or
Join Now!
|
|
Home/Government/Politics
|
| Forum |
Ask A Question |
Question Board |
FAQs |
Search |
Return to Question Board
| Question Details |
Asked By |
Asked On |
| Borders? We don't need no stinkin borders. |
excon |
01/25/04 |
Ok, Mr. Conservative, you want to talk about borders? Bring it on (I like that phrase). We don’t need no stinking borders!
Borders are obsolete. They’re relics from the past. We’ve outgrown our need for them, as they no longer provide the security that they once did. Our northern and southern boundaries are nothing more than imaginary lines anyway. The problem is, they reside in our imaginations much more so than in the rest of the worlds. So, we continue to pretend that our borders are secure.
But they’re not, really. Get a map out and take a look. Ask yourself, do we look safe from intrusion? Your own sensibilities tell you that we are not. I’m constantly blown away by people who think we stop penetration - any penetration, on any border. And, I do mean that literally. I appear to be saying it over and over again, but the message is not getting through. We can’t stop it – no matter what.
Now, I know that you’ve got the entire federal government telling you that our borders are secure. GW said so the other night. So, I don’t blame you if you believe it. But, security is only a state of mind. How you feel about your security has nothing whatsoever to do with how secure you really are. For your own safety, I suggest that you not buy that bill of goods.
In one of my many incarnations, I was in the security business. Some of my customers bought top of the line, state of the art, security systems. And some just bought a sign and planted it in their yard. Is a sign good enough? I dunno. I suggest that all our efforts at securing ourselves, are tantamount to planting a sign in our yard.
Well then, you say, let’s really lock it up. Let’s put troops along the border. Are you still looking at the map? That’s 3,000 miles of unguarded border to the north. Aside from the desert in the southwest (a pretty formative guard, in and of itself - that doesn’t stop anybody), we’ve got 1,500 miles of unguarded border there. And, what of our coastlines? Are you still looking at the map?
If you’re still not convinced, tell me why the Israelis can’t guard their borders. What, they’re not tough enough? You think walls, razor wire and armed guards offer security? Tell me why our prisons are full of drugs? If borders work, why did we invade Iraq? If borders work, why are we afraid of the N. Koreans?
Some of you diehards will scoff and say, well if we really, really, really get tough, we can protect ourselves. But, we can’t. That’s the reality. Take another look at the map, and let’s do something different.
Besides, I don’t want to live in a country that’s locked up. Been there – done that.
I’m reminded of a story emanating from my old prison days. I never could understand the administrations’ response to bad behavior. When one convict broke the rules, they punished everybody. When somebody got caught in the broom closet with his girlfriend on visiting day (a perfectly natural thing for a con to do), they would stop contact visits for everybody. If there was a fight, we’d all be locked down for a few days. If they discovered a batch of hooch, or some contraband, they’d lock us down again. So, instead of punishing the guys who did it, we all would get punished. I never got that.
And that’s what happened to us after 9/11. We know who did it, but who got punished? Us! They gave us The Patriot Act – a law akin to, and the beginning of “locking us down” for real. Well I, for one, don’t like living in a locked down country. I like the freedoms we have (I mean had). And, if it’s freedom that Bin Laden hates, then we played right into his hands, because the Patriot Act restricts freedom. It tells the world what the USA really stands for. Less freedom - not more. Bush responded exactly like Bin Laden would have liked.
Furthermore, instead of hiding what we’re doing to the people in Gitmo, we should be holding them up as a shining example of how the US Justice system works – even (no especially) for those we hate. They should be charged and tried in public with all the rights we cherish so much. I know, these people aren’t Americans. So what? We can’t covet these rights for ourselves. They’re “in-alienable”, after all – meaning everybody has them, automatically, whether we like it or not. If our system is good – then it’s good no matter who the bad guy is, or how bad he is. From my viewpoint, it should be even better the worse the bad guy is.
Ok, back to borders. Let’s see, we’ve discovered borders don’t stop job seekers from coming in. Since we can’t stop job seekers from coming in, then presumably, we can’t stop terrorists either. Plus, borders don’t stop our jobs from going overseas. Indians write very good software for half the cost, and they’re very, very busy.
Now, I know what borders used to do, but they don’t do it anymore. Globalization is a fact. The US of A is no longer predominantly white. It will get browner even still. Christianity will no longer be the major religion (I’ll bet that scares the pants off some of you). The melding of cultures is happening. The distinctions between people will most likely disappear in the next century (if we make it). Now, you can argue whether these things are good or bad, but they're happening nonetheless.
So, what do borders do that’s good? I can’t think of a thing. They’re obsolete. As a matter of fact they hold us back. Borders are a relics from the past that prevent us from moving – no leading – into the future.
Well, there is one thing you can say about borders - they cause good wars.
excon
|
Clarification/Follow-up by XCHOUX on 01/26/04 10:21 pm:
excon: No not art! Check your dictionary again.
Clarification/Follow-up by ETWolverine on 01/27/04 4:17 pm:
Excon,
po·lem·ic n.
1- A controversial argument, especially one refuting or attacking a specific opinion or doctrine.
2- A person engaged in or inclined to controversy, argument, or refutation.
adj. also po·lem·i·cal
Of or relating to a controversy, argument, or refutation.
[French polémique, from Greek polemikos, hostile, from polemos, war.]
Essentially, excon, "polemic" means "debate".
Elliot Clarification/Follow-up by excon on 01/27/04 5:29 pm:
Merriam-Webster says: The "art" or practice of disputation. I like that one better.
excon
Clarification/Follow-up by purplewings on 01/29/04 6:50 am:
To Elliot,
You may be right, but have you considered the possibility that one day people may actually stop hating? Your quote: "That which has no desire to grow dies."
When people begin to feel less shut-out and more equal, strange things begin to happen. One of those things is they learn to love themselves, and then they learn to love others too.
I believe that is the desirable result of mankind's existence. Certainly it won't happen all at once, and we may be exposed to new danger...as in everything that is in process of change - but it must start somewhere, so why not here?
PW
Clarification/Follow-up by XCHOUX on 01/29/04 6:18 pm:
Elliot: Essentially, it means a controversial argument, not a debate. One can deliver a polemic.
Cordially, Chou
|
| |
|
Your Options |
Additional Options are only visible when you login! !
|
|
|
|
