shunn | The Roald Dahl Memorial Bill?

I'd like to propose a law. My idea is inspired by a technique I proposed for preventing executives from prioritizing the most egregiously idiotic of projects, but admittedly those stakes are small beer compared to the problem my law would address.

The proposal is simple. Before declaring preemptive (i.e., unprovoked) war, the president would be required to sacrifice a finger.

I'm not talking about a clean amputation, either, with anaesthesia and all those modern niceties. I mean the president's finger would be hacked off with a dull saw, preferably rusty, while he watches. In the most appealing scenario, the amputation would be performed by a surgeon with experience in Civil War reenactments. The surgeon could have whisky, but the president could not.

Also, the stump would be cauterized with a red-hot branding iron.

As you can imagine, the president would have to feel pretty strongly about the necessity of a preemptive war in order to start one. And we could be sure that he was feeling at least a portion of the misery, pain, and suffering he was about to unleash.

Oh, yes, and the amputation would be televised, so we could see how long it took the president to pass out. I'd write my senator and suggest this, but my senator is Hillary Clinton.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Since I've been reunited with a TV for the past week, I've been able to more clearly understand what really needs to happen with the war, administration. I agree that the President could sacrifice a finger or three (people with 7 fingers rock, btw), but I'm thinking Steve Jobs is going to fix it all with the iRack and iRan: http://youtube.com/watch?v=KM_MkWgbt3k.

It's really very simple and since we can't very well ask GWB to sacrifice phalanges now, it could help the current synergy. Just throwing out another idea here and not at all disregarding yours for future administration.

skr

This reminds me of a suggestion I once read, I forget where, that the nuclear launch codes than an aide to the President keeps handy at all times should actually be stored, not in a briefcase, but in said aide's torso. The briefcase would contain a large kitchen knife; in order to launch nuclear weapons, the President would be required to use the knife to carve the codes directly out of the aide.

Mind you, I'm not sure that this wouldn't make nuclear war more attractive to the current President.

At the very least, we can assume it wouldn't be much of a deterrent to Cheney.

This sounds very similar to the premise of the story "Iphigenia" by Nancy A. Collins in There Won't Be War[1], except that instead of storing them in an aide, they were implanted into a young girl. (There was also some handwaving in the story about the girl having an "empathic resonance" with the president, such that he would actually care.)

[1] Tor, 1991

As an amputee myself, I feel like it's not very PC for me to like this idea. But I do anyways. And the thought of GWB writhing in pain seems morally justified, IMO. Maybe part of the deal would be that he has to amputate his own finger? Sort of like the rock climber who cut off his own arm? Somehow I think the world would become a much more peaceful place if this were the case.

It vaguely reminds a Stephen King short story where people who are trying to quit smoking have their spouse's fingers amputated when they slip up...I've always wondered how U.S. war would be different if the Pres was required to send his own kids/siblings/ nieces/nephews out to the front lines.

The only problem is our politicians should be making decisions without conflicts of interest. We don't want them deciding to NOT defend our country just because one of their children/relatives may be one of those going off to war.

That's kind of a silly objection to a hypothetical situation. Unless he lives in a cocoon, the president is always going to know someone who will have to go off to war depending on what he decides to do. Even in the absence of such a law, this is a "conflict of interest" that could very well happen, and it would be remarkable if, say, the country were attacked and the president refused to declare war because of a child in the armed forces. Can you really see that happening?

It might well make preemptive war less attactive, though.

Well, as a Quaker, I'm morally opposed to all war and I'd certainly like to see the President think more deeply about the ramifications of involving our country in war (preemptive or not). And in the case of our current President, he seems remarkably immune to the human suffering caused by his decisions (think Iraq, Gitmo, Katrina, etc), so it would seem that if he had to put those who loved in line of fire he might re-consider his choices (and if one wants to get into conflicts of interest--don't you see an inherent 'conflict of interest' in the ways that the current administration is _profiting_ from the Iraq war through the military's use of private contractors?)

Seriously, though, I wouldn't wish harm on GWB (me being a pacifist and all), but I do wish that he and other U.S. leaders, were held more personally accountable for their choices.

And do you think Clinton thought more deeply or was any less immune to the human suffering caused by his decisions?

I have no doubt that Clinton thought more deeply about it. Like him and what he did or not, Clinton is a blisteringly intelligent man, omnivorously curious and conversant with most any subject you would care to name. Bush is clever, cunning, and maybe even smart in his own special way, but I don't think it's possible for him to think as deeply as Clinton about anything. He seems too sure of himself and too lacking in curiosity.

The Roald Dahl Memorial Bill?

iRack

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

slight problem...

Re: slight problem...

Re: slight problem...

Re: slight problem...

Re: slight problem...