Tuesday, December 12, 2006

Taliban Rules

The election setback has left Republicans in Congress searching for fresh, new ideas. How can they convince people within the next two years that they deserve to be in power again? I think I might have the solution. The Swiss weekly, Die Weltwoche recently published the Taliban's new book of rules, or Layeha, which were adopted this fall during a high Taliban meeting, and translated them into English for the first time. After reading them, I'm beginning to think we may have misjudged the Taliban and it may not be such a bad thing after all that they are coming back into power. And with just a little tweaking these Taliban Rules could be adopted by Republicans in Congress, replacing the Ferengi Rules of Acquisition which the last session of Congress had unofficially adopted. A Talibanesque Contract with America might just be enough to restore the confidence of the American people in the Republican Congressional leadership.

Many of these commonsense guidelines impose strict discipline and accountability, which would be just as good for Republicans as it has been for the Taliban. If Congress had adopted Taliban Rule No. 9 (Taliban may not use Jihad equipment or property for personal ends) and Rule No. 10 (Every Talib is accountable to his superiors in matters of money spending and equipment usage) before the election, the notion that the Republican Congress was corrupt would have been nipped in the bud.

Now that Tom Delay has left Congress because he believes he could exert more influence as a blogger, there is no one to enforce loyalty to the President's policies anymore. I doubt Senator Gordon Smith would have given that "emotional" speech, as Tony Snow called it, if he had known that he would be subject to Taliban Rule No. 4: A convert to the Taliban, who does not behave loyally and becomes a traitor, forfeits our protection. He will be given no second chance.

Some of the Taliban Rules would reinforce Republican dedication to traditional constituencies. Evangelicals who support more religion in the schools would applaud Rules 24-26, which forbid non-religiously trained teachers, although beating and killing teachers and burning down schools would probably seem a bit harsh to some, even though they may be sympathetic to the principle behind them. I think these are examples of rules that would have to tweaked just a bit. Rule No. 16, which says "It is strictly forbidden to search houses or confiscate weapons," would be applauded by the NRA, who may be tempted to support the Democrats now that they love guns, too. Even liberals would be happy with Rule No. 18 (Mujahideen should refrain from smoking cigarettes) since just about everyone hates smokers. I don't think there would be too many people who would object to enforcing a little discipline Taliban-style on the one minority no one cares about, and who will be dead pretty soon anyway.

But perhaps the regulation that would most convince people that the Republicans really are cleaning house is Rule No. 19 (Mujahideen are not allowed to take young boys with no facial hair onto the battlefield or into their private quarters). Apparently, this is as big a problem among the Taliban as it is with Republican Congressmen. If only that rule had been enforced before the election, Republicans might still be in power. I think the GOP could learn a lot from the Taliban, who may not be so different after all.

Update on the Weblog Awards: Absolutely, we're winning, to borrow a phrase from President Bush. Don't believe the exit polls as reported by the liberal media. Vote here. (And if you're still not convinced why letting Jon Swift lose would let the terrorists win, go here and scroll down to the end of the post for a list of links to the Best of Jon Swift.)

Share This Post
blinkbits BlinkList del.icio.us digg Fark Furl LinkaGoGo Ma.gnolia NewsVine Reddit Shadows Simpy Spurl TailRank YahooMyWeb

, , , , , , , , , , , Beltway Traffic Jam, Right Pundits Open Trackback, Carnival of Thoughtful Consideration #1, Tom Delay's Carnival of Conservatives

18 comments:

gimblet said...

Lovely.
This is so close to the mark, that in this surreal world of ours, I can almost see this logic actually being snapped up by the republicans. Weirder things have happened, like the poor peoples of the mid-west voting for a party that slashed welfare support, and gave tax breaks to the enourmously rich...who'd a thunk it eh?

AmazingLarry said...

That last one may have to be altered a bit. If we couldn't allow boys without the ability to grow facial hair into combat, we would lose a substantial portion of our troops in Iraq, and recruiters would have to start looking for more difficult marks.

Anonymous said...

Actually, Larry, I think that last one was an alusion to a ban on homosexuality, or as you libs like to euphemize it, pedophilia.

Fortunately our military still has and uses the legal right to ban those who are caught bringing cleanshaven boys into their tents.

McCain said...

Consdiering the first Muslim in Congress is a Democrat and refuses to take the oath in the proper fashion, don't be surprised to see your idea proposed by the future voting majority.

--McCain at Right Pundits

bytheyrespelingyou said...

I try not be surprised by anything, consdiering. Not even alusions.

Terry Hull said...

Jon: This piece is on target. After the Nov. elections and GOP trouncing, I was amazed to hear many right-wing pundits declare that Republican candidates lost -- NOT because of Bush's war in Iraq, and NOT because of corruption in the party -- but because Republican leaders have not been conservative enough! That's some incredible spin. How could the right wing be any more conservative? Of course, leave it to Jon Swift to find the way.

Karen Rani said...

I have been voting for you! I'm up for Best Parenting Blog as well so I'm there every day. :)

McCain said...

bytheyrespelingyou--
Ah yes that spelling thing - typical of my liberal friends' curious obsession with fashion over matter. Let us know when you have an idea.

fulsome said...

haha, because you decided the "right" way to do something and someone else disagrees he shouldn't do it?

Why would a non-Christian swear on the Bible? It makes no sense.

Now please go pretend to be intelligent somewhere else.

blue girl said...

OT, JS -- Because I'm "slow" and don't "get things" very fast...I just noticed the Weblog Award nomination.

A *huge* thank you to you. That was great and made my day.

bg

BenMerc said...

As they say: "What goes around, comes around"
I mean didn't the cia write something like this for the Taliban back in the 80's? Although it does appear that they have added a few new twists to the program.

Tengrain said...

If I vote for you one more time, I'm told I will go blind. I'm willing, as the teenage boys used to say, to do it until I need glasses, but not a moment longer.

Regards,

Tengrain

Andy said...

I'm sure I missed some of the subtleties, but I got a good laugh out of some of the points. It is interesting to see some striking (at least professed) similarities between what are generally considered polar opposites, eh?

Zeno said...

The American Conservative Union was explicit in their analysis of the November election in a recent e-mail: "Last month, the American people went to the polls, turned about two dozen RINOs OUT OF office and DEMANDED conservative government!"

Whoa!

Miss Cellania said...

I came over from Tom Delay's carnival posting. Your post is a fine addition!

Comandante Agí said...

Congratulations for making Tom DeLay's blog. You deserve it!

Emmy said...

One would have thought Mr. Swift saying such things as enforcing a little discipline Taliban-style or that the Republicans previously used Ferengi Rules of Acquisition, which the Taliban rules were to have replaced, to be a dead-giveaway.

Thick as a brick, they are ROFLMAO

Jae said...

Bush doesn't have facial hair. THAT's why he didn't have to go to war!

Google