|
Steven den Beste links to this article to illustrate how the term "war crime" is being devalued. I'd give as my opinion that "war crime" is not the only such term. Among others are "global warming", "feminism", and, of course, that perennial favorite, "fascism". I'll also go further, and say that this is a deliberate attempt by hard leftists to try and recruit moderate numbers and opinions. After all, you're surely against genocide, destruction of the exosphere, and oppression of women, right? Then, sayeth the left, you must be against "war crimes", "global warming", and "fascism", and for "feminism"; which, they then proclaim, means that you must be against Israeli military action, industry, capitalistic democracy, and integrating women into society. Let's excrete a press release showing how 70% of Americans agree with us, and claiming that any policy to the contrary must be due to the vast right-wing conspiracy. Unfortunately, this denaturing of terms means the right can justify damned near anything in terms of moral equivalence. If there's no difference between knocking down a house or committing genocide, between holding a woman to a contract and holding her as a sex slave, between the policies of Nelson Rockefeller and Adolf Hitler, then why not do whatever we perceive is in our (short-term) interest -- perhaps, kill a few tens of millions of Muslims -- and shrug off criticism by saying, "Hey, it's all the same thing". Denaturing terms by way of using them as Orwellian duckspeak only works for the hard left as long as they are in control of the debate. "Global warming" has already slipped out of their control; "feminism" constantly threatens to do so. If "war crime" and "fascism" do, the results will not be pretty. If Bush's approval ratings are in the 70-80% percent range, and he's a brutal fascist with no regard for human rights or lives, then presumably about three-quarters of voting-age Americans are brutal fascists. And if we're brutal fascists...well, imagine a Nazi Germany or a People's Republic of China where the citizenry are not merely too scared to oppose the government, but are eager to help it carry out its policies. Read the words of Chomsky, Fisk, Pilger, Moore, and their kind. Now imagine a world where everything they say is true, and is justified by the persons beating them with rubber hoses saying, "Well, you said there was no difference between this and the way things really were in 2001..." Will they say then that they were just kidding? And why should we believe them? John "Akatsukami" Braue Sunday, June 16, 2002 |
|