The accidental wisdom of Rick Perry

By now everyone’s read, or at least read about, Rick Perry’s statement on the administration’s push to prevent foreign fagbashing:

Promoting special rights for gays in foreign countries is not in America’s interests and not worth a dime of taxpayers’ money.

Half the internet, including Reason Magazine, has reacted by ridiculing Perry’s implication that life and liberty are “special rights for gays”.  It’s a pretty obvious zinger, and I can’t blame them for giving it a kick.  But I think we should stop and consider whether Perry might actually be onto something.

After all, by now we know that the United States Executive has given itself the power to just up and murder people around the world based on no secret evidence and without judicial (or other) review.  And we’ve discovered that the latest National Defense Appropriations Act includes provisions for indefinite and arbitrary detention of pretty much anyone the Executive branch doesn’t want simply to kill out of hand.  Maybe life and liberty really are “special rights”.

If you’ll excuse me, I’ll be off pursuing happiness for as long as they’ll let me.


3 Responses to “The accidental wisdom of Rick Perry”

  1. December 9, 2011 at 20:04

    The American security apparatus is explicitly and admittedly responsible for protecting the life and liberty of gays in America. (Not because they’re gay, as I shouldn’t have to say.)

    They are not formally responsible for same anywhere else, and they shouldn’t pretend to be. But especially Reason magazine shouldn’t pretend they are…not that I’m even slightly surprised.

    • December 10, 2011 at 00:05

      The American security apparatus is explicitly and admittedly responsible for protecting the life and liberty of gays in America.

      Subject to the linked-to exceptions, which (as you shouldn’t and don’t have to say) also apply to non-gay people.

      Far as I can tell, the point of the Reason article isn’t “We think the American security apparatus should be parachuting Green Berets into every hellhole on the planet to stop people from beating up queers” — it’s “hang on, since when are the rights SecState Clinton enumerated for gays special ones?”. Get rid of that one adjective and the circus disappears.

      That is, unless your interpretation is that Perry’s responding to a claim that foreign gays have the right to special protection (by American forces) from harm, whereas foreign straights don’t. I don’t see it, but my opinion isn’t often sought by Beltway insiders.

      • December 10, 2011 at 01:04

        It’s in character for proggies to suggest protecting specially the lives of foreign gays, and have indifference to straights. So, yes that’s my interpretation. What makes it special for Perry is that foreign nationals on foreign soil don’t have the right to life under American law, (as even the executive might be forced to agree, based on revealed preferences). Except, apparently, gay foreigners.

        The money could be spent, as Perry says, protecting people whose safety is the responsibility of the government.

        Though…defending a politician is making me feel icky. So, like, down with Perry, and stuff. I’m shocked he said something non-idiotic…must be a lie or a mistake.

Leave a reply; use raw HTML for markup. Please blockquote quotations from the post or other comments.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

anarchocapitalist agitprop

Be advised

I say fuck a lot



Statistics FTW


%d bloggers like this: