tragic event, that would be very sig-worthy.
I too am appalled at all the people trying to write this off, especially with justifications like ""it''s no worse than what they would do to us!""
Oh yeah? Well if that''s your justification for this kind of garbage then you''re just proving that we''re as bad as they are. If we''re supposed to be the better nation, then maybe we should be above horrible actions like this.
Just goes to show we as a nation aren''t as advanced as we''d like to think we are. If you think that comment means I hate America, think again. It means what it says: we still have lots of room to improve.
There was a quote I saw once... something like ""it''s not how you treat your friends that reveals the kind of man you are, but how you treat your enemies.""
And therein lies the difference between your perspective and Ghastley''s. You are positing a belief that our torture isn''t as bad by degree, by volume, and by authority, presumably then saying that it''s not as big a deal if not understandable.
Well, maybe you shouldn''t presume if you''re going to get it wrong. Since most of the abuse wasn''t torture, you are correct, I do not think it is as bad by degree. And I know full well that you don''t either, anymore than you would think slapping a man''s wife to be as bad as gang-raping her. Both acts may be squarely in the ""unacceptable"" column, but no intelligent person thinks one isn''t worse than the other. My position is absolutely no different than yours. I think it is wrong to humiliate prisoners. I think it is inhumane, and also dehumanizing to ourselves. Those who do it should be punished. I have compassion for those who suffered.
The only difference between you guys and me is that I actually can maintain perspective, rather than be blinded by my feelings.
Finally, it seems ridiculous to rail against moral relativism on the one hand, and then use it as a very defense on the issue of torture.
I''ve done no such thing. Other than mocking moral relativism to point out that true moral relativists should have no issue with even real torture, I have said that this is wrong. You and ghastly demonstrate well that you don''t know what moral relativism means. Believing that one bad thing is worse than another isn''t moral relativism. I think muder is worse than assault. But I recognize the standards of right and wrong that say both should be punished.
while you and others on the right participate in justification through a presumed moral absolute that ultimately fails you.
Really? So the right isn''t condemning this and calling for appropriate punishment and changes? News to me. If I were really making excuses for these people, I would be suggesting we mitigate their punishment. I am not. But you seem to want to treat them as torturers. How about execution for these young soldiers? Life sentences? I mean, since they are ""no different"" than Saddam''s torturers, surely no punishment can be harsh enough.
Once you realize that you would punish them differently than those who actually tortured under Saddam''s regime, ask yourself why. Maybe it''s a matter of finally getting some perspective.
Whether you get your morality from God, Allah, Nature, or your own sense of humanity is absolutely irrelevant.
Ghastly doesn''t think so. Funny you rant to me about this when he''s the one who suggested that anyone who gets morality from religion is a clown. Maybe you only respond to ad hominem strawmen when you don''t agree with them?
Sig me Ratboy, that would be the ultimate irony! 
Consider yourself sigged.
Elysium wrote:
Whether you get your morality from God, Allah, Nature, or your own sense of humanity is absolutely irrelevant.Ghastly doesn''t think so. Funny you rant to me about this when he''s the one who suggested that anyone who gets morality from religion is a clown. Maybe you only respond to ad hominem strawmen when you don''t agree with them?
I said no such thing. You tried to tell me that because I was a liberal, which you are wrong about, I couldn''t have any real moral objections to this because my morality, as a liberal, does not come from god but is instead man made and "" Because if it''s man made, then there is no wrong or right to be deploring...""
My response to that was that I find it amusing that christian right-wingers have this belief that morality can only come from god. I didn''t saying a person getting their morality from a religion was necessarily wrong, or made them a clown. You put those words in my mouth, and I find that annoying.
""Softening up"" means sleep deprivation, it doesn''t mean making them do a man sandwich.
Wouldn''t that be a manwich?
Cue the groans!
McIraq, Supersized.
Yay! The second time I''ve been sigged!
During the very same 10 days that every newspaper and television news program in the world featured photo after photo, day after day, of Iraqi prisoners being humiliated, a government not far from Iraq engaged in mass murder, mass rape and ethnic cleansing of approximately 1 million people.Is that more serious, more evil and more scandalous than a handful of Americans sexually humiliating Iraqi prisoners?
Not to the world''s news media.
To the world''s (including America''s) news media, the Nazi-like, racist, mass ethnic cleansing warranted minuscule attention as compared with the humiliation of some Iraqis.
Why?
The answer is as obvious as it is painful.
The world''s news media are, with almost no exceptions, agenda-driven rather than news-driven.
The agendas are:1. The political bias of the news reporting organization.
2. The monetary need to attract readers/viewers.
3. The desire to be the center of society''s attention.
4. Not to be too different from other news media. As one who peruses up to a dozen American newspapers a day, I am struck daily at how virtually identical international news articles are. International reporters are like baseball players -- they all do the same thing, just on different teams.
In the case of the massive attention the news media have been giving to the stripping and humiliation of Iraqi male prisoners, all four agendas play a role, but the first one predominates.
How does this explain the tiny amount of news media coverage devoted to the near-genocide in Sudan (and North Korea and Tibet) as compared with the massive 24/7 coverage of the Iraqi prisoners?
The primary reason is the political bias of the news reporting organizations. Virtually every major newspaper in the world is anti-Bush, and most are anti-American. The desire to humiliate America (or George Bush) has deep roots. The America of those who support President Bush portrays itself as a moral beacon, and it has contempt for the moral authority of the United Nations and ""world opinion."" Therefore, those who loathe this American self-appointed moral role cannot pass up the chance to portray America as morally no better or even worse than other countries.
The virtually monolithic ideology that drives the world''s news media should be a major concern among all those who treasure independent thought, not to mention moral clarity and America''s well-being. For example, though free of governmental control, the reporting of the BBC has been almost as predictably leftist as Soviet newspapers.
The news media are numbing the human mind. The anti-American and anti-Israeli news reporting that saturates the European media is the major reason for the recent polling results that show most Europeans regard America and Israel as the greatest threats to world peace.
There is a second and related reason for the mind-numbing coverage of the Iraqi prisoners. The world''s Left, which sets the United Nations'' and the news media''s priorities, is only interested in human suffering when it is caused by whites, Christians or Jews, especially Americans and Israelis. That explains the world''s and the media''s indifference to the decimation of Tibet -- it was perpetrated by Chinese; to the genocide in Rwanda -- it was perpetrated by black Africans; to the genocide of blacks in Sudan -- it is perpetrated by Arab Muslims; to the genocide in North Korea -- it is perpetrated by Koreans. On the other hand, when Israelis killed Palestinian terrorists and bystanders in Jenin, the world press was fixated on it, and the BBC declared it a ""massacre.""
So, too, the deaths of Arabs at the hands of Arabs -- the tens of thousands in Algeria, the hundreds of thousands in Iraq, the tens of thousands in Syria, the thousands of Arab and other Muslim young women in ""honor killings"" -- are of little interest to the news media, the Arab world, the United Nations and the Left. But Americans stripping male prisoners in Iraq? It is the most important story on earth.
It is essential to note that it is precisely because I believe America''s role is to be a moral beacon to the world that those pictures from Abu Ghraib prison so anger me. Americans are not dying in Iraq so that other Americans can pile naked Iraqi men on each other and smile for photos next to them. The harm those pictures have done to the cause of good may be incalculable.
But it is not moral revulsion, let alone newsworthiness, that is animating the news media.One day, a Sudanese black will scour the world press archives to find out what the world was preoccupied with while her family and hundreds of thousands of other Sudanese blacks were raped, enslaved, ethnically cleansed of their lands and murdered. She will learn the world was deeply concerned with a couple of dozen Iraqi men photographed in humiliating sexual positions.
How does this explain the tiny amount of news media coverage devoted to the near-genocide in Sudan (and North Korea and Tibet) as compared with the massive 24/7 coverage of the Iraqi prisoners?
Because America is supposed to be, and bills itself as, a shining beacon of freedom and the example the humanity should be aspiring to, exactly as the author claims? And that''s why it seems so egregious? And because it''s our own soldiers that are involved, finally?
Because America is supposed to be, and bills itself as, a shining beacon of freedom and the example the humanity should be aspiring to, exactly as the author claims? And that''s why it seems so egregious? And because it''s our own soldiers that are involved, finally?
So you agree that the media and the left don''t care about suffering, but are instead fixated on trying to find hypocrisy in an America they see as arrogant?
I absolutely do agree the horrible plight of people in Sudan, Rwanda, Congo, Sierra Leone, Tibet, Nort Korea and many other parts of the world is goes largely unheeded by the American public, and even the world (ie. Europe) at large. I don''t know who''s the culprit though -- our compatriots who''re indifferent to the sorrow and suffering of people in under-developed parts of the world, or the media which is slanted towards domestic news and the only world news that relate directly to America. Which one is it, how do you think?
So, why *is* Bush doing nothing on Sudan?
I don''t buy the argument that just because worse things happen, we should not investigate what is going on. Makes no sense. It''s just an attempt to shift attention away from a massive institutional failure that will have far-reaching and long-lasting consequences. Prager''s claims are deeply hypocritical, and a good example of the bias he rails against, especially since the ""liberal media bias"" is dead, as Sean Hannity put it. His 3 points neatly sum up why he and legions of other Rush Limbaugh wannabes are in the business.
This is the RNC propaganda machine spinning at full speed.
Robear
I don''t buy the argument that just because worse things happen, we should not investigate what is going on.
Interesting, since nobody made that argument.
This is the RNC propaganda machine spinning at full speed.
Ironically, this is nothing but a parrotted DNC talking point.
How about addressing the issue? Where''s the coverage for the far worse crimes and atrocities that have affected hundreds of thousands of people? I guess since millions of dead blacks don''t hurt Bush''s re-election chances, they don''t matter to Democrats.
Quote:
I don''t buy the argument that just because worse things happen, we should not investigate what is going on.Interesting, since nobody made that argument.
I guess I''m thick, because my take on that was that you posted it because it argued that we should be worried about bigger things. Since you did not comment on us, let us know what you got from it. Of course, the moral can''t be ""why are we following this when worse is happening"", since you''ve just disclaimed that.
Ironically, this is nothing but a parrotted DNC talking point.
No, sorry, I get nothing from the DNC.
Where''s the coverage for the far worse crimes and atrocities that have affected hundreds of thousands of people?
On NPR and Salon, for starters. The NYTimes. The LATimes. All those bastions of liberal whackos that otherwise would rate a sneer, but now are shining beacons of objectivity. Heck, Salon was on this issue in February, but the last time I mentioned the site, you dismissed it as not being journalism.
Robear
I guess I''m thick, because my take on that was that you posted it because it argued that we should be worried about bigger things.
We should be worried about bigger things. But that doesn''t mean ""not investigating what is going on"" in Iraq. We should do both, and quite frankly, one should be higher priority in people''s minds. When the lesser injustice gets more attention, doesn''t that say something about hidden motives in the media to you?
No, sorry, I get nothing from the DNC.
Then you should stop quoting them...
On NPR and Salon, for starters. The NYTimes. The LATimes. All those bastions of liberal whackos that otherwise would rate a sneer,
The NY Times and LA Times have run multiple stories daily on the prison abuse scandal. I''ll bet they have each run more stories in a day on this than they have in a year on Sudan.
Which media outlet did run stories on Sudan, for the sake of comparison?
I think the point is that if the Bush focused attention on Sudan the media would follow. The media reports of what the admiinistration does or fails to do with what its focus is. It does not report on what it fails to do on subjects its not focuses on that doesnt directly involve americans.
I think the point is that if the Bush focused attention on Sudan the media would follow.
So they really don''t care about suffering. Point taken.
No, they dont.
Where''s the National Review article on Sudan?
So they really don''t care about suffering. Point taken.
They care aboutAmericansuffering (as long as you''re not in jail) - it gets good ratings. Stories about murder, rape and accidents usually lead local newscasts. They just don''t think that enough viewers care about people in the Sudan to make it worth their while to invest in a story about it.
Question for you Ral.
Who determines foriegn policy, the liberal media or the Bush Administration?
You seem to have backed yourself into a corner here. If its the liberal media then Bush is a wholely ineffective president. If its Bush then why are you railing against the liberal media for not covering an issue unimportant to Bush''s foreign policy?
You seem to have backed yourself into a corner here.
How do you figure? It is not the job of the American president to resolve suffering throughout the world. But it is the media''s job to report the truth. And supposedly, the outrage in the media over the Iraqi abuse has something to do with people suffering. I guess that''s been shown not to be the case.
But it is the media''s job to report the truth.
Since when? I thought the only job of a corporation was to maximize value for its shareholders?
Since when? I thought the only job of a corporation was to maximize value for its shareholders?
If that is their only duty, then they don''t deserve that clause in the First Amendment...
How do you figure? It is not the job of the American president to resolve suffering throughout the world.
Then what about all the regime changes and tyrants dethronings rhetorics? 
If that is their only duty, then they don''t deserve that clause in the First Amendment...
The constitutional rights are inalienable. You don''t have do ""reserve"" them. And anyway, the First Amendment concern individuals, not corporations, I believe.
Then what about all the regime changes and tyrants dethronings rhetorics?
When it''s in our self-interest we should definitely do this.
The constitutional rights are inalienable. You don''t have do ""reserve"" them. And anyway, the First Amendment concern individuals, not corporations, I believe.
The first amendment concerns ""the press."" And if the press isn''t reporting on the truth, then they are of no value, and don''t deserve protected status.
When the lesser injustice gets more attention, doesn''t that say something about hidden motives in the media to you?
I agree, it''s interesting that media outlets that back Bush have failed to propel problems in a country he has been courting to support us in the war on terror into the spotlight. My knowledge of it comes from ""left wing"" outlets, who oddly enough don''t blame Bush for it at all...
Robear
Pages