Monday, February 21, 2005

Orson Scott Card Is A Tool

While I was writing the last post, I had to find the links to OSC's rants about gays and peace protesters. In doing so, I also stumbled upon OSC's latest ramblings. To go over more than one of his columns would be time-consuming and unpleasant to boot, but I had to respond to one of his latest turds. So cover me Red-3, I'm going in:
When Condoleezza Rice's confirmation as secretary of state was opposed by 13 Democratic Senators, it did not imply that she was singularly unsuited to serve in the President's cabinet. It meant that the Democrats in Congress were determined to be brutally partisan ... at a time when our country is at war, and we need to show our enemies a unified and relentless determination to defeat them.
And Condi had done so much to defeat the terrorists. I remember well that wondrous day when Bin Laden and Zawahiri were brought back from Afghanistan, caged and beaten, pelted with rotten fruit through the streets of DC.

Wait a minute... that didn't happen.

Instead, the mastermind of 9/11 is still at large. Furthermore, Rice's lies paved the way for the Iraq war, which has created and continues to create more terrorists than the US Army can ever kill. Rice has served Bin Laden better than any Manchurian Candidate could ever be forced to. And she's done it not because she's evil, but because she's stupid. Personally, I think that's worse. Card continues:
Once the decision to go to war is made, then the actions of members of Congress must be undertaken with consideration of how our enemies will interpret them. Congress has a responsibility to make sure that the war is waged properly; but meaningless opposition just to show off, when it will certainly prolong the war, is astonishingly selfish. Even if you think a war is wrong, when American lives are on the line, decent leaders do nothing to signal our enemies that we do not have the unity or resolution to win. Only thirteen Democrats voted against Condoleezza Rice's confirmation. But these weren't thirteen obscure senators. They included some of the most influential or at least well-known: Kennedy, Kerry, Jeffords, and the ever entertaining Barbara Boxer. (Won't someone please tell Senator Kerry that most Americans voted for somebody else for President? He doesn't get to choose the Secretary of State.)
First off, Jeffords isn't a Democrat - until 2001, he was a Republican, now he's an independent. Secondly, won't someone please tell Mr. Card that most Americans voted for Al Gore, and that Bush doesn't get to go to war? More recently, plenty of people voted for John Kerry as Senator. Hmm... what roles do senators play? Oh yeah, they get to choose the Secretary of State!
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
Card goes on, and on, and on:
The Democratic Party isn't the private property of the lunatic Left.
HOLY SHIT. Thirteen Senators vote against the most criminally inept NSA since the creation of that post, and they're called lunatics? Wow. What would Card call it if almost all the Republican party voted to impeach a President who comitted no crime? No, wait, I don't want to know. What he actually does write is feculent enough:
Not that Syria has been helping us -- indeed, they are the most active Arab nation in the support of terrorism, and there is no question that both Israel and Iraq would be much safer places if Syria had a change of government. But, keenly aware of how easily American troops could defeat their military and topple their government, Syria has been keeping a low profile, behaving themselves ... sort of. Saudi Arabia, however, has been a key support for American action in the Middle East. Their cooperation has made military actions far more likely to succeed. And, indirectly, their oil policies have kept the world economy in equilibrium, more or less, allowing us the prosperity to be able to afford this war.
It gets worse and worse, doesn't it? Syria - not that long ago counted as an ally against Al-Qaeda - supported anti-Israeli terrorism during the Israeli invasion of Lebanon. Sure, it's terrorism, but Syria has no history of supporting terrorism of the Al-Qaeda stripe.

Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia hasn't done squat to keep the world economy in equilibrium. Oil prices are no longer determined by the supply, but by the demand - OPEC, and therefore Saudi Arabia, hasn't been able to control prices since the current spike began in 2002. And besides, any six-year old could grasp that, far from an ally, Saudi Arabia has been crucial to incubating, funding and disseminating terrorists. Card goes on to actually discuss this reality at some length, which just adds to the cognitive dissonance. What the hell is wrong with this man's brain? Before we can even think of an answer, he goes totally off the deep end:
It's time for anyone -- a church or a group or an individual -- receiving funding from the Saudi government or from Wahhabist sources to be registered as agents of a foreign nation ... and publically listed. Any imam who allows this hate literature from Saudi Arabia to be available in his mosque should be listed as a foreign agent.
This proposal is absolutely brilliant. Really. I think we should adopt it here in Canada - every group that takes money from foreign sources to advocate in domestic politics should be publicly branded as a foreign agents. The plus side is the BQ gets to be the Loyal Opposition again!
But if the American Muslim community insists on their right to distribute that literature secretly, we'll know something important and surprising about their intentions.
Ah yes, the "you have nothing to fear if you've got nothing to hide" tactic. That doesn't have a bad history at all. Next step: We'll make all Muslims register with the government, and maybe wear yellow stars of david green crescent moons. For their own defense, of course. The final piece of evidence that Card is an incipient fascist:
But this is a war we're in - a war that Muslim fanatics brought to our soil, where they murdered thousands of Americans in an unprovoked attack on civilians.
We've gone from the "nothing to fear" tactic to the "ends justify the means" strategy. Let's be clear - Bin Laden's recruiting pitch is very simple: Muslims are under attack by the west. Israel, Chechnya, Afghanistan, and Iraq - for Bin Laden, they're all pieces of evidence, pointing to one undeniable conclusion: Muslims are not safe. Therefore, they need to strike back against the aggressors, hitting them where they live. Any Muslim who doubts this simple fact is a traitor to God.

Card, meanwhile, argues that Americans are under attack by Muslims. Kenya, Tanzania, the USS Cole, 9/11 - for Card, they're all pieces of evidence, pointing to one undeniable conclusion: American are not safe. Therefore, they need to strike back against the aggressors, hitting them where they live. Any American who doubts this simple fact is a "lunatic".

Not that I'm making a point, or anything. But I won't be re-reading Ender's Game anytime soon.

1 comment:

Wes Craig said...

I was just finished reading "Shadow of the Hegemon." Reading the afterword, I was surprised to see a mention of Bill Clinton and his illegal strikes against Afghanistan. I noted that the copyright was 2000, and wondered (via Google) if OSC had changed his tune since 9/11. What an unpleasant surprise! I've now learned that OSC is a Clinton-hater, Lieberman-democrat, neo-fascist. I think maybe he took his Locke / Demosthenes ideas too seriously.