I’m going to make this fast, partly so as to only minimally expose my ignorance of politics and partly because I can”t stomach even thinking about this for very long without getting angry and a little nauseous.

I watched the democratic debate last night. I was not terribly surprised to find that almost nothing was said by anybody, or that more nothing was said by the frontrunners than by anyone else. What surprised me was a question that evolved out of another question, and that only three (since I don’t think Edwards actually got anywhere close to actually answering this one) candidates responded to: Is national security more important than human rights? I should clarify that the question was phrased exactly as I have written it, but that it was framed around how to deal with Pakistan–whether we should be supporting elections and such trivialities as ending martial law even if that makes us more vulnerable to terrorists. I didn’t really understand how our support of human rights would make us more vulnerable to attack, but the candidates seemed to get it, so I won’t quibble.

When asked the direct question Is national security more important than human rights?” by Wolf Blitzer, who is a douche and was very exacting about getting candidate to give simple yes/no or one/other answers, Clinton, Obama, and Dodd all said that national security is more important than human rights. No modifying, no doubt, no hesitancy.

AM I THE ONLY ONE SCARED SHITLESS BY THIS?

What is wrong with this country? Those were the Democrats, the sissy, bleeding hearts, and they think that homeland security is more important than defending human rights. I’m obviously wrong, but I thought that the point of national security is to maintain the rights of citizens, such as the right not to be blown up or shot. I keep forgetting that those rights only exist for Americans, and that for us they are, apparently, more important than not living in a fascist state.

So I have a proposal for the Democratic presidential hopefuls, since my suspicion is that all seven candidates shared this opinion (yes, even Kucinich): if and when you become president, there are three things you should do immediately to protect national security; one, drop nuclear bombs on as much of the Middle East as is necessary to finish off al-Quida once and for all; two, immediately close our borders to all foreign nationals on penalty of death; three, lock up or execute all Muslims, Arab-Americans, Pakistanis, and influential Russians and Chinese, and anyone else who might be a safety threat. If you can accomplish those three things quickly, you should have the rest of your natural life (why hold elections when they might compromise your position, and thus national security?) to contemplate what other civil liberties to eliminate to keep American citizens safe.

I will add that I will not be voting for Dodd, Clinton, or Obama in the primaries, specifically for this reason.

Advertisements