The animated duo cut to the core–and reveal the missing “point”–of war in a handful of frames. Why can’t we seem to get it?
The Article: Donald Trump: The Rape Apologist by Tina Dupuy in The Contributor.
The Text: Donald Trump thinks it’s a no-brainer that so many American servicewomen are raped by their fellow soldiers. This week when the increase of these crimes is the subject of a Senate hearing, Trump tweeted: “26,000 unreported sexual assults (sic) in the military-only 238 convictions. What did these geniuses expect when they put men & women together?”
I normally ignore The Donald as a publicity-hound half-wit celebrity shill. But now that he’s a rape apologist, he deserves a response:
The natural product of men and women together is not sexual assault. Rape is not an eventuality. It’s not a method of conception as (thankfully still-a-Congressman) Paul Ryan likes to refer to it. It’s not a means of god “gifting human life” like former Senator Rick Santorum believes. There’s not illegitimate rape and legitimate rape as former Congressman and 2012 senatorial candidate Todd Akin felt the need to clarify.
The Article: The War on Drugs Is Far More Immoral Than Most Drug Use by Connor Friedersdorf in The Atlantic.
The Text: In the Washington Post, Peter Wehner advises the Republican Party to reassert itself as the anti-drug-legalization party. “One of the main deterrents to drug use is because it is illegal. If drugs become legal, their price will go down and use will go up,” he writes. “And marijuana is far more potent than in the past. Studies have shown that adolescents and young adults who are heavy users of marijuana suffer from disrupted brain development and cognitive processing problems.” Of course, no one is advocating that adolescent marijuana be made legal. And does Wehner understand that prohibition creates a powerful incentive for upping drug potency?
But rather than focus on mistaken arguments common to drug prohibitionists, I want to address a relatively novel claim: “Many people cite the ‘costs’ of and ‘socioeconomic factors’ behind drug use; rarely do people say that drug use is wrong because it is morally problematic, because of what it can do to mind and soul,” Wehner writes. “In some liberal and libertarian circles, the ‘language of morality’ is ridiculed. It is considered unenlightened, benighted and simplistic. The role of the state is to maximize individual liberty and be indifferent to human character.”
What he doesn’t seem to understand is that many advocates of individual liberty, myself included, regard liberty itself as a moral imperative. I don’t want to ridicule the “language of morality.” I want to state, as forcefully as possible, that the War on Drugs is deeply, irredeemably immoral; that it corrodes the minds and souls of those who prosecute it, and creates incentives for bad behavior that those living under its contours have always and will always find too powerful to resist. Drug warriors may disagree, but they should not pretend that they are the only ones making moral claims, and that their opponents are indifferent to morality. Reformers are often morally outraged by prohibitionist policies and worry that nannying degrades the character of citizens.