7 Quick Takes: Friends, Romans, Republicans

The other people are talking about things more interesting than politics. Click to go see.

1.

I watched the debates last night.  Seriously entertaining.  Much more fun than any political debate I’ve seen in ages.  Also, enlightening.

2.

Here’s the thing: I live in a cave.  I don’t enjoy TV the way other people do.  So I had never, ever, seen any of the four candidates speak on TV.  [I’d heard Santorum live once, but in a completely different context.]  Now that I have seen them, many mysteries are solved.

3.

For example: Newt Gingrich.  As a child in metro-DC in the ’80’s, yes, we talked about politics in the backseat of the car as our parents shuffled us around the beltway to youth group activities.  I remember then, that Newt was this creepy, untrustworthy politician guy.

[I also remember my dad being livid, livid, at the evisceration of Poindexter.  Who until scandals broke I had known of only as ‘a dad of one of the one the boy scouts’.  Apparently a super nice guy in regular life.]

So, Newt.  When I heard he was running for president this year, my thoughts were:

  1. He’s still alive?
  2. I mean sure, Strom-Thurmond-Alive, of course.  But Running-for-President-Alive?  It was a stretch.  I guess when you are a kid, people seem so much older than they turn out to be later.
  3. He’s this shifty beltway insider named after a reptile an amphibian.  What is the appeal?

4.

My goodness that man is charming!  CHARMING.  Did you see him open that debate?  He’s brilliant.  Utterly untrustworthy, anyone who is that smooth.  That loveable on stage.  But now I get it.

In order of Charming:

  1. Gingrich.
  2. Romney.
  3. Santorum.
  4. Paul.

So if you get your politics from TV and not from print, yes, it all suddenly makes very much sense.

5.

But you know what makes me angry?  Back last century, everyone knew that torture was wrong.  It was the stuff of satire.  Now, suddenly, it is very difficult to find a candidate who opposes torture.  You can expect to be treated as daft and unsophisticated if you insist your president be the non-torturing type.

People want charming.  Kingly.  From last Friday’s Mass reading:

6And the word was displeasing in the eyes of Samuel, that they should say: Give us a king, to judge us. And Samuel prayed to the Lord.

7And the Lord said to Samuel: Hearken to the voice of the people in all that they say to thee. For they have not rejected thee, but me, that I should not reign over them.

8According to all their works, they have done from the day that I brought them out of Egypt until this day: as they have forsaken me, and served strange gods, so do they also unto thee.

9Now therefore hearken to their voice: but yet testify to them, and foretell them the right of the king, that shall reign over them.

10Then Samuel told all the words of the Lord to the people that had desired a king of him,

11And said: This will be the right of the king, that shall reign over you: He will take your sons, and put them in his chariots, and will make them his horsemen, and his running footmen to run before his chariots,

12And he will appoint of them to be his tribunes, and centurions, and to plough his fields, and to reap his corn, and to make him arms and chariots.

13Your daughters also he will take to make him ointments, and to be his cooks, and bakers.

14And he will take your fields, and your vineyards, and your best oliveyards, and give them to his servants.

15Moreover he will take the tenth of your corn, and of the revenues of your vineyards, to give his eunuchs and servants.

16Your servants also and handmaids, and your goodliest young men, and your asses he will take away, and put them to his work.

17Your flocks also he will tithe, and you shall be his servants.

18And you shall cry out in that day from the face of the king, whom you have chosen to yourselves. and the Lord will not hear you in that day, because you desired unto yourselves a king.

We insist our president be “presidential”.  Impressive.  Someone the Europeans and the Iranians will respect.  So that’s what we’ll get.

6.

Allie Hathaway.  You know what to do.

7.

If you want regular normal-people election coverage of the SC Primaries, of course you would never read this blog.  Instead you’d visit Brad Warthen.  Whom I love the way my dad loved Poindexter, so just you be quiet (here*) if you don’t like his politics.

 

 

 

*Rant away at his place.  He’ll love it.  Plus my FIL arrives tonight, so if you post here for the first time and your post gets stuck in moderation, it is not because I hate you, nor because I fell into a bottomless chasm.  I’m just busy seeing flesh-and-blood people this weekend.  Also, voting.  I’ll catch back up with the Internet come Monday or so.

8 thoughts on “7 Quick Takes: Friends, Romans, Republicans

  1. I don’t watch the debates unless it is a Presidential one (not a Presidential candidate one) maybe I should’ve for SC only… but I made my way to the voting booth on Saturday.

    As for #5 I have a hard time contemplating the torture thing. Why? Because I had time while in military service to contemplate it. “What would happen to me if *I* were captured in Iraq/Afghanistan/Korea/Africa/etc?” Especially in Muslim controlled countries where women’s rights are pretty much non-existant in this day and age. I do remember reading the book (a very good book) “She Went to War: The Rhonda Cornum Story” Of course this occurred in the first Gulf War. But nothing scared me more.

    Now I am not saying that we [Americans/American Government] should not play by the “playground rules if the other kids aren’t”. I do not wish to see us going back to medieval mentality… that’s where I put waterboarding, electrocuting (even if satirical), physical brutality, etc…. but where do we draw the line? Is denying a POW a nice dinner of steak, potatoes and a glass of wine considered torture and instead they are only giving three meals of very basic, bland but nutritionally sound food? Or what about if that steak dinner was the “dangling carrot” in exchange for information? Just an example…

  2. I just remembered a real example from OIF. An MP officer I used to work with told me of an incident where he denied a POW his prosthetic leg. But that was after that POW tried to use said leg as a weapon to hit him and tried to escape. Of course the Red Cross people who supplied the POW with the prosthetic weren’t happy. But I can’t help but say I’d would do the same. Is this considered torture/unfair/unethical?

    1. Sandra,

      The steak-n-potatoes argument is used by proponents of torture to distract. It’s a (poor) technique that tries to make it sound like we can’t possibly identify an abuse due to the fact that abusive behavior sits at the end of a continuum. The example you gave re: prosthetic leg certainly bears examination (It sounds to me as if it was a reasonable response — you wouldn’t summarily deny POW’s their limbs, but if they use them as weapons, what are you going to do?). But that one question doesn’t therefore call into question whether obvious cases of torture ought to be permitted. (They shouldn’t.)

      –> Your experience of thinking, “Okay, what if I were the POW” provides a good reality check.

      1. I could see “steak and potatoes” becoming over used… I will skim the news articles that reference the torture debate… its just one of those black holes I know I would let myself get sucked into through commenting and replying to others’ comments.

        One thing is for sure… Im glad I don’t have to ask myself the “What if I become a POW” question anymore.

        1. Yeah, definitely don’t get sucked into combox debates. It’s really not the best format. Totally agree, glad I don’t have to ask about what if you were a POW. Places my brain does not want to go.

  3. I don’t watch (well, listen to) the debates unless it is a Republican primary. I never had to wonder if I’d vote for Jimmy Carter/ Mondale/ Dukakis/ Clinton/ Kerry/ Obama if he did well in a debate against the Republican candidate.

    1. I should start praying for common sense. Not sure what I’d write about, if I got it. But I think I’d be happier if I had it.

      OTOH, if Gingrich does become the candidate, I think it would be interesting to see him and Obama debate. Then again, that might be my root problem, always thinking something might be interesting.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *