Our Illiterate National Leadership
January 28, 2002
by Jeremiah Bourque a.k.a. J B

Besides the Bible, how much do you think your national leaders read?

Seriously.

Once upon a time, a seemingly long, long time ago, George W. Bush said that his favorite book was the Bible. He failed to recognize the name of the leader of Pakistan who has become his most crucial pawn in the Great Game of Central Asia.

Each and every time he reads for students, he reads the same book, each and every time.

We know that AG John Ashcroft does not read the newspapers or watch television. We can see with our own eyes that Donald Rumsfeld, when not defending himself against the accusation of being a stud, sees and hears what he wants to see and hear. We can guess that Mary Matalin exists in a world all her own, where externalities beyond those that she has chosen to make her rhetorical arguments and stnging slaps against figures on the other side (I doubt she sees them as people with children and families). We know that the Vice President absolutely refuses to allow sunshine laws to illuminate his energy policy formulation meetings, having the aforementionned self-styled black sex kitten to tell Congress to shove its inquiries "where the sun don't shine."

So how much do they really read?

When's the last time these people actually took out the Ten Commandments and studied the part about not coveting your neighbor's possessions? Peggy "Men Are Gods" Noonan has written an article on Enron lately. She paints herself as a confused angel who just couldn't understand how these people actually made their money. It just wasn't... simple enough. She wrote a prologue about how she couldn't understand how these businessmen were fighting over the last final millions of compensation packages of something like $100 million. She could simply not understand the difference between $105 million and $100 million. (Which is, she pointed out, $5 million. Compared to $100 million, that's not a lot of money. So far, so good.) Why would people fight over the last 5%?

Before answering that, might I suggest that a better read person would understand such an integral part of our modern world? Greed has not been a secret for, oh, at least recorded civilization, probably a lot longer, but somehow, the speech writer of presidents simply could not get it. She couldn't understand. Why did these people (that is, Enron's top management) hire her to do a shareholder's meeting speech? She apparently spent 100 or 200 hours trying to figure out how to get it done, over the course of a month... and can't even remember exactly how many.

The kicker: She charged $250 AN HOUR!! I know Enron threw a lot of money around, but this is ridiculous, especially since she admitted that she did a bad job of it.

To answer the rhetorical question, which I'm sure she didn't actually intend to have answered: To these people, money is the overriding, if not the sole, measure of personal worth. In Randian fashion, money is the accumulated virtue possessed by a person, his right to collect goods and services from society for being good. More importantly, it is a measure of personal worth *as compared to one's peers*. If these executives were competing only against the average employee salary, or the average executive salary, or their own financial needs, then there would be nothing to fight about.

Rather, they chose to compete against each other, squabbling until they all got the $105 million.

Peggy Noonan is, I will repeat, a presidential speechwriter. Let's take Donald "The Stud" Rumsfeld.

Rumsfeld recently explained how he had "not the slightest concern" about the treatment of the suspected (but not charged nor convicted) terrorists at Camp X-Ray, which is not a camp at all, but a concentration camp of temporary accomodations about the size of the legendary Japanese cubicle size for overnight business stays (except with wire fence walls and 24/7 arc lights) set up until "permanent accomodations" can be prepared. The purpose of this camp is to evade the jurisdiction of federal law, while citing national sovereignty to ignore international law regarding the holding of detainees. Thus, the very existence of Camp X-Ray is an attempt to have it both ways.

Rumsfeld further railed against critics from a distance ("5000 miles away") who could not know the conditions for themselves. This might have been a valid criticism, were it not for Rumsfeld's rant that the Taliban prisoners were being treated far better than they had treated anyone else, therefore, no one can complain about American cruelty.

Did he even understand how he sounded? Does he even get the point?

This is the classic fallacy of saying "At least WE do not eat our children alive." This implies that we may be exceptionally evil people, but at least we do not eat our children. This distinction is seen, overall, as a rather small one, and, thus, is not only ineffecitve propaganda, but directly aids enemies by allowing them to paint the speaker as an uncultured barbarian representing a sanctimonious nation of double standards. (The double standards theme was taken up in a recent article by Molly Ivins. I consider her article to be very well written.)

Further expanding on why these Taliban do not have rights, period, Rumsfeld and other government sources made clear that these were not POW's because they were not part of a regular army, and the United States was not at war. (NOW they tell us!)

I wonder how much our punditocracy reads, frankly. It didn't take me much research to find out, first of all, that "the Geneva Convention" is a complete fallacy. There are four Geneva Conventions (plural!) on the conduct of war. I shall repeat this for clarity.

There are FOUR GENEVA CONVENTIONS.

The one regarding POW's captured in wartime is the THIRD Geneva Convention. It quite likely does not apply to Al Qaeda or the Taliban, per se, though it does act as a barometer of international norms which international bodies routinely request that combattants in police actions, civil wars, and so on, adhere to.

The FOURTH Geneva Convention covers the detention of civilians.

If these are not combattants, are they not, then, civilians?

For clarity, all people who are known as "terrorists" are, by definition, civilian. There is no term "unlawful combattant" in normal legal discourse concerning treaty rights, but just the same, we can presume this: It means someone who is not protected as a POW. The people who are protected as POW's are soldiers. Those who are not soldiers do not enter some kind of legal black hole. They are, in a word, in fact, in one single world, civilians.

Consequently, the protections for civilians, covered by the Fourth Geneva Convention, a large host of UN treaties and conventions that the US has been a party to, and for goodness sakes, the Constitution of the United States and basic protections believed to belong to ALL human beings, regardless of race or creed, protections that the United States government is required to uphold, and has been required to uphold for two hundred years, must, and do, apply to those held in Guantanamo Bay.

Rumsfeld just says that they're not covered by the Geneva Convention and that's that.

Consequently, I question: Is this just ignorance, and he genuinely does not know, or is he deliberately using bad interperetations international law in order to justify his own position?

I knew that Bill Clinton knew what the meaning of "is" was (and is). I do not know if Rumsfeld has any idea what international law requires, if more than one Geneva Convention exists, or if foreign nationals have rights. I do not even know whether or not he believes we are at war, despite his, the Executive, branch, maintaining that the United States is in a state of armed conflict, and consequently claiming wartime powers to defend home soil by bombing the hell out of foreign soil.

I imagine that the truth may well be, "I do not have the slightest concern..."

Well, I suppose, no, he does not. He should.

So what about Ashcroft, saying that John Walker Lindh waived his right to an attorney orally and in writing? He'd been through three days of hell on earth that he ought not to have survived. He had been given morphine for the control of pain. Before the prison riot, the CIA agent known as "Dave" had told him, "You know, there's only so many people that we can get the Red Cross to help." He was, I imagine, told that he had no rights, that he was not a POW, and that he could be excecuted for a wide variety of crimes against the United States.

Frankly, I don't care if he signed that document waiving a lawyer in his own *blood*. I will not consider it legitimate, and no court of any worth should, either.

Though I fully expect enough lying and cheating and sacrifices of principle to convict Walker based on his own confessions and other evidence, though Ashcroft has (intelligently? stupidly?) specified that Walker's own words form the lion's share of the government's case, this will be a test of core American legal principles. This trial will truly help determine, for the next century, who we are, and what we stand for. We will see if guilt by association is enough to put someone behind bars for life; if Americans fighting for foreign governments that America suddenly attacks without a declaration of war, are traitors; if criminals apprehended outside the jurisdiction of the United States can be interrogated with contents of that interrogation leaked to the media; and if we really give a damn about protections against self-incrimination.

I also personally believe that any intelligence gleaned from Walker is worth less than bovine manure.

What of the President himself?

Maybe it's laziness on my part as a writer, but I don't really want to get very deep into this. I will leave it at this: Ending scheduled tax cuts is not raising taxes.

To say so is to be a big, fat liar.

I have to wonder if this is out of ignorance, because to think otherwise, would be to think that these people are taking everything that they accused Clinton of ever doing, from cover-ups, to wagging the dog, to using incorrect grammar to describe grade school math, and are doing so themselves in a vain search for revenge.

This is like believing that the government was going to hell in a handbasket under the last administration, to come in on a narrow mandate... and, just in case, to make sure that the government IS going to hell in a handbasket.

Perhaps they are like the executives described above, obsessed with competing against Clinton the man, rather than holding themselves to more objective standards, like truth, justice, the interests of the People, honor, and self-respect.

So, I ask, which is it: Ignorance, or malice?

You decide.

I think I'm getting the urge to read a good book.

Jeremiah Bourque is a guerilla intellectual, historian, and desktop general.

-- Cherri (jessam5@home.com), February 21, 2002

Answers

Jeremiah Bourque is just another feckless pimp for the liberal left and a regular contributor to that well-known (NOT) web site; www.democraticunderground.com

Unlike those that he is so quick to scorn, poor Jeremiah has yet to contribute jack shit to the betterment of our country.

Cherri, you really must expand your narrow band of thinking beyond your political frustrations.

-- So (cr@t.es), February 21, 2002.

I sort of agree. Cherri, why are you so obsessed with this subject? I can't imagine pouring so much of my heart and soul and TIME into this political argument shite. It seems kinda like arguing with a wall.

If you feel this strongly for your cause, why don't you run for some office, and get directly involved?

I guess arguing politics has always seemed kinda like checkers or tic- tac-toe to me. Have you ever seen "War Games"?

-- (cin@cin.cin), February 21, 2002.

Congratulations, Cherri. The score for your oponents is:

ad hominems - 2

counter-arguments - 0

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), February 21, 2002.

"you really must expand your narrow band of thinking beyond your political frustrations."

Where were you with your infinite wisdom for the 8 years of Clinton-bashing, Socrappy?

Oh, that's right, you were ONE of them!! LOL! Better learn to grin and bear it spineless, we've got almost 3 years left! That is, if King Dumbshit makes it that far.

-- Bwaahahaha!! (Repugs can dish it out real good @ but they sure. can't take it!), February 21, 2002.

“we've got almost 3 years left!”

And who might the WE be, Mr. Sheep Dip?

You libs should stop fretting over the ‘King’ and focus on finding a candidate for 2004.

Good luck on that!!!!

-- So (cr@t.es), February 21, 2002.

The article tries very hard to leave the impression that the Al Qaedas are being horribly mistreated. I believe that to be a total lie.

The article tries very hard to leave the impression that John Lindh (veteran of Al Qaeda training camp) is just a confused young man. I believe that to be a lie as well.

-- Peter Errington (petere7@starpower.net), February 21, 2002.

The democrats are going through the homless masses, the detox centers, the all night bars, looking for an equilivent candidate to sober up and put out as a front for the extreme left wing. It worked for the right in the last election, maybe we can find one who can read more than 3 words at a time during his speeches, and quits work at 4 pm no matter what is happening in the country so he can watch football. Perhaps we caneven find one who doesn't pick his nose and examine the results in public and can chew his food before gulping it down, so he doesn't passout on his face on the floor. Maybe we can get script writers who aren't so stupid that thinking they need to add a little extra to a speach without ending up in bringing half the world to alert, assuming we are going to attack them. Using statements they have read in books or just sound good like "axis of evil" may make good copy in a speech, but is taken quite literally by those who names were thrown into the pot of that exis. It will take at least 8 years to undo all of the damage that has been done so far by this puppit president and his zoo full of extremists of old, outdated ideas. The daily lies and corruption is doing more damage against them than we could have ever have hoped for. They actualy think they can run the country according to a few groups who have tried to contol the direction of the country. It's so incredable how superficially phoney this "government" is, it is nothing but a bunch of unpopular special interests who accidently got into the administration of this government.

-- Cherri (jessam5@home.com), February 22, 2002.

LN what's to counter argue? This article is just so funny. The Dems don't have a snow ball's chance and they know it. So the liberal media try to come up with silly little quips to 'rally' the troops.

What ever happened to Levy? Poor Gary made the news again, just when he thought it was safe to go back in the water. Dem politicians and their units and the women who love them, next Springer.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), February 22, 2002.

The really frightening thing, about the latest on Gary Condit, is that he is extremely blackmailable, yet is on the House Intelligence Committee.

-- Peter Errington (petere7@starpower.net), February 22, 2002.

Cherri, just a suggestion here.

When you wander from your ‘cut-n-paste’ posts and write in your own words, you leave the impression that you might need to re-visit 4th grade spelling lessons. Why not type your posts in Word, run the spell check, and copy/paste into the message window ‘ANSWERS’?

You always seem to have an excuse for your Basic English shortcomings and this would be a means to improve yourself…..assuming you care about such things.

Of course you must realize that your words, regardless of the spelling, read like the losers lament that they are.

-- So (cr@t.es), February 22, 2002.

Attack the messenger, eh Socrappy? That might be considered an effective strategy, if you're a pathetic spineless loser like yourself! ROTFL!

-- (Socrappy is @ frustrated. bully), February 22, 2002.

Moi frustrated? Not a chance anus breath. Frustrated is not being able to function well in society and living a pathetic existence….something I’m sure you can relate to personally.

Now, run along and get on the porch……the weekend is upon us and the big dogs are ready to party.

-- So (cr@t.es), February 22, 2002.

"Frustrated is not being able to function well in society and living a pathetic existence"

ROTFL! Yep, that describes you exactly!

You function real well in society, like going around insulting people with dyslexia! LOL, I think they have a term for that condition... let's see, PSYCHOPATHIC, isn't it?

And you live such a pathetic existence that the most productive thing your employer allows you to do is surf the internet all day looking for someone to ridicule! Sheeesh, what a sorry sap. It's no wonder so many companies are going bankrupt, with ignorant worthless pieces of trash like you working for them!

-- ROTFL! (Socrappy is @ total. whitetrash maggot), February 22, 2002.

Why would I surf the Internet all day when this place is a one-stop shopping goldmine for dipshits like you? My ‘employer’ allows me the freedom do as I please and when you find work it could happen to you….sure.

-- So (cr@t.es), February 22, 2002.

Duuuuh, which Prez is the Rhodes "Scholar" ?

ROTFL.

-- (Roland@hatemail.com), February 22, 2002.

missed the 2

-- So (cr@t.es), February 22, 2002.

Then there was this hoot. What is it about Democrats and military photo ops?

Heeee heeee heeee, ROTFL!

-- (Roland@hatemail.com), February 22, 2002.

Nice work Roland. Neither Clinton nor Dukakis served anytime in active military service for their country…or for that matter inactive. To the best of my knowledge this is not a ‘trait’ of Democratic politicians nor should it exclude these guys from the brotherhood of men. I served for many years but so what? I’ve never felt that a person was better or worse for the experience.

What does grind you though is when two major league pussies’s like Clinton and Dukakis go out of their way to ‘play’ soldier. You wouldn’t want either of these two assholes watching your six or your country.

-- So (cr@t.es), February 22, 2002.

"You wouldn’t want either of these two assholes watching your six or your country."

Yeah, and Dubya would go running for the hills, just like when he went AWOL from the Air National Guard. Talk about pussies!!! LOL, he probably went home to cry to his Momma!

-- (Dubya @ spoiled. fratbrat), February 22, 2002.

"My ‘employer’ allows me the freedom do as I please"

LOL! I bet you're one of those sorry-ass coward veterans who is collecting disability because you claim you are suffering from "Post Traumatic Stress Disorder", which is another way of saying you're too lazy and fucked up in the head to get a job. Yep, you sure fit the description.

-- (That@explains.it), February 22, 2002.

Jeremiah baby,

What do you think of the beheading of Danny Pearl? Pretty cool, huh? Dirty Jewboy, capitalist running-dog lackey of the fascist WSJ got what he deserved, yuppers!

I thought the video was a neat touch.

-- (Sheik bin Qa Qa@X.Ray), February 23, 2002.

"We can guess that Mary Matalin exists in a world all her own, where externalities beyond those that she has chosen to make her rhetorical arguments and stnging slaps against figures on the other side (I doubt she sees them as people with children and families)."

Mr Dorke claims to be concerned about illiteracy, yet he himself writes illiterate sentences such as the one above. Can anyone interpret this gobbledy-gook? No doubt he is frustrated that someone as sharp as Matalin is not on his side. Maybe he is concerned that she will "turn" her hubby Carville. No sweat Dorke, we don't want him.

-- (Roland@hatemail.com), February 23, 2002.

"My ‘employer’ allows me the freedom do as I please"

Socrates, just a suggestion here.

When you wander from your ‘cut-n-paste’ posts and write in your own words, you leave the impression that you might need to re-visit 4th grade spelling lessons. Why not type your posts in Word, run the spell check, and copy/paste into the message window ‘ANSWERS’?

You always seem to have an excuse for your Basic English shortcomings and this would be a means to improve yourself…..assuming you care about such things.

Of course you must realize that your words, regardless of the spelling, read like the losers lament that they are.

-- (heed@your.advice), February 23, 2002.

Wow Socko, I guess he told you! ROTFL, LOL, teee heee heee.

-- (A fool @ a.foolery), February 23, 2002.

That's right, Socrappy needs to take a dose of his own medicine.

-- (choke@on.it), February 23, 2002.

He he you put 'ol dumbo in his place.

-- dumby and dumber (and@cheeney.too), February 23, 2002.

Ha Ha you showed Socrates.

-- repugs (make@me.puke), February 23, 2002.

Way to go! Take that Socrates and go Islam!

-- dishing it out (run@you.cowards), February 23, 2002.

I bet he runs and cries just like Dumbya

-- (socky@run.cry), February 23, 2002.

having fun talking to yourself?

-- (yah@i. thought so), February 23, 2002.

Yeah thats right Socko is talking to himself again.

-- (blaaa@blaaa.blaaa), February 24, 2002.