![[Signifying Nothing]](/local/memlogo-1.png "Welcome to Signifying Nothing")
So now we have a choice, as voters: Are we going to ratify the decision to make torture (described in various weaselly ways) part of the policy of the United States, or are we going to reject it by replacing those responsible?
Great idea, but what’s our guarantee that a Kerry administration wouldn’t engage in the exact same behavior, if not worse? Where are Kerry’s condemnations of Gitmo? (Everyone’s condemned Abu Gharib, so that doesn’t count.) Mrs. Kerry (the ex-Republican) seems rather more forceful than Sen. Kerry. And, if Kerry is going to try to outflank Bush on terror, is it plausible that he can simultaneously promise to get tougher on al-Qaeda while renouncing the current means by which the U.S. is getting tough on terror?
Throwing the bums out is a great idea… so long as we’re not bringing in new bums that are equally bad, if not worse.
![[Permalink]](/images/permalink.png "Permanent link to this entry"){kind=small}
Recent posts
![[The GIMP]](/buttons/gimp.png "The GIMP"){kind=small}
![[Steal These Buttons!]](/buttons/steal.png "Steal These Buttons!"){kind=small}
2 comments:
Good point. How did we get break the back of the mob? By invading Sicily? Seems to me that when you find yourself in a hole, you stop digging. And claiming that something else may be just as bad or worse seems like dooming one’s self to a deeper hole.
Perhaps Kerry will turn out to be just as bad. But we can absolutely guarantee the results of another four years of the current administration.
Simple heuristics, commonly known, regarding risk analysis, produce a very clear result: Don’t do what you know will fail. Simple as that.
Or to cite the classic definition of “irrationality”: doing the same thing again and expecting different results.