"Day by Day" on Durbin
posted by Kate Marie | 11:13 AM | Permalink
|
10 comments
What's the Rumpus? would like to thank our sponsor EPC Web Solutions. Please extend our thanks by visiting their website and referring them to others!
Rumpus Riddle
Take 500 from the opposite of light, and tell me where your father's father dwelt in the time of the Deluge.
Click here for the answer to the last Rumpus Riddle!
Quote Archives
Links
Contributors
E-mail Us!
Have questions or comments? Email us!
Recent Posts
Today is
"A word to the wise ain't necessary --
it's the stupid ones that need the advice."
-Bill Cosby
10 Comments:
I must say I've been unable to understand why conservative-leaning blogs have been linking to this cartoon. Perhaps you can explain it to me, Kate Marie.
For one thing, there is the rather strange depiction of what goes on in guantanamo. Former detainees complained of being tortured with electric shocks, being starved, and having human shit smeared all over their faces; former translators have claimed that beatings go on in guantanamo as a regular matter; and FBI agents have documented interrogations that ended in imates "curling into a fetal position on the floor and crying in pain." I can understand being skeptical of what former prisoners have to say, but when stories of abuse come at you from so many different quarters, it requires considerable effort to continue in denial. Whether you think what goes on is right or wrong, its no rice pilaf.
Anyway, moving on to the substantive point of the cartoon. Durbin as a spokesman for guantanomo inmates? Sure. I fail to see why this is in any way pejorative. I, for one, am proud of him for that. Taking a stand for human rights means, invariably, abandoning distinctions that have their basis in the nation state and speaking on behalf of humans. Whether these humans are a likable bunch is irrelevant; if you believe they have human rights, you must believe taking a stand on their behalf is the right thing to do. Just like the provisions of the bill of rights protect criminals, in both theory and practice, the belief in human rights entails belief that even the worst human beings cannot be denied their fundamental freedoms.
Regardless of whether you agree with the content of Durbin's statement on the matter, it seems like a no brainer to say that the line of criticism advanced in this cartoon does not make sense.
Alex, Katie of the M is probably off explaining how Princesses don't have cash unless the king and queen are well off, so let me take a shot.
First of all, we aren't a 'conservative leaning blog'. We are mainstream. It's just that we might appear to be conservative to a "left leaning" visitor. And having spent time in touchy feely Massachusetts, I know how hard it is to realize that "mainstream" Cambridge ain't.
Next, I find the comic a bit dense myself, but I get the point that the detainees might take solace in Durbin's comments (but they probably don't have access to media and haven't heard them, but that's the nature of satire).
I think that Hugh Hewitt has put forth the debate on this subject far better than I could, so you might want to check his blog.
Durbin's problem was his choice of anologies. You simply can't relate some indignities to a few detainees to the actions of Pol Pot, Hitler, or Stalin, and get away with it. His retoric is what we expect from Rosie O'Donnell, Michael Moore, and Al Franken, but not from a United States Senator on the floor while we are at war.
War is messy. .but so was the World Trade Center site on 9/11.
We couldn't have won WWII with the press and the Senators and Congressmen whom we have today.
We roasted Japanese soldiers out of caves in Iwo Jima, and Okinawa in WWII. I could just see Durbin and his ilk on the Senate Floor in 1945 complaining about this horrible violation of human rigts and how it must stop.
I just wrote a long comment and lost it. Sigh. I'll try to reconstruct. . .
First, while Stewdog may be right that this is a mainstream blog, I plead guilty to being a conservative-leaning blogger (with some small-L libertarianism thrown in for spice).
" Whether you think what goes on is right or wrong, its no rice pilaf."
-- I beg to differ. It IS rice pilaf compared to herding people into gas chambers and exterminating them like vermin, or starving and freezing them to death in Stalin's gulags, or shooting them if they give so much as a hint of understanding French. For all I know, the Gitmo inmates DO get rice pilaf, but in any event, Muir is entitiled to exaggerate for satirical effect (isn't that the defense I keep reading of that idiot Ted Rall?), and I find it a bit odd for you to complain about Muir's sense of proportion and to apologize for Durbin's in the same breath.
"Taking a stand for human rights means, invariably, abandoning distinctions that have their basis in the nation state and speaking on behalf of humans."
-- If Durbin wants to abandon distinctions that have their basis in the nation state, why is he a United States Senator from the state of Illinois? You seem to fail to understand that the degree of outrage his remarks have occasioned arises precisely from the fact that he is a U.S. Senator who obscenely insulted his nation's military from the floor of the Senate. If he wants to join Amnesty International, or head the U.N. or some such thing, he's welcome to do so, in which case his comments -- while still drawing harsh criticism -- would not create the kind of firestorm they have created. And while we're on the subject of obliterating distinctions, let's not forget the other distinctions Durbin has obliterated -- by comparing the possible abuses at Guantanamo to the worst mass murders in history, and further by suggesting that Geneva conventions should apply to Guantanamo prisoners, since one of the chief reasons for the conventions governing treatment of P.O.W.'s was to preserve the distinction between soldier and civilian (and thus protect the latter). [That doesn't mean that the Gitmo inmates shouldn't be treated humanely, however.]
"Just like the provisions of the bill of rights protect criminals, in both theory and practice, the belief in human rights entails belief that even the worst human beings cannot be denied their fundamental freedoms."
-- Just an aside, Alex, but I thought you didn't believe in "rights." If you're arguing that Durbin should be commended for being true to his own ideals, I simply don't buy it. I say he's grandstanding at the expense of a group of people who are the habitual rhetorical targets of the left -- a group of people, moreover, who put their lives on the line to defend and protect Durbin's sorry ass. [Do I sound angry? I am.]
I really hate to think what kind of atrocity it's going to take for people to understand that "Islamism" (or whatever you want to call it) represents a real threat here, but one thing is sure -- if some terrorist commits a big enough atrocity on American soil (as though 9/11 weren't big enough), the cause of Arab/Muslim/Guantanamo human rights is going to be obliterated right along with all those other distinctions Durbin is so fond of obliterating. So Durbin can be concerned about humane treatment at Guantanamo all he wants (we all should be, to a certain extent), and he can speak out about it, but when he takes to the floor of the Senate to compare the U.S. military to Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot (and by implication, to compare the Gitmo inmates to the innocent victims of those mass murderers), he is making a travesty of the very ideal he supposedly holds so dear. And I applaud Chris Muir for heaping scorn on him.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Kate Marie,
"If Durbin wants to abandon distinctions that have their basis in the nation state, why is he a United States Senator from the state of Illinois?"
You are going to have to flesh out a bit more why the two are contradictory.
Do you really want to argue that an obligation to your country, of the kind every citizen has, but especially an elected official like Durbin, is incompatible with an obligation to humankind and human rights? That Durbin cannot be a spokesman for human rights and continue to remain faithful in his obligations as a senator?
This claim - which is the only way I can think of to make sense of your counterargument - seems to me to be clearly false. I'll point out for now that you've made no arguments for why the two are incompatible. I therefore eagerly await arguments from you.
"[Durbin] takes to the floor of the Senate to compare the U.S. military to Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot (and by implication, to compare the Gitmo inmates to the innocent victims of those mass murderers), he is making a travesty of the very ideal he supposedly holds so dear. And I applaud Chris Muir for heaping scorn on him."
I'm not sure how to respond to this since it is so obviously illogical.
Imagine:
me: the criticism advanced in this cartoon does not make sense
you: Durbin makes me angry and I aplaud Muir for criticizing him.
me: but this criticism does not make sense!
Of course, if you feel Durbin's remarks are a travesty, nothing prevents you from making that criticism, or linking to someone else who makes that criticism. What does not follow is that you should applaud everyone who criticizes Durbin, regardless of the criticism makes sense or not. At least, not if you are interested in being logical.
stewdog,
I don't think we disagree about the point I am trying to make here. You write,
"I find the comic a bit dense myself... Durbin's problem was his choice of anologies..."
My point here is quite narrow: the criticism advanced by the comic does not make sense. Whether Durbin's remarks make sense is an entirely different topic.
Kate Marie,
I'll try to answer some of the asides in this comment.
" It IS rice pilaf compared to..."
Well, stop right there. You are reframing the question. The question is not whether what goes in guantanamo is a rice pilaf compared to something; the comic plainly presents guantanamo as a comfortable place. Given the multiple accounts of the beatings that go on in there, this is just plain wrong - not an exaggeration, but downright wrong.
"Just an aside, Alex, but I thought you didn't believe in "rights." "
I don't. But Durbin does. I'm evaluating whether a particular criticism of his position makes sense. Whether I disagree with Durbin on some other grounds is in no way relevant.
Alex, I thought the comic a bit dense, but the criticism does make sense to me. It presents two messages, that the Gitmo detainee could take solice in Durbin's words and that his comments don't fairly represent the citizens of the Land of Lincoln. Two excellent and accurate points.
Now, as to human rights and the "nation state". This nation state has served me well. It is the best experiment in human governance to come down the pike. It freed me from British tyranny, and protected me from Nazi and Japanese tyranny. Because we have a presedent with the insight to understand the current threat, it is now in the process of protecting me from the Islamic Fundamentalist tyranny de jour (pardon my French). I am more concerned about the human rights of those who live in and support this nation state than those (Kate I like the Islamofascist moniker) who would seek to destroy it.
We can't play by nice nice rules while our sworn enemy follows no rules. If you have to break a few eggs to make an omelet, call me when breakfast is ready. If that cheapens us as a nation in your eyes, then I think most of us will be content to step down from Bloomindales to Pennys if it assists in our survival.
Aside from his poor segue from the second panel to the third, I think the second-biggest mistake that Chris Muir made with this comic strip was the selection of rice pilaf as the joke at the end. Although most Americans probably think of it as a "treat," rice pilaf is not, in fact, an exotic dish; it's pretty basic fare in a large portion of the world.
However, it's also true that detainees at Guantanamo *eat* rice pilaf. They're getting halal meals and Korans and are allowed (apparently even encouraged) to pray, which is pretty decent treatment for illegal combatants whom our soldiers could have executed on the spot under international law. Pol Pot was not eager to let people pray. Stalin didn't feed his prisoners nutritious meals. Hitler did not distribute Torahs at concentration camps. Chris Muir's comic is flawed, but Durbin's comparison is false--and offensive.
"Do you really want to argue that an obligation to your country, of the kind every citizen has, but especially an elected official like Durbin, is incompatible with an obligation to humankind and human rights? That Durbin cannot be a spokesman for human rights and continue to remain faithful in his obligations as a senator?"
-- But I didn't say they were incompatible. And *your* claim was not that Durbin's concern for human rights was "compatible" with his obligations as an elected official, but that "taking a stand for human rights means, INVARIABLY, abandoning distinctions that have their basis in the nation state..." *My* point was that if Durbin's main concern is "human rights," and, if, to Durbin, taking a stand on human rights *invariably* means abandoning distinctions that have their basis in the nation state, I find his decision to become an elected representative for a nation/government that *relies* on that distinction hypocritical and illogical.
"Of course, if you feel Durbin's remarks are a travesty, nothing prevents you from making that criticism, or linking to someone else who makes that criticism. What does not follow is that you should applaud everyone who criticizes Durbin, regardless of the criticism makes sense or not. At least, not if you are interested in being logical."
-- Okay, Spock, just call me "Bones." I must concede that the point of linking to the Muir cartoon was not to be logical, but merely to have a laugh at Durbin's expense.
That said, Muir's point makes quite enough sense to me. First, thanks to Jeff for the information that Guantanamo inmates DO, in fact, get rice pilaf (and, true, for Americans it isn't a treat). So Muir's "assertion," if you want to call it that, is technically true. Second, when you claim that Muir isn't exaggerating or comparing but making false assertions, aren't you misunderstanding the way a four-panel politcal cartoon works? Indeed, unless his readers have a prior understanding of the context of the cartoon, it's not going to make any sense at all. When Muir presents Gitmo as a "comfortable place," I think he assumes his readers will understand that he's not claiming that Gitmo is comfortable in some absolute sense but in the context of the disgusting comparisons made by Durbin.
I also agree with Stewdog that Muir suggests that Durbin's comments could give solace to the Gitmo detainees (and to Islamofascists in general) and that they don't fairly represent American citizens or the American military.
Post a Comment
<< Home