PeterDavid.net

Between the mudslinging at every commercial break and the GOP spinmonsters grabbing ahold of this and lying through their teeth (seriously, they can't be psychotic enough to actually believe they think it was an insult to the troops, they just hope enough voters are stupid enough to buy it)...AND the news lapping this up and gleefully parroting the spinmonster line....

...well, it's now almost impossible to watch the news.

Politics ain't beanbag. When your opponent says something stupid you are perfectly ok to call them on it.

At least one Democrat has disinvited Kerry from a campaign stop, so this is not just a Rovian plot to make him look bad. Kerry does that just fine on his own.

I would have to disagree that the notion that Kerry would diss the troops is unfathomable. He did a pretty good job of that back in 1971. That said, one should not blame mendacity when stupidity is a more likely excuse and that would certainly be the case here.

Had he just said "Hey, I screwed up a joke." right at the beginning it would have been a 1 day story, mostly ignored. By hitting back to show the "NEw & Improved, with 20% More Backbone" John Kerry and THEN admitting he screwed up he made it a 3 or 4 day story. Way to go. The man has the poilitical smarts of a lemur.

Kerry, accidently slamming the military; it doesn't surprise me. Traditionally, the strong left is not a fan of the military. I just thought it was a slip (to the left.)

You ever wonder how elections would go, if the news media would just report the news, rather than picking and choosing what to show; or mulling over events ad nausum or worse, put out polls perdicting the winners, expecially when they're always so "right". (Isn't perdicting the future the opposite of reporting current events?) All these poll comments are either going to make Democrats stay home, thinking they've won things or make Republicans stay home thinking it's a lost cause. That's not reporting the news, but making the news.

Best political editoral I've seen came (but I don't know where it came from) "My opponent is an idiot, and I approved this ad." And that sums up the campaigning this year.

My thoughts on this is that only the stupid would think that Kerry's comments were directed to those serving in the military. Which, given the GOP's reaction, kind of proves my point. Bush has always had his intelligence questioned. He either is, or acts like, an idiot. And the GOP clearly thinks its voter base is too stupid to see the truth behind the lies they spin left and right (right and right?)

What gets me is some Democratic separation from Kerry. What's the #1 thing Democratic supporters have been crying for...for someone to fight back, show some backbone, stand up to the GOP administration juggernaut. Here's Kerry doing exactly that, standing behind his words, standing behind the truth, and refusing to back down from calling the president and this administration out on their actions. And rather than get behind and support someone finally taking a strong position against the GOP, he gets thrown under the bus by some.

Huh. You got to love the way the Texas National Guardman and his Vietnam-what-Vietnam ilk have managed to paint the Purple-Heart-winner into being the one doing such a grave disservice to the troops while pouring a few thousand American men and women into the meat grinder of modern American foreign policy at the bayonet's tip. That takes chutzpah -- and an American press willing to allow them to frame the discussion thusly and not call them on it, and to allow the "righteous indignation" to become a story itself.

When the opponent plays such a consistent playbook of prey-on-fear and kill-the-messenger, you can't afford to make those kind of pronoun mistakes a week before a national election. It's moments like this that move a legacy away from "elder statesman" to "political embarrassment."

"seriously, they can't be psychotic enough to actually believe they think it was an insult to the troops, they just hope enough voters are stupid enough to buy it)"

Well, let's see how solid that hope is, based upon a poll off the AOL news feed:

"How do you view Senator Kerry's remark?
A deliberate insult 58%
A botched joke 34%
I'm not sure 9%"

I think that kind of speaks for itself vis a vis GOP hopes for voter stupidity.

PAD

If I remember correctly, Kerry's words were "leave you stuck in Iraq". The word stuck was as problematic as the lack of pronoun, since while Bush has certainly has us stuck in Iraq, it is a word with very physical connotations and I have never viewed Bush as stuck in Iraq. He made the choices that left the nation stuck.

I don't know...his statement was mainly whining and petty insults. That is hardly the same thing as getting a backbone or standing up against the Administration. What Kerry needs is a script writer who could write something that clearly apologizes to the troops for the misunderstanding and doesn't sling insults, making him look like a child (He indulged in making fun of a person's physical appearance, jeez, I don't like Limbaugh, but calling him "doughy" is hardly a substanative response). His response makes him look petty and weak, not strong and noble.

"If you vote for a Democrat you are supporting the terrorist". This quote has been repeated many times recently by the President. He is not misspeaking. It is exactly what he means to say.
But that's all right. Why take him to task for saying half the population supports terrorism.
But John Kerry muffs a joke and let's spend the next 5 days making it a major issue.
That darn liberal media.

He did a pretty good job of that back in 1971.

Considering he'd actually served in a war, unlike anybody in the current makeup of the Bush Administration, and had seen things some of us thankfully will never have to witness, I'd say he's well within his right to critize those involved in specific events.

Consider events like Abu Ghraib, and you quickly realize that those things Kerry said happened, atrocities and such, could very well have happened and some likely did.

I find the right-wing attacks against those that actually went to war, such as McCain and Kerry to be far more despicable, again, heavily taking into account that those making the attacks never went to war, or did all the could to avoid service.

Conservatives had no problem allowing the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" to make a mockery of Kerry's service to this country.

Yet, they now rally against Kerry's comments.

Absolutely pathetic.

Kerry has nothing to apologize for.

One would think that, having served his 3 months in Vietnam, Kerry couldn't possibly have been slamming the military. He certainly didn't exhibit any of those feelings when he came back from overseas and testified before congress. No sirree.

Of course, if he was making an education joke about the President, it might have made more of an impact if Kerry had pulled down better grades than Bush did.

Personally, I think Kerry knew what he said, knew how it would be interpreted, and did it to "take one for the team" and thus start lathering up the base. But then, maybe I'm just giving him too much credit.

Didn't Bush once say something along the lines of "...the terrorists never stop trying to think of new ways to hurt our country, and neither do we."

So why hasn't anyone demanded that he apologize to the American public for trying to think of ways to hurt them?

Really, if someone were to go through all the 'Bushisms' looking for things to take out of context like this, I'm sure you could find hundreds.

But, of course, no one pays any attention to HIS verbal slipups.

"But, of course, no one pays any attention to HIS verbal slipups."

That's not entirely true. Book publishers and calendar manufacturers have made a small fortune off Bush's ineptitude.

It's just that it no longer makes the news because, well...Bush saying something stupid isn't considered news. It's same old/same old.

PAD

Displaying the comedic instincts of a California Redwood, Kerry SHOULD have said "we." "We wind up in Iraq," which would have made it at least somewhat clearer. Or if he insisted on "you," then it becomes, "you wind up landing us in Iraq." Something like that.

Wouldn't that mean, if you get a good education, you can make something of yourself, but if you don't, then you'll be stupid enough to vote for Bush and those who put us in Iraq? Calling all republicans stupid, might not be a better outcome.

"If you vote for a Democrat you are supporting the terrorist".This quote has been repeated many times recently by the President. He is not misspeaking. It is exactly what he means to say.

And yet, when I type that "quote" into google I get no hits. Huh. Explain, please.

Didn't Bush once say something along the lines of "...the terrorists never stop trying to think of new ways to hurt our country, and neither do we."

So why hasn't anyone demanded that he apologize to the American public for trying to think of ways to hurt them?

I doubt that Bush would react to such a request with fury and indignation and look like an ass. Because--and I know this hurts--he's smarter than Kerry. Faint praise but there you are.

Calling all republicans stupid, might not be a better outcome.

Well, I've said it outright plenty of times after the '04 election: Republicans were stupid because they put Bush back in the White House.

But hey, they deserve nothing less if they're going to support an Administration which is once again repeatedly saying that Democrats support terrorists.

"The Democrat approach on Iraq comes down to this: The terrorists win and America loses,"

I reserve the right to misconstrue this comment any which way I choose, and to me, Bush is saying "Democrats support terrorism".

The American public will also do no less.

And it's nothing less than the insinuations made post-9/11 that Saddam had something to do with 9/11.

"Wouldn't that mean, if you get a good education, you can make something of yourself, but if you don't, then you'll be stupid enough to vote for Bush and those who put us in Iraq?"

It could mean that if you beat it and tortured it so that it was no longer remotely recognizable as the original sentiment, yeah. Then again, this administration supports beating and torture, except when it doesn't support beating and torture, and staying the course except when they say they weren't all about staying the course, so who knows?

PAD

"I voted for the 80 billion before I voted against it."

Bush is certainly better at rehashing the same statements repeatedly to a mind-numbing degree. I am not sure that he is as smart as Kerry though.

Eric!, I'm not sure of the intention behind your post, but Kerry's statement about voting for before voting against has been taken out of context so many times that it makes me bonkers when I hear it touted about. The vote in question was a "yay" and failed. The proposal was changed significantly before he voted "nay".

"I voted for the 80 billion before I voted against it."

Ooo, nice. Let's put something inept that Kerry said several years ago against Bush saying stupid things such as "However they put it, the Democrat approach in Iraq comes down to this: The terrorists win and America loses," two days ago.

The terrorists "won" the moment Bush and company pursued a course that was straight out of the bin Laden wish list.

PAD

Try putting this quote into google:

"However they put it, the Democrat approach in Iraq comes down to this: The terrorists win and America loses."

"I voted for the 80 billion before I voted against it."

Did you know that Bush rejected a Department of Homeland Security, a Clinton idea, before accepting it after 9/11?

Sometimes, people change their minds about things. I know, I know, that means you're nothing more than a 'flip-flopper', but hey, who isn't? Bush is as much of one as Kerry.

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at November 1, 2006 09:33 AM

I doubt that Bush would react to such a request with fury and indignation and look like an ass. Because--and I know this hurts--he's smarter than Kerry. Faint praise but there you are.

Bill, please. By stupidly ignoring the advice of experienced generals and other military experts, and by relying on silly assumptions rather than planning for foreseeable contingencies, George W. Bush got us involved in a war that even conservative's conservatives like George Will have labeled a "fiasco." That shows a level of hubris, arrogance, and abject stupidity that eclipses any of John Kerry's mistakes.

Bush is no less politically tone deaf than Kerry, by the way. Bush began his presidency with a wealth of political capital that many of his predecessors would've given their eyeteeth for: a national resolve to rally around our president in the wake of 9/11. Yet Bush pissed away that political capital to the point where he was only able to narrowly beat Kerry in the 2004 election (that's pretty sad for a wartime president), and has continued to piss away that capital to the point where he is on the political equivalent of food stamps.

You know, it's funny. Donald Rumsfeld put his foot in it when he told the press corps to "back off and relax" while soldiers are dying in Iraq. I don't recall much conservative outrage over that. And I don't see much liberal outrage over Kerry's remarks.

This is the reason why I am losing patience with liberals and conservatives. It seems as though both have forgotten that ideology is supposed to be about ideas and principles, not about two teams circling the wagons around "their guys" and trying to get "the other guys."

It amazes me, by the way, that we are all gleefully wrapped up in this game of verbal "gotcha" while our position in Iraq continues to deteriorate, while we continue to lose ground in Afghanistan, while Iran and North Korea appear to be going nuclear, and while stateless terror groups like Al Qaeda remain a deadly threat.

We. Are. At. War.

And we're concerned because Kerry might have insulted the troops. Or not.

Well, the guys in my Spanish highschool who ended in the army were not precisely the most brilliant ones...

This is the reason why I am losing patience with liberals and conservatives. It seems as though both have forgotten that ideology is supposed to be about ideas and principles, not about two teams circling the wagons around "their guys" and trying to get "the other guys."

This is so on-the-nose that it's actually up a nostril.

What scares me is that 5 days before the mid-term, the media (liberal or not) are making a meal out of this non-story and I find that incredibly sad. No-one went after Rumsfeld for *his* remarks about the soldiers in Iraq - 'sit back and relax' - my ass! As much as I applaud Kerry for standing up and not apologizing, it seems, to me, as though the Democrats are not given any leeway to make mistakes while the Republicans can say and do whatever they want to and not get called on most of it. (See Rumsfeld's remarks).

The two things I want to comment on, by the same person - awesomeness for the lazy win.

Kip, you said
Wouldn't that mean, if you get a good education, you can make something of yourself, but if you don't, then you'll be stupid enough to vote for Bush and those who put us in Iraq?
That's sort of twisting it around quite a bit - you certainly have the first part right, so far as that silly empirical stuff goes, but the second doesn't add up. And for better or worse, our military is more and more made up of people who have no other choice. Who don't have the high school grades to go on to college on free rides, who can't afford tuition, or moving, or a host of other things that block access to education. This has been a huge concern for military higher-ups, this lack of education we see in those enlisting.

Our military should not be built on the backs of those who have no other option to improve their life.

Although there is a correlate to education and liberal political leanings, it's not tied our increasingly underprivileged military. Repeat with me, correlation is not causation.

"My opponent is an idiot, and I approved this ad." And that sums up the campaigning this year.
And this is why I could never run for office - because that's basically what my political adverts would say. Did you catch The Daily Show deconstructing political adverts, and then putting them back together into one megaadvert? A quite literal summing up of campaigning this year.

John--I have no argument with the fact that Bush has said stupid things, it's just that, as far as I can tell, he hasn't said the stupid thing Ed had in quotation marks, along with the statement "This quote has been repeated many times recently by the President." If you're going to say that you should make sure the quote is accurate.

Bill Myers, I'm not going to argue that Bush's handling of the war hasn't been a tremendous mess. But I think that kerry ran the most inept campaign ever--and I've seen Dole, Mondale and Dukakis, so I've seen inept.

The campaign is your entrance exam. It's the test you take to show you are smart enough for the job. He flunked, spctacularly. Against McCain or any other decent candidate it would have been a rout of biblical proportions. I think a lot of anti-Bush folks fooled themselves into thinking that he was a deep thinker--I can't say he ever impressed me in that regard.

As to whether or not Bush or kerry is smarter...I've long believed that when someone kicks your political ass you should HOPE that they are smarter than you are. Otherwise you just got your ass kicked by a moron. Which makes you...what? One reason people--even (or especially) Democrats hold the Democratic party in such low regard is that they have insisted they are smarter than their opponents, even as they lose to these mental pygmies.

The contradiction leads inevitably to phase two--it's the VOTERS who are morons! Yeah, THAT'LL win those hearts and minds! Given what an illogical strategy that is you have to wonder if maybe they aren't operating under a very flase assumption.

But in the end...who cares? Kerry vs Bush has been fought. It's over. I'm sure Kerry wants to try it again but let's not encourage him. If the Democrats nominate this boob one more time it means the Republicans can coast with some empty suit like George Allen, assuming he manages to get his stupid self re-elected.

And for better or worse, our military is more and more made up of people who have no other choice. Who don't have the high school grades to go on to college on free rides, who can't afford tuition, or moving, or a host of other things that block access to education. This has been a huge concern for military higher-ups, this lack of education we see in those enlisting.

Boy, That has so not been my experience. And I'm pretty sure I've seen statistics that show that the military is better educated than the general public. I'll see if I can dig them up.

Kerry was not helped by some of the far left bloggers who immediately lept to his defense by AGREEING with his supposed statement (which they now say was NOT what he meant to say). There is a small but hard-core group of people still stuck in the anti-military mindset. I don't think they represent the left in general but then again some of the folks who are now catching undeserved flack have no trouble holding up Jerry Fallwell as a representative of typical conservatives. Karma's a bitch.

Eh, I'm as anti-Bush as the next guy, but when I heard the statement, I never even conceived that he meant it any other way than "Study hard and get a good job. Otherwise, the military is your only option, which isn't that great a choice these days."

I consider it obvious that our military forces are in the worse shape they've been since Vietnam, that what used to be a good opportunity for someone without many other options has become the choice of absolute last resort, and that the Reserve and National Guard system will take decades to recover from Bush.

I have no problem with Kerry thinking or saying this; indeed, I think more people should do so.

However, when he does so, takes some flak for it, and then tries to spin it as a personal attack on Bush (which even the version he now claims he was trying to say doesn't strike me as all that funny), Kerry deserves all the flak he's taking.

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at November 1, 2006 11:01 AM

Bill Myers, I'm not going to argue that Bush's handling of the war hasn't been a tremendous mess. But I think that kerry ran the most inept campaign ever--and I've seen Dole, Mondale and Dukakis, so I've seen inept.

My friend, forgive me, but I fear you are proving my point for me. You pefunctorily acknowledge Bush's flaws when prodded, but you eagerly pounce on Kerry at the slightest opportunity. The liberals in this thread are, of course, doing the reverse.

Again, it's all about circling the wagons, without one iota of discussion about the ideas that supposedly make each side different. It seems as though liberalism and conservatism are no longer labels for meaningful belief systems but are instead names for warring gangs who are fighting over nothing more meaningful than turf.

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at November 1, 2006 11:01 AM

But in the end...who cares?

Well, obviously, you do, as you've devoted quite a bit of thought and energy to explaining why Kerry is the bigger dud.

Personally, I think George W. Bush is the worst president we've had in decades. I think Ronald Reagan, the elder Bush, and Clinton were all far superior presidents. My disdain for him transcends party politics and personalities. It's about the paucity of his ideas, and the horrendous results of his stupidity.

I don't like Kerry, either, Bill. In fact, I'm not sure I like any of the likely Democratic presidential wanna-be's. I'm a liberal and a registered Democrat but I'm very willing to consider voting for McCain.

Yet it seems like I'm in very tiny minority. It seems as though both liberals and conservatives would rather continue to turn a blind eye to what's wrong with "their guys" and an equally blind eye to what's right with "the other guys."

You know, there was actually a time when ideologies were about ideation.

But the whole point of the matter is that Kerry was right - the lack of education means that a decent salary (and health benefits) is in the military. That nowdays means Iraq. If they get home okay, it also means a college education with a bit of help from the military that they served in. I am not exactly left leaning, but I understood what the man said - and I don't have a full college education either. I tried to join the Navy during peacetime, but could not meet qualifications, BTW.

We. Are. At. War.

And this is the tagline of the Bush Administration.

We are at war.

Which is why our government should have Gitmo.
Why they should allow torture.
Why they should have secret CIA prisons.
Why they should be allowed to wiretap American citizens.
Why they should be allowed to suspend habeus corpus.
Why you should not question our government.

Should I go on?

"We are at war" is the Bush defense for all of the above and much more.

And it's why I don't buy into it.

One would think that, having served his 3 months in Vietnam, Kerry couldn't possibly have been slamming the military. He certainly didn't exhibit any of those feelings when he came back from overseas and testified before congress. No sirree.

He wasn’t slamming the military over Vietnam but rather the policy. What’s the problem? (And if you're refering to the "abuse" issue, well he wasn't wrong was he?)

Of course, if he was making an education joke about the President, it might have made more of an impact if Kerry had pulled down better grades than Bush did.

This canard again? Bush averaged a 78 and Kerry a 77, and that’s because Kerry bombed out with a bunch of Ds his first year but rallied with much higher marks later. Bush coasted on mediocrity and (arguably) “gentlemen’s Cs” his entire college career. Bush hasn’t displayed any significant intellectual curiosity or critical ability since Yale. There’s a reason he’s occasionally derided as the “faith-based” president.

Personally, I think Kerry knew what he said, knew how it would be interpreted, and did it to "take one for the team" and thus start lathering up the base. But then, maybe I'm just giving him too much credit.

And just what formidable base would he trying to lather? Please . . .

But more importantly, what does any of this have to do with midterms? Neither Kerry or Bush are running and his personal comments really have nothing to do with the current state of affairs.

Posted by: Craig J. Ries at November 1, 2006 11:40 AM

Should I go on?

No, because what you've said is irrelevant. I've never advocated any of the things in your list, and acknowledging that we are at war does not force you to accept that torture is a necessity. It doesn't even force you to support Bush.

Posted by: Craig J. Ries at November 1, 2006 11:40 AM

"We are at war" is the Bush defense for all of the above and much more.

And it's why I don't buy into it.

Don't buy into what?

All I did was articulate a documented fact: we're at war. In both Iraq and Afghanistan. Are you telling me that's not the case?

Are you telling me that's not the case?

Your comment leads to the line of thinking of how dare we discuss other things in life because we are at war, that we should think of nothing else.

Which is what Bush has been all about.

If I were in your shoes, I certainly wouldn't be using a Bush tagline as a means of supporting an argument, regardless of how far removed from Bush is seems to be.

The most pathetic thing about this, is that Kerry said this when he was stumping for a guy that doesn't have a chance. Specifically, he was campaiging for Phil Angelides, the Democratic candidate for California govenor. Schwarznegger is leading by double digits, and the Democrat nominee, Phil Angelides, really doesn't have a chance. The guy's a weenie, and his own party isn't really backing him. So Kerry potentially hurt his party for nothing. Big mouth, with an even bigger foot.

Posted by: Craig J. Ries at November 1, 2006 12:06 PM

Your comment leads to the line of thinking of how dare we discuss other things in life because we are at war, that we should think of nothing else.

To be fair, I never used the phrase "how dare we." I merely expressed amazement that we are arguing over Kerry's syntax while the nation is at war.

If you'd like, choose another issue of national or global importance: the economy, embryonic stem cell research, pollution, whatever. I'd argue that there are a host of other issues that deserve attention far more than Kerry's gaffe. I believe my point still stands, even if you remove the "drumbeat of war" and substitute another problem of pressing significance.

Posted by: Craig J. Ries at November 1, 2006 12:06 PM

If I were in your shoes, I certainly wouldn't be using a Bush tagline as a means of supporting an argument, regardless of how far removed from Bush is seems to be.

I guess I'd rather not shy away from advancing what seems to me to be a rational argument merely because it superficially resembles something the "opposition" said.

To be fair, I never used the phrase "how dare we."

No, you didn't, but you did say "it amazes me", which isn't that far removed.

Yeah, I'm pretty pissed about the situation in Iraq as well, but I can't see how emphasising the whole "we are at war" helps your position. Maybe it's just me.

I guess I'd rather not shy away from advancing what seems to me to be a rational argument merely because it superficially resembles something the "opposition" said.

Well, half the battle is that war leads to irrationality from all sides - that has been pretty evident in any discussion involving Iraq.

I just don't think you can go around throwing out "we are at war" line without it involving the details of why we are involved in the war, and what has happened as a result of the war.

Yes, "we are at war" evokes the whole triviality of other things, but it also evokes the hard questions which are, contrary to what you say, very relevent imo.

Here is a quote by Bush.

"However they put it, the Democrat approach in Iraq comes down to this: The terrorists win and America loses,"

If the Democrats win, the terrorist win. You don't find this more outragous than a botched joke?

1

Peter,

The report is that the joke WAS scripted for Kerry and it read something like, "You know what happens if you don't do your home work and don't study in school? You end up getting us stuck in a war in Iraq."

Bob

Posted by: Craig J. Ries at November 1, 2006 12:24 PM

Yes, "we are at war" evokes the whole triviality of other things, but it also evokes the hard questions which are, contrary to what you say, very relevent imo.

Craig, the issues you brought up are very relevant in any discussion about the war. They were merely irrelevant to the only point I was trying to make: that we have more important things to discuss than Kerry's syntax. That's it. No more. No less.

I've never argued in favor of torture, or wiretapping, or any of that crap.

Again, I was merely trying to point out that Kerry's gaffe is pretty trivial compared to the other stuff we need to discuss.

And my amazement is just that: amazement. I would never presume to question how people "dare" to choose to discuss this or that. I may express an opinion about it, but I would never question their right to have the discussion. I believe very passionately that freedom of speech is the very foundation of our democracy.

Craig, the way I read Bill's initial post was that this whole thing with Kerry's joke/not-joke isn't what everyone in DC should be worrying about while American troops are overseas fighting. I don't think, the way I read it, that the fact "We. Are. At. War." is meant to give a free pass to anything that you named. But again, that's just the way I read it.

The thing that's really dangerous with any "news reporting" is that you don't seem to get the COMPLETE story. This particular story illustrates that REALLY well. Taken just on it's own, without either the rest of Kerry's speech around it or the context in which it was said, it would seem that Kerry is slamming the troops and cutting on their intellect. Every report that I've seen is a reactionary "OOOOH! Did you hear what Kerry said about the troops?" story, not "Here's the speech, here's all of what he said." For an historical allegory, think of the Gettysburg Address. If all the reporters then had only focused on the first line, the reports would've been "Lincoln ignores death in Pennsylvania, only worried about how old the country is." There are too many pundits on too many networks scrambling around to get their own POV across.

He wasn’t slamming the military over Vietnam but rather the policy.

I don't know...an awful lot of vets felt differently. It's a sore point at any rate and a smarter man would be careful not to feed the perception of animus.

Bush averaged a 78 and Kerry a 77, and that’s because Kerry bombed out with a bunch of Ds his first year but rallied with much higher marks later.

If he had just one more semester! But, life is what it is and he will just have to live with having a lower GPA than George Bush. You snooze, you lose. Maybe he should have used himself as an example to the students.

But the whole point of the matter is that Kerry was right - the lack of education means that a decent salary (and health benefits) is in the military. That nowdays means Iraq.

So is Kerry lying now when he tries to blame others for deliberately misinterpreting him? Hell, I don't even like the guy but I'm willing to take his word for it that it was a lame joke awkwardly delivered. Your interpretation make him every bit the military basher his opponents call him and a liar to boot.

You pefunctorily acknowledge Bush's flaws when prodded, but you eagerly pounce on Kerry at the slightest opportunity.

Probably so, but why can't I have some fun? A fellow can call Bush President Chimpy McHitlerburton with nary a word of protest raised but I playfully suggest that Kerry is dumb as a paperbag full of fog and suddenly I'm the problem? Huh! Fair and balanced my fanny...

Besides, I want to try to stop y'all from nominating him again. It's for your own good. Don't tell me you won't, I know you guys. Slept with Dean, married Kerry, woke up with Bush...

Your comment leads to the line of thinking of how dare we discuss other things in life because we are at war, that we should think of nothing else.

Craig, that's not fair to Bill at all. The comment is what it is, it doesn't lead to anything. You're making a huge leap.

If I were in your shoes, I certainly wouldn't be using a Bush tagline as a means of supporting an argument, regardless of how far removed from Bush is seems to be.

Blindly rejecting something because Bush may agree with it is as bad as blindly accepting it for the same reason.

Bill Myers -
Again, I was merely trying to point out that Kerry's gaffe is pretty trivial compared to the other stuff we need to discuss.

Alright. I guess I read too much into it. I just don't like the phrase in general (obviously).

Bill Mulligan -
Maybe he should have used himself as an example to the students.

You're right, he should have: as just one example, he speaks far more intelligently than Bush, which just goes to show how little an Ivy League education means with some people.

It certainly means very little with George "Is our children learning" Bush.

Blindly rejecting something because Bush may agree with it is as bad as blindly accepting it for the same reason.

I reject it, but I far from do it blindly, which makes the premise of your argument pretty flawed.

Taking Kerry's comment at face value, without knowing or bothering to check the context of it would be doing so blindly.

But knowing what the phrase "We are at war" means, and how it has been used by politicians? No, that is not blind acceptance or rejection, not in the least.

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at November 1, 2006 12:50 PM

Probably so, but why can't I have some fun? A fellow can call Bush President Chimpy McHitlerburton with nary a word of protest raised but I playfully suggest that Kerry is dumb as a paperbag full of fog and suddenly I'm the problem? Huh! Fair and balanced my fanny...

Bill, I never singled you out as "the problem" in any way, shape, or form. I was taking to task liberals and conservatives. Did I not point out that liberals are as soft on Kerry as conversatives are on Rumsfeld for their respective gaffes? Did I not say I was considering a vote for McCain for president (assuming he gets the Republican nomination)?

I really am trying to argue about ideas. It's not personal. I hope you're not taking it that way.

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at November 1, 2006 12:50 PM

Don't tell me you won't, I know you guys. Slept with Dean, married Kerry, woke up with Bush...

And Republicans turned their noses up at McCain in favor of Bush, even though McCain would likely have handled the war on terror with more resolve, courage, wisdom, and intelligence than Bush could ever hope to bring to bear. I've said it before, I'll say it again: neither party has reason to feel smug these days.

Some more right wingers piling on poor Johnny K:

Democratic Rep. Harold Ford Jr., running for Senate in Tennessee

Democratic Rep. Ben Cardin, running for Senate in Maryland

Kerry campaign appearances in Iowa, Minnesota and Pennsylvania were canceled.

A spokesman for Democratic congressional candidate Bruce Braley in Iowa said Braley had decided independently to cancel an event with Kerry scheduled for Thursday.

Kerry spokesman David Wade confirmed he no longer would appear at a Philadelphia rally on Wednesday for Democratic gubernatorial candidate Bob Casey

"Sen. Kerry's remarks were poorly worded and just plain stupid," said Montana Senate President Jon Tester, a Democrat trying to unseat GOP Sen. Conrad Burns. "He owes our troops and their families an apology."

All he had to do was admit at the very beginning that he misspoke and move on. But he is so fixated on not appearing weak that he overreacted, attacked, attacked, attacked, and looked like the last possible person who should ever be president.

If--and I would rate this as INCREDIBLY unlikely--the Republicans manage to keep the House, Kerry should just pack it up. He will get the blame, fair or not. (and if the Democrats manage to lose this one they will be LIVID. Ready to form a circular firing squad. Heads will roll. I know one Senator who will be watching the results very very carefully.

All he had to do was admit at the very beginning that he misspoke and move on.

There's an article up on Yahoo atm saying that Kerry has apologized (sort of). It has the following:

""I said it was a botched joke. Of course, I'm sorry about a botched joke," Kerry, who had refused to apologize on Tuesday, said on the "Imus in the Morning" radio show on MSNBC."

Probably as close as your going to get, with news places referring to this as "Kerry apologizes".

And, it shouldn't shock anybody if the political response to this is "that's not good enough".

As for the Democratic response, well, I can only shake my head. They, just like the Republicans, are more than willing to fall overthemslves to stab a fellow in the back if it gains them political points.

and if the Democrats manage to lose this one they will be LIVID.

Well, they'd have only themselves to blame. Not Kerry, but themselves as a whole.

And Republicans turned their noses up at McCain in favor of Bush, even though McCain would likely have handled the war on terror with more resolve, courage, wisdom, and intelligence than Bush could ever hope to bring to bear.

I know, I know...I never back the winning guy. Hopefully McCain will get another crack at it.

(in fairness to the republicans who did not support MCain, I suspect the result might have been very different if there had been a war on at the time of the nomination race).

I'm not taking any of this personal, don't worry about me. With all the good stuff happening these last few weeks I'm giddy as a schoolgirl (nothing to do with politics, thank God). Anyway, I know you so even if you insulted me to my face I'd just assume it was with a smile (ok, there's your opportunity...)

I think that kerry ran the most inept campaign ever...The campaign is your entrance exam. It's the test you take to show you are smart enough for the job.

I have to disagree.

The campaign is most emphatically NOT an "entrance exam" for the Presidency. As Iraq, Katrina, et al, have shown, brilliance in the former does not translate in any way to even marginal competence in the latter.
The GOP is frighteningly competent at winning elections. The fact that this talent is largely based on negativity (character assassination, mudslinging, distortions, rallying voters through appeals to bigotry, etc) notwithstanding.

Unfortunately, when it comes to actually GOVERNING, the ability to throw massive amounts of feces at one's political opponents is largely useless, and this administration doesn't seem to have anything else up its collective sleeve.

As to whether or not Bush or kerry is smarter...I've long believed that when someone kicks your political ass you should HOPE that they are smarter than you are. Otherwise you just got your ass kicked by a moron.

But no one is saying that GWB himself is smarter than Kerry. Bush's intelligence, or lack thereof, is completely irrelevant, at least to the results of the last two elections.
Karl Rove is another matter. I would rate his evil genius on a par with that of Doctor Doom.

"Yet it seems like I'm in very tiny minority. It seems as though both liberals and conservatives would rather continue to turn a blind eye to what's wrong with "their guys" and an equally blind eye to what's right with "the other guys.""

Well, I can't speak for other liberals, but you're posting on the blog of the guy who said, three months before the 2004 election, that Kerry had blown it by saying that, if he had it to do all over again, knowing now what he did then, he'd still have voted for Bush to go into Iraq. That he had just erased any reason for people to see him as an alternative to Bush, and therefore Bush was going to win, period, end of discussion. And I've expressed great frustration with the Democrats on numerous occasions.

The report is that the joke WAS scripted for Kerry and it read something like, "You know what happens if you don't do your home work and don't study in school? You end up getting us stuck in a war in Iraq."

Which is basically what I said it should be if he wanted to use "you" in the sentence. Nice to know my comedy instincts are solid.

PAD

Bill Mulligan: "If he had just one more semester! But, life is what it is and he will just have to live with having a lower GPA than George Bush. You snooze, you lose. Maybe he should have used himself as an example to the students."

Which completely ignores the very relevant point. In regards to grades, Kerry peaked higher than Bush. End of story and end of your dismissal of intelligence.

Bill Mulligan: "The campaign is your entrance exam. It's the test you take to show you are smart enough for the job. He flunked, spctacularly."

Spectacularly? Really? How close was that election again? Furthermore, the results of a campaign can be used to measure intelligence now? Absolute nonsense. Seriously, that is simply absurd "logic".

Someone back up there said: "Traditionally, the strong left is not a fan of the military."

To which I can only ask, what would an American know about the "strong left"? In any other western democracy, the average Democrat would be a centrist, and some would be center-right. You don't have a left any more, because the last 25 years have seen the right-wingers dragging politics and discourse farther and farther right. You can barely see the center, and the left is way behind, out of sight.

>Posted by: lucasb at November 1, 2006 01:22 PM

>But no one is saying that GWB himself is smarter than Kerry. Bush's intelligence, or lack thereof, is completely irrelevant, at least to the results of the last two elections.

See below.

>>Posted by: Bill Mulligan at November 1, 2006 09:33 AM
>Because--and I know this hurts--he's smarter than Kerry. Faint praise but there you are.

Dispite providing this piece of Bill's to respond to your erroneous statement, I can say without a moment's hesitation that Bill is smarter than both of the two mentioned above.

Posted by: Peter David at November 1, 2006 01:35 PM

Well, I can't speak for other liberals, but you're posting on the blog of the guy who said, three months before the 2004 election, that Kerry had blown it by saying that, if he had it to do all over again, knowing now what he did then, he'd still have voted for Bush to go into Iraq. That he had just erased any reason for people to see him as an alternative to Bush, and therefore Bush was going to win, period, end of discussion. And I've expressed great frustration with the Democrats on numerous occasions.

Fair enough. When I referred to "the liberals in this thread" I was making an overly broad generalization and I apologize. I likewise apologize for making overly broad generalizations about conservatives.

Nevertheless, I believe the "circling the wagons" mentality is pervasive, and probably the majority pattern these days. I find it frustrating. Still, that's no excuse for stereotyping.

Posted by: Peter David at November 1, 2006 01:35 PM

The report is that the joke WAS scripted for Kerry and it read something like, "You know what happens if you don't do your home work and don't study in school? You end up getting us stuck in a war in Iraq."

Which is basically what I said it should be if he wanted to use "you" in the sentence. Nice to know my comedy instincts are solid.

I didn't realize there was any question that your comedy instincts were solid. Years ago, you wrote a satirical piece about the "Sabretooth slur" (for those who are unaware: I'm referring to a mishap involving an issue of Wolverine years ago where the word "killer" was accidentally replaced with an ethnic slur pertaining to Jews) in the Comics Buyers Guide that caused me to laugh so hard my spleen came out of my nose.

Well? What are you gonna do about replacing my spleen?

The campaign is most emphatically NOT an "entrance exam" for the Presidency. As Iraq, Katrina, et al, have shown, brilliance in the former does not translate in any way to even marginal competence in the latter.

Didn't say it was a good entrance exam. The SAT's may not reflect actual smarts either, but you may not get what you want without a good score. That's how it is.

The Democrats can continue to nominate people who have no ability to get people to vote for them, if they wish to spend a lot of time watching Republicans take the oath of office. Until someone comes up with a new system the ability to campaign will continue to be the only valid test of ability.

Which completely ignores the very relevant point. In regards to grades, Kerry peaked higher than Bush. End of story and end of your dismissal of intelligence.

I would never dismiss intelligence. It is Kerry I take lightly.

Showing improvement may give one a warm feeling inside but for most people it's the end result that matters. Hell, maybe we'll have people come forward and claim that Bush took extra hard courses so his keeping a C average was better than getting an A in an easy course...we at Washigton University used to tell ourselves that a C there was worth an A at most schools. Yeah, you come up with all sorts of great lines when you drink enough beer.

Anyway, Kerry's grades wouldn't have been such a big deal if his supporters hadn't tried to make such a big deal out of his (in retrospect) rather modest gifts. Having it turn out that he had a LOWER average than the guy they had portrayed as possibly the Dumbest Man Not In A Coma...well, c'mon, you have to appreciate the irony.

To which I can only ask, what would an American know about the "strong left"? In any other western democracy, the average Democrat would be a centrist, and some would be center-right. You don't have a left any more, because the last 25 years have seen the right-wingers dragging politics and discourse farther and farther right. You can barely see the center, and the left is way behind, out of sight.

Our right wingers aren't much compared to the average European's either. Yep, when it comes to political extremism Europe has us whipped. Oh well, our loss is our gain.

Actually, something occured to me in this with what PAD said in his original posting:

"Kerry SHOULD have said "we.""

That actually ruins the whole joke (aside from the fact that Kerry blew it).

If Kerry said "we end up in Iraq", then he's insulting his own intelligence by including himself in the target of the joke.

Kerry said "you", in reference to Bush, since he wasn't making himself a target of the joke.

So, he was correct in what he said. What he should've done is said "You get stuck in Iraq, just like Bush".

Oh, I think your extremist right wingers can be pretty proud of Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, the whole damn Iraq war, and getting rid of habeus corpus, for a start.

Oh, and there's more to the western world than the USA and Europe.

But through it all Amricans never lost their sense of humor...

http://www.620wtmj.com/images/uploaded/Help%20Photo20061101105508.JPG

If this had been Bill Clinton he would have already turned it into a self depreciating joke that would have diffused the anger. It's probably too late now.

Okay, there was something said above that gets right up my left nostril, every time I hear it.

Listen up, folks.

We. Are. NOT. At. War.

Sure, our President has committed our forces to fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, and his loyal lapdogs in Congress lack the testicular fortitude to call him on it, but -

The US Constitution says that CONGRESS gets to declare war. Not the President. That's why FDR had to use outrage over the Pearl Harbor attack, and the fact that Japan had signed a treaty with Germany, to get the US involved in WWII. He couldn't do it himself - it took Congress.

That's why Vietnam wasn't fought as a war - and believe it, if Nixon had had the power to declare war on his own, the Ho Chi Minh Trail would have been reduced to glowing slag.

Congress gave Bush authorization to use force to pursue those responsible for the 9/11 attacks - and Bush and his backers (I blame the backers more, as I doubt Bush is smart enough to have thought of this on his own) parlayed that into an undeclared "war" in Iraq.

BUT CONGRESS NEVER ISSUED A DECLARATION OF A STATE OF WAR.

Of course, little things like the Constitution don't seem to matter much in today's political climate...

If this country is one botched joke away from leaving the government as is then I don't blame Kerry. If we let this rule the day we deserve whatever knuckledragging puppet show we get as a Congress.

The "joke" should have been "study hard or you'll end up being ignorant like the fool who got us stuck in Iraq and brags about his lousy GPA".

The apology is "anyone who would insult the troops is an ass. I didn't and I wouldn't. THey wish to hell I did so they would have a straw to grasp at before we kick their asses down to minority party status."

Lots more use of the word "ass" from the Democrats, I say. Shows the gloves are off and goes with the whole donkey motif. Damn thing's a WWE sdeshow anyway - time to grab a chair and start swinging back!

"How do you view Senator Kerry's remark?
A deliberate insult 58%
A botched joke 34%
I'm not sure 9%"

I'd be willing to bet that most of that 58% voted for Bush instead of Kerry in the last election. I doubt this is a case of people being stupid enough to believe that Kerry would insult the troops. This is probably a case of people being stupid enough to believe anything that fits with the view of Kerry that they already had, regardless of the details.

Posted by Bill Mulligan at November 1, 2006 02:41 PM

Didn't say it was a good entrance exam.

True. In fact, it is a very, very poor entrance exam, to the point of being essentially worthless.

As has been amply demonstrated.

SAT's measure (imperfectly) one's intelligence and ability to correctly answer test questions, both of which are highly relevant to completing a college education.

The correlation between successfully conducting an election campaign, and successfully carrying out the duties of the Presidency, is FAR more tenuous.

A better comparison might be the use of a popularity contest as a determination for eligibilty to attend a prestigious university.

But through it all Amricans never lost their sense of humor...

Well, thankfully not. Here's a wonderful take on something we should be far more upset about. :)

http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/uc/20061101/ltt061101.gif

Posted by: Jonathan (the other one) at November 1, 2006 02:58 PM

We. Are. NOT. At. War.

No. That's false.

According to the Microsoft Encarta dictionary, war is "an an armed conflict between countries or groups that involves killing and destruction." The armed conflicts we are waging in Iraq and Afghanistan meet that definition.

You are conflating the legal mechanism for declaring war with the reality of waging it.

Please note I never said we were engaged in a war legally declared by Congress. I merely said we are at war.

Dumb question:

What does "GOP" stand for? What is it's role? Is it equivalent to the Lower House of Parliament (in a bi-cameral system), or is it something different?

"Congress gave Bush authorization to use force to pursue those responsible for the 9/11 attacks - and Bush and his backers (I blame the backers more, as I doubt Bush is smart enough to have thought of this on his own) parlayed that into an undeclared "war" in Iraq.

BUT CONGRESS NEVER ISSUED A DECLARATION OF A STATE OF WAR."

And even if we had been officially at war with Iraq, didn't Bush declare "mission accomplished".
There was a time that would have suggested that the war was over. Just a thought.

JAC

What does "GOP" stand for?

Grand Old Party.

No, I didn't know off the top of my head, I used Wiki. Personally, I find it an an anachronism, as the Republicans today don't really qualify as 'grand'. :)

Wasn't regime change in Iraq official U.S. policy since... when was that again? Anyone? Bueller?

"Grand Old Party" was also coined as an ironic statement, given that the Republicans were only about a generation old at the time, youngsters compared to the Democrats, or the dearly departed Federalist and Whig parties.

For those for whom the above link doesn't work, you can see the same image here: http://www.drudgereport.com/irak.jpg

Bill Mulligan: "The Democrats can continue to nominate people who have no ability to get people to vote for them"

Again, how close was the last presidential election? How about the one before that?

Bill Mulligan: "I would never dismiss intelligence. It is Kerry I take lightly."

Few people rise to the position that either George Bush or John Kerry have. How much of the vote in the last presidential election did Kerry garner again? Anyone who can rally such a large percentage of voters is worth taking seriously. And yes, I apply this whether the individual in question is Republican or Democrat.

Bill Mulligan: "Showing improvement may give one a warm feeling inside but for most people it's the end result that matters."

End result: Kerry peaked at a higher grade level than Bush. You hold a one point grade point average difference up as proof that Bush is smarter than Kerry? But that proof falls apart under even casual scrutiny.

End result: Kerry peaked at a higher grade level than Bush. You hold a one point grade point average difference up as proof that Bush is smarter than Kerry? But that proof falls apart under even casual scrutiny.

No, I don't hold up Bush's GPA as proof that he is smarter than Kerry. But Those who chortled over Bush's grades while Kerry's were hidden certainly don't look so bright now, do they?

How Kerry did in college is of no relevance at all, really. Too bad his supporters set him up for the fall (Kerry would have been smart to have maybe toned down the rhetoric--maybe said something along the lines of "It really doesn't matter how the two of us did in our classes in Yale. What really matters is how far we have grown since then." or something to that effect.)

The fact that Kerry's dwindling band of defenders STILL try to spin his grades as indicative of some level of superiority shows just how deeply the revelation of his sub-Bush achievement cut. Again, it's no big deal...except to those who made it one.

When I say that Kerry ran an incompetant campaign I mean it. The reasone he lost were so easily avoidable. Go back and reread some of what was written and said back then, there was a palpable sense of amazement at how he was blowing it. I could pick 5 people off of this board who would have almost undoubtedly done a better job of getting the message out than the so-called professionals did in the Kerry campaign. And for a lot of folks, seeing such rank incompetance doesn't inspire the kind of confidence that induces one to go cast a vote to put that person in charge.

Just flipping through channels as I sit here waiting for my wife to come home so we can figure out what to do for dinner. Happened to zip past Fox News, then thought I'd look in to see what THEY said was happening. Cavuto had on four people with kids in Iraq and they were all pounding on Kerry for his statement. Then one of them said something that I thought was telling. He said that even had he directed the line at the president, THAT would be disrespecting the troops. Now, i thought that was interesting. Kind of like no matter WHAT gets said it deserves vilification if its against, you know, anything. It reminds me a little of the Captain Underpants thread, where someone who will remain nameless(but we all know who it is) was taking every post as being directed RIGHT AT HIM.

Some people walk around with this air of "He's the president, everything he does is right and anything anyone else does is wrong." No matter who he is, the president, to borrow a phrase from Adams,(Douglas, not John)is "just this guy, y'know?" I'd love to see something Bush has said picked apart this much and have everyone and their mothers demanding an apology.

...the Democrat approach in Iraq comes down to this: The terrorists win and America loses...

The reason Bush doesn't get hung by his gaffs the way Kerry gets hung by "If you don't [study hard], you get stuck in Iraq," is because democrats don't offer obvious summaries of their positions. I said as much last year.

In their own self-interest, the conservatives here disagreed this was the case. The liberals, including Peter, refused to believe it also. The obvious thesis is what shelters Bush. It's a shelter the liberals refuse to occupy.

Posted by: Sean Scullion at November 1, 2006 04:28 PM

It reminds me a little of the Captain Underpants thread, where someone who will remain nameless(but we all know who it is) was taking every post as being directed RIGHT AT HIM.

HUH? WAS THAT A CRACK AT ME? HUH? WAS IT?

And I want my blue sock back, you bastard.

:-)

Eeeesh! Calm down, Bill! I was actually talking someone else who was reacting just like you did now actually at everything YOU said.

And as long as I hold the sock, I AM IN CONTROL!

Or rather, THE CLOTHESPIN ON MY NOSE IS IN CONTROL!

Kind of like no matter WHAT gets said it deserves vilification if its against, you know, anything.

Sort of like how a group of defensive white guys will jump on you if you compare something one of them said to the Merriam-Webster definition of genocide.

Posted by: SeanScullion at November 1, 2006 05:12 PM

Eeeesh! Calm down, Bill! I was actually talking someone else who was reacting just like you did now actually at everything YOU said.

I know. I was just kidding. :-)

And as long as I hold the sock, I AM IN CONTROL!

Or rather, THE CLOTHESPIN ON MY NOSE IS IN CONTROL!

I told you to burn that damn thing.

Anyhoo...

With regards to the respective intellectual skills of Kerry and Bush, I think people are forgetting that "intellect" can comprise a number of different cognitive skills. John Kerry is a highly analytical person, and this has its advantages. Unfortunately, highly analytical people are sometimes more indecisive than your average Joe because they see more dimensions of a problem than the rest of us do. It's also been my experience that highly analytical people often lack "people skills." Hence, John Kerry is a smart man but a poor political candidate.

George W. Bush has "people skills," to be sure. He's also not very analytical, and is thus quick to make up his mind and to act. Hence, George W. Bush was a fair-to-middling political candidate (a stronger opponent may have torn him to shreds, I suspect) but an appallingly poor leader who has made some awful decisions with tragic consequences for this nation.

Really great leaders tend to have the ability to analyze a situation, but know when to stop thinking and start acting. And they have the communicative gifts to persuade others to follow.

Seriously, if you combine George W. Bush with John Kerry, you get an almost acceptable president. An ugly one, mind you, but an almost acceptable one.

It reminds me a little of the Captain Underpants thread, where someone who will remain nameless(but we all know who it is) was taking every post as being directed RIGHT AT HIM.

Sort of like how a group of defensive white guys will jump on you if you compare something one of them said to the Merriam-Webster definition of genocide.

The Goddess of Irony smiles upon us once again.

meanwhile, Kerry issued a real apology: "I sincerely regret that my words were misinterpreted to wrongly imply anything negative about those in uniform and I personally apologize to any service member, family member or American who was offended."

That wasn't so hard, now was it? Hopefully people will lay off now. Apologies should be respected if sincere and I have no doubt that he is genuinely sorry.

I don't know who the bigger idiots are out there. Are they the people who want to claim that Kerry slammed the troops (even after seeing the 45 seconds or so of Bush knocking before/leading into his joke) or the writers who thought that Kerry could pull of a joke like.

It reminds me a little of the Captain Underpants thread, where someone who will remain nameless (but we all know who it is) was taking every post as being directed RIGHT AT HIM.

Bill Mulligan, I wasn't going to take this as a line referring to me, because it wasn't observably true for me. If you want to cite an exchange in that thread, please do so.

Bill, you know there are serious consequences for burning that kind of waste, don't you?

I have to agree with Sean, Bill Mulligan. You are way better off admitting you signed a check with your mouth your butt couldn't cash.

If this one little thing winds up causing the Republicans to maintain control of both chambers of Congress I have no idea what I'm going to wind up doing in my state of extreme emotional distress but I can virtually guarantee it won't be pleasant.

Only masochists or psychopaths actually want to be in Iraq right now, and the military has been lowering its standards on who it will accept for a while now, meaning that it's one of the few jobs some people are qualified for. So yes, if you drop out of school you just may wind up "stuck in Iraq." Describing it as an undesirable fate, as Kerry did, is not blasphemy or anything. Seems like even the slightest little thing gets blown out of proportion these days whenever anybody refers to the military.

Near the beginning of this year, Joel Stein wrote a column in which he stated his belief that saying "I support the troops but I don't support the war" is a copout. I partially agree with him. Me, I do not support the war and I do not support anybody who believes the war is right. If some of the troops believe the war is right even today, then I say fuck them. They aren't deserving of my support, respect or the planet's oxygen.

Unless someone has better information, Studio 60 is still being aired.

http://publications.mediapost.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=Articles.showArticleHomePage&art_aid=50417

And for the original source, you can thank Druge Report for yet more quality reporting...

Only masochists or psychopaths actually want to be in Iraq right now

I'm still trying to decide between those which one my brother is.

No-one went after Rumsfeld for *his* remarks about the soldiers in Iraq

Don't forget "You go to war with the army you have, not the army you want". There's a statement that truly insults the troops.

Near the beginning of this year, Joel Stein wrote a column in which he stated his belief that saying "I support the troops but I don't support the war" is a copout. I partially agree with him. Me, I do not support the war and I do not support anybody who believes the war is right. If some of the troops believe the war is right even today, then I say fuck them. They aren't deserving of my support, respect or the planet's oxygen.

Supporting the troops by opposing the war is not a copout. Every soldier takes an oath to place the constitution above his own life, and it isn't done casually. That dedication is being squandered to feed the insurgency. It's simply the conservation of an endangered national resource.

I'm not sure why it would be stupid for people to think Kerry is dissing the troops. After all, he did make this comment on Face the Nation back on Dec. 4, 2005:

KERRY: And there is no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women, breaking sort of the customs of the--of--the historical customs, religious customs. Whether you like it or not...

SCHIEFFER: Yeah.

Sen. KERRY: ...Iraqis should be doing that.

I'm sure Kerry would maintain that he was criticizing Bush, but for such a sweeping statement to be true, Bush would have to be micromanaging the war to the extent that terrorizing the entire civilian population is official policy, something a soldier would be thrown out of the military for *not* doing.

We'd also be seeing a lot of more of those Haditha-style controversies -- the Haditha incident took place around the time of Kerry's remarks and might be what he was referring to. But we're not. Those incidents are so rare that the only explanation is insubordination on the part of the soldier.

Is Kerry really saying that most of our soldiers are ticking time bombs? Sounds like it -- maybe Kerry views today's soldiers as the same sort of soldiers he served with (and later denounced) in Vietnam. Who knows but Kerry himself?

I'm not sure why Kerry thinks its OK for *Iraqis* to terrorize kids and women in the dead of night, but that's a different headache, and one I'm not going to invite upon myself.

However, if the argument is that Kerry would never slander the troops because he used to be in the military, then that requires explaining the situation of Congressman John Murtha, a veteran and the Democrats' point-man in the House when it comes to anti-war talk. After all, he did pronounce the soldiers accused in the Haditha incident guilty while the military investiagtion was still taking place, calling it a "massacre." You would think a veteran would respect the military enough not to play judge and jury on matters the military has yet to settle.

At any rate, I don't think it's stupid to question Kerry on this. Maybe it was an ineptly delivered joke. Who knows? Still, that would mean that Kerry's "Bush is dumb" crack had the end result of making Kerry himself look dumb.
And this is good how, exactly?

-Dave OConnell

SeanScullion:
And as long as I hold the sock, I AM IN CONTROL!
Or rather, THE CLOTHESPIN ON MY NOSE IS IN CONTROL!

Bill Myers
I told you to burn that damn thing.

SeanScullion:
Bill, you know there are serious consequences for burning that kind of waste, don't you?

MikeMcTroll:
I have to agree with Sean, Bill Mulligan. You are way better off admitting you signed a check with your mouth your butt couldn't cash.

Um...unless I'm really misreading things, Sean was in no way commenting about you. Or me. He was having a funny exchange with Bill Myers, which you somehow thought was about you. Which is so funny on so many levels.

What a sad, humorless little man you are. Now listen carefully, Mike. I'm going to ignore you. Again. And every post you make trying to get me to not ignore you will make you look ever more sad and pathetic. You can feel free to aim one more post at me so you can have the last word--which is obviously very important to you for whatever reasons there are that made you what you are. Say what you wish. Make it a challenge so you can pretend I backed down before your protean wisdom. Whatever. You're good for a laugh but the joke gets old with the constant retelling.

Even as a Republican, I don't think Kerry meant to deliberately slam troops in the field. I also don't really buy the "botched joke" - like it was something pre-planned. I think he tried to make a tongue-in-cheek jest and it blew up in his face. His mistake was not admitting the screw-up and apologizing quicker.

On the flip side, Limbaugh apologized to Michael J. Fox within the same broadcast of his off-the-cuff comment, and no one paid attention to that apology either.

Maybe this was a Rovian stroke by Kerry after all. He lays out the line, gets in the administration's face for days - shoring up his anti-war credentials - then finally apologizes.

Of course, I doubt Kerry is that smart, either. :)

[Sean] It reminds me a little of the Captain Underpants thread, where someone who will remain nameless (but we all know who it is) was taking every post as being directed RIGHT AT HIM.

...

[My quote Bill Mulligan matched with Sean's] Sort of like how a group of defensive white guys will jump on you if you compare something one of them said to the Merriam-Webster definition of genocide.

The Goddess of Irony smiles upon us once again.

Bill Mulligan, I wasn't going to take this as a line referring to me, because it wasn't observably true for me. If you want to cite an exchange in that thread, please do so.

Bill, you know there are serious consequences for burning that kind of waste, don't you?

I have to agree with Sean, Bill Mulligan. You are way better off admitting you signed a check with your mouth your butt couldn't cash.

Uh, yeah, I can thread quotes too, Bill Mulligan.

The mistake to deny is still yours, unsurprisingly.

Mike, first off, I'M the one that said that, not Bill Mulligan. I mean, confusing the Bills between Myers and Mulligan is one thing, but I'm not Bill. And second, the waste I was talking about burning was Bill Myers' blue sock that I told him I had in the Presidential News Conference thread.

Second off, if I attirbuted something to you that you didn't say, Iapologize. I kind of stopped reading your posts after you toquote Clesse went a bit silly.

I'm not a Kerry fan. I've always found his behavior like a spoiled brat out of touch with everyday folk. I cannot get past believing his military service was little more than his crossing an item off his "how to get elected" checklist. I've always sensed he had a pathological hatred of military and intelligence. So I hope he gets raked over the coals for his "botched joke" (sic) every which way but loose and through every given Sunday.

I'm more interested in how much Kerry will be blamed for single handedly and in no more than 40 words wiped out the election efforts of the Democratic candidates. For me, I think he has seriously done damage to more than a few candidates and I think he deserves not just the hatred of millions of service personnel but millions more in his own party.

Kerry really is a turd.

There, I said it.

On the flip side, Limbaugh apologized to Michael J. Fox within the same broadcast of his off-the-cuff comment, and no one paid attention to that apology either.

His apology was just as 'off-the-cuff' as his original remarks, and he immediately followed it up with even *more* insults of Fox.

At least Kerry had the good sense not to do that with his apology to the troops today.

So, you tell me, who's the better man? It certainly isn't Limbaugh.

When's the last time Bush apologized for ANYTHING?

Just finished watching another Special Comment from Keith Olbermann. Once again, it was spot on: Bush is the one that needs to be apologizing to our troops, and to this country.

So, you tell me, who's the better man? It certainly isn't Limbaugh.

I wouldn't say that he was. Limbaugh ceased being entertaining to me over 10 years ago. I just find him (and most of the national talk-radio circuit) to just be sad people who like to hear themselves talk too much.

Kinda like most politicians :)

Sean, so you climbed through the tubes of the internet to Bill Mulligan's computer, to match:

It reminds me a little of the Captain Underpants thread, where someone who will remain nameless (but we all know who it is) was taking every post as being directed RIGHT AT HIM.

with:

Sort of like how a group of defensive white guys will jump on you if you compare something one of them said to the Merriam-Webster definition of genocide.

Is that right?

On the flip side, Limbaugh apologized to Michael J. Fox within the same broadcast of his off-the-cuff comment, and no one paid attention to that apology either.

I will bigly, hugely admit that I was wrong, and I will apologize to Michael J. Fox if I am wrong in characterizing his behavior on this commercial as an act, especially since people are telling me they have seen him this way on other interviews and in other television appearances

Please note the modifier if (emphasis mine). Not much of an apology.

I'm more interested in how much Kerry will be blamed for single handedly and in no more than 40 words wiped out the election efforts of the Democratic candidates. For me, I think he has seriously done damage to more than a few candidates and I think he deserves not just the hatred of millions of service personnel but millions more in his own party.

Bill (Ritter, for those easily confused), I don't think the kerry thing will amount to much. I'll be very surprised if the Democrats don't pick up at least 15-20 seats in the House, probably even 25. House seats are less likely to be influenced by national events and th etrend has been bad for republicans for some time. Keep in mind that many votes have already been cast.

I suppose this may help fire up some Republicans who were content to sit this one out but I just don't see it as changing the outcome much.

The Senate races are more confusing to me, though I'd give the Republicans a narrow liklihood of keeping the Senate or at least making it a 50/50 tie (and boy will you see Democrat leaders suddenly LOVING Joe Lieberman again!).

One advantage of the internet age is that these stories tend to burn out quickly. By next week it's old news.

And if Republicans try to extend Kery's misfortune for too long it will backfire on them.

Sean Scullion--I'm sorry if I've somehow encouraged the nut to turn his attention to you.

Mike, allow me to clear this up for you:

Posted by: Sean Scullion at November 1, 2006 04:28 PM

It reminds me a little of the Captain Underpants thread, where someone who will remain nameless(but we all know who it is) was taking every post as being directed RIGHT AT HIM.

See, Sean originally posted that remark, which was directed at you.

Posted by: Bill Myers at November 1, 2006 04:40 PM

HUH? WAS THAT A CRACK AT ME? HUH? WAS IT?

And I want my blue sock back, you bastard.

:-)

That was a reply from me to Sean. I was pretending to believe that his remark was directed at me. Then I referenced a joke about a blue sock from a prior thread.

Posted by: SeanScullion at November 1, 2006 05:12 PM

Eeeesh! Calm down, Bill! I was actually talking someone else who was reacting just like you did now actually at everything YOU said.

And as long as I hold the sock, I AM IN CONTROL!

Or rather, THE CLOTHESPIN ON MY NOSE IS IN CONTROL!

The above is a reply from Sean to me. Sean is making it clear he is referring to you, even though he isn't naming you. He then continues to play off of the joke about the blue sock.

Posted by: Bill Myers at November 1, 2006 05:31 PM

I know. I was just kidding. :-)

Now I'm reassuring Sean that I know he is joking.

Posted by: Bill Myers at November 1, 2006 05:31 PM

I told you to burn that damn thing.

The above is another reference to the lame joke about the blue sock.

Posted by: Sean Scullion at November 1, 2006 06:51 PM

Bill, you know there are serious consequences for burning that kind of waste, don't you?

The above is from Sean to me. The lame joke about the blue sock continues. (Although Sean and I are enjoying it, lame or not.)

Posted by: Mike at November 1, 2006 07:11 PM

I have to agree with Sean, Bill Mulligan. You are way better off admitting you signed a check with your mouth your butt couldn't cash.

The above is where you begin to go barking mad.

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at November 1, 2006 05:37 PM

It reminds me a little of the Captain Underpants thread, where someone who will remain nameless(but we all know who it is) was taking every post as being directed RIGHT AT HIM.

The above is where Bill Mulligan QUOTES Sean.

Posted by: Mike at November 1, 2006 09:10 PM

Sean, so you climbed through the tubes of the internet to Bill Mulligan's computer

The above is where you now experience a complete psychotic breakdown.

All clear?

By the way, Bill Mulligan, no offense, but if you climbed through the "tubes of the Internet" and poked your head through my computer, I'd whack you with a stick until you turned around and went back where you came from.

It would be a gut reaction. Nothing personal.

Sean Scullion--I'm sorry if I've somehow encouraged the nut to turn his attention to you.

Bill Mulligan, do you mean by making explicit that Sean's chickenshit statement (for which he apologized) was directed at me? By matching it to:

Sort of like how a group of defensive white guys will jump on you if you compare something one of them said to the Merriam-Webster definition of genocide.

Don't beat yourself up to badly, Bill Mulligan. I mean, you tried to build the consensus for it, but he said it.

Mike, allow me to clear this up for you

It reminds me a little of the Captain Underpants thread, where someone who will remain nameless(but we all know who it is) was taking every post as being directed RIGHT AT HIM.

See, Sean originally posted that remark, which was directed at you.

Oh.

Bill Myers, care to cite in the other thread where Sean's chickenshit comment (for which he apologized) applies to me?

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at November 1, 2006 09:27 PM

House seats are less likely to be influenced by national events and the trend has been bad for republicans for some time.

Yeah, I live just outside of Tom Reynolds' district (Lousie Slaughter is my Congressional representative). Reynolds, a Republican, should have had this election sewn up. Unfortunately, he allegedly saw some of Mark Foley's inappropriate e-mails to Congressional pages and has been accused of not doing enough in response. As a result he's neck and neck with a Democratic businessman named Jack Davis. It should be interesting to see what happens.

By the way, Bill Mulligan, no offense, but if you climbed through the "tubes of the Internet" and poked your head through my computer, I'd whack you with a stick until you turned around and went back where you came from.

Judging from the way my "tubes" seem to keep clogging I don't think I'll risk making the trip.

Have you been getting the sense lately, upon reading certain posts, that the Twilight Zone theme is playing in the background?

Judging from the way my "tubes" seem to keep clogging I don't think I'll risk making the trip.

Don't blame you. I attempted a tube trip once. Tripped on a wiki and landed in a pile of Goatse.

I just... haven't been the same since... *shudder*

-Rex Hondo-

Bill Mulligan: "No, I don't hold up Bush's GPA as proof that he is smarter than Kerry."

So what? You just comment out of the blue that Bush is smarter than Kerry, without ANY evidence? Okay, you cite the results of the election. The one that was very, very close. Was it mishandled? Sure. Is that an indication of a lack of intelligence or more particularly, evidence of Bush being MORE intelligence. No. No matter how you spin it, no. In which case, the only thing left on the table is the GPA.

Bill Mulligan: "How Kerry did in college is of no relevance at all, really."

Who is more intelligent is both impossible to accurately discern and equally irrelevant. Yet as far as i can see (and I apologize if I am incorrect) YOU introduced the topic to this particular dialog.

Bill Mulligan: "The fact that Kerry's dwindling band of defenders STILL try to spin his grades as indicative of some level of superiority shows just how deeply the revelation of his sub-Bush achievement cut. Again, it's no big deal...except to those who made it one."

Then why perpetuate the dialog? Why introduce the comparison?

Why introduce the comparison?

i think it was R.J. who first mentioned the GPA thing and then it was Sasha who commented on it. I was, alas, a distant third to chime in.

As far as bringing up intelligence of Bush or the voters, that has been a part of this thread form the get go.

I don't think Kerry is very smart and certainly nowhere near as smart as his supporters thought he was. But you are correct that my opinion, like that of the many here who opine that Bush is an idiot, is an opinion that cannot be backed up with solid facts, no matter how much we may claim otherwise.

I would add one caveat--"smart" and "intelligent" are related terms but not, in my mind anyway, exactly the same. The most intelligent person I know has done some pretty dumb things in their life. I've worked with kids who were of below average intelligence but had a clarity of mind that gave them far more common sense than their peers. The average kid who studies twice as hard as the genius who blows off his studies is probably a lot smarter than our genius (and will probably go further, which is one reason why life is littered with so many talented failures).

Anyway, I'm sorry if I came off too gleeful in all this. Kerry can be a pompous ass but I think he's genuinely upset with how this all fell out. And you have to give credit to anyone who takes the risk of running for president when there's an even chance of failure on a scale that most of us can only imagine. Kicking a guy when he's down is nothing to shoot for.

"Have you been getting the sense lately, upon reading certain posts, that the Twilight Zone theme is playing in the background?"

You're only just getting that sense of background music now? Dude, I've been getting it for about a year or so now. Only I get it with one slight dif. I keep hearing Baby Elephant Walk.

:)

Oh, look. An honest Republican. Pol. I didn't think there were in left in Bush's world.

October 31, 2006 - MSNBC's Hardball

Former House Majority Leader Dick Armey (R-TX) speaking about the attacks on Kerry's remarks:
"Well, it's pretty standard fare in political discourse. You misconstrue what somebody said. You isolate a statement, you lend your interpretation to it and then feign moral outrage." When Matthews stated that Kerry "was bashing Bush," Armey responded, "Right," and went on to say, "A fundamental premise of politics is we can make this work if people just never figure it out."

Does anyone have that picture of the Troops holding up a sign that says Halp us John KERY get out of IraK. I can't find the thing.

The notion that Kerry, who served in the armed forces, would be dissing the troops, or that Kerry, who despises Bush and Co., would be dissing the administration.

I don't know about that. He was talking about what happens if you don't do well in school, and as I'm sure we're all aware, Bush did slightly better in school than Kerry, and Kerry's the one who ended up in the military.

Styer, that was mean.

And absolutely frickin' hilarious. Well done.

over 150 honorably discharged and many very highly decorated veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia, not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command.

It is impossible to describe to you exactly what did happen in Detroit, the emotions in the room, the feelings of the men who were reliving their experiences in Vietnam, but they did. They relived the absolute horror of what this country, in a sense, made them do.

They told the stories at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, tape wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the country side of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war, and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country.

We call this investigation the "Winter Soldier Investigation." The term "Winter Soldier" is a play on words of Thomas Paine in 1776 when he spoke of the Sunshine Patriot and summertime soldiers who deserted at Valley Forge because the going was rough.

We who have come here to Washington have come here because we feel we have to be winter soldiers now. We could come back to this country; we could be quiet; we could hold our silence; we could not tell what went on in Vietnam, but we feel because of what threatens this country, the fact that the crimes threaten it, no reds, and not redcoats but the crimes which we are committing that threaten it, that we have to speak out. We found that not only was it a civil war, an effort by a people who had for years been seeking their liberation from any colonial influence whatsoever, but also we found that the Vietnamese whom we had enthusiastically molded after our own image were hard put to take up the fight against the threat we were supposedly saving them from.

We found most people didn't even know the difference between communism and democracy. They only wanted to work in rice paddies without helicopters strafing them and bombs with napalm burning their villages and tearing their country apart. They wanted everything to do with the war, particularly with this foreign presence of the United States of America, to leave them alone in peace, and they practiced the art of survival by siding with whichever military force was present at a particular time, be it Vietcong, North Vietnamese, or American.

We found also that all too often American men were dying in those rice paddies for want of support from their allies. We saw first hand how money from American taxes was used for a corrupt dictatorial regime. We saw that many people in this country had a one-sided idea of who was kept free by our flag, as blacks provided the highest percentage of casualties. We saw Vietnam ravaged equally by American bombs as well as by search and destroy missions, as well as by Vietcong terrorism, and yet we listened while this country tried to blame all of the havoc on the Vietcong.

We rationalized destroying villages in order to save them. We saw America lose her sense of morality as she accepted very coolly a My Lai and refused to give up the image of American soldiers who hand out chocolate bars and chewing gum.

We learned the meaning of free fire zones, shooting anything that moves, and we watched while America placed a cheapness on the lives of Orientals.

We watched the U.S. falsification of body counts, in fact the glorification of body counts. We listened while month after month we were told the back of the enemy was about to break. We fought using weapons against "oriental human beings," with quotation marks around that. We fought using weapons against those people which I do not believe this country would dream of using were we fighting in the European theater or let us say a non-third-world people theater, and so we watched while men charged up hills because a general said that hill has to be taken, and after losing one platoon or two platoons they marched away to leave the high for the reoccupation by the North Vietnamese because we watched pride allow the most unimportant of battles to be blown into extravaganzas, because we couldn't lose, and we couldn't retreat, and because it didn't matter how many American bodies were lost to prove that point. And so there were Hamburger Hills and Khe Sanhs and Hill 881's and Fire Base 6's and so many others. Now we are told that the men who fought there must watch quietly while American lives are lost so that we can exercise the incredible arrogance of Vietnamizing the Vietnamese. Each day to facilitate the process by which the United States washes her hands of Vietnam someone has to give up his life so that the United States doesn't have to admit something that the entire world already knows, so that we can't say that we have made a mistake. Someone has to dies so that President Nixon won't be, and these are his words, "the first President to lose a war."

We are asking Americans to think about that because how do you ask a man to be the last man to dies in Vietnam? How do ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake? But we are trying to do that, and we are doing it with thousands of rationalizations, and if you read carefully the President's last speech to the people of this country, you can see that he says, and says clearly: But the issue, gentlemen, the issue is communism, and the question is whether or not we will leave that country to the communists or whether or not we will try to give it hope to be a free people. But the problem of veterans goes beyond this personal problem, because you think about a poster in this country with a picture of Uncle Sam and the picture says "I want you." And a young man comes out of high school and says, "That is fine. I am going to serve my country." And he goes to Vietnam and he shoots and he kills and he does his job or maybe he doesn't kill, maybe he just goes and he comes back, and when he gets back to this country he finds that he isn't really wanted, because the largest unemployment figure in the country- it varies depending on who you get it from, the VA Administration 15 percent, various other sources 22 percent. But the largest corps of unemployed in this country are veterans of this war, and of those veterans 33 percent of the unemployed are black. That means 1 out of every 10 of the Nation's unemployed is a veteran of Vietnam.

The hospitals across the country won't, or can't meet their demands. It is not a question of not trying. They don't have the appropriations. A man recently died after he had a tracheotomy in California, not because of the operation but because there weren't enough personnel to clean the mucous out of his tube and he suffocated to death.

Another young man just died in a New York VA hospital the other day. A friend of mine was lying in a bed two beds away and tried to help him, but he couldn't. He rang a bell and there was nobody there to service that man and so he died of convulsions.

I understand 57 percent of all those entering the VA hospitals talk about suicide. Some 27 percent have tried, and they try because they come back to this country and they have to face what they did in Vietnam, and then they come back and find the indifference of a country that doesn't really care, that doesn't really care. We are here in Washington also to say that the problem of this war is not just a question of war and diplomacy. It is part and parcel of everything that we are trying as human beings to communicate to people in this country, the question of racism, which is rampant in the military, and so many other questions also, the use of weapons, the hypocrisy in our taking umbrage in the Geneva Conventions and using that as justification for a continuation of this war, when we are more guilty than any other body of violations of those Geneva Conventions, in the use of free fire zones, harassment interdiction fire, search and destroy missions, the bombings, the torture of prisoners, the killing of prisoners, accepted policy by many units in South Vietnam. That is what we are trying to say. It is party and parcel of everything.

The Winter Soldier Investigation did not involve, for the most part, genuine testimonies from genuine veterans. The entire project was a hoax formulated by a group called the Vietnam Veterans Against the War. Lt. Kerry was an integral member of the group.

If you don't believe those three claims we really can't find intellectual common ground and can't really have this discussion. We can suggest that Sen. Kerry (D-Mass.) would never insult the military or besmirch the American fighting man but the truth is that Lt. Kerry, USN certainly cast the US Armed Forces in a negative light and for many tainted an entire generation of soldiers. Every stereotype or bit of common wisdom regarding Vietnam vets started somewhere. We probably don't agree where.

Is it believable that John Kerry was trying to insult Bush? Yes. Is it believable that he fumbled it? Yes. That pretty much ended the issue for me.

The fact that it goes any farther than that with anyone saddens me. I liked the Daily Show's bit on it tonight. Then Stephen Colbert's bit set my teeth on edge. He showed the clip of Tony Snow saying, "where could you possibly put the word 'us' in that sentence? Maybe, "you wind up us landing in Iraq?" that makes no sense."

That made me have to leave the room. I just couldn't watch anymore. Tony Snow is smart enough to figure out where the word 'us' would go. So he's deliberately pretending to be stupid, and it infuriates me that he can do that *successfully*. Acting like he's too stupid to figure out 4th grade grammar actually does exactly what he wants it to, and I just couldn't watch the TV for awhile after that.

Craig J. Ries, in response to Only masochists or psychopaths actually want to be in Iraq right now:

I'm still trying to decide between those which one my brother is.

If you're saying that right now your brother is in Iraq...and that he's HAPPY there...and doesn't want to go home...then yes, there's something wrong with him, sorry.

If, on the other hand, he is reluctantly staying even though he'd rather be somewhere else because he feels that an abrupt, simultaneous pullout of all U.S. forces would cause things to become even worse than they are, that's something entirely different. But I said anybody who wanted to be in Iraq was either a masochist or psychopath.

If he also thinks that every single thing the U.S. has done over there has been completely justified from day one, then I have to add "delusional" to the list of applicable adjectives.

Mike, in response to Near the beginning of this year, Joel Stein wrote a column in which he stated his belief that saying "I support the troops but I don't support the war" is a copout. I partially agree with him. Me, I do not support the war and I do not support anybody who believes the war is right. If some of the troops believe the war is right even today, then I say fuck them. They aren't deserving of my support, respect or the planet's oxygen. wrote:

Supporting the troops by opposing the war is not a copout. Every soldier takes an oath to place the constitution above his own life, and it isn't done casually. That dedication is being squandered to feed the insurgency. It's simply the conservation of an endangered national resource.

I honestly wonder if they really know what they are getting themselves into when they take that oath. If you "place the constitution above your own life" does that mean that you blindly follow whatever orders you're given and don't consult your conscience?

I support the troops who come back and speak out against the war.

I support the troops who are over there against their will and can't leave because they'd be locked up for going AWOL.

I even support the troops who are willingly over there because they feel that regardless of whether or not it was right to invade in the first place, the only thing standing between complete bloody anarchy in Iraq is the American military presence there. In other words, the ones who feel that they owe it to the Iraqi people to help clean up the mess.

I do NOT support the other kinds of troops. The ones who run places like Abu Ghraib. The ones who think that the past three years have been completely worth it and that the deaths of thousands of civilians somehow serve a greater good. The ones who are willing to do anything, kill anybody, torture anybody, act like savages, in order to make themselves feel safer and to feed their delusion that their brutality somehow honors and protects America. They are a disgrace to their uniforms. There is no honor in their actions.

DaveOConnel: I'm not sure why Kerry thinks its OK for *Iraqis* to terrorize kids and women in the dead of night, but that's a different headache, and one I'm not going to invite upon myself.

If Kerry is a genuinely decent man, he doesn't think it's all right for Iraqis to terrorize other Iraqis.

In late 2002 and early 2003, there was a choice. The U.S. could:

A) Allow Hussein to remain in power, occasionally killing and brutalizing those under his rule, maintaining order through fear and the threat of violence and/or imprisonment

or

B) Remove Hussein by any means necessary. This includes bombing the hell out of Baghdad and many other cities, imprisoning and tormenting people without evidence of guilt, getting rid of the police force that was keeping the oppressed Shiites from going to war with the Sunnis, acting surprised when civil war broke out on top of the already problematic insurgency, etc.

Seems to me that the lesser of the two evils would have been to leave Saddam in power. Removing him by any means necessary makes about as much sense as removing a brain tumor by decapitating the patient.

In the end we have caused far too much damage to make it worthwhile. I find it very hard to believe that the death toll caused by three more years of Saddam (from 2003 to 2006) would be more than the death toll after three years of U.S. occupation.

Back to your original question, Dave. Is it okay for Iraqis to terrorize Iraqis? No. Is it okay for Americans to terrorize Iraqis? No. But I would be more comfortable if it were Saddam's people doing instead of American troops, because that way I would be able to hang onto my belief that Americans were above terrorizing people, that Americans could never be that cruel.

Well, now people have seen what Americans are capable of. It has made people around the world look at America in a new, very negative way. It has even caused some of the people whose country is occupied by American forces to take up arms against them.

Bill Mulligan: "i think it was R.J. who first mentioned the GPA thing and then it was Sasha who commented on it. I was, alas, a distant third to chime in."

True. You did not, and I admit that I was under the impression that you had. My mistake 100%. But I must say, I will forever despise the fact that many people feel comfortable quoting within a debate setting without leaving any indication of who they are quoting. Complicates the process and contributes to misunderstandings, particularly in longer discussions.

Bill Mulligan: " I would add one caveat--"smart" and "intelligent" are related terms but not, in my mind anyway, exactly the same. The most intelligent person I know has done some pretty dumb things in their life. I've worked with kids who were of below average intelligence but had a clarity of mind that gave them far more common sense than their peers. The average kid who studies twice as hard as the genius who blows off his studies is probably a lot smarter than our genius (and will probably go further, which is one reason why life is littered with so many talented failures)."

No argument there.

Bill Mulligan: "Anyway, I'm sorry if I came off too gleeful in all this. Kerry can be a pompous ass but I think he's genuinely upset with how this all fell out. And you have to give credit to anyone who takes the risk of running for president when there's an even chance of failure on a scale that most of us can only imagine. Kicking a guy when he's down is nothing to shoot for."

No worries. And please don't take my responses to you as an attack. I'm an infrequent poster on this forum, but a longtime reader. Because of this, I'm familiar enough with your general attitude to know that you're an intelligent and reasonable guy, even when presented with differing viewpoints. Which is a welcome change of pace from some of the other forums I frequent.

So the "purple heart band-aid" crowd are up in arms, pant-hooting for the corporate-shill media, and intentionally "failing" to air Kerry's remarks in full context -- as in, including the preceding sentence or three that made it absolutely clear that he was discussing Bush all along.

Our servicemen and veterans *are* being defecated upon, but not by John Kerry.

Wildcat

No worries. And please don't take my responses to you as an attack. I'm an infrequent poster on this forum, but a longtime reader. Because of this, I'm familiar enough with your general attitude to know that you're an intelligent and reasonable guy, even when presented with differing viewpoints. Which is a welcome change of pace from some of the other forums I frequent.

Right back at you, sir. I'd say this forum has a pretty high number of smart creative people. It's kind of ironic that a place that has as it's central core a devotion to "mere" comic books, particularly those written by a specific writer ("Writer? Those things have to be writen?") has much more intelligence on display than a lot of forums I've seen supposedly devoted to "important" topics.

Not that we don't attract the occasional troll as you, ah, might have noticed.

"The reason Bush doesn't get hung by his gaffs the way Kerry gets hung by "If you don't [study hard], you get stuck in Iraq," is because democrats don't offer obvious summaries of their positions. I said as much last year."

I think it's valid to say that the Democrats don't offer nice, concise, bite-sized, pre-chewed summaries of their positions, yes. It's a complicated world full of complicated and nuanced positions. Kerry's mistake was believing that it was possible to explain that to a people who cherish ten second sound-bites. I think it's unrelated to the Bush-gets-a-pass-on-gaffes situation.

"In their own self-interest, the conservatives here disagreed this was the case. The liberals, including Peter, refused to believe it also. The obvious thesis is what shelters Bush. It's a shelter the liberals refuse to occupy."

Nnnnnoooo, what sheltered Bush for the longest time was 9/11. The media was happy to eviscerate Bush's every misstep pre-9/11. The man was a joke. Then 9/11 happened, everyone rallied behind him, and making fun of his inability to convey even the simplest thought without tripping over his tongue became verboten. As we know, he pissed away all that good will and solidarity, but by the time he did, his staggering verbal ineptitude simply became old news.

PAD

The following from the master of charm:

"Of course, now Senator Kerry says he was just making a joke, and he botched it up," Vice President Dick Cheney said in remarks prepared for a campaign appearance in Montana. "I guess we didn't get the nuance. He was for the joke before he was against it."

Yeah, well, better to shoot yourself in the foot than someone else in the face.

PAD

Posted by: Jerry C at November 1, 2006 10:56 PM

You're only just getting that sense of background music now? Dude, I've been getting it for about a year or so now. Only I get it with one slight dif. I keep hearing Baby Elephant Walk.

I'm hearing "Dueling Banjos."

I'm very worried.

The reason Bush doesn't get hung by his gaffs the way Kerry gets hung by "If you don't [study hard], you get stuck in Iraq," is because democrats don't offer obvious summaries of their positions. I said as much last year.

In their own self-interest, the conservatives here disagreed this was the case. The liberals, including Peter, refused to believe it also. The obvious thesis is what shelters Bush. It's a shelter the liberals refuse to occupy.

Nnnnnoooo, what sheltered Bush for the longest time was 9/11.

Retaliation against 9/11 is an obvious summary.

Yet as the loser in 2004, John Kerry won more votes than any other presidential candidate in history -- without offering one "nice, concise, bite-sized, pre-chewed [summary]."

There are two kinds of solutions: convergent solutions and divergent solutions. Convergent solutions remain stable over time. Divergent solutions offer valid alternatives to existing solutions.

In a campaign, if you don't offer your own convergent solution, what is the point of running in the first place?

Posted by: Mike at November 2, 2006 08:31 AM

Yet as the loser in 2004, John Kerry won more votes than any other presidential candidate in history -- without offering one "nice, concise, bite-sized, pre-chewed [summary]."

Uhmmm... how did John Kerry win "more votes than any other presidential candidate in history" when George W. Bush won roughly 3 million more votes than Kerry???

I mean, what is that, "the new math?"

"The Winter Soldier Investigation did not involve, for the most part, genuine testimonies from genuine veterans. The entire project was a hoax formulated by a group called the Vietnam Veterans Against the War. Lt. Kerry was an integral member of the group.
If you don't believe those three claims we really can't find intellectual common ground and can't really have this discussion."

No I don' accept those three claims, since they are not supported by the facts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_Soldier_Investigation

Of course not much the Republicans claim these days are supported by the facts, including saying Kerry meant to insult the troops.

Hey anybody here outraged that Bush bowed to Maliki and stopped the search for a missing serviceman in Baghdad. Or doesn't that count as supporting the troops?

Had he just said "Hey, I screwed up a joke." right at the beginning it would have been a 1 day story, mostly ignored. By hitting back to show the "NEw & Improved, with 20% More Backbone" John Kerry and THEN admitting he screwed up he made it a 3 or 4 day story. Way to go. The man has the poilitical smarts of a lemur.

Sorry, to bring this back up from the beginning of the thread, but I have to agree with this. The GOP were desperate to find something, anything that they could use to get the media's focus off of the bad news coming out of Iraq and the Foley scandal in the weeks before the election. Kerry's gaffe was like mana from heaven. They were going to make a meal out of it no matter how Kerry tried to phrase his apology and their supporters on Fox "News" were going to replay the original excerpt again and again no matter what.

Saw this on various newspapers

http://www.nypost.com/seven/11022006/photos/news004.jpg

Yet as the loser in 2004, John Kerry won more votes than any other presidential candidate in history.

Bill Myers, you're excluding a logical qualifier sitting in the same sentence.

You were part of a group of defensive white guys who jumped on someone for comparing something one of them said to the Merriam-Webster definition of genocide. My guess is that that is eating at your pretense that you are some kind of decent person. I can't say I would relent against that kind of guy either if I tried to pull that kind of shit.

I'm still waiting for you to cite where the comment Sean apologized for applies to me. Otherwise, why write a check with your mouth your butt can't cash?

Posted by: Mike at November 2, 2006 08:59 AM

Bill Myers, you're excluding a logical qualifier sitting in the same sentence.

No, I'm not. You wrote a poor sentence. Here's what you should have written:

"Yet as the loser in 2004, John Kerry won more votes than any other presidential candidate in history aside from President George W. Bush."

The above sentence, as revised by me, includes the necessary qualifier that your original version lacked.

You're welcome.

Posted by: Mike at November 2, 2006 08:59 AM

You were part of a group of defensive white guys who jumped on someone for comparing something one of them said to the Merriam-Webster definition of genocide.

How do you know what the color of my skin is? There's nothing I've written that couldn't have come from someone of any race. It is racist in the extreme to suggest otherwise.

Also, I never engaged you in the genocide debate/shit-storm you tried to stir up. I wasn't interested.

Posted by: Mike at November 2, 2006 08:59 AM

My guess is that that is eating at your pretense that you are some kind of decent person. I can't say I would relent against that kind of guy either if I tried to pull that kind of shit.

No, what's eating at me is that I'm in love with Sarah Michelle Gellar but she only has eyes for you. How do you do that?

Posted by: Mike at November 2, 2006 08:59 AM

I'm still waiting for you to cite where the comment Sean apologized for applies to me.

You'll be waiting until Hell freezes over and beyond. I didn't make that remark, Sean did. If he saw fit to apologize for it, then that's that. I'm not going to presume to speak for a guy who is perfectly capable of speaking for himself.

All I did was point out that the remark was directed at you, which it was.

Posted by: Mike at November 2, 2006 08:59 AM

Otherwise, why write a check with your mouth your butt can't cash?

I don't know. It must be my Lennie-like predatory agenda against which there is no defense from a checking account that does not have a sufficient balance to cover a draft written for butt-sex. You didn't invent that problem any more than you invented the rain or the sky.

Wait-a-minute. Where were you when the rain and the sky were invented? Can anyone vouch for your wheareabouts?

What's that? It happened before you were born? How convenient.

Don't leave town, Mickey.

Everyone: I know, I know, it is infantile in the extreme to poke the troll with a stick and it detracts from the quality of the thread. I'll try to resist any more of this nonsense. :-)

How do you know what the color of my skin is?

Comparing something someone said to the Merriam-Webster definition of genocide? That's only incendiary to defensive white guys.

Mike, allow me to clear this up for you

It reminds me a little of the Captain Underpants thread, where someone who will remain nameless(but we all know who it is) was taking every post as being directed RIGHT AT HIM.

See, Sean originally posted that remark, which was directed at you.

Oh.

Bill Myers, care to cite in the other thread where Sean's chickenshit comment (for which he apologized) applies to me?

You'll be waiting until Hell freezes over and beyond. I didn't make that remark, Sean did. If he saw fit to apologize for it, then that's that.

"That's that" for me, but not for you, hunh? Yeah, if you like you games fixed it is.

But it IS funny!

You've got a wicked sense of humor that doesn't always show up in your more serious comments. Of course it helps when the, um, opposition sounds like a kid who has been watch just a few too many pro wrestling videos.

Don't blame you. I attempted a tube trip once. Tripped on a wiki and landed in a pile of Goatse.

I just... haven't been the same since... *shudder*

Y'know I hear there's an interesting Goatse site out there -- it's not of the actual . . . thing, but rather pictures and video of people seeing and reacting to Goatse for the first time.

I understand in some of the pictures, if you look closely enough, you can actually see the innocence leaving the body.

Rob Brown -
If you're saying that right now your brother is in Iraq...and that he's HAPPY there...and doesn't want to go home...then yes, there's something wrong with him, sorry.

Shortly before my wife and I took our vacation to New Zealand back in August, my brother (the younger of my two brothers) called to say he had joined the National Guard. He has lots of student loan debts, so I can see the appeal in the 'easy money', but he'd also gotten work as an electrical apprentice, which is good pay if you can stick with it.

He said my mom was ok with it. I found out later she wasn't quite so amused by the prospect - she's a Republican, but even she recognizes how badly we've screwed up with Iraq.

After we got back from our trip, I talked to my dad and he had said that brother wanted to be sent to Iraq. This was not something that my brother had told my mom; again, she wasn't very amused.

He left for basic in mid-Sept. So, I don't know what his problem is. And I say it quite openly: if you join the military now, knowing what Bush has done, you're an idiot.

Either way, it's not like I haven't had some level of personal stake in this whole mess to begin with. I have an aunt who's career Air Force, and even though neither her nor her also career Air Force husband have been sent to Iraq, you can't discount the possibility. I mean, we're now training our Naval sailors for ground work. Who knows who's next?

Howard -
Saw this on various newspapers

Well, iirc, that's the same image Bill Mulligan linked to earlier in the thread.

But, as I mentioned elsewhere, this is No Child Left Behind in action. ;)

Goatse

Ok...what is this? From your description I'm afraid to even google it. Can you describe what it is in a way that will not potentially put me over the brink that my recent flu shot has placed me (Really, if I wanted aches, pains, and a low grade fever I could have, you know, just waited to get the flu.)

(ok, ok, I know, I don't want to discourage anyone from getting their flu shots. It's just a matter of time before we have a 1918 situation all over again)

MArk, funny story about Limbaugh. My mother didn't drive, so me being the nice Celtic oy that I am, I used to drive her places. Now, we had two dogs at the time that were VERY attached to her, so she used to leave the radio on for them when we went out. If she happened to leave the station that had Limbaugh's show on, invariably we would have to clean up evidence of dog when we got home. Never happened when we left the oldies station on. I'd laugh every time, after wishing that we had outside dogs so we wouldn't have to clean it up.

One thing that always pops into my head whenever the whole GPA thing comes up in general, but with Bush and Kerry in particular. First off, there are FAR too many variables for just the GPA to be a valid medium of comparison. For example, my first three semesters of college I was dean's list, while three people I know that I'd say were just as smart as me were on academic probation. Now, the fact that I was taking English and computer science classes and they were taking nursing, biology and pre-med evened it all out. Unless Bush and Kerry were taking exactly the same classes at exactly the same time under exactly the same professor, the GPA is good for nothing but bragging rights.

And Mr. Mulligan, (Gods, now there's THREE Bills around here. Can we PLEASE make one a law?) when I crawled up the tube into your computer, did I leave five bucks on your monitor?

Ok...what is this? From your description I'm afraid to even google it.

Smart man.

Can you describe what it is in a way that will not potentially put me over the brink that my recent flu shot has placed me.

It's one of those internet shock images that sadistic bastards occasionally shepherd poor, trusting, unsuspecting people to. Goatse is designed to make a proctologist react badly.

And as a friendly suggestion and general public service announcement, if you ever are offered to link to something called tubgirl . . . run.

Goatse

Ok...what is this? From your description I'm afraid to even google it. Can you describe what it is in a way that will not potentially put me over the brink that my recent flu shot has placed me (Really, if I wanted aches, pains, and a low grade fever I could have, you know, just waited to get the flu.)

Hmm... Y'see, I'm debating whether to be a good person, or to be a jackass, since nobody warned me before I went and clicked the damn link.

Oh, what the hell. Let's consider it my good deed for the month. For anybody who hasn't heard of it, goatse is an acronym that stands for:

Guy
Opens
Ass
To
Show
Everybody

If your curiosity gets the better of you at this point, I wash my hands of it. However, if you haven't guessed already, this is one internet phenomenon that is just about as Not-safe-for-work as you can get.

Gee, between this and my Halloween costume ideas, I think I'd better rein it in before people really get the wrong idea about me. :P

-Rex Hondo-

Rex, we had the wrong idea about you from the start.

Gee, between this and my Halloween costume ideas, I think I'd better rein it in before people really get the wrong idea about me.

Weird bit. I was sent one of those e-mails that have pictures of creative jack-o-lanterns and one of them was a Goatse-o-Lantern.

Goatse apparently also is was the design basis of a building you attack in one of those FPS games.

If your curiosity gets the better of you at this point, I wash my hands of it.

At this point I want to take a whole shower.

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at November 2, 2006 11:02 AM

At this point I want to take a whole shower.

That's something you should be doing every day, anyway.

Bill Mulligan,

Go ahead and Google it. The first link you get is to Wikipedia. Although, after reading that... Man, am I SOOOO glad THAT was the first link.

I may also never be able to play Doom 3 again.

"Of course it helps when the, um, opposition sounds like a kid who has been watch just a few too many pro wrestling videos."

Hey!!! What are you talking about? He sounds nothing like me! Trying to call me out, Mulligan? Lucky for you I'm in too much of a state of mourning over the passing of the great legendary luchador Huracan Ramirez (creator of the Huracarrana) to slap you around.

You know what really saddens me?

I keep fantasising about how classy Bush would have looked if he'd treated it like a botched joke.

Just imaging it. The news reports are harping on the statement like they are now, the pundits are driving it into the ground like now, and everyone is blowing it out of proportion.

Then Bush goes up to the podium and someone asks him about Kerry's comment. Bush shrugs his shoulders and says. "He botched a joke. No big deal."

Right there, I'd have had more respect for him. It wouldn't have changed my opinions about his policies, but I'd have felt a little better about him as a person. The current tactic of nailing Kerry to the wall for insulting the troops is probably the best political move, it's certainly rallying all the republicans who want to support Bush and are looking for a reason. But it would have been so classy for the President to just treat a botched joke like a botched joke. Plus, Kerry would still have looked pathetic for failing to insult Bush and Bush being gracious about it.

"Hey anybody here outraged that Bush bowed to Maliki and stopped the search for a missing serviceman in Baghdad. Or doesn't that count as supporting the troops?"

I thought what they did last night on "The Daily Show" was priceless. Jon Stewart began by reporting an incredibly serious story about actions taken by the Iraqi government that bode ill for the situation over there, and suddenly is "interrupted" for a "breaking news story" reported with delirious urgency by Samantha Bee: John Kerry muffed a joke.

PAD

Hey anybody here outraged that Bush bowed to Maliki and stopped the search for a missing serviceman in Baghdad. Or doesn't that count as supporting the troops?

It's a damned if he does, and a damned if he doesn't situation. From what I can tell, the soldier was illegitimately away from the base. The search is pissing off the locals as it was far too much, far too restrictive and far too unproductive. And NOT to bow to the demands of the local ruler (who we helped put in office) would have the US act as more of an occupying force, rather than a liberating, freedom-aiding force.

I'm more pissed that Bush & Co. were so damn incompetent to let the situation degenerate into this.

"Hey anybody here outraged that Bush bowed to Maliki and stopped the search for a missing serviceman in Baghdad. Or doesn't that count as supporting the troops?"

I'm not. About time we let someone in their own country have their way.

Jason's right, but then expecting any politician anywhere to respond to something with class is like expecting bologna to taste like lobster. This whole thing, not just the thing with Kerry's joke but the way all the media pounce on every single word someone says reminds me of something I saw somewhere in college. A reporter goes up to a candidate, asks if she can ask him a question about his speech, and says, "Could you clarify, sir, for my readers, what you meant by the word, 'the'?"

There was a bit of an update about that missing soldiers this morning.

He's Iraq-American, with an Iraqi wife. As if our troops aren't enough of a target, this unfortunately made him an even bigger one.

But the military says they are in some sort of negociations with the hostage-takers, but won't really elaborate.

Hopefully it turns out well in the end, but one soldier was killed and eight more wounded during the searches for the missing soldier.

Then Bush goes up to the podium and someone asks him about Kerry's comment. Bush shrugs his shoulders and says. "He botched a joke. No big deal."

Sadly, that will never happen. We're in the era of the political spots featuring naked Betty Boop impersonators and politicians who tell an Iraqi war veteran who lost both her legs in the line of duty that she wants to "cut n' run".

The level political vitriol has hit an all time low and, as much as I would want to be even handed about it, about 90% of the vicious slander is coming from the GOP side. They will say anything and distort even the slightest mistatement in order to stay in power. They have no shame any more.

Kerry said something stupid. My God, stop the presses and treat this like a national crisis.

Goatse

1Ok...what is this? From your description I'm afraid to even google it.

Don't. Trust me. It's the second most disturbing picture I've ever seen. The aforementioned tubgirl tops goatse.

Can you describe what it is in a way that will not potentially put me over the brink

It involves a nude guy doing something that you wouldn't think was possible, assuming it isn't a photoshop.

--------

Rex - Thanks for the acronym. I never knew goatse meant anything.

politicians who tell an Iraqi war veteran who lost both her legs in the line of duty that she wants to "cut n' run"

After the way the repugs went after Max Cleland, this shouldn't be a surprise.

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at November 2, 2006 09:36 AM

But it IS funny!

You've got a wicked sense of humor that doesn't always show up in your more serious comments.

Bill, thank you for the compliments and I'm glad you enjoyed my "performance art." But you really shouldn't encourage me. For me, it's like alcohol is to an alcoholic -- once I start it's hard to stop! :)

The level political vitriol has hit an all time low and, as much as I would want to be even handed about it, about 90% of the vicious slander is coming from the GOP side.

I'd disagree but what is one person's "vicious slander" may be someone else's "hard hitting truth". I'm afraid there may not be anyone on this particular board who can take the high ground on the vitriol front...except maybe Kathleen, who is obviously a better person than the vast majority of folks one is likely to run into.

I doubt that some of the nominated judges who saw the Democrats in congress try to paint them as racist extremists would agree that 90% of the viciousness came from the republican side. The outing of gay republican staffers--staffers! Not even the actual politicians, just the people they work for. The "Republicans support underage gay sex" angle. It's from both sides, Den. It just seems worse when it's directed at people we like. I'm the same way, don't get me wrong.

Looking at the Kerry flap, can anyone really think that a Republican would have gotten away with it? Ask Trent Lott how easy it was to get away with a stupid statement. At least Kerry will not lose any position in the party (given that right now his position is "Official Pariah" that may not be an altogether good thing.)

And again, it's a problem of his own doing. He somehow misquoted himself while trying to belittle the intelligence of another. Bad enough. He then went ballistic and called anyone who took offense as a right wing tool. He then twisted in the wind while one ally after another joined said tools, including many in the military. Then he apologized to the tools. That's what, 3 days the Democrats will never get back.

I would still bet money, were I a betting man, on the Democrats winning the House, handily. But if they don't it will be because the get out the vote team for the Republicans is even better than they are believed to be. Kerry will be a minor factor. But man oh man will he take the heat! The daily kos crowd will want him strung up by his gonads. It'll make the hate they have for Joe Lieberman look like gentle kisses from a baby.

This could be the first political career destroyed by Youtube.

But in all liklihood the Democrats WILL win the house, maybe even the Senate. So he will live to see another political day. But I think his presidential ambitions, already very unlikely, have almost vanished. Like George Allen for the Republicans, he has shown that he just doesn't have the right stuff to be trusted with the Party standard.

Mike, allow me to clear this up for you:

It reminds me a little of the Captain Underpants thread, where someone who will remain nameless(but we all know who it is) was taking every post as being directed RIGHT AT HIM.

See, Sean originally posted that remark, which was directed at you.

HUH? WAS THAT A CRACK AT ME? HUH? WAS IT?

And I want my blue sock back, you bastard.

:-)

That was a reply from me to Sean. I was pretending to believe that his remark was directed at me. Then I referenced a joke about a blue sock from a prior thread.

Eeeesh! Calm down, Bill! I was actually talking someone else who was reacting just like you did now actually at everything YOU said.

And as long as I hold the sock, I AM IN CONTROL!

Or rather, THE CLOTHESPIN ON MY NOSE IS IN CONTROL!

The above is a reply from Sean to me. Sean is making it clear he is referring to you, even though he isn't naming you.

I think it's kind of a shame some of you stoop to orc-chitter here solely for the virtue of intimidation.

I mean, you, Sean, and Bill Mulligan have since admitted Sean's comment was directed at me, so I'm just defending myself. But your orc-chitter? That's just chickenshit.

There's nothing I've written that couldn't have come from someone of any race. It is racist in the extreme to suggest otherwise.

Racist in the extreme?

Calling you a white guy is as bad as someone trying to flatten the severity of genocide? Yeah, there's no bias-denial in flattening the degree of distinction there.

It's from both sides, Den. It just seems worse when it's directed at people we like.

That would apply for me as well, if I liked Kerry, but I think he's a douchebag and have said so many times before.

I wasn't talking about the nomination process of judges, which I'll admit gets to be bareknuckled from both sides. I was talking specifically about political advertizing on TV for this race. And from what I've seen, nothing the dems have come up with has compared to the GOP's antics. Here, in PA, Santorum has gotten increasingly vicious as his reelection bid slides closer and closer to oblivion. It it's not just "hard hitting truth", but stuff that independent groups have described as misleading, like portraying as group of Casey "supporters" in prison. Except that none of them had given any money to Casey's senate race, at least has been dead for two years, and a couple actually gave money to Santorum's campaign!

As for Kerry, considering he's been once again savaged in the media, Fox "News" in particular, I'd hardly say he's gotten away with anything. Yeah, his esteem in the democratic party couldn't really get any lower, but he's also been disinvited from several campaign events this week, Casey's included.

I still think the dems will take the House. The Senate is a toss up. It may go 50-50, which would leave it in GOP hands. The problem is, the more apparent that the GOP will lose at least one house, the more vicious they've gotten.

Hey!!! What are you talking about? He sounds nothing like me! Trying to call me out, Mulligan? Lucky for you I'm in too much of a state of mourning over the passing of the great legendary luchador Huracan Ramirez (creator of the Huracarrana) to slap you around.

"Yes...I DO want to retract my statement. Jerry C is NOT a jabrone....but what Jerry C IS, is a seven foot, five hundred pound, steaming, stinking, steaming, stinking pile of Grade-A monkey crap! And I say this, Jerry C, did I call you a jabrone? You damn right I did, I called twenty others a jabrone as well, shut your mouth, and look at me, read my lips - jabrone - J-A-B-R-O-N-I-X-Y-Z-A-B-C-oh, it doesn't MATTER how you spell 'jabrone!' I say this, Jerry C, come Royal Rumble - MY Rumble - I guarand*mntees to take my hand and one, by one, by d*mn one, over the top rope, I'm guarand*mnteeing winning the Royal Rumble, Me, going to WrestleMania, and going out of WrestleMania...the People's Champion."

BTW, here's Republican Media Analyst on last nights Anderson Cooper 306:

"But it does tend to be a race toward the dumbest possible communication. But, again, I'm sorry to say that, in America, a lot of morons vote. It's a free country. And they often reward cartoonish campaigns."

This wasn't a botch joke about an individual that, if you stripped away the context, sounds like an insult to the troops. He's flat out calling many American voters morons.

But, I'm sure someone on Fox "News" will be demanding that he apologize for calling American voters morons, right?

Right?

Anyone?

Bueller?

The thing that worries me, Den, is that I've heard about a lot of people who think all of Pennsylvania are little Santorum-drones. Forget what I said before about security deposits. Elected officials need to have a rationality recall switch. They go loopy, and it's Scanners all over again!

Mulligan has gone so far around the bend he's back to where he started originally.

I'd disagree but what is one person's "vicious slander" may be someone else's "hard hitting truth".

Most likely, however, it's just vicious slander. ("Hard hitting lie" also works.)

Courtesy of Slate.com (http://www.slate.com/id/2152671/nav/tap1/)

Last week, I turned on the TV set in a hotel room in Phoenix. The first commercial I saw, for Rick Renzi, a vulnerable Republican congressman, was an effusion of pure political poison. In a voice rancid with contempt, the announcer declared:

"Over 100 Democratic elected officials are opposing Democrat trial lawyer Ellen Simon. Liberal Ellen Simon served as the president of the ACLU, a radical organization that defends hard-core criminals at the man/boy love association, a national group that preys on our children. One Democratic mayor called Simon's actions "utterly disgusting." He's right. Ellen Simon: radical, liberal and wrong for Arizona."

While hearing this, the viewer sees just key terms superimposed on the Democrat's face: "LIBERAL" … "Served as the President of the ACLU" … "Radical Organization defends hard core criminals Man/Boy Love Association" … "ACLU Defends Child Molester Group" … "Preys on our children" … "utterly disgusting" … "radical, liberal."

Dutifully performing the fact-checking function expected of responsible newspapers, the Arizona Daily Sun analyzed the content of the ad. It could not "independently verify" that 100 elected officials had endorsed Renzi, though 55 are apparently members of a Navajo tribal council whose gambling interests Renzi has championed. Ellen Simon was not the president of the American Civil Liberties Union, but a volunteer lawyer in Cleveland who represented the group in precisely one case. That case had nothing to do with NAMBLA or child molesters. The "Democratic mayor" who called Simon "utterly disgusting" is effectively a Republican. Simon, who supports school choice and cracking down on illegal immigrants, is by no means a "radical liberal." In other words, not a single claim in the ad is actually true.

. . . .

According to factcheck.org, a respected site that reviews the accuracy of various ads, "the National Republican Campaign Committee's work stands out this year for the sheer volume of assaults on the personal character of Democratic House challengers." Negative Democratic ads tie Republican candidates to President Bush, and to the Iraq war, or accuse them of being in the tank for the oil or pharmaceutical industries. But Democratic ads do not charge that their opponents "prey on our children"—even though one recently resigned following accusations that he did precisely that. One can only imagine the ads Republicans would have made this year if Mark Foley had happened to be a Democrat.

And from what I've seen, he's dead on. I haven't seen the Repubs' level of viciousness approached in any Democratic ad. And I haven't heard much in the way of "Mark Foley guilt by association" either. But the article's author is dead right . . . if Foley had been a Democrat, the ads we would have seen from the GOP would have gone (inconceivably) even further beyond the pale.

Sean, PA may be a tad more conservative than other northeastern states, but things are shifting. The most recent polls are all giving Casey a double-digit lead. Today's Harrisburg Patriot poll shows Santorum losing in every part of the state except the northwest region, which means Rick may be the first Republican in decades to lose in the highly conservative central region. That's the region I live in. Believe me, if Rick can't win here, he's lost the state.

Sasha, the only thing that surprises me is that the GOP didn't try to tie as many democrats to Foley this season. After, Fox "News" called Foley a Democrat on both the O'Reilly Factor and the Special Report with Brit Hume. Clearly, the stage was set to plant the idea in the public's mind that Foley was a "D".

Sasha, the only thing that surprises me is that the GOP didn't try to tie as many democrats to Foley this season. After, Fox "News" called Foley a Democrat on both the O'Reilly Factor and the Special Report with Brit Hume. Clearly, the stage was set to plant the idea in the public's mind that Foley was a "D".

I suspect that the RNC realized that way too many Repubs would be stuck to the Foley tar baby to do that. The more Foley would be mentioned by the Rs, the more people would start asking "Yeah, and why hasn't Hastert stepped down again?"

Besides, they have the Hussien verdict announcement to prep for.

On the subject of negative political ads, a friend is running for state-wide office as a Republican. Either his opponent or the Democratic party is running negative radio ads about him, in which he’s lumped together with both Bush and the Republican gubernatorial candidate, as if all three march in lock-step. They don’t. (I’ve also seen a similar ad aimed against a Republican candidate in another race).

That, in and of itself, isn’t that big of a deal, but the... um... interesting thing is that the ad talks about my friend and his “cronies” in the capital, as if he’s A) the incumbent, and B) has squandered opportunities to serve the people in favor of special interests. He’s _not_ the incumbent; and neither is his opponent. It’s an open seat. Interesting that his opponent isn’t running ads that focus on why she’s the better qualified candidate. At least I’ve never heard any.

For the record, I have neither seen nor heard any of my friend’s ads (or Republican party ads on his behalf), but if they’re also of the same “attack the other guy instead of promoting yourself” variety, then I’d have the same low opinion of them.

Having known the guy for more than a decade, I doubt that _he_ would put forth such ads. The Republican party, on the other hand, is another matter.

Case in point, the Republicans in the community where I live seem to send flyers in the mail attacking their Democratic opponents more often than they send ones touting their own qualifications. I get recorded phone messages of the same ilk, too.

And I am so sick of the way they toss around the word “liberal” like it’s the incarnation of all that is, was and ever will be evil. I don’t have much incentive to vote for Smith if all he does is make cheap attacks against Jones.

He’s retired now, and there’s pretty much zero chance anyone could ever entice him back into politics, but I’d really like to see former Michigan Governor William Milliken (and others like him) back in the political arena. Hell, I wouldn’t mind seeing him in the White House over most of the candidates (both actual and potential) in both parties. Milliken’s that rare breed, a moderate Republican who worked cooperatively with Democrats to get things done. He and the late Detroit Mayor Coleman Young, a staunch Democrat, worked well together, to give one example.

In fact, according to a local news article today, Milliken apparently wrote an op-ed piece about the negative attack ads of today’s political climate (the article doesn’t say where the op-ed piece appeared). Apparently Milliken criticized the Republican candidate in one race for making outrageous allegations against his Democratic opponent. Milliken, who often campaigned against the Democrat’s father, apparently said that while their campaigns were spirited, they never resorted to “fabrications and personal attacks.”

Would that more candidates and politicians in both parties were of Milliken’s mind set.

Rick

I should also mention that my friend has not served in _any_ elected office; so any talk of his "cronies" is even more ridiculous.

Rick

Rick, that's hysterical in that it points out the tactics that politicians will use, but your friend has my sympathies. Guilt by association is a nasty thing. I'm surprised a little that the opponent's ads aren't voluminously pointing out your friend's "complete lack of experience" as a way to pound him.

Den, judging by what I've seen, and granted what I've seen is only Bucks County and a little of Philadelphia, I would've said Pennsylvania was a little more diverese in its mix. But with some of his recent behavior, I think Santorum may have gone from "conservative" to "that wierd fringe guy." I don't see anything wrong with conservatives or liberals, meself, it's the extremists that worry me. And to you and Sasha, maybe some of the Republicans realize that to do that would be crossing a line. Unlikely, I know, as generally politicians can't usually SEE the line, but still....

I saw online that some people are comparing Kerry's recent botched joke with statements he made in '71, where the military would only be a haven for "poor brown and black people." What do you guys think? Is he still saying the same things, or is it a botched joke, or should Kerry just become a monk with a vow of silence? Glad I never thought about going into politics. I've said way too much between '72 and now. Granted, I was BORN in '72, but still, if people are going to go back that far they'll find out I called my neighbor a big smelly piece of dog poop with flies on it in '78.

What, we can't agree with the idea that it was a botched joke on his part AND say that he should just become a monk with a vow of silence?

That be my choice.

I saw online that some people are comparing Kerry's recent botched joke with statements he made in '71, where the military would only be a haven for "poor brown and black people." What do you guys think?

I think the RNC is grasping at anything that doesn't have the words Bush, Katrina, Foley, Iraq, or the like on it.

If bashing Kerry is the only way the GOP can gain traction and stop it's downhill slide, that's pretty GD pathetic.

The ads have been a mess here in Colorado, as I'm sure they are everywhere else.

Since neither Senate seat is up, the focus has been on two House races, the 4th (between Musgrave (R) and Paccioni (D)), 7th (O'Donnell (R) and Perlmutter (D)), and the governor race.

In the district I live in, the Democratic candidate is only running against an independent, so I haven't even seen an ad for the guy... well, girl, now that I've actually checked.

The Musgrave/Paccioni race has been ugly, with lots of accusations on both sides. Musgrave really is coming across as complete scum, so I hope she loses.

But the governor race has been pretty special too.

Beauprez (R) is a former US senator, Ritter (D) is the outgoing state Attorney General. Things were going along just fine, until Beauprez's campaign ran an attack ad that caused Ritter to make a phone call to the FBI - Beauprez's campaign apparently used a government criminal database illegally in the attack ad on Ritter.

So, I think it's backfiring in a bad way, as Ritter has a +20 point lead in the latest polls.

Craig,

You think that's a mess? Well, yeah, it is. But try keeping a straight face in VA. The ads and talk have now turned to whether or not what Webb wrote in a chapter of a FICTION novelis something that should keep him from being in the Senate.

The only bit funnier then the local stuff was watching the key monkies the Fox News Zoo Channeltalking about how what Webb wrote in a FICTION novel was by clearly and by far more vile and twisted then what Foley (a real flesh and blood person) emailed and text messaged to underage boys (who were also real people made of real flesh and blood people).

Ok, I should say that I'm not posting drunk. Although, that would be the best reason that I would come up with for the typos in my above post.

Geez, I need to cut back on the overtime this month and get some rest.

Jerry, I think my state is now in a race to outdo yours. *chuckle*

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061102/ap_on_re_us/haggard_sex_allegations

Sean Scullion: "I'm surprised a little that the opponent's ads aren't voluminously pointing out your friend's "complete lack of experience" as a way to pound him."

That wouldn't work in this case, as he has more experience than she does. He ran for the same office two years ago, and lost by a very narrow margin. This is her first campaign.

Come to think of it, maybe that's why all I've heard from her campaign are attack ads. It's easier to attack the other guy than to say what you, yourself, bring to the table in terms of qualifications. Especially when you're running for the first time.

Of course that mind set doesn't explain the experienced politicians running for re-election or some other elected office who _can_ talk about what they've accomplished while in office, but instead choose to go the attack route.

Rick

Jerry, in the immortal words of Count Rugen, get some rest. If you don't have your health, you don't have anything.

Thinking about why politicians run attack ads. Only reason that comes to mind is if they actually ran on what they've accomplished, assuming they're the incumbent, is that whatever they accomplished is bound to have ticked off someone somewhere. Or maybe some of them just haven't accomplished ANYTHING.

I guess I'm lucky--my state doesn't seem to be having very many competitive races this year.

It's from both sides, Den. It just seems worse when it's directed at people we like.

That would apply for me as well, if I liked Kerry, but I think he's a douchebag and have said so many times before.

Well, I wasn't thinking of the Kerry imbroglio. I think he brought that on himself. Anyway, if the critisiozm of Kerry is an example of vicious slander then much of it has come from the Democrats--they're the ones who really threw him under the bus.

But I'm not surprised if you're seeing more crap from Republicans--you've got Rick Santorum. That's all you need to say. (Hey, anyone remember a while back when some folks here kept mentioning Santorum as a possible republican presidential candidate? I said he's be lucky to keep his seat in November. Nice to see it looks like I got at least 1 prediction right, for a change.)

BTW, here's Republican Media Analyst on last nights Anderson Cooper 306:

"But it does tend to be a race toward the dumbest possible communication. But, again, I'm sorry to say that, in America, a lot of morons vote. It's a free country. And they often reward cartoonish campaigns."

...But, I'm sure someone on Fox "News" will be demanding that he apologize for calling American voters morons, right?

Well...it's not quite at the level of a former presidential candidate saying something stupid. I mean, you can't even remember the jerk's name. I rather doubt that Fox will be giving free publicity to CNN any time soon (Why aren't you upset with CNN?)

And besides, is he wrong? Me, I'd avoid ever questioning the intelligence of voters. It would be very dumb for a candidate to do so. However, an armchsir analyst is free to say it. Hell, on this very board if not this very thread I've seen LOTS of claims to the effect that Bush is proof of the voters stupidity.

Someone mentioned factcheck.org--good site. Worth checking out. Looking it over they go after both sides and make some pretty hard to argue with points. It would appear that you are quite correct, Den, that the RNC is doing much more negative advertizing than the DNC (though nowhere near at 90% advantage!). Shame on them, especially for the misleading or out and out false crap.

I saw online that some people are comparing Kerry's recent botched joke with statements he made in '71, where the military would only be a haven for "poor brown and black people." What do you guys think? Is he still saying the same things, or is it a botched joke, or should Kerry just become a monk with a vow of silence?

It was a botched joke. His statements from 35 years ago were part of a very confused statement he made (Where he said he was against the draft but also against the volunteer army...leaving what?)

There are people who do think that the volunteer army is full of retarded people and failures--some of them quickly voiced agreement with those thoughts when they believed it was what Kerry had said, before they got the revised talking points. I don't think Kerry is one of them. For one thing, it's demonstrably false.

critisiozm...wow, THERE'S some creative spelling. I think I'm going to bed with Jerry.

Wait a minute. That came out wrong.

The level political vitriol has hit an all time low...

I used to think that. However, earlier this year I read (or rather listened to) John Ferling's Adams vs. Jefferson and followed it up with Ron Chernow's Alexander Hamilton. Believe it or not, we've come a long way in how well our politicians act toward one another. The attacks were much more direct and personal - not to mention sometimes tragic in the case of Hamilton. You would be amazed at how little has changed in our political discourse, though.

Jerry, I think my state is now in a race to outdo yours. *chuckle*

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061102/ap_on_re_us/haggard_sex_allegations

If this story pans out, it could utterly take the legs from under the GOP.

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at November 2, 2006 08:25 PM

I think I'm going to bed with Jerry.

Hey, slow down there, Mulligan. At least buy the man dinner, or a drink at the very least.

Den, judging by what I've seen, and granted what I've seen is only Bucks County and a little of Philadelphia, I would've said Pennsylvania was a little more diverese in its mix.

PA is almost evenly split between republicans and democrats, which is why we're still considered a swing state, even if we've trended blue in presidential elections since 1988.

But with some of his recent behavior, I think Santorum may have gone from "conservative" to "that wierd fringe guy."

Which is why he's going to lose. Pennsylvania is not a state for extremists. Most of our pols tend to be more like Specter: Middle of the road and slightly dull. Santorum won his first senate race riding the big GOP wave in 1994 and benefited from an extremely weak opponent in 2000. Now, his extremism has turned too many people off and he's going down in flames.

I saw online that some people are comparing Kerry's recent botched joke with statements he made in '71, where the military would only be a haven for "poor brown and black people." What do you guys think? Is he still saying the same things, or is it a botched joke, or should Kerry just become a monk with a vow of silence?

I'd vote for the vow of silence. Of course, 1971 was a very different political climate than today, both in terms of how the average person views the military and our race relations, so I wouldn't draw too many parallels. I'd agree that the GOP is desperate to find some kind of traction and at this point, they're esctatic at the possibility of reliving the 2004 race. Of course, now it's 2006 and I'd doubt Bush could get elected dogcatcher this year. The smart move for dems is to stay "on message" and keep this election a referundum on Bush.

Well, I wasn't thinking of the Kerry imbroglio. I think he brought that on himself. Anyway, if the critisiozm of Kerry is an example of vicious slander then much of it has come from the Democrats--they're the ones who really threw him under the bus.

And they should. It's the only way he'll learn to never, ever try to be funny again.

But the only reason this story had legs was because Bush and Fox "News" flogged it for two days to keep it alive, out of context that it was.

BTW, did anyone see Bush's response? How come no one jumped on him when he said that we were not in Iraq when they attacked us on 9/11? Talk about pronoun trouble! And if you caught the clip on the Daily Show last night, Jon Stewart nailed it. If you're getting applause for exploiting the murder of 3000 people, something is seriously wrong.

But I'm not surprised if you're seeing more crap from Republicans--you've got Rick Santorum. That's all you need to say.

Not for long.

(Hey, anyone remember a while back when some folks here kept mentioning Santorum as a possible republican presidential candidate? I said he's be lucky to keep his seat in November. Nice to see it looks like I got at least 1 prediction right, for a change.)

I called that one, too. Santorum is losing for one reason and one reason only: Santorum. Casey's strategy this election has been to keep as low a profile as possible and to let Santorum self-destruct. And it's working.

I'm watching _Supernatural_ right now, and John McCain just came on to speak on behalf of the Republican gubernatorial candidate. McCain said he's the guy _we_ need in this state.

We? McCain's from Arizona. Who's this "we"?

Rick

I think I'm going to bed with Jerry.

Well, before our sexual appetites kick in, and after they wane, aren't we all at least a little bit faggy? I can appreciate you not wanting to live in denial anymore, Bill Mulligan.

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at November 2, 2006 02:34 PM

I'm afraid there may not be anyone on this particular board who can take the high ground on the vitriol front...

It's funny -- one of the first threads I participated in here I made the assertion that Bush was a crappy president, but that it was hyperbolic in the extreme to compare him with Osama bin Laden as others were doing. So I got hit from all sides.

That tends to happen to me a lot. Many of my fellow liberals think I'm too soft on Bush because I won't go so far as to call him the anti-Christ, whereas some conservatives want to believe I'm a soft-on-terror milksop because I won't deify the man.

In fact, the exchange that got first Mickey so angry with me was one in which I pointed out that George W. Bush's tax cuts benefited more than just the rich. Even though I acknowledged that Bush's tax cuts certainly provide disproportionate benefits to the wealthy, the mere fact that I tried to point out that the poor and middle class benefited as well was just not palatable to Mickey's sensibility. It wasn't enough to agree with him in part -- it was all or nothing.

Mickey's a nutter, of course. But this sort of thing happens to me all the time. The difference is one of degree.

I continue to call myself a liberal but really, it's hard to know if the label fits anymore. I'm not really sure what I am. I can't fully embrace conservatism, yet I now believe it is a valuable ideology. I can't fully reject liberalism, but I believe it can be as problematic as conservatism. I don't consider myself a moderate because I don't believe in "blending" ideologies. If a conservative or liberal idea seems to make the most sense to me in a given situation, I draw a line there and say, "Yes, I believe that is the right thing, period."

It's funny. On the one hand, liberals and conservatives tend to look down on me because I haven't "picked a side." I tell those people that I believe that choosing either liberalism or conservatism is simply too limiting; both ideologies are "big tents" but they're still not big enough to encompass all of reality. Those selfsame people who criticize me for not choosing one side or the other usually take umbrage at that point, as though I'm trying to pigeon-hole them!

I will not claim to occupy any moral high ground above anyone on this board. But I will say that my situational ideology does seem to make me a pariah wherever I go. Conservatives think I'm too liberal, liberals think I'm too conservative, and moderates think I'm crazy.

Anyway, speaking of Mickey...

Posted by: Mike at November 2, 2006 02:45 PM

I think it's kind of a shame some of you stoop to orc-chitter here solely for the virtue of intimidation.

I mean, you, Sean, and Bill Mulligan have since admitted Sean's comment was directed at me, so I'm just defending myself. But your orc-chitter? That's just chickenshit.

Mickey, I am dismayed that you would stoop to using slurs such as "orc-chitter" and "chickenshit."

Orcs are not a monolithic group. Sure, they're slobs, they have B.O., they eat raw meat, and they run around raping and pillaging everything in sight. What culture doesn't have its idiosyncracies? But that's no excuse for being culturally insensitive.

And chickens can't help shitting. It's a natural, biological process and it's time we removed the stigma and let the chickens poop in peace.

Posted by: Mike at November 2, 2006 02:45 PM

Calling you a white guy is as bad as someone trying to flatten the severity of genocide? Yeah, there's no bias-denial in flattening the degree of distinction there.

I didn't flatten the distinction. Not at first, anyway. Initially, I rolled it up into a ball and discovered that it had a consistency similar to Silly Putty. So I flattened it against today's edition of "Blondie" in the funny papers and lo and behold, it picked up some of the newspaper ink! I then stretched it out, turning Dagwood Bumstead into Mister Fantastic.

Posted by: Mike at November 3, 2006 08:14 AM

I think I'm going to bed with Jerry.
Well, before our sexual appetites kick in, and after they wane, aren't we all at least a little bit faggy? I can appreciate you not wanting to live in denial anymore, Bill Mulligan.

Mickey, Mickey, Mickey... haven't we had this talk before? Bill Mulligan is a heterosexual, and even if he wasn't, he'll never have feelings for you.

That's why there's a restraining order in place: because Bill Mulligan got sick and tired of the unsolicted bouquets of roses, the really bad poetry, and that awful country music song you recorded and sent to him (entitled "I Love You Like I Love My Horse").

Time to move on, Mickey.

Hi, Bill Myers.

1. You pulled the topic of my unattractiveness to women out of your ass.
2. Bill Mulligan introduced the topic of his own sexuality.

And any of this is my fault, how?

No, what's eating at me is that I'm in love with Sarah Michelle Gellar but she only has eyes for you.

As for Sarah Michelle Gellar, she made her cultural impact playing a 15-year-old high school student. Why make your point with her? Isn't Marcia Cross or Naomi Watts small and young enough for you?

Posted by: Mike at November 3, 2006 10:14 AM

And any of this is my fault, how?

Because I'm funnier than you are. :P :P :P :P

Sigh... this is too easy, though...

Boys, keep this up, and PAD's going to send you to your rooms without any cookies.

Bobb, I wrote a slightly longer response that got caught in the spam filter. While that's waiting for approval, let me just say... sorry, everyone. This stuff is detracting from the quality of the conversation, and I will cut it out regardless of what Mike does.

I've spent a few minutes trying to understand Mike's, um, mind view. Now yes, this is several minutes more than it deserves but still. I think I have him figured out. I just had to apply his own brand of logic to him.

First, he's clearly a white supremacist. The way he tries to link simple hate crimes with genocide, specifically the Holocaust is a dead giveaway, an attempt to minimize the true horror of what happened to the Jews in World War 2. This is standard White Supremacist behavior.

His claim that he is only being attacked by defensive white guys is just a distraction from his true motives. Note though how he is making broad racial generalizations--classic WS. Pardon me, Mike, but your sheet is showing.

And his taking a playful comment and turning it into a gay bashing insult? And references to pulling things out of his ass? Well, we know how homophobic these extremist types can be and, while the topic of Mikes own confused feelings is a dark scary place best avoided, I note that people who do such things are often reflecting their own struggles. Perhaps he should give the Rev.Ted Haggard a call.

"Posted by: Bill Mulligan at November 2, 2006 08:25 PM

I think I'm going to bed with Jerry."

Huh... Well, that WOULD explain why the mattress felt so damn lumpy last night.

Because I'm funnier than you are.

Whoop de frikken hoo. Right off the top of my head I can come up with 10 things funnier than our Mike:

1. Carrot Top
2. Homeboys in Space
3. Any of the jokes in those awful "101 Pickle Jokes" type books that you get kids right before a long trip and then end up throwing out the window when it turns out that every punchline in some play on the word "pickle". "What's green and flies through the air? Super-pickle!" By that point you're looking for a concrete bridge to drive straight into.
4. Any National Lampoon movie since Vacation.
5. Richard "Dick" Cheney
6. John "Dick" Kerry
7. Thanksgiving at the Haggard house this year.
8. Kids who sign out to go to the bathroom with names like "Phil McCracken" and "Hugh G. Rection"
9. Over-fishing may cause the total collapse of the ocean ecosystem by 2050. Admitedly, he almost beat that one. It was close.
10. The screenplay for Man Of The Year.

Let's set the bar just a bit higher, my friend.

First, he's clearly a white supremacist. The way he tries to link simple hate crimes with genocide...

You mean this?

What I object to is making it worse to penalize a killer for supposedly holding some emotion in their heart, especially if such emotion is only likely to apply to certain racial/ethnic/sexual identity/political affiliation groups.

genocide:the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group

You heard it here, folks. Genocide is a simple hate crime.

And his taking a playful comment and turning it into a gay bashing insult?

Please cite the gay-bashing insult, Senator Allen.

Bill Mulligan -- yes, I'm well aware that I've allowed my posts to degenerate into infantile nonsense, and that out-snarking Mike is no feather in my cap.

When I said I was sorry in my prior post, I meant it. If it helps, I'll be more explicit: I was being just as much of a troll as Mike, and I apologize for that.

Bill Myers -
I continue to call myself a liberal but really, it's hard to know if the label fits anymore.

Oh, I run into fun problems all the time because of my views (and not just because of how I argue them).

I identify myself as a liberal, but I'm registered independent. Of course, this just usually means, to conservatives, that I must vote Democrat.

Yet, while I am certainly socially liberal, I consider myself econmically conservative: I want the money the government already takes from us to be spent more wisely, I want to reduce the deficeit and balance the budget.

Yet, as soon as I say anything that supports a liberal POV, I'm branded as a liberal.

I've talked to far too many conservatives who will vote Republican without even looking at the ballot, or refuse to vote Democrat, regardless of who's running. And, yes, that means they would vote for a Foley just because he's a Republican, no matter what he's done.

And it just gives you further proof that our two-party system is a complete failure right now, because it attempts to force people into simple labels which are then used against you.

It isn't that simple, it never has been, never will be. But that won't stop the neocons (who I'm probably more conservative than, overall) from making you feel dumb for voting against them. :)

Craig J. Ries, I forgot to mention: I will pray that your brother remains safe and comes home alive and unharmed.

I understand that your family is having trouble making sense of his decision to enlist. I don't know you and I don't know your family, but I can tell you that one of my uncles was drafted into the army during the Vietnam war. He did his compulsory one year tour of duty, and then volunteered for another. I don't know why he volunteered for the second one. I can only say that he came back disillusioned and embittered.

But I will not call him "stupid."

By the way, my uncle threw away his medals. His disgust was expressed in a manner far less public than Kerry's, but I believe they both share one thing in common: they both saw combat. Many of Kerry's critics have not.

I don't believe those who have seen combat are above any and all criticism. But when I see us giving the benefit of the doubt to those who paid lip service to the need to fight this war or that, while dodging combat duty themselves; and I simultaneously see us piling on an actual combat veteran; well, I think we're in an upside-down world.

"It's funny. On the one hand, liberals and conservatives tend to look down on me because I haven't "picked a side." "

Well, welcome to the human race. ;p

I catch that crap all the time. I refuse to take a party affiliation because my beliefs are based on a topic by topic decision and not a party line. The result is my getting called both a flaming lib and a cold hearted conservative by various co-workers who are a bit more politically extreme. Often within a few hours of each other.

I think it has something to do, these days, with Bush being made the Gold Standard for judging your position by the people in the ideological extremes. Hell, most people here often tag me as a lib because most of PAD's threads are about Bush or the utter insanity and failure of the Bush plan for Iraq. Some of them tend to forget that they themselves have tagged me in other threads as a conservative when talking about things like Sharpton, Kanye (SP?) West, race in general, gun control or the complete derailing of the mental faculties many on the left went through over the Cheney hunting accident among other things.

I think their need to tag someone with a label that they can rip apart says more about them then it does you or I. I also tend to think that it's easier for many to demonize or generalize an ideology or a group as a whole then it is to take on someone over a specific point of argument. Desperate generalizations also gives them a great backdoor escape for when they have realized that they don't have a logical or rational argument or when they've gotten argued into a corner.

"There's no point in trying to explain this to you. You liberals just don't understand the situation or the stakes."

"You conservatives are just cold hearted. There's no point trying to explain it to someone who's only out for what they can get out of life and doesn't care about anyone else."

"You're not worth wasting anymore breath on. If you undecideds are so mindless that you can't pick a side or that you think you should be "open" to "intellectual debate" that allows yourselves to be swayed from your beliefs then you have no spine, no beliefs and you aren't worth the effort to debate."

I love it when I hear one of those statements or a variation of them. I can really tick off the other person by thanking them for conceding the argument and, when they look at me with a confused look, explain to them that it's the statement made when someone is trapped in the debate and knows that they've lost. Ticks 'em off so bad because they know it's the truth.

It's probably why I like PAD's site so much. You rarely run into those phrases here, they're even more rarely meant here in the way that they are meant out in the surreal world, most people are polite and we rarely have more then one insane debater on the site at any one time. That, and most the people here are far more creative and far better at deflating my hot air when it needs it.

:)

Bill Myers, you'd have a long way to go before you even approach Mike's trollishness. Trollocity. Whatever.

lease cite the gay-bashing insult, Senator Allen.

My pleasure, former Representative Foley. Your use of the word "Faggy" indicates a level of discomfort with gay and lesbian people. Whether this is from an intolerant upbringing or from self loathing only you can say.

Plus, of course, no matter how much you pretend otherwise, it's clear that you are trying to call me gay as a way of insulting me. I'm not gay but I'm also not in any way bothered by being called that by a person of your caliber. That sort of "insult" was mostly effective in middle school and is still popular among the less acomplished members of the high School environment (which perhaps provides a clue as to where you're coming from, Mike)

Oh, now we will hear the denials. But you aren't fooling anyone here. You're out of your league. Grow up a little and maybe you can come back to the Big Boy's table without dribbling gravy on your shirt.

I think their need to tag someone with a label that they can rip apart says more about them then it does you or I. I also tend to think that it's easier for many to demonize or generalize an ideology or a group as a whole then it is to take on someone over a specific point of argument

This is just Political Correctness, in its purest, most virulent form.

I find it highly ironic that people are still identifying this as solely the provence of liberals when the current administration is such a strong example of prizing ideology over experience and expertise in New Orleans, Iraq and NASA.

I love it when I hear one of those statements or a variation of them.

You only say this because you cold-hearted liberals are only in it for other people! ...or something like that...

"Often within a few hours of each other." Two questions, Jerry. One, I hope not by the same people? And two, in your office, it can take HOURS? And just be careful you don't use that brilliant arguement stopper with members of the NRA, okay?

Seriously, this country has become so divided along party lines(or has it always been this way and I just had my head in the sand?) that if you're not a dogma-spewing sycophant to either side you're the FACE of EVIL. I have some liberal views, I have some conservative views, this doesn't make me schizophrenic(my schizophrenia makes me schizophrenic)it makes me WELL ROUNDED. (First one to bring up weight watchers gets it.) I'm willing to step out of my hula hoop and look at things that might be different. I also don't proclaim to have all the answers about anything but my writing. Lately all the political ads seem like late night gadget commercials to me. Hawking things that you don't REALLY need or want, but people are so desperate to get them in your face. Liberal, conservative, Republican, Democrat, why is it that we have such the need to organize things into groups like that? Is it because everyone's afraid their ideas won't stand on their own? (I bloody well know I am, at least!) I know that if I talk like this at work, most of the trogs that I work with will either just jab at me for being a Giants fan in Philly or tell me I'm stupid.

Anybody else now picturing Bill Mulligan as Dr. Evil after that Big Boy reference?

Posted by Craig J. Ries:

He said my mom was ok with it. I found out later she wasn't quite so amused by the prospect - she's a Republican, but even she recognizes how badly we've screwed up with Iraq.

After we got back from our trip, I talked to my dad and he had said that brother wanted to be sent to Iraq. This was not something that my brother had told my mom; again, she wasn't very amused.

He left for basic in mid-Sept. So, I don't know what his problem is. And I say it quite openly: if you join the military now, knowing what Bush has done, you're an idiot.

I'm sorry that you and your family are in that situation. I see recruiting ads for the armed forces on TV these days and think "Nice try." Guess they work on some people, though. Has he since bothered to explain to anybody why he wanted to go there? If you're gonna put your life at risk, I'd say that you should at least tell your mother about your plans and tell her why it's important to you, even if she disagrees with your decision.

Sorry, I should've previewed that last post and made sure the entire quote was italicized. The quote ends with the word "idiot" and my respone begins immediately after, just to clear things up for any third parties who are reading it.

I think I'm going to bed with Jerry.

Well, before our sexual appetites kick in, and after they wane, aren't we all at least a little bit faggy? I can appreciate you not wanting to live in denial anymore, Bill Mulligan.

And his taking a playful comment and turning it into a gay bashing insult?

Please cite the gay-bashing insult, Senator Allen.

Your use of the word "Faggy" indicates a level of discomfort with gay and lesbian people.

So where does the gay-bashing come in, Chimpy McHitlerburton

. He did his compulsory one year tour of duty, and then volunteered for another. I don't know why he volunteered for the second one. I can only say that he came back disillusioned and embittered.

I suppose there would be a lot of variables to take into account here.

At a guess, I would have to say he obviously wasn't so disillusioned after his first tour that he felt he was up to a second. Or, along the same lines, maybe it was some particular incident during the second that did it for him.

But even before we went to Iraq, comparisions as to its potential to compare to Vietnam were made evident. And, sure enough, it's our generation's Vietnam.

The whole thing comes down to the fact that my brother decided to sign up knowing who was the president, knowing what the situation is in Iraq, and I can only hope that should he get sent over, he doesn't regret that decision by coming back like your uncle did. Or worse.

"Bill Myers, you'd have a long way to go before you even approach Mike's trollishness. Trollocity. Whatever."

Trollhood?
-----------------
"And it just gives you further proof that our two-party system is a complete failure right now, because it attempts to force people into simple labels which are then used against you."

Having more parties doesn't prevent this problem. sometimes it's even worse, there are no gradients. On the one hand political parties become tribes, on the other hand the same black and white attitude remains.

I've been accused of being a centrist (by an american who probably left the Us because, when asked if he belongs or has ever belonged to the communist party, the answer was yes).

It would be nice if people treat the ideas and concerns of different poits of view with equal seriousness, and then try to realistically balance these concerns.
------------------
I'm no authority on this subject. But it is said that soldiers risk their lives not for ideals or for generals but for their friends.
------------------
Mike, I can't believe that you have been arguing with Bill and Bill on two threads based on the ridiculous claim that Bill Mulligan somehow does not take genocide seriously. I can't believe you actually believe something that silly.

But even before we went to Iraq, comparisions as to its potential to compare to Vietnam were made evident. And, sure enough, it's our generation's Vietnam.

Before the first Gulf War, George H.W. Bush assured the country that it would NOT be another Vietnam. He turned out to be right.

Before this war, George W. Bush made no such assurance, at least as far as I know. This despite the allegations that the stakes were higher, that this time it was America being threatened instead of Kuwait. I wonder if he or anybody under him even considered the possibility it would turn out like Vietnam. Obviously his father, whatever you think of him, understood the risks of occupation.

Wikipedia entry on "Desertion" says:

"According to the Pentagon, more than 5500 military personnel deserted in 2003–2004, following the Iraq invasion and occupation. The number had reached about 8000 by the first quarter of 2006. Another report stated that since 2000, about 40,000 troops from all branches of the military have deserted, also according to the Pentagon. More than half of these served in the US Army. Almost all of these soldiers deserted within the USA. There has only been one reported case of a desertion in Iraq."

Micha,

I'm sorry y'all were educated to disregard the Merriam-Webster dictionary, but that isn't my problem.

Mike, I can't believe that you have been arguing with Bill and Bill on two threads based on the ridiculous claim that Bill Mulligan somehow does not take genocide seriously. I can't believe you actually believe something that silly.

He doesn't. I'm not sure Mike believes much of anything--if he does it hasn't been very apparent. It's just attention getting behavior. I wouldn't be surprised if he uses other names in other forums arguing the exact opposite of whatever he says here, if that's what it gets to make people pay attention to him.

And I know Bill Myers and I are guilty of egging the poor sap on but there comes a time in the life of any thread when it becomes Time To Poke The Troll. I know this is not at all an ennobling characteristic but...

Bill Myers--while one of my least favorite claims is the one that says something tothe effect that "if I get complaints from both the left and the right I must be doing something right" (a favorite among bad journalists everywhere) what you are saying is soemthing else entirely. It's just intellectual laziness on the part of people to try to force everyone into neat little packages--no different really than those insecure church members who MUST try to convert everyone to their own theology. Usually when someone is quick to accuse perfectly reasonable people of being "right wing crypto-fascists" or "commie liberal america haters" they are showing their own doubts about the validity of their views. It's always the smallest people who make the biggest deal over the slightest thing.

Screw 'em.

Why even pay them any mind? Nobody makes us read Ann Coulture or watch Keith Olberman or any of the others making a buck throwing red meat to the people who need the constant reinforcement. You can find like souls in all kinds of places--blogs devoted to great comic book writers, for instance.

I'm sorry y'all were educated to disregard the Merriam-Webster dictionary, but that isn't my problem.

Like the proverbial blind squirrel that finds the occasional nut, you have stumbled on a truth, Mike. No, that ISN'T your problem.

You're assignment for the weekend is to reflect deeply and try to figure out just what your problem is.

I'm sorry y'all were educated to disregard the Merriam-Webster dictionary, but that isn't my problem.

Your lack of intelligence shouldn't be our problem either, but it is.

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at November 3, 2006 03:49 PM

Why even pay them any mind?

You mean like my family, friends, co-workers...? It gets hard to ignore them all.

But you're right. There are a lot of people who "get it." Like our host and many of the people who hang out here.

Six words: Don't you think _______ looks tired?

Rick

"Like the proverbial blind squirrel that finds the occasional nut, you have stumbled on a truth, Mike. No, that ISN'T your problem."

I now have this image of the squirrel from Ice Age (the cartoon) holding a dictionary.

------
It is not that I disregard the dictionary, I just don't think you are using it correctly.

"But I will say that my situational ideology does seem to make me a pariah wherever I go."

You think you have it bad? My beliefs generally don't even fall within the parameters of our political system. I'm registered independent, I tend to vote to the left (sometimes as far left as the Peace and Freedom Party), but I'm not a socialist, and in an ideal world I'd be an anarchist (but this is far from an ideal world). So basically I have no politics, and voting for me usually entails voting for the lesser of two or more evils, based on choices that exist at right angles to my political beliefs.

Try explaining that to your liberal friends and family members. "See, I'm voting this way, but I believe this, and you see, uh, I can't support that, and, uh..." So I usually don't try.

"And it just gives you further proof that our two-party system is a complete failure right now, because it attempts to force people into simple labels which are then used against you."

Exactly.

"And it just gives you further proof that our two-party system is a complete failure right now, because it attempts to force people into simple labels which are then used against you."

I'm SO mad that this quote has the "right now" in there, because I was all set to go off and say it's not that the system has failed, it's that people have failed to understand the potential of the system and this, that and the other thing. I don't even know who originally posted it, because the aborigines that live in my sinuses are using my head for drum signals. But yeah, right now, it's not working, but for the reasons I said.

Don't even get me talking about blind squirrels finding their nuts.

Posted by: Robert Fuller at November 3, 2006 04:22 PM

You think you have it bad?

No. No, I don't. "Pariah" was far too strong a word. There are places where people are jailed, tortured, even killed for taking a political stand. By comparison, all I have to do is avoid political conversations with certain people and everything's okay.

Do I think I have it bad? No. I think I have it very, very good.

It is not that I disregard the dictionary, I just don't think you are using it correctly.

What I object to is making it worse to penalize a killer for supposedly holding some emotion in their heart, especially if such emotion is only likely to apply to certain racial/ethnic/sexual identity/political affiliation groups.

genocide: the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group

How does what Bill Mulligan said not match the definition of genocide?

I wouldn't be surprised if he uses other names in other forums arguing the exact opposite of whatever he says here, if that's what it gets to make people pay attention to him.

Well, considering the orc-chitter you've been caught engaging in, why wouldn't you suspect others of engaging in that kind of chickenshit?

"It is not that I disregard the dictionary, I just don't think you are using it correctly.

What I object to is making it worse to penalize a killer for supposedly holding some emotion in their heart, especially if such emotion is only likely to apply to certain racial/ethnic/sexual identity/political affiliation groups.
genocide: the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group
How does what Bill Mulligan said not match the definition of genocide?"

In that 1 is not equal millions

"supposedly holding an emotion only likely to apply" does not match "the deliberate and systematic destruction."

and "worse to penalize a killer" does not match "not penalizing a killer."

Posted by Bill Mulligan

He wasn’t slamming the military over Vietnam but rather the policy.

I don't know...an awful lot of vets felt differently. It's a sore point at any rate and a smarter man would be careful not to feed the perception of animus.

Are you a Viet Nam vet? I am - not combat, but i was there for a year.

Yeah, some Nam vets were unhappy with Kerry and crew, but some of us felt perhaps they weren't going far enough.

And an important point to recall is that Kerry did not say "I saw X" or "I did Y" - he said "Numbers of Viet Nam veterans have said that they saw X or they did Y."

Posted by L. Walker

Bill Mulligan: "The campaign is your entrance exam. It's the test you take to show you are smart enough for the job.

Furthermore, the results of a campaign can be used to measure intelligence now?

If the electorate elect a stupic candidate, it proves the electorate is stupid this year.

Posted by Jason M. Bryant

"How do you view Senator Kerry's remark?
A deliberate insult 58%
A botched joke 34%
I'm not sure 9%"

I'd be willing to bet that most of that 58% voted for Bush instead of Kerry in the last election.

And since this was an open AOL poll, with no scientific control, people who have a Srong Opinion (usually negative, at that) are more likely to vote in it than those who, say, "aren't sure". Multiple times.

Posted by Megan

Dumb question:

Not dumb. It's one of those quirks of idiom that even a lot of people who use don't couldn't quote you the origin of.

What does "GOP" stand for? What is it's role? Is it equivalent to the Lower House of Parliament (in a bi-cameral system), or is it something different?

It's an alternate term for the Republican Party in the US - "Grand Old Party".

Application of a little google-fu leads me to this squib (from a BBC site, interestingly enough:

The traditional nickname for the Republican Party widely used in American political reporting.

The party's official history traces the term back to the late 19th century citing an article in the Boston Post headlined "The G.O.P. Doomed".

The party website suggests the term Grand Old Party may have evolved from the term used to refer to British Prime Minister William Gladstone - the G.O.M or the Grand Old Man.

Posted by Mark L

On the flip side, Limbaugh apologized to Michael J. Fox within the same broadcast of his off-the-cuff comment, and no one paid attention to that apology either.

Fatso's "apology" consisted of saying "If I'm wrong, I'll apologise."

Of course, he gets to determine whether he's wrong...

Posted by Blue Spider

The Winter Soldier Investigation did not involve, for the most part, genuine testimonies from genuine veterans. The entire project was a hoax formulated by a group called the Vietnam Veterans Against the War. Lt. Kerry was an integral member of the group.

Wanna come up with some actual evidence for points (10 & (2) in your statement? I run across the claim. I never see any evidence advanced, simply variations on your statements above.

Posted by Den

We're in the era of the political spots featuring naked Betty Boop impersonators.

Uhhh - WHAT? When? Where? Who?

Posted by Den

TW, here's Republican Media Analyst on last nights Anderson Cooper 306:

"But it does tend to be a race toward the dumbest possible communication. But, again, I'm sorry to say that, in America, a lot of morons vote. It's a free country. And they often reward cartoonish campaigns."

This wasn't a botch joke about an individual that, if you stripped away the context, sounds like an insult to the troops. He's flat out calling many American voters morons.

George Bush the Lesser is serving his second term as President, the election for one of which he actually won.

The man may have a valid point.

What I object to is making it worse to penalize a killer for supposedly holding some emotion in their heart, especially if such emotion is only likely to apply to certain racial/ethnic/sexual identity/political affiliation groups.

And what the jackass fails to see--and it's taken this long for him to make this clear--is that what I was saying was that it is the HATE LAW that will not be applied fairly because only those emotions that are directed at certain groups are deemed worthy of the designation. I even gave an example--the guy who ran around shooting white people to the exclusion of other groups but the police were trying to minimize the "hate" aspects of it.

Sorry if this makes me a Nazi in the tiny wrinkles of Mikes, er, "mind", but I don't think a crime is instantly worse when committed against a person who is, say, latino, than if it were exactly the same with only the ethnicity of the victim different.

So if Mike acts on his seeming animus against gays and assults someone he suspects of being gay--which, as we have seen, could be anyone--I think he should get the exact same penalty even if the victim actually turned out to be gay.

""Often within a few hours of each other." Two questions, Jerry. One, I hope not by the same people? And two, in your office, it can take HOURS? And just be careful you don't use that brilliant arguement stopper with members of the NRA, okay?"

1) No, not by the same people. Although, we did have a dispatcher that was that nuts once. She was a strange bird and, I think, just a little bit schizophrenic. She would go on for several minutes sounding like X-Ray, get jammed up debate wise and then start sounding like Mike. You would start the conversation being wrong because you were a lib and end it being wrong because you were a conservative. You would also have no idea what she was talking about by the end of it. We were so glad when she left.

2) My office is a wee bit different then yours since I'm a police officer. I may not see more then three of my coworkers in any two to three hour time period.

And, that NRA thing? All I'll say is,

:)

Are you a Viet Nam vet? I am - not combat, but i was there for a year.

Yeah, some Nam vets were unhappy with Kerry and crew, but some of us felt perhaps they weren't going far enough.

Which is why I said "an awful of of vets" not "all vets" or even just "vets". I would not presume to speak for so diverse a group.

Anyway, I didn't realize there was someone even older than me here! Where were you stationed? My uncle did 2 tours, but it's not anything he talks about much. I'd be very interested to hear your perspective on it.

Why even pay them any mind?

You mean like my family, friends, co-workers...? It gets hard to ignore them all.

Yeah, you're right. In my family we argue politics all the time but it's more comedy than drama. My former in-laws, who I am still quite fond of, are far more liberal--they may be the only listeners Air America still has. It would hurt their feelings and spoil the dinner if I objected to their opinions, some of which I have considerable disagreement with...so why bother? What do I have to prove? No minds will be changed and some might find the party spoiled so I don't see the point. But I only see them a few times a year so it's no sacrifice on my part to keep my big yap shut.

Bill Mulligan,

Yeah, hate crimes are just about the most mind numbingly stupid things in design, intent and execution. Can't stand the things myself.

You hit on the example I always use. There have been several examples of a black male killing and/or injuring white people only and, while in the act, telling others that they don't need to worry because they're not white and thus not his target. Hate crime laws just go out the window because the legal system declines to use them on them. Why? Well, these guys are just examples of poor victims of society and are only acting out of frustration and not hate.

I've also always found the intent of the damned things to be laughable as well. One of the things that they tout about them is that the extra sentencing and penalties involved with a hate crime is an extra deterrent against people actually committing the crime in the first place.

Yeah, right.

Remember the two white guys who grabbed the one black man in Texas and dragged him to death behind their truck? They committed murder and they did it just because the guy was black. The penalty for murder in Texas is death. Do you really think that if they had known that they were about to commit a hate crime they would have looked at each other, decided that the extra penalty ON TOP OF THE DEATH SENTENCE wasn't worth the risk and not done it?

Hell, they're also getting to the point that I think victims are crying wolf whenever I hear about it in the news. Backing that up: As I'm typing this, the news is on. They just arrested a UNH student (I think the name is Snell) who is from around here for reporting a false hate crime to the police. Wonder how bad she jammed some poor schmuck up with her original charge?

What I object to is making it worse to penalize a killer for supposedly holding some emotion in their heart, especially if such emotion is only likely to apply to certain racial/ethnic/sexual identity/political affiliation groups.

genocide: the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group

"supposedly holding an emotion only likely to apply" does not match "the deliberate and systematic destruction."

Micha,

Intent is a requirement to prosecute murder. As for "systematic":

systematic: presented or formulated as a coherent body of ideas or principles.

This applies to systems of belief (2 : something believed; especially : a tenet or body of tenets held by a group). Racism is a system. Bill Mulligan's "[emotion] only likely to apply to certain... groups" comment describes the selective application of principle -- to not kill -- for the sake racial/ethnic/sexual identity/political affiliation.

Thus genocide.

and "worse to penalize a killer" does not match "not penalizing a killer."

I never said it does. I said Bill Mulligan is trying to render the word genocide obsolete, to flatten the distinction between genocide and murder.

And what the jackass fails to see--and it's taken this long for him to make this clear--is that what I was saying was that it is the HATE LAW that will not be applied fairly because only those emotions that are directed at certain groups are deemed worthy of the designation. I even gave an example--the guy who ran around shooting white people to the exclusion of other groups but the police were trying to minimize the "hate" aspects of it.

I’m just comparing what you said to the definition of genocide, Bill Mulligan. I haven’t addressed your justification for trying to render the word obsolete, but thanks for submitting it anyway.

Y'know, somebody in high school told me that GOP stood for "Government Of The People" which to me sounded like it should be China and also GOTP, which cracked me up for three days straight. Just goes to show don't listen to everything the smart kids say in high school.

Actually, Jerry, there are days when I'm working that I don't see anyone at all, but I hear them over my headset. It's lonely being a videographer. And not nearly as cool as being a police officer. I was going to be one until I found out the police don't like brain damage, either.

If I could ask a question, who actually decides if something is a hate crime other than just ordinary crime?

Mike, for a person so attached to his dictionary you do a lousy job of using it or the logic such focus on words implies.

Systematic does not refer to a systematic racism, it refers to the organs of a state working systematically to kill a group. In the holocaust this system was the most complex. It wasn't only racism. It was racism + Nirenberg laws laws + pressure on other countries + propaganda + ghettos + trains + concentration camps + gas chambers -- the movement of millions through this system.

the distinction between genocide and murder is not only that one is motivated by racism and the other was not. There is obviously another small difference that Bill, I think, is more aware of than you. A difference that is much more important than the emotional state of mind of the perpetuators of the genocide -- namely the systematic killing of millions.

The word genocide means killing of a race or nation
Since Bill is against killing individuals, one can assume that he is also againt killing of a race or nation of people.

The absurdity of your argument against Bill is easily refuted logically (I don't remember formal logic, so forgive me any mistakes on that regard,but here is the point):

Person X kills Person Y for racist reasons
Group X kills Group Y for racist reasons.

Bill believes in punishing person X for killing Y
but not in punishing person X for hating Y.

ergo
Bill believes in punishing group X for killing group Y
but not in punishing group X for hating group Y.

Shame on you for making such absurd accusations just in order to win a minor political argument (and not even succeeding at that). It's dirty politics and intellectual dishonesty

Micha, you said in just a few words what i was about to say in way too many. Thanks for saving me the trouble.

I'm not sure if Mike's wierdness is just a childish refusal to admit he doesn't know what he is talking about or something more sinister. I'm waiting for him to just take off the mask and show us his true agenda. I'm suspecting it won't be pretty.

Micha,

Just run for your life and never look back. Getting stuck on Mad Mikey's Merry-Go-Round of "logic" is a pointless and futile endeavor. You'll spend hours going nowhere while getting bored stiff, dizzy and more then a little nauseous. And you'll just walk away wondering what the point of getting on in the first place was.

Plus, unless you really enjoy the sport of Troll whipping, you could easily find a more intellectually fulfilling ways to pass the time. Like, say, picking the lint out of your navel?

"I was going to be one until I found out the police don't like brain damage, either."

What makes you think that? Proof of brain damage is part of the hiring process. Comes right after proof of marksmanship.

"If I could ask a question, who actually decides if something is a hate crime other than just ordinary crime? "

God only knows at this point. Whoever has the most money, lawyers and influence? The NAACP? Dumbo and Goofy?

Person X kills Person Y for racist reasons
Group X kills Group Y for racist reasons.

Bill believes in punishing person X for killing Y
but not in punishing person X for hating Y.

ergo
Bill believes in punishing group X for killing group Y
but not in punishing group X for hating group Y.

The definition of genocide does not specify a group performing the killing. Otherwise, your summary of Bill Mulligan's point doesn't even match what he said:

What I object to is making it worse to penalize a killer for supposedly holding some emotion in their heart, especially if such emotion is only likely to apply to certain racial/ethnic/sexual identity/political affiliation groups.

Thank you for helping me make my point with less and less ambiguity.

Micha, your sophisticated logic is no match for his puny mind.

Person X kills Person Y for racist reasons

genocide: the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group

I'm sorry, Micha, but that's a match. You may as well argue that the nazi's weren't performing genocide because they hadn't yet established a system to exterminate the Jews in New York and everywhere else. Quibbling over whether the killer succeeded in killing 1 or 2 people to establish the "group requirement" -- that's just divide and conquor. A crude genocide is still genocide.

I think I see Mike's agenda. By claiming ANY racially motivated murder is genocide he tries to reduce the true horror of real genocide. Classic Holocaust revisionism. Go peddle your hate somewhere else, Eichman.

I think I see Mike's agenda. By claiming ANY racially motivated murder is genocide he tries to reduce the true horror of real genocide. Classic Holocaust revisionism. Go peddle your hate somewhere else, Eichman.

As defined by the person who coined the word "genocide":

...any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

1. Killing members of the group;
2. Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
3. Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
4. Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
5. Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Go crawl back under your rock.

The act is wearing thin but, as always, the last word shall be yours. Once again I cast the shroud of thread death upon you. You'll have to try hijacking another thread before I deign to acknowledge your empty existence. Go, and never darken my towels again!

"Plus, unless you really enjoy the sport of Troll whipping, you could easily find a more intellectually fulfilling ways to pass the time. Like, say, picking the lint out of your navel?"

Can't I do both?

Oy, Mike, how can somebody be so literal minded and yet get everything so muddled is beyond me.

In a world devoid of super villains genocide is likely to be performed by a group. Furthermore, part of what makes the crime so henious -- the systematic part -- is that it is done by a group of people. Somebody has used the term the banality of evil.

However, you may replace group X with person/s X. It doesn't matter for the argument.

The fact that the Nazi's only killed only 6 milion Jews could be interpreted by someone with an obsessively literal mind to mean that they only attempted Genocide. History tells us that they were interested in eliminating the Jews completely. Only a very very literal minded person would suggest that they weren't attempting Genocide, because some Jews were beyond their immediate plans. However, even all these mental (not logical) games do not change the original argument.

Bill opposes the killing of person Y or group Y by person or persons X, but does not consider their emotional state as relevant.

Your pedantic literal mind has also failed to notice the words likely and supposedly in Bill's often quoted but completely misunderstood argument. These two words + many other words you have ignored should suggest to a person of less pedantic attitude that Bill's argument is that it is sometimes difficult to determine whether an action was actually motivated by racial hatred in many cases. In the case of Genocide the actions speak for themselves, since they are part of a systematic effort to marginlize and then kill. Furthermore, the absurdity of your argument can also be demonstrated historically. Many of the people involved in killing Jews did not hate Jews specifically. Some were indifferent, others were sadists jumping on an opportunity, or just following orders. This is the banality of evil.

However, I'm happy to say that thanks to your tenacity, I have now understood your still eronious point. What you are saying in that since person X killed person Y for racial reasons that are similar to reasons that motivate genocides, Person X is actually attempting a very slow or crude genocide. If this is yor argument than I am afraid you both don't understand genocide and are guilty of trivializing it to the point of absurdity. Unfortunatly, this is happening all too often these days.

Obviously, some, but not all, peole who ommit a hate crime would have liked to have been able to attempt a genocide. Others may just be violent or seeking to terrorize. But even those who would have liked to see a genocide being done to their victims cannot be considered to be actualy engaging in genocide, unless you have actual evidence of a systematic plan. In fact, all this only strengthens Bill's argument, that it is difficult to know what's in people's mind, and that the focus should be on the actions.

-------
I can't believe I've wasted so many words on this. Now to the lint.

Look at how Bill Mulligan shelters his racism:

I think I see Mike's agenda. By claiming ANY racially motivated murder is genocide he tries to reduce the true horror of real genocide. Classic Holocaust revisionism. Go peddle your hate somewhere else, Eichman.

As defined by the person who coined the word "genocide":

...any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

1. Killing members of the group...

What Bill Mulligan, Bill Myers, Jerry C, Craig J Ries, and Micha deny is genocide-apologism:

What I object to is making it worse to penalize a killer for supposedly holding some emotion in their heart, especially if such emotion is only likely to apply to certain racial/ethnic/sexual identity/political affiliation groups.

Pitiful.

Is ridiculouser a word?

Micha, welcome to the club. It's unfortunate that al of this has been focused around The Shrouded One since there really IS an interesting discussion to be had about genocide and the fight against it. Most people, for example, mistakenly think that the Gen part stands for genetic, making the word not appropriate in cases where the killing is not against specific racial or at the very least ethnic groups. Actually it was originally going to also apply to political or ideological groups but the Soviets refused to allow it be used in the definitions.

Anyway, good luck with the lint. You'll find the endeavor more rewarding.

Sean Scullion -
I'm SO mad that this quote has the "right now" in there, because I was all set to go off and say it's not that the system has failed, it's that people have failed to understand the potential of the system and this, that and the other thing.

Well, it was my quote. :)

But seriously, on another site, somebody asked the question of whether our system of government has failed. I said basically what you said: no, the system of government hasn't, the people have.

But, I think the two-party system, which is separate from the government itself (or should be) sucks obscene things, and should be rid of. :)

Bill Mulligan -
I'm suspecting it won't be pretty.

Are we talking Michael Jackson pretty or Halloween-Michael Meyers pretty?

Mike -
What Bill Mulligan, Bill Myers, Jerry C, Craig J Ries, and Micha deny is genocide-apologism:

I'd really like to know how my name got lumped in with such a wonderfully distinguished group of individuals.

I mean, apparently by coming to my own, independent conclusion that Mike is a dumbass, I am a genocide-apologist... or some weird crap like that.

I think Mike has attempted to jump from point D to point V, but managed to get lost somewhere along the way, like, oh, around point A.

Posted by: Mike at November 3, 2006 02:43 PM

So where does the gay-bashing come in, Chimpy McHitlerburton

There is no gay-bashing at Chimpy McHitlerburton's, the finest fast-food chain run by chimpanzees anywhere in the Northeastern United States.

What's the secret behind our discrimination-free, mouth-wateringly tasty fast food? Our hamburger beef comes from nothing but the finest homosexual cows!

Come to Chimpy McHitlerburton's, where the beef is gay and you'll be happy.

Posted by: Mike at November 3, 2006 07:34 PM

Intent is a requirement to prosecute murder.

Yeah, that reminds me, Mickey -- you're still under investigation for this inventing the rain and the sky thing. I've just learned that a lot of people have been killed falling from the sky over the years, and others have drowned in floods caused by excessive rainfall. This has just become a murder investigation, and you're the prime suspect.

Moreover, three people died of boredom reading your drivel.

Three. Good. People.

You won't recognize their names because they were lurkers. But I swear to you, I'll see you rot in jail for this, Mickey.

(I know I made this big emotional thing, hand nailed to forehead, flagellating myself for being a troll on a par with Mike and vowing to stop. Blame Bill Mulligan. He gave me a pep-talk via e-mail and now I'm back, worse than ever.

(Oh, yeah, there is a post I wrote earlier today that got caught in the spam filter, and once it's posted, it'll make me look a bit schizo. But you know what? I am a bit of a nutter and I'm at peace with it.)

Posted by: Craig J. Ries at November 3, 2006 02:43 PM

I can only hope that should he get sent over, he doesn't regret that decision by coming back like your uncle did. Or worse.

Thankfully, things worked out for my uncle. He has a loving wife (his first and only marriage), two grown daughters, and a successful career as an engineer. I daresay he's happy, even with the scars he's had to carry.

Again, I hope for the best possible outcome for your brother and the rest of your family.

And Craig? For what it's worth... in my book, your brother's service is honorable. It's the administration in Washington that's not.

Just one little point to all the people brainwashed by the swiftboaters. Kerry was not "slamming the troops" to congress. He was recounting the personal testimony of over 150 veterans. He was reading THIER testimony. He even states in his testimony that he personally didn't witness any of these acts himself. Google "Winter Soldier" and you'll get the whole story. Google "Kerry testimony" and you'll get the whole story. For God's sake just google anything and do some thinking for yourself! This is the biggest thing that scares me about Republicans is the "dittohead" precedent that's been set by the talking heads. By God if they tell you to believe it you do (that is pretty much what "dittohead" means, yes? If he says it then I think it!) and if anyone dares question otherwise or point out things like one of the swiftboaters recanted his testimony, then recanted his recant (flip-flopper!) then we are called anti-American. One of the swifties is seen on video saying John Kerry is the bravest man he ever met--during Kerry's campaign ten years before all this nonsense. They railroaded you folks because they knew a decorated war hero (whose military record had never been in question the 32 years before the election) would be a problem for them image wise. It's easy to find this out for yourself, but none of you ever bother to because it's so much easier to say "no way was I wrong, it's just the liberal media trying to trick me." They told you Kerry applied for a Purple Heart and you took their word for it--thereby cheapening every Purple Heart ever given, since they're apparantly handed out like candy. The military opened an investigation because of these self-serving dickheads, and found NOTHING out of the ordinary. You see, Purple Hearts are only awarded if specific conditions are met. You don't ask for them. (for full disclosure: you can request a board review a situation if you feel one was in order but wasn't awarded. A very rare circumstance and something Kerry never did. He released his full military records in 2005 by the way. They contained nothing interesting and nothing that hadn't already been beaten to death in the media) A review board looks over the reports and decides if the situation merits awarding one. I bet this is news to most republicans. Google "Purple Heart". It's easy. The very first hit actually lists the requirements by the military that explain the circumstances that have to be met in order for one to be awarded. And anyone stupid enough to bash Kerry for deciding to leave Vietnam when he could...show me your Purple Heart.

Chimpy McHitburgers? Taken from lesbian cows? Not a happy visual. But darn tasty.

Craig, just so you know (and so it's not connected in any way to any response to our resident crimbil) I'm thinking of you, your brother and your family. I just really hope that he doesn't see any action, same as I hope for all the uniformed types.

Craig,

Same from here.

Posted by Bill Mulligan

Anyway, I didn't realize there was someone even older than me here!

Turned 58 two weeks ago.

I seem to recall a post or two from at least one other 'Nam vet, but neither when, on what topic, or who.

Where were you stationed? My uncle did 2 tours, but it's not anything he talks about much. I'd be very interested to hear your perspective on it.

Communications station at Cam Ranh Bay, 1969 to 1970. Right across the street from the HQ of Operation Market Time, one of the swift boat/brown water navy operations.

Thankfully, things worked out for my uncle. He has a loving wife (his first and only marriage), two grown daughters, and a successful career as an engineer. I daresay he's happy, even with the scars he's had to carry.

it was a long walk in a cold rain
and nobody tried to be john wayne
i came home but tex did not
and i can't talk about the hit he got...

drive on - it don't mean nothin'
my children love me but they don't understand
but i got a woman who knows her man
drive on - it don't mean nothin'
don't mean nothin'
drive on

"drive on", by Johnny Cash, who spent a year (or most of one) in-country, on his own dime, living in a trailer on a firebase entertaining the troops before they went in, after they came back, and in the hospitals and aid stations...

You might ask your uncle if he's heard that song - it's on the first "American Recordings" album... or, if he has, what he thinks about it.

And, for those who want to get a feel for what it was like for the real combat troops in Nam, may i recommend David Drake's SF - particularly the novels Rolling Hot - a science-fictionalised vesion of the Tet Offensive (currently aailable in his collection, The Tank Lords - and Redliners, a look at how some people looked at us ("...toxic waste that occasionally explodes without warning...") when we came back from The Bad Place, and about a orm of the redemption so many of us never got.

It's thirty-plus years and more, but some of us here at home are still in that jungle, fighting that war, and nobody seems to be thinking much about them anymore...

And does anyone think, if i live to be ninety, that i'm going to see the vets of this year's little military misadventure treated any better?

Posted by: mike weber at November 4, 2006 02:55 AM

It's thirty-plus years and more, but some of us here at home are still in that jungle, fighting that war, and nobody seems to be thinking much about them anymore...

My mother has told me her brother doesn't like to talk about what happened. I choose to respect his wishes. If he wanted to talk... to spill his guts and recount every last horror in cinematic, gut-wrenching detail... I'd listen. But it's his choice.

Oh, and Mike Weber, thank you for your service to this country. I regret that your sacrifices have been met with apathy and antipathy. I don't believe the Vietnam war should have been fought, but that is the fault of the government that sent you there. Those who answered the call of duty -- whether they volunteered or were drafted -- deserve nothing but respect, and, when in need, our help.

"But seriously, on another site, somebody asked the question of whether our system of government has failed. I said basically what you said: no, the system of government hasn't, the people have."

My feeling is that our system of government succeeds as long as the fundamental underpinning of it still functions: Peaceful transition of power.

I think a lot of people take for granted just how miraculous that is. They forget the number of countries in which power flows directly from family member to family member, or only changes through coup and violence. The measure of whether our system of government succeeds, to me, is that the most powerful individual in this country willingly cedes his power if either the people say it's time or the constitution says it's time, and that goes for every other representative of the people.

Whether it *accomplishes* anything is another matter entirely, but the basic underpinnings--formed by a group of men who knew all-too-well what it was like to be under the thumb of a monarchy--continue to succeed.

PAD

"Micha, welcome to the club. It's unfortunate that al of this has been focused around The Shrouded One since there really IS an interesting discussion to be had about genocide and the fight against it."

Bill, it is all too common for people to throw around the word genocide and holocaust and other big words lightly. They end up trivializing both genocide and the issue they wanted to discuss or promote.

Unfortunatly, I've seen it done too often in my country by people all accross the political spectrum.

Some people do it because they actually want to diminish the term genocide. But many others do it for others reasons. Usyally it is very excitable people. I suspect that, since genocide is considered the ultimate evil, the psychological motivation for people to cast themselves as the victims or fighters against genocide, and their enemies as commiting genocide, is to cast themselves as absolute heroes and their enemies as absolute villains.

I'm afraid this black and white way of thinking was and is responsible both to the mistakes in Vietnam and Iraq, and in the mistreatment of the soldiers after the war.

Craig, I hope your brother comes out of this war unharmed both physically and mentally.

Bill, it is good to hear that your uncle did find some degree of healing. I hope the same is true for you Mike Weber.

--------------------
"What Bill Mulligan, Bill Myers, Jerry C, Craig J Ries, and Micha deny is genocide-apologism"

Mike, you are like the Baron Munchhausen pulling himself out of a swamp by his own hair. We are just going around in circles based on the ridiculous claim that hate crime equals genocide, as well as the complete distortion of Bill's argument concerning hate crime.

Two party system and a system with more parties both have their flaws.

Come to Chimpy McHitlerburton's, where the beef is gay and you'll be happy.

Yeah the food is great but I got tired of having poo flung at me for just asing if I could have some extra salt.

Craig, I, of course, share the hope that your brother comes back fine.

It's thirty-plus years and more, but some of us here at home are still in that jungle, fighting that war, and nobody seems to be thinking much about them anymore...

And does anyone think, if i live to be ninety, that i'm going to see the vets of this year's little military misadventure treated any better?

I think the shoddy treatment so many Vietnam Vets got is still a major source of embarassment to many. When I go home to New York for the 4rth of July they have a parade (basically an endless series of firetrucks--safety tip to those in Saugerties New York; try not to set your house on fire between 9 and 11 Am.) When the contingent of Vietnam Vets march by they get one of the biggest ovations.

I've seen people spontaneously walking up to military men in uniform and thanking them (hell, I've done it myself). A lot of that is the desire to not see the mistakes of the past repeated. Whatever one's feelings on the current war it's stupid to take it out on the men and women in the armed forces and those that do, while a tiny minority of the anti-war movement, should be shunned.

And I note: while I've seen lots of people talk about being a Vietnam vet I've never yet seen anyone talk with pride about how they called one of those vets a baby killer or something like it way back when. So who is that seems to be ashamed of what went down? Not you, that's for sure.

(It is interesting to see how the pop culture regard Vietnam Vets. First as killers, then ticking time bombs, then super heroes, now, as writers and directors come along who have had these men as their fathers and uncles, a more realistic, kinder view.)

Craig, my best wishes and thoughts go out to your brother.

Mike, thanks to you and your comrades for your service and sacrifices. You deserved better than what you got for it. :-)

mike weber -
And does anyone think, if i live to be ninety, that i'm going to see the vets of this year's little military misadventure treated any better?

I truly believe it will be this Administration that will bear the brunt of the mistreatment, and deservedly so. Bush set his sights on Iraq as the basis of his legacy, and he's getting his wish in the worst way: Iraq will be his legacy, and everything that went into this 'war on terror', and the complete incompetence with which it has been fought so far.

But the troops? I think they have been, overall, treated well so far, and will not see the kinds of things Vietnam vets had to put up with.

There are cities where people are lining up to welcome the troops home from their tours, whether the have family in the military or not.

I may think my brother is an idiot at the moment, a feeling which will likely pass with time, but I know he's doing a service for this country, and so I don't deny him that.

I do also think, however, that in this day and age, we need to have more accountability on the part of our troops and our leadership, and we're certainly not getting it.

Just the other day, there was a news report that one of the soldiers involved in Iraqi prisoner abuse was being sent back to Iraq. I think he was already on his way to Iraq when somebody noticed and stopped the soldier.

The reason they stopped him? A general said it was for HIS safety. That general should be embarassed - that soldier embarassed this country by his actions, and we should be protecting the Iraqis from him, not the other way around.

// But the troops? I think they have been, overall, treated well so far, and will not see the kinds of things Vietnam vets had to put up with. //

Country to popular belief the troops weren't that mistreated after Vietnam, at least not by the public, stories of returning vets being spit on and called "baby killer" where largely a fiction created by hollywood screenwriters. In reality a large number of returning vietnam vets joined the anti war movement when they got home and were welcomed, (not judged), by others in that movement.

People who invoke that image of the embittered vietnam vet, mistreated by the war protesters back home, (IOW the movie RAMBO), are invoking a fiction and for the most part are doing it to forward thier own agenda, not for the welfare of the troops.

Where the troops were mistreated was by thier own government, who for the longest time wouldn't pay for ailments they received (Both physical and emotional) as a result of some of the things they experienced in Nam, (like exposure to agent Orange for instance), and I see no sign of that really changing, in fact from what I've read it's actually worst now then it was back then.

"My feeling is that our system of government succeeds as long as the fundamental underpinning of it still functions: Peaceful transition of power."

Agreed. George Washington's greatest legacy was leaving office without a fuss.

Country to popular belief the troops weren't that mistreated after Vietnam, at least not by the public, stories of returning vets being spit on and called "baby killer" where largely a fiction created by hollywood screenwriters.

I've heard diffetrently. Mike Weber, did you encounter any mistreatment by people in public upon your return?

"...stories of returning vets being spit on and called "baby killer" where largely a fiction created by hollywood screenwriters."

Some in my family are Vietnam Vets as well. I've asked them about this before. They've said that this kind of thing did happen, but that it was, at least where they and their friends were, far more rare then common wisdom says it was.

Hell, my dad came home and got a new car cheap from a guy that was knocking the prices down to almost negative profit levels for G.I.s who could show proof that they were in Vietnam. A friend of his got his first, but no where near his last, bike in the same kind of deal.

None of that means that lots of guys didn't come home to people being first class @$$es. I just think it means you're going to get different stories with each different person you ask.

They did not, however, ever tell me about getting this kind of treatment.

www.snopes.com/inboxer/nothing/brothel.asp

I'd really like to know how my name got lumped in with such a wonderfully distinguished group of individuals.

I mean, apparently by coming to my own, independent conclusion that Mike is a dumbass, I am a genocide-apologist... or some weird crap like that.

I think Mike has attempted to jump from point D to point V, but managed to get lost somewhere along the way, like, oh, around point A.

Craig J Ries,

When I interpreted the m-w definition of genocide as, as Bill Mulligan summarized, "ANY racially motivated murder," referring to this you said, "Your lack of intelligence shouldn't be our problem either, but it is." I found the definition of the word by the man who coined it, and it matched my interpretation of the dictionary definition.

The only virtue in denying "ANY racially motivated murder" matches "Killing members of [a national, ethnical, racial or religious group]" is to shelter racism as something other than it really is. You, too, are so stupid you don't even know there is such a thing as being smart.

Some people do it because they actually want to diminish the term genocide. But many others do it for others reasons. Usyally it is very excitable people. I suspect that, since genocide is considered the ultimate evil, the psychological motivation for people to cast themselves as the victims or fighters against genocide, and their enemies as commiting genocide, is to cast themselves as absolute heroes and their enemies as absolute villains.

Micha,

The person who coined the word "genocide" lost 49 members of his family to the Holocaust. My interpretation of the dictionary of the word matches his.

The only virtue in denying "ANY racially motivated murder" matches "Killing members of [a national, ethnical, racial or religious group]" is to shelter racism. Shame on you.

My interpretation of the definition of the word...

My interpretation of the definition of the word...

Thanks for the clarification. Otherwise, who knows, people might have thought you were stupid or something...

By the way, why do you never actually write the name Raphael Lemkin? Is it part of the rules of your organization to never call a Jew by his name?

You are a very, very strange person, Mike. What happened?

"The person who coined the word "genocide" lost 49 members of his family to the Holocaust. My interpretation of the dictionary of the word matches his.

The only virtue in denying "ANY racially motivated murder" matches "Killing members of [a national, ethnical, racial or religious group]" is to shelter racism. Shame on you."

I do not have a problem with the person who coined the word genocide, only with the way you use his definition.

I did not have 49 members of my family killed in the holocaust. Maybe some distant Lithuanian relatives I'm not aware of. My father was a little boy in Romania during the war, but none of his immediate family were killed. The Romanians were not that motivated apparently, although they were part of the system. I believe other Romanian Jews were killed. Ironically, my father had blonde hair, blue eyes, and my gradfather's first language was German, so the German soldiers stationed in Bucarest thought he was a model Aryan child, not relizing he was Jewish. So, no 49 dead family members, but still, you can assume I do not take Genocide lightly.

The virtue of denying that any racially motivated murder is genocide is so as not to debase the term nor cheapen the historical events (not only the holocaust) associated with it.

It should be noted that most Jews usually (except extremist right wing and some time left wing people) distinguish between the holocaust, which was a unique historical event, and other attacks against Jews through history, that did not reach the level of Genocide. Those (too many) who do not, end up cheapening the significance of the holocaust.

Of course all this is irrelevant to your silly attack against Bill, who never denied the significance either of Genocide or even a single act of racially motivated violence. What he did, as should be clear to anybody, is to oppose the wisdom of hate crime laws, i.e. adding a penalty for the thought beyond the penalty for the action. You can agree with him, or not. But do him the curtesy to argue with what he said instead of making silly accusations.

You can agree with him, or not. But do him the curtesy to argue with what he said instead of making silly accusations.

It's all he's got, Micha.

My feeling is that our system of government succeeds as long as the fundamental underpinning of it still functions: Peaceful transition of power."

Agreed. George Washington's greatest legacy was leaving office without a fuss.

Actually, his greatest legacy was that he left office, period.

There was no law then stipulating that he could not continue running for President and become a de facto king (which I understand was what European monarchies expected to happen -- his voluntary "abdication" was surely quite a shock). The fact that the military leader of a revolution refused to seek lifelong power in the resulting new regime, is a testament to the Father of our county.

"You are a very, very strange person, Mike. What happened?"

See, this is what I hate about the modern way of looking at super villains (or, as in this case, not so super villains). There always has to be a reason for why they're nutters.

What, it works better if he was a normal teenager that took one too many shots to the head with a handball and declared war on a cruel world? One day he slipped on a banana, tipped a bookshelf, was knocked loopy by a dictionary, woke up face down on the drool covered page, saw the word "genocide" and decided that he would become General Genocide and decided it was now his mission in life to cloud issues with meaningless uses of the word?

Why can't we look at Mad Mikey in the old school way? He wasn't made a complete nutter, he was just born that way.

:)

I do not have a problem with the person who coined the word genocide, only with the way you use his definition....

The virtue of denying that any racially motivated murder is genocide is so as not to debase the term nor cheapen the historical events (not only the holocaust) associated with it.

Micha,

You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts.

Your and Bill Mulligan's persistent denial "ANY racially motivated murder" matches "Killing members of [a national, ethnical, racial or religious group]" is a plainly observable attempt to hijack the word. Its only virtue is to shelter racism. You have no spine.

By the way, why do you never actually write the name Raphael Lemkin? Is it part of the rules of your organization to never call a Jew by his name?

Bill Mulligan, the only reason you know the name Raphael Lemkin is because of me -- correcting your ignorance of the word genocide -- and I refer to Peter here by his name all the time.

Your persistent, desperate, Saruman-like denial "ANY racially motivated murder" matches "Killing members of [a national, ethnical, racial or religious group]" is laughable. Gay or straight, your staff is broken.

// "...stories of returning vets being spit on and called "baby killer" where largely a fiction created by hollywood screenwriters."

Some in my family are Vietnam Vets as well. I've asked them about this before. They've said that this kind of thing did happen, but that it was, at least where they and their friends were, far more rare then common wisdom says it was. //

I did not mean to imply that such things NEVER happened, but that they were far rarer then the conventional wisdom believes. It was popular movies made in the late 70's and into the 80's that made the public think that all returning Vietnam Vets were treated like crap by the general public, and it is those movies, not any actual occurances, that people with thier own agenda's invoke when they want to make people feel guilty for speaking out against our current war.

While I'm on the subject I should point out that Nam was not the only war where returning vets had a hard time, and often given a hard time by the civilian populace, check out the movie "the Best Year of our Lives" for a fairly realistic view of what returning WWII vets had to deal with. There's a scene in that movie that's fairly close to the "baby killer" stuff only done about 30 years earlier and for an entirly different war.

One day he slipped on a banana, tipped a bookshelf, was knocked loopy by a dictionary, woke up face down on the drool covered page, saw the word "genocide" and decided that he would become General Genocide and decided it was now his mission in life to cloud issues with meaningless uses of the word?

Jerry, maybe the word genocide wouldn't be meaningless to you if you didn't persist in trying to render it obsolete. You're obviously waiting for your own personal link to the word as defined by the person who coined it, so here it is: http://en.wikipedia.org/ wiki/ Convention_ on_the_ Prevention_ and_ Punishment_ of_the_ Crime_of_ Genocide.

The part that matches "ANY racially motivated murder":

...any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

1. Killing members of the group;

"I did not mean to imply that such things NEVER happened..."

Weren't saying that you did. I caught the bit were you said that the returning vets weren't THAT mistreated and understood what you were saying. I was just throwing my two cents in.

Posted by Craig J. Ries at November 4, 2006 12:10 PM

mike weber -

And does anyone think, if i live to be ninety, that i'm going to see the vets of this year's little military misadventure treated any better?

There are cities where people are lining up to welcome the troops home from their tours, whether the have family in the military or not.

Lessee how that plays in a couple years...

One of my favourite cartoons from Bill Mauldin's "Back Home" (not nearly so well known as "Up Front"), from about 1946 or so, shows a bunch of vets visiting a buddy who's still in a VA hospital recuperating from losing both legs "So, guys, what am I this week? Heroic defender of my nation, or cynical malingerer feeding at the public trough?" (Probabaly a slight misquote, but the meaning is pretty well exact.

Or anohter one, showing a guy wearing parts of a uniform sleeping on a park bench under a canvas banner that says "..., Ohio Welcomes home our hero, PFC Joe Bloggs!" - a guy passing by says "Yer lucky - mine was paper and it wore out in a couple weeks."

I wasn't particularly ill-treated after i got home, i never faced actual enemy cmbat,(though one little misadventure resulted in a barbecue the next day) and i have no PTSD issues of my own to get through (though i have more than a touch of survivor syndrome whenever i run up against something that reminds me of how many weren't nearly as lucky).

But i've watched the way that guys who, to some small extent i am presumptuous enough to call "brothers" have gone through.

And i have some idea what issues my son-in-law is sooner or later going to have to face, and no-one seems to be doing anything more for him and his brothers than they did for mine.

I'm bitter and i'm cynical, and i know that there's nothing less newsworthy than yesterday's hero.

...call him drunken ira hayes
he won't hear you any more
not the whiskey-drinkin' redskin
nor the marine who went to war...

Cash sang that song (about one of the Marines who raised the flag on Iwo Jima - hunting up his biography might be instructive) with an Indian kid from Oklahoma the day before his company went in.

The day after that, the kid was dead...

I direct you to my blog, specifically the entry entitled Anaropoia {http://electronictiger.com/roare/2006/01/anarapoia-v11.html}, and that entitled They Are Killing My Brothers Again {http://electronictiger.com/roare/2005/11/they-are-killing-my-brothers-again.html#links}

Posted by Darren J Hudak

Where the troops were mistreated was by thier own government, who for the longest time wouldn't pay for ailments they received (Both physical and emotional) as a result of some of the things they experienced in Nam, (like exposure to agent Orange for instance), and I see no sign of that really changing, in fact from what I've read it's actually worst now then it was back then.

I wouldn't say "worse" - i would say that the Viet Nam vet is sort of on the back burner, so to speak.

I have been told that a Viet Nam vet who develops diabetes may qualify for 100% disability, since apparently that is now believed to be one of the long-term effects of exposure to Agent Orange.

Posted by Bill Mulligan

Country to popular belief the troops weren't that mistreated after Vietnam, at least not by the public, stories of returning vets being spit on and called "baby killer" where largely a fiction created by hollywood screenwriters.

I've heard diffetrently. Mike Weber, did you encounter any mistreatment by people in public upon your return?

Me, personally, no.

Some military personnel - not even necessarily Nam vets - were verbally abused (especially if they were part of a unit operating as a group), but you were as likely to, as i did more than once when in unifrom in Chicago when stationed at Great Lakes, meet people on the street who would salute you or shke your hand and thsnk you for protecting our country.

As to the "spitting on vets" bit, that seems to be basically a fiction, promoted by people like Nixon and his ilk, in an effore to turn popular opiion away from the anti-war movement. If it did happen - and i have yet to encounter a first-person account of such things happening, and someone whose skills at google-fu i respect was nable to come up with a single primary-source account from the period of it happening - it didn't happen often.

Generally, the more rational peace/anti-war groups welcomed vets; there was a large all-vet section of the huge demonstration at Nixon's Second Inaugural.

Posted by Darren J Hudak

While I'm on the subject I should point out that Nam was not the only war where returning vets had a hard time, and often given a hard time by the civilian populace, check out the movie "the Best Year of our Lives" for a fairly realistic view of what returning WWII vets had to deal with. There's a scene in that movie that's fairly close to the "baby killer" stuff only done about 30 years earlier and for an entirly different war.

I've already quoted two of Bill Mauldin's cartoons on the subject from his second bok, "Back Home".

Anyone who'd like a feel - just a feel, but a good one - for what WW2 was like from the viewpoint of the ordinary soldier needs to read Mauldin's "Up Front" - both his commentary and the cartoons.

And remember that this insightful commentary is coming from a man who was barely twenty-one, if that.

And then find a copy of "Back Home" (it's harder to find) and see that same insight turned on this ocuntry and the way soldiers were treated after the war...

Ah, I should have more common sense then to do this...

Mad Mikey, your failure to understand what others with slightly more functional mental faculties grasp may be due to your desire to keep reading the abridged version of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. Try something other then Wikipedia.

www.law-ref.org/GENOCIDE/index.html

You might find both the main page and the links you can understand somewhat enlightening. Somehow though, I doubt it.

Until then, I have this motion to make.

We of the PAD blog with mental capabilities greater then that of a syphilitic crustacean believe that the word "genocide" does not include random acts of a racially motivated homicide when performed by one individual and aimed at no more then a few people. You, Mad Mikey, sufferer of advanced syphilitic crustacean mental degeneration simplex three, seem to believe that one nut job randomly killing someone because of the color of their skin or because of their beliefs is in fact guilty of not only Hate Crimes violations, but actual genocide. We can't seem to agree with you and you can't seem to come around to seeing it the way the rest of us in the reality based community do. We are faced with the issue of our interpretations being in dispute.

I refer you to Article 9 (of 19) of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.

__________________________________________________________________________________
ARTICLE 9

Disputes between the Contracting Parties relating to the interpretation, application or fulfillment of the present Convention, including those relating to the responsibility of a State for genocide or for any of the other acts enumerated in article 3, shall be submitted to the International Court of Justice at the request of any of the parties to the dispute.
__________________________________________________________________________________

Owing to the fact that you're just too stupid to debate this with, I believe that the best course of action for you to take is to submit the issues of our dispute to the International Court of Justice for deferment to their judgment. We'll be happy to wait for them to get back to you on the matter before ever hearing from you again.

Take your time.

No rush.

No need to hurry.

We'll wait a whole year if we have to.

Yes, indeedee. As long as it takes for them to get back to you...

You, too, are so stupid you don't even know there is such a thing as being smart.

Uhuh. That was such a wonderfully constructed sentence, I hope you said it out loud a few times before typing it, just to make sure it's really as ridiculous as it reads.

I couldn't give two piles of mule dung about your definitions of this or that, the fact that you accuse me of denying anything, when I have yet to respond to one of your posts about said garbage, just goes to show how much of a moron you truly are.

Next, somebody will say the sky is blue and you'll accuse them of being your faery godmother.

Posted by: Mike at November 3, 2006 10:14 AM

You pulled the topic of my unattractiveness to women out of your ass.

_______________________________________________

Internet Jack@$$ "Unattractive to Women"

Nov 5

By GUY SMILEY

The online community was stunned today to learn that the Internet jack@$$ known as "Mickey" is, in his own words, "unattractive to women."

"Seriously, I thought the guy had, like, an entire harem at his disposal," said Bill Myers, a frequent poster at www.peterdavid.net.

"I wish that were the case," said Mickey. "But it's not. And I don't understand what I'm doing wrong. I'm avoiding all the pitfalls: I don't shower, I've avoided learning any social skills, I live in my family's basement, and I spend all of my time online accusing people of misinterpreting the word 'genocide.' I thought I'd have women falling all over me!"

According to Mickey, a lifetime of being "dateless and desperate" isn't all bad.

"I've had plenty of time to spend studying up on the works of J.R.R. Tolkien in order to come up with some really rapier-like insults for my online enemies. When I'm finally noticed by a woman, I'm sure she'll be very impressed."

originally posted by Bill Mulligan: "And I note: while I've seen lots of people talk about being a Vietnam vet I've never yet seen anyone talk with pride about how they called one of those vets a baby killer or something like it way back when. So who is that seems to be ashamed of what went down? Not you, that's for sure."

Nor I. I was involved in the anti-war movement in the 1960s and 1970s. I never spit on a returning vet, never called one a baby-killer, and I don't recall any of my friends having ever done that or ever having talked with pride of having done that.

So the fact that you don't hear anyone talking with pride today about having spit on returning vets does not necessarily mean we are ashamed of what we did. I think it is more likely further evidence that such incidents were extremely rare.

One flaw I have often noticed in library periodical collections is that they fail to include something important to future historians: the tiny circulation newsletters of activist political groups (both left and right). The statements that one hears on the evening news, or quoted in large-circulation magazines and newspapers, are generally words that were carefully chosen. To see what groups are really thinking and doing, one needs to find and read their own internal discussions. Some groups that try to appear moderate and reasonable are a lot wackier when they're talking among themselves; some groups which have an image of being crazy loons are actually nothing like how their opponents have painted them. But the newsletters, pamphlets, leaflets, etc., which would help document what people, groups, and movements were really like tend to be ephemeral and to get discarded.

Unfortunately, even though I am a packrat who collects leaflets and other items, and who tries to save as many odd and obscure things as I, time space inevitably take their toll. I no longer have those old issues of WIN (published by War Resisters League), Fellowship (published by Fellowship of Reconciliation), or Direct Action (published by CNVA) and I have only a handful of back issues of The Peacemaker, mostly from the 1980s. So I don't have actual anti-war newsletters around to quote from. But I was there in the '60s and '70s, and my memory tells me a very different story than the one I often hear from people who weren't.

Fortunately there is one historical record which is has survived and can be examined: music. There were a number of prominent political folk-singers back then who wrote numerous songs on virtually every political topic out there. Phil Ochs, Pete Seeger, Tom Paxton, Judy Collins, the Chad Mitchell Trio, Eric Anderson, and Peter, Paul, and Mary, to name some of the ones that leap to mind, were not hesitant about expressing their opinions. So I invite anyone who believes anti-war means or anti-vet to look up and listen to some of those people's albums and see if you find any songs celebrating hatred of soldiers.

Pete Seeger is perhaps the most famous of the anti-war folk-singers of that time. I recommend listening to "Waist Deep In The Big Muddy", a powerful and anti-war song based (if I recall correctly) on Seeger's own experience as a soldier.

Phil Ochs has a number of top tier anti-war songs: I Ain't Marching Any More (from the album of the same title); The War Is Over; The Thresher; One More Parade; Talking Viet Nam; and many more. None of them expresses hatred or contempt for the soldiers fighting the wars. Listen to those. Then listen to him (or Pete Seeger, or the Chad Mitchell Trio) sing "Draft Dodger Rag", a classic song which savages those who evaded the draft and let others die in their place. Ochs wasn't shy about tearing into those he had contempt for; it's simply that the average soldier wasn't someone he felt that way about.

Ochs, and other anti-war singers of the Vietnam era, felt contempt for the war and for the people who got us into the war, not for the soldiers who had to fight it. Ochs feeling about soldiers is well-expressed in his song "The Men Behind the Guns". (The lyrics can be found at http://www.lyricsdepot.com/phil-ochs/men-behind-the-guns.html . Please go there and read them. It's a wonderful song.)

Yes, Bill, you are right: no one today is talking with pride about calling a vet a baby-killer. No one I knew was talking about it with pride back in the '60s or '70s either. There may have been people back then who did take pride in it, just as there may be people today who take pride in saying all Democrats are traitors who should be executed immediately without a trial-- but such people if they exist are the exceptions, not the rule.

"Gay or straight, your staff is broken."

A psychologist would have a field day with you, Mike.

Bill Myers-- This could have been from The Onion. It's that good.

So the fact that you don't hear anyone talking with pride today about having spit on returning vets does not necessarily mean we are ashamed of what we did. I think it is more likely further evidence that such incidents were extremely rare.

That's a good point.

So I invite anyone who believes anti-war means or anti-vet to look up and listen to some of those people's albums and see if you find any songs celebrating hatred of soldiers.

And if I gave anyone the impression I thought the anti-war movement was wrong or filled with haters, I apologize. My uncle is a Vietnam war vet and I have other family members who are war protestor vets. Neither has anything to be ashamed of, in my opinion.

I do remember looking at articles an/or letters in the radical student newspapers from colege (both my parents were attending college part time when I was a kid) that really were vile. But college newspapers are hardly to be taken as indicative of opinions at large.

Then listen to him (or Pete Seeger, or the Chad Mitchell Trio) sing "Draft Dodger Rag", a classic song which savages those who evaded the draft and let others die in their place. Ochs wasn't shy about tearing into those he had contempt for; it's simply that the average soldier wasn't someone he felt that way about.

Not familiar with that one--and my folks played a LOT of anti-war folk songs (I'll styill take Joan Baez over 99% of what passes for "music" these days) but isn't that an odd message? What alternative did those who did not support the war have? They could stay and go to jail (which would still send someone in their place) or run (ditto) or go and just do whatver they could to avoid fighting (which could result in others being put in danger).

Yeah, I have more respect for those who went...but I can't work up too much contempt for those who fled. (It's a different story now--people who join the armed forces to get student loans or whatever and THEN discover they are secretly Quakers, I have no use for them).

Anyway, thanks for the post, it was a good one. It's really too bad the internet wasn't around back then--we have to rely on the news sources of the time and what they picked and chose to report.

(One other point--the argumnet that no vets were spat on comes largely form a book written by some guy who looked at news reports of returning vets and found no report of such things. This seems to me to be a sungularly unenlightening method. I'll wager that if you looked at the local newspapers of some southern towns during specific times you would not find every account of the virulent racism that was an everyday occurance. Similarly, holocaust deniers (you know who you are!) point out that there are no German newspaper account of such as "evidence" of their twisted ideology.)

(and aanother thing--if anyone accepts John Kerry's second hand accounts of atrocities performed by soldiers to be valid, why is this respect not given to first hand accounts of other soldiers who bear witness to their treatment at the hands of fellow americans when they returned?)

Jerry, I second your motion to appeal to the international court. It is not only a smart idea, but, more importantly, it's funny. This discussion with Mike is neither, so I'm stopping it. I know you warned me, and I should have listened. Sorry.

I also motion that dictionaries have some sort of child tampering device, a learner's permit, an age restriction, a rating system, seatbelts, or at least a manual, for public safety.

Pay attention folks, this is how racism gets propagated:

1. A kid in a group catches a plainly observable denial, say, that "ANY racially motivated murder" somehow does not match "Killing members of [a national, ethnical, racial or religious group]" in the definition of genocide.
2. The racists descend on him like the parents of the Who's Tommy, and pressure him to deny what he plainly saw, to deny what he plainly heard, to speak no further of what was plainly observable.
3. This coerces the other kids into tolerating racism. Racism gets normalized. The racists win the day.

Persistently citing ambiguity in the plain language of "Killing members of [a national, ethnical, racial or religious group]?" Pitiful.

Disputes between the Contracting Parties relating to the interpretation, application or fulfillment of the present Convention, including those relating to the responsibility of a State for genocide or for any of the other acts enumerated in article 3, shall be submitted to the International Court of Justice at the request of any of the parties to the dispute.

So the convention defers to the International Court of Justice to arbitrate genocide. Laws are interpreted by judiciary. So what else is new?

// (One other point--the argumnet that no vets were spat on comes largely form a book written by some guy who looked at news reports of returning vets and found no report of such things. This seems to me to be a sungularly unenlightening method. I'll wager that if you looked at the local newspapers of some southern towns during specific times you would not find every account of the virulent racism that was an everyday occurance. Similarly, holocaust deniers (you know who you are!) point out that there are no German newspaper account of such as "evidence" of their twisted ideology.) //

Not arguing the point, OTOH one would think there would have been some mention of such things in some media prior to Rambo and for the most part there wasn't. I know people who served in Nam who never had such things happen to them nor knew of any such incidences happening to anyone they know, (And they would presumably know of more people in that situation they I ever could). I don't deny such things happened, there are, and always will be jerks, but once you scratch beneath the surface they seem to be far rarer then comon knowledge would lead folks to believe.

I also stand by my statement that when most people evoke this image of the spat upon Vietnam vet they are evoking Rambo, (or simular movies), and not anything that really happened, or at least happened en mass, and most of the folks who envoke this image do so for thier own selfesh reasons and not out genuine concern for the troops.

I also stand by my statement that the true mistreatment the Nam Vets received was from thier own government, not the general population, being called a "baby killer" is far easier to bounce back from then the untreated emotional and physical wounds of actual combat, wounds that often went untreated because the government decided they weren't "war related". And this is still going on in our current conflict, from some things I've read it seems that it's worst now then it was back then. If you want to get angry at the way returning vets are treated, don't get angry at the stupid college kid with no tact, get angry at the government for not properly supporting our returning vets.

Darren, good points.

I think it's always important to not assumer commonly heald beliefs are automatically true--or untrue.

Luckily, with youtube, cell phone videos, and digital cmaeras in the hands of everyone, the true history of our time will have a lot more physical evidence to back it up.

A kid in a group...

Oh. How old are you? Not that it totally excuses you but if you're too young to understsnd how badly you're acting I suppose it COULD be a mitigating factor...

Then listen to him (or Pete Seeger, or the Chad Mitchell Trio) sing "Draft Dodger Rag", a classic song which savages those who evaded the draft and let others die in their place. Ochs wasn't shy about tearing into those he had contempt for; it's simply that the average soldier wasn't someone he felt that way about.

Not familiar with that one--and my folks played a LOT of anti-war folk songs (I'll styill take Joan Baez over 99% of what passes for "music" these days) but isn't that an odd message? What alternative did those who did not support the war have? They could stay and go to jail (which would still send someone in their place) or run (ditto) or go and just do whatver they could to avoid fighting (which could result in others being put in danger).

Yeah, I have more respect for those who went...but I can't work up too much contempt for those who fled. (It's a different story now--people who join the armed forces to get student loans or whatever and THEN discover they are secretly Quakers, I have no use for them).

The Draft Dodger Rag isn't really directed against those who didn't support the war; it's about those who supported it but didn't want to serve themselves. Here's the last verse:

I hate Chou En Lai, and I hope he dies,
but one thing you gotta see
That someone's gotta go over there
and that someone isn't me
So I wish you well, Sarge, give 'em Hell
Yeah, kill me a thousand or so
And if you ever get a war without blood and gore
Well I'll be the first to go

(If you Google "draft dodger rag," with the quotes, the complete lyrics should be the first hit.)

D'oh! Everything up to "I have no use for them" was supposed to be italicized to show it was quoted. My comments start at "The Draft Dodger Rag...".

if anyone accepts John Kerry's second hand accounts of atrocities performed by soldiers to be valid, why is this respect not given to first hand accounts of other soldiers who bear witness to their treatment at the hands of fellow americans when they returned?)

One factor may be the fact that Kerry's accounts were given at the time, while the accounts of soldiers were given later, after the preconceived notions of the treatment of Vietnam vets were put into the public mind.

The problem seems to be that there may be more evidence for atrocities than for such treatment of soldiers?

// My feeling is that our system of government succeeds as long as the fundamental underpinning of it still functions: Peaceful transition of power."

Agreed. George Washington's greatest legacy was leaving office without a fuss.

Actually, his greatest legacy was that he left office, period.

There was no law then stipulating that he could not continue running for President and become a de facto king (which I understand was what European monarchies expected to happen -- his voluntary "abdication" was surely quite a shock). The fact that the military leader of a revolution refused to seek lifelong power in the resulting new regime, is a testament to the Father of our county. //

I would argue that having to "Run" for leadership in and of itself prevents one from becoming a de facto king, (assuming of course the elections aren't rigged and I don't remember anything in the history books about elections being rigged in Washingtons time).

"I voted for the 80 billion before I voted against it."

Ooo, nice. Let's put something inept that Kerry said several years ago against Bush saying stupid things such as "However they put it, the Democrat approach in Iraq comes down to this: The terrorists win and America loses," two days ago.

The terrorists "won" the moment Bush and company pursued a course that was straight out of the bin Laden wish list.

PAD "

Than you Captain Obvious.

"I would argue that having to "Run" for leadership in and of itself prevents one from becoming a de facto king, (assuming of course the elections aren't rigged and I don't remember anything in the history books about elections being rigged in Washingtons time)."

You are missing the point entirely. George Washington made a conscious decision not to be president for life, which is what the Congress originally wanted him to do. He wanted to retire and go back to being a farmer at Mt. Vernon.

Washington set the standard for running for office and keeping him from being a defacto king, not the other way around.

That's why he's the Father of our country, and a personal hero of mine.

And you liberals claim to be so smart.

Then again, Kerry the cluess got worse grades at Yale than Bush did and HE seems to think he's the smart one.

Go figure.

"Darren, good points.

I think it's always important to not assumer commonly heald beliefs are automatically true--or untrue.

Luckily, with youtube, cell phone videos, and digital cmaeras in the hands of everyone, the true history of our time will have a lot more physical evidence to back it up.

A kid in a group...

Oh. How old are you? Not that it totally excuses you but if you're too young to understsnd how badly you're acting I suppose it COULD be a mitigating factor..."

Yes, Darren. WE ARE GODS. WE KNOW BEST. DO NOT ANGER US.

Lighten the fuck up, Francis.

Um, hey, Ben? You claim to be so smart, but...

Up until 1951, people were allowed to run for office as many times as they wanted. FDR served three terms.

Washington stepped down because he was getting old and wanted to retire, simple as that. In fact, he wanted to retire after his first term was over but stayed on after his Cabinet begged him for another four years. The guy just wanted to relax in his old age, it wasn't about setting a precedent for term limits. If he'd wanted to set such a precedent, what was stopping him from getting it written into law way back in the 18th century when he was in office?

// You are missing the point entirely. George Washington made a conscious decision not to be president for life, which is what the Congress originally wanted him to do. He wanted to retire and go back to being a farmer at Mt. Vernon.

Washington set the standard for running for office and keeping him from being a defacto king, not the other way around.

That's why he's the Father of our country, and a personal hero of mine.

And you liberals claim to be so smart. //

Don't know why you automatically assume I'm a liberal, I don't consider myself to be either a liberal or a conservtive, whenever I take one of those "what's your party" test I always come up libertarian, read into that what you will.

As for Washington, I don't have a strong opinion on this, nor do I think I know enought about this to argue one way or another. I've read things that confirm what you say (and that's the way I was taught it in history class) but I've also read other historians that don't buy that story of congress wanting Washington to be the new king. My point wasn't to argue history but to point out what struck me as something odd in your original post, namely this line: "There was no law then stipulating that he could not continue running for President and become a de facto king "

Once again if you have to run for something you're not a king, "de facto" or otherwise. Unless of course the elections are rigged. I would also point out that if he had to Run that kinda contridicts the Congress wanted him to stay on for life story.

// Yes, Darren. WE ARE GODS. WE KNOW BEST. DO NOT ANGER US. //

Huh?

Posted by: Ben Bradley at November 5, 2006 10:07 PM

Lighten the fuck up, Francis.

Oh, get a grip, Sparky.

The only time I've ever personally heard from vets talking about mistreatment, inevitably the name "Jane Fonda" comes into it. Could this be where the stories got started?

And in First Blood, since I see so many references to Rambo, the cops didn't mistreat him for being a vet. They mistreated him because they thought he was a vagrant.

What alternative did those who did not support the war have? They could stay and go to jail (which would still send someone in their place) or run (ditto) or go and just do whatver they could to avoid fighting (which could result in others being put in danger).

"Did they get you to trade
Your heroes for ghosts?
Hot ashes for trees,
Hot air for the cool breeze,
Cold comfort for change?
Did you exchange
A walk-on part in a war
For a lead role in a cage?

"How I wish
How I wish you were here
We're just two lost souls swimming in a fishbowl
Year after year
Running over the same old ground
And how we found
The same old fears -
Wish you were here..."

// And in First Blood, since I see so many references to Rambo, the cops didn't mistreat him for being a vet. They mistreated him because they thought he was a vagrant. //

There's a speach in either the first or 2nd Rambo movie, (I think it's the 2nd) where Rambo talks about coming home from Nam, stepping off the plane and being called a "baby killer" by war protesters. As far as I remember this is never actually shown in either film, just talked about.

The idea about Washington turning down an offer to be king actually predates his taking office as president. During the Consitutional Convential, Hamliton lead a faction that wanted to establish a system in the constituion whereas the people would elect a chief executive who would serve for life and then the office would pass to his eldest son, in other words, a monarchy. Washington's popualarity as a leader was such that it was a given that he would walk away with such a leadership. When Washington made it clear that he had no interest in serving as chief executive for life, support for Hamilton's plan (which was never that large) dried up.

Washington's decision not to run for a third term simply established that customary practice of presidents serving only two terms and then stepping down. Only two presidents violated that custom and they were both Roosevelts. Teddy Roosevelt ran unsuccessfully for a third Term, while FDR was elected for four terms, but died just as his fourth term began. After that, when the GOP took control of Congress, they quickly pushed through the amendment to set the two term limit into the Constitution. Ironically, the first two presidents to be prevented from running for a third term by the Constitution were both republicans: Eisenhower and Reagan.

"Oh, get a grip, Sparky."

Get a life Comic-Boy.

Get a life Comic-Boy.

No no, it's Comic-Book-Magazine-Internet-Newspaper-VideoGame-Boy.

If you're going to attempt to insult somebody, at least be accurate in your insults.

Of course, the fact that you are even here to begin with...

Posted by: Craig J. Ries at November 6, 2006 11:17 AM

No no, it's Comic-Book-Magazine-Internet-Newspaper-VideoGame-Boy.

Craig, can't my super-hero name be a little bit shorter? The above may be accurate but it's hardly marketable.

"Get a life Comic-Boy."

This from a Troll who has made more posts in the last day then some of us make in a week. And the point of all those posts? God knows.

Look, Ben. We all know you're lonely. Living in your Mama's basement with nothing but a bed set, a computer, your TV and a stack of second hand Playboy magazines has obviously taken its toll on your sanity. We know that the frustration you feel from lack of social interaction with anybody other then Inflatable Irene has mad your conversational skills a little rough around the edges.

But it's ok. We're here to help.

First: Go out and get yourself a job. Something simple will do so long as it puts you in a public setting. Why not bag groceries. You can slowly work your way up to real human conversation with those around you However, if you feel particularly inept on any given day or with girls in general, you don't actually have to talk to people beyond, "paper or plastic."

Second: Get out of Mama's basement. I would say that you need to get a place of your own, but that's not happening for a bag boy with no savings. The best you can hope for now is to get an above ground bedroom. Maybe you can convince Mama that a room with a nice window view of the outside world would be good for both your awareness of what's going on around you and fixing the pasty, blueish white skin color you got while living in the basement.

Third: I love British comedy. Apparently you do as well. Fine. And aren't the best characters the ones that are full of wit and sarcasm? Yes. And you want to be cool like that too, don't you? But, Benny, you have to have some real people interaction experience to know when to throw those sarcasms around. You can't just start out with the sarcasm, follow it with an insult and end it with another sarcasm right out of the gate. You have to get to know the people you're addressing, learn when and where to tweak them and then slide a well constructed jab out there. I understand you want to run with the big dogs from day one, but you really need to get out of the crawl stage first. As it stands now, you just keep trying to crawl too fast to keep up with the big dogs and end up falling face first into the poo.

Fourth: You have to know when and where to play. Yes, I know you want to play with others. But they may not always want to play with you. But, don't worry about it. If you can't play with others... Well... As least you're left with the option that you obviously have a masterful level of experience with and do better then anything else.

So, until you're ready to engage adults in adult discussions, why don't you go away and do what you do best until then.

"I would say that you need to get a place of your own, but that's not happening for a bag boy with no savings."

HAH! Show what you know, idiot!

When the Nuclear Holocaust comes ya'll'll come running to ME beacuse I'll have the most groceries, cuz' I'LL KNOW HOW TO BAG'EM CORRECTLY!!!

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAA

And don't knock living in Mama's basement...How many of YOU can say that you save 80% of your paycheck every month?

BWAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAA

On a more personal note:

TO JERRY C:

Fuck you.

Posted by: Ben Bradley at November 6, 2006 04:53 PM

On a more personal note:

TO JERRY C:

Fuck you.

Translation: "Jerry C, you win."

By the way, Jerry C -- I've named him "Sparky." I really don't want to keep this nasty, mangy stray, but if he insists on coming around here I figure we may as well get to name him.

Posted by Craig J. Ries

if anyone accepts John Kerry's second hand accounts of atrocities performed by soldiers to be valid, why is this respect not given to first hand accounts of other soldiers who bear witness to their treatment at the hands of fellow americans when they returned?)

One factor may be the fact that Kerry's accounts were given at the time, while the accounts of soldiers were given later, after the preconceived notions of the treatment of Vietnam vets were put into the public mind.

The problem seems to be that there may be more evidence for atrocities than for such treatment of soldiers?

I'd say so.

Those of us in Indian Country in those days (at least the guys i knew) tended to believe that, at least, some Bad Things happened - especially because anyone with the least knowledge of human behaviour is gona recognise that, out of every hundred thousand or so soldiers, there's going to be a few who are just going to wig out in action, for whatever reason, and do Things They Aren't Supposed To.

And there were rumours about the "spit on the babykiller" bit.

But i - and so far as i culd tell/can recall - they were never first person stories - "I saw" or "This is what happened to me..."

No, they were always "A buddy of mine went home and..." or "There was this guy in my unit who..."

Basic adage in the Navy - the real difference between a fairy tale and a sea story is that a fairy tale begins "Once upon a time..."

...and a sea story starts out :Now, this is no shit..."

// Those of us in Indian Country in those days (at least the guys i knew) tended to believe that, at least, some Bad Things happened - especially because anyone with the least knowledge of human behaviour is gona recognise that, out of every hundred thousand or so soldiers, there's going to be a few who are just going to wig out in action, for whatever reason, and do Things They Aren't Supposed To.

And there were rumours about the "spit on the babykiller" bit.

But i - and so far as i culd tell/can recall - they were never first person stories - "I saw" or "This is what happened to me..."

No, they were always "A buddy of mine went home and..." or "There was this guy in my unit who..." //

Which of course is the very definition of an Urban Ledgend. BTW, wasn't there an actual court case in Nam about servicemen commiting atrocities? I recall reading about a court marshal case in college about the destruction of a village that was mostly women and children but I don't remember any of the details.

// I wouldn't say "worse" - i would say that the Viet Nam vet is sort of on the back burner, so to speak.

I have been told that a Viet Nam vet who develops diabetes may qualify for 100% disability, since apparently that is now believed to be one of the long-term effects of exposure to Agent Orange. //

Which is a great thing, but it took several years and if what I've read and seen is correct, several lawsuits for the government to acknowledge that Agent Orange was even a problem. I remember seeing a news report back in the 80's about vets who had horrible symptons as a result of AO, that the government refused to pay for because they were still maintaining that exposure to AO was safe and not the cause of those ailments. Compared to that kind of treatment being called a "baby killer" by a bunch of jerks would strike me as small potatoes.

Which of course is the very definition of an Urban Ledgend. BTW, wasn't there an actual court case in Nam about servicemen commiting atrocities? I recall reading about a court marshal case in college about the destruction of a village that was mostly women and children but I don't remember any of the details.

The My Lai massacre.

Posted by Darren J Hudak

Which is a great thing, but it took several years and if what I've read and seen is correct, several lawsuits for the government to acknowledge that Agent Orange was even a problem.

Yes, it did. However, as i recall, it wasn't the Agent Orange that was the real problem (Agen Orange was basically 2,4,D, an herbicide routinely used in civilian life in those days in smaller concentrations for clearing brush along hifghways and so on) - it was a contaminant in it (dioxin) that they didn't believe would be a problem and so didn't rejigger the manufacturng process to eliminate it; later the comapnies manufacturing it - and certain elements in the military - denied that they had any idea that dioxin was that dangerous..

I remember seeing a news report back in the 80's about vets who had horrible symptons as a result of AO, that the government refused to pay for because they were still maintaining that exposure to AO was safe and not the cause of those ailments.

In the long run, from this end, the fact that it was dioxin, not the basic 2,4,D that caused the majority of the problems is a distinction without a difference,but...

Compared to that kind of treatment being called a "baby killer" by a bunch of jerks would strike me as small potatoes.

Uncle Zoomie - Admiral Elmo Zumwalt, ComNavForV (Commander, Naval Forces, Viet Nam) while i was there, and, later in my enlistment, CNO, lost his son (who served in Viet Nam in the field, not in a "fortunate son" rear billrt) to complications from Agent Orange exposure. (I think his son was a brown-water Navy boat commander.[1])

After Zoomie retired, and after his son knew he was suffering severe effects from Agent Orange, they co-authored a book on Viet Nam and the Agent Orange thing in particular.

And the Admiral said that given what he knew at the time, and the anticipated benefits of its use, he still felt he was right to recommended its use - and his son, who was already dieing from the stuff, signed off on that.

And so did i.

Beacuse the defoliation campaign really did have the potential save a lot of lives.

And the Admiral had to live with his decision... and i would have had to live with mine.

But, given what we knew (and what we didnt know) at the time, it really, apparently, was the best of several possiblle possibilities, all more or less bad.

However, that all said, also there is this:

Zumwalt's son, Elmo Zumwalt III, served in the Navy in Vietnam and was exposed to the herbicide. Elmo Zumwalt III died in 1988 at the age of 42 from Hodgkin's diseases and lymphoma. Father and son believed that exposure to Agent Orange caused the cancers.

"I definitely believe my son would have had an additional 20 years of life had we not used it," said the elder Zumwalt.

Adm. Zumwalt has become a crusader on the issue of Agent Orange, charging that the government "intentionally manipulated or withheld compelling information on the adverse health effects" associated with exposure to Agent Orange.

"The flawed scientific studies and manipulated conclusions are not only unduly denying justice to Vietnam veterans suffering from exposure to Agent Orange," said Zumwalt, "they are now standing in the way of a full disclosure to the American people of the likely health effects of exposure to toxic dioxins."

{That's from http://www.usvetdsp.com/agentorange.htm, BTW.}

[1]I didn't say "Swift Boat": because (a) not all the brownwater boats were tecnically "Swifties" and (b) i don't want to connect an honouranle officer with Certi Nother Elements in any way...])