For those who still don’t understand why the Iraqis are shooting at us, and base all their support of Bush’s policies on the Ends-Justifies-the-Means philosophy (Saddam was bad, therefore what we did was good), and don’t comprehend why the world doesn’t love us, I offer the following recollection:
I spent several weeks of my life in Romania in connection with some movies I wrote that were filmed there. And whenever I went anywhere with whatever Romanian guide was assigned to me, the guide would always bring up Ceausescu. Ceausescu was the Romanian dictator from the mid-60s through to the late 80s, finally overthrown by his people in fierce battle in 1989 and subsequently executed. Wherever we would go, guides would say, “And this was a palace Ceausescu was building before we overthrew him.” “And this was where Ceausescu’s favorites were housed before we overthrew him.” The fact that they had taken charge of their lives and tossed out a parasite–a parasite the U.S. had supported until the mid 1980s, by the way–was a source of great national pride.
The Iraqis have no national pride. They’re the United States’ bìŧçh. To seize control of your destiny engenders pride. To have someone do it for you and then not leave causes frustration, self-loathing, and anger directed at your intended liberators. And outside of the country, it’s seen as presumptuous and arrogant.
Get it now?
PAD
• 
Ðámņ. Before anyone blasts me for my obvious grammatical errors and relates them to the fact that I live in Louisiana, replace that “is” with “or” and insert “on” between “just” and “anecdotal.”
I’m Italian, here is my two cents’ worth.
Actually, every occupation army has to face the problems Americans are facing in Iraq, even if Americans struggles are emphasized by two different elements:
– Media coverage. For example, during Anglo American Sicilian campaign died more than 10,000 allied soldiers, even if according to US intelligence Italians wanted to get rid of Mussolini (and, actually, a few days after the start of the Sicilian invasion, Italian King Vittorio Emanuele III put Mussolini under arrest and nominated Badoglio premier).
Now, with CNN, Al Jazira, etc. everything gets the spotlight.
During WWII Americans bombs destroyed entire cities, thousands and thousands of civilians died: it was considered a necessary evil back then in order to fight nazis, now public opinion and media wouldn’t allow it.
– Bush administration has never considered a priority the so called “nation building”: they can win the war, but so far they weren’t able to win the peace. It’s happening the same in Afghanistan where Karzai is only the major of Kabul, not the leader of a nation.
I was against the war, but I don’t understand those (I don’t think PAD is among them) who seem happy to see Bush administration failing. If disorder goes on in Iraq, everyone loses: Iraquis and western people. If Iraq become a new Vietnam, it will be a nightmare.
On a lighter note: US citizens, don’t criticize Canadians too much: after all, God is a Canadian! 😉
Have you seen Kevin Smith’s Dogma?
Best,
Stefano
I don’t know what drugs you have been taken, but the Clintons, those vile, enemies of humanity that people who lean right call them were more republican than democrat.
Your use of words is confusing, but if I understand you correctly, you’re right that Clinton did much for the conservative agenda. However, we were discussing healthcare. When it came to healthcare, President Clinton entrusted his wife with the task, which they tried to keep secret, of socializing America’s healthcare. It was the failure of that program, and the ’92 elections, that resulted on Clinton whipping to the center.
And why, because we disagree, do you accuse me of taking drugs? Will your points not make the argument, so you must resort to insults? Anyway, I’m off to get hopped up on goofballs.
B]
Nor is writing coherent sentences yours[/B]
Hilarious. I point out that you are not qualified to make such a conclusive statement and international relations, and hurl back a schoolyard taunt. Beautiful. Truly.
If you must know, I am legally blind. Typing isn’t my strong point. However, I got my point across, and your response shows an emotional immaturity which speaks volumes more than I ever could.
Noooo no no. You write a snotty posting, I responded with a dose of your own medicine, but hey. I’m supposed to feel bad because you’re legally blind? I don’t care if you’re the guy from “My Left Foot.” You post snotty, you’re not entitled to get huffy if I respond in kind.
PAD
On a lighter note: US citizens, don’t criticize Canadians too much: after all, God is a Canadian! 😉
Ha ha ha! Although in my/our defense, I believe it was a Canadian who touched off the U.S./Canada bickering. Which was funny, because they’re usually so meek and polite.
And if you Canadians keep complaining, we’ll change the name of canadian bacon to freedom bacon and put you in your place once and for all. Mu hu ha ha ha ha ha ha!
Feasting on liberty cabbage,
David O’Connell
On a lighter note: US citizens, don’t criticize Canadians too much: after all, God is a Canadian! 😉
Ha ha ha! Although in my/our defense, I believe it was a Canadian who touched off the U.S./Canada bickering. Which was funny, because they’re usually so meek and polite.
And if you Canadians keep complaining, we’ll change the name of canadian bacon to freedom bacon and put you in your place once and for all. Mu hu ha ha ha ha ha ha!
Feasting on liberty cabbage,
David O’Connell
Did those of you who are against this war protest the War in Kosovo in 1999, when President Bill Clinton went into Yugoslavia without the consent of the UN? In 1999 reports of bloodshet increased and the Clinton administration came to the conclusion that it could be nipped in the bud through decisive military action. A historically conscious president, aware of the perpetual blemish that will accompany his name in every school book published hereafter as a result of his impeachment, seeks to salvage his wounded presidency.
And there it is, right there. The screaming, suffocating hypocrisy. To question anything that Clinton does makes you a good Republican. To question anything that Bush does makes you a bad American.
The differences between the two situations are mind-boggling. Here was Kosovo, a straight up humanitarian effort from the get-go, involving a coalition of NATO troops.
They went in with a specific plan–drop bombs on Yugoslavia until the Serbian generals agreed to a peace plan. And when they did, the United Nations then came in to set up a temporary government and help rebuild.
Military might was planned with a specific goal for a specific period of time in conjunction with other nations, and accomplished its aim. In other words…Clinton did everything right. But naturally, Conservative pundits pilloried him for it (including, horrifically, Senators and Congressmen who were supposed to be voting on impeachment) because he couldn’t *possibly* have had any motivation other than making himself look good. Of course, if he had refused to aid in the bombing, he would have been accused of being a cretin insensitive to those suffering in Yugoslavia, and too gutless to use military force.
So now it’s several years later. A President–not only without the cooperation of most other nations, but in direct opposition to them–unilaterally attacks another country, NOT because of humanitarian concerns, but because ostensibly the country poses a direct threat to the United States via weapons so destructive, so devastating, so awesome, that in four months of fighting they’ve yet to be trotted out or even found. Humanitarian concerns only became a belated “reason” once the weapons never surfaced. The United Nations not only is NOT brought in to rebuild the government so that we can pull our men out, but their weapons inspectors aren’t allowed in. No after-the-war plan is made, no clear military purpose exists, and there’s no telling how long soldiers will continue to be killed with no clue what they’re doing there or for how long.
But those same Conservative pundits who scrutinized every breath Clinton took, close ranks and proclaim that any questioning of Bush is anti-patriotic, and that the entire attack–no matter how slipshod in planning and damaging to the U.S. in the eyes of the world–is hokey doke because Saddam was a Very Bad Man and “Bring ’em on” is a Very Good Thing for a President to say. Yeeehaw.
Gawd.
Was I happy that Clinton authorized the bombing in Yugoslavia. No. I questioned it. Just as I question what Bush has done. The only difference is that Conservative pundits are all for challenging Clinton’s motives while supporting Bush’s. Liberals protest wars. Conservatives protest liberals.
PAD
Oh, and from now on, please state your disability *before* insulting Peter. That goes for blind people, those with Parkinson’s Disease, our friends in the deaf community, paraplegics, the mentally challenged, and Canadians.
-David O’Connell
p.s. Sorry Canadian posters, I couldn’t resist.
p.p.s. Okay. Cerbeus is cool. And he’s Canadian. There, have I made it up to you?
p.p.p.s. Oh, alright. I’m a Kids In The Hall fan too. And a big fan of The Pursuit of Happiness (too bad they’re only in the one-off reunion concert business nowadays). Satisfied?
p.p.p.p.s. But Celine Dion truly sucks and I am never forgiving you for that, you bášŧárdš.
Oh, and from now on, please state your disability *before* insulting Peter. That goes for blind people, those with Parkinson’s Disease, our friends in the deaf community, paraplegics, the mentally challenged, and Canadians.
-David O’Connell
p.s. Sorry Canadian posters, I couldn’t resist.
p.p.s. Okay. Cerbeus is cool. And he’s Canadian. There, have I made it up to you?
p.p.p.s. Oh, alright. I’m a Kids In The Hall fan too. And a big fan of The Pursuit of Happiness (too bad they’re only in the one-off reunion concert business nowadays). Satisfied?
p.p.p.p.s. But Celine Dion truly sucks and I am never forgiving you for that, you bášŧárdš.
Re: Peter’s criticism of Bush’s “bring it on” remark (which I admit does make him sound like a teenager in a movie about rival cheerleading squads)
I direct you to Mark Steyn’s latest piece in The Spectator, joined in progress:
The trouble with all this bleating about how you feel ‘misled’ is that you sound not like a putative commander-in-chief but like an Arkansas state employee in Bill Clinton’s motel room. The other day, speaking about Iraq, the President said, ‘There are some who feel that the conditions are such that they can attack us there. My answer is, bring them on. We’ve got the force necessary to deal with the security situation.’
Bring ’em on? Oh, noooooooo, wailed the Dems, we can’t have that kind of provocative talk. John Kerry said it was ‘unwise’ and ‘unworthy of the office’. Ðìçk Gephardt said he’d had ‘enough of the phoney, macho rhetoric’.
The rhetoric may be macho, but it isn’t necessarily phoney. Indeed, its authenticity is what strikes a chord with the American people. In these pages in November 2001, I noted various California commuters’ reactions to the governor’s announcement that terrorists were planning to blow up the state’s major bridges. The TV cameras positioned themselves at the Golden Gate Bridge to measure the downturn in traffic, only to be confronted by drivers yelling, ‘Come and get me, Osama!’ More to the point, Bush’s bring-’em-on is not just macho swagger, but the core of the strategy. My distinguished former colleague, the dean of Canadian columnists David Warren, brilliantly characterised what’s going on in Iraq as ‘carefully hung flypaper’. In other words, the US occupation of Iraq is bringing Saudis and other Islamonutters out of the surrounding swamps — and that’s a good thing. If they’re really so eager to strike at the Great Satan, better they attack its soldiers in Iraq than its commuters on the Golden Gate Bridge.
And, whaddayaknow, they’re falling for it. On al-Arabiya TV in Dubai, an al-Qa’eda affiliate insisted they, and not Saddam, were behind the attacks in Iraq. ‘I swear by God no one from his followers carried out any jihad operations like he claims,’ chuntered the spokesterrorist. ‘They are a result of our brothers in jihad.’ Plenty of room for both on that flypaper, boys.
If Democrats are still so consumed by chad fever that they don’t get the basic soundness and success of this strategy, they’re heading for a bad fall in the election — and not just at the presidential level. Last year, Ðìçk Morris suggested Bush was another Churchill — i.e., a loser. When the war was over, the voters would dump him. Instead, he’s doing a passable impression of being Winston abroad and Clement Attlee at home, taking America a little further down the slippery slope to socialised health care with a ghastly new universal prescription-drugs entitlement for seniors. It boils down to a massive transfer of wealth from pimply teenage burger flippers to Brooke Astor and Gloria Vanderbilt, but the President’s advisers justify it as ‘neutralising’ Democratic issues, and in crude party terms they may be right. Meanwhile, it’s Tony Blair who’s looking more like Churchill in ’45.
But tarring Bush as a liar won’t make him a loser. Step back and look at the two years since 11 September. In 2001, the Islamists killed thousands of Westerners in New York and Washington. In 2002, they killed hundreds of Westerners, but not in the West itself, only in jurisdictions like Bali. In 2003, they killed dozens — not Westerners, but their co-religionists in Morocco and Saudi Arabia. The Bush cordon sanitaire has been drawn tighter and tighter. Meanwhile, the allegedly explosive Arab street has been quieter than Acacia Gardens in Pinner on a Wednesday afternoon, and I wouldn’t bet that blowing up fellow Muslims and destroying the Moroccan tourist industry and Saudi investment will do anything for the recruitment drive. All of this could be set back by a massive terrorist attack on the US mainland, and if John Kerry is banking on disaster, that at least has a certain sick logic about it. But if he genuinely believes that Bush’s war is as disastrous as he says, he’s flipped, and the Dems will wind up as helplessly stuck to that flypaper as al-Qa’eda. Bush is doing what the lefties wanted: he’s addressing the ‘root causes’ — by returning the cause to its roots, and fixing it at source.
Just throwing it out there to see what you all think. Good strategy? Bad?
David O’Connell
Re: Peter’s criticism of Bush’s “bring it on” remark (which I admit does make him sound like a teenager in a movie about rival cheerleading squads)
I direct you to Mark Steyn’s latest piece in The Spectator, joined in progress:
The trouble with all this bleating about how you feel ‘misled’ is that you sound not like a putative commander-in-chief but like an Arkansas state employee in Bill Clinton’s motel room. The other day, speaking about Iraq, the President said, ‘There are some who feel that the conditions are such that they can attack us there. My answer is, bring them on. We’ve got the force necessary to deal with the security situation.’
Bring ’em on? Oh, noooooooo, wailed the Dems, we can’t have that kind of provocative talk. John Kerry said it was ‘unwise’ and ‘unworthy of the office’. Ðìçk Gephardt said he’d had ‘enough of the phoney, macho rhetoric’.
The rhetoric may be macho, but it isn’t necessarily phoney. Indeed, its authenticity is what strikes a chord with the American people. In these pages in November 2001, I noted various California commuters’ reactions to the governor’s announcement that terrorists were planning to blow up the state’s major bridges. The TV cameras positioned themselves at the Golden Gate Bridge to measure the downturn in traffic, only to be confronted by drivers yelling, ‘Come and get me, Osama!’ More to the point, Bush’s bring-’em-on is not just macho swagger, but the core of the strategy. My distinguished former colleague, the dean of Canadian columnists David Warren, brilliantly characterised what’s going on in Iraq as ‘carefully hung flypaper’. In other words, the US occupation of Iraq is bringing Saudis and other Islamonutters out of the surrounding swamps — and that’s a good thing. If they’re really so eager to strike at the Great Satan, better they attack its soldiers in Iraq than its commuters on the Golden Gate Bridge.
And, whaddayaknow, they’re falling for it. On al-Arabiya TV in Dubai, an al-Qa’eda affiliate insisted they, and not Saddam, were behind the attacks in Iraq. ‘I swear by God no one from his followers carried out any jihad operations like he claims,’ chuntered the spokesterrorist. ‘They are a result of our brothers in jihad.’ Plenty of room for both on that flypaper, boys.
If Democrats are still so consumed by chad fever that they don’t get the basic soundness and success of this strategy, they’re heading for a bad fall in the election — and not just at the presidential level. Last year, Ðìçk Morris suggested Bush was another Churchill — i.e., a loser. When the war was over, the voters would dump him. Instead, he’s doing a passable impression of being Winston abroad and Clement Attlee at home, taking America a little further down the slippery slope to socialised health care with a ghastly new universal prescription-drugs entitlement for seniors. It boils down to a massive transfer of wealth from pimply teenage burger flippers to Brooke Astor and Gloria Vanderbilt, but the President’s advisers justify it as ‘neutralising’ Democratic issues, and in crude party terms they may be right. Meanwhile, it’s Tony Blair who’s looking more like Churchill in ’45.
But tarring Bush as a liar won’t make him a loser. Step back and look at the two years since 11 September. In 2001, the Islamists killed thousands of Westerners in New York and Washington. In 2002, they killed hundreds of Westerners, but not in the West itself, only in jurisdictions like Bali. In 2003, they killed dozens — not Westerners, but their co-religionists in Morocco and Saudi Arabia. The Bush cordon sanitaire has been drawn tighter and tighter. Meanwhile, the allegedly explosive Arab street has been quieter than Acacia Gardens in Pinner on a Wednesday afternoon, and I wouldn’t bet that blowing up fellow Muslims and destroying the Moroccan tourist industry and Saudi investment will do anything for the recruitment drive. All of this could be set back by a massive terrorist attack on the US mainland, and if John Kerry is banking on disaster, that at least has a certain sick logic about it. But if he genuinely believes that Bush’s war is as disastrous as he says, he’s flipped, and the Dems will wind up as helplessly stuck to that flypaper as al-Qa’eda. Bush is doing what the lefties wanted: he’s addressing the ‘root causes’ — by returning the cause to its roots, and fixing it at source.
Just throwing it out there to see what you all think. Good strategy? Bad?
David O’Connell
The Canadian government has apologized for Brian Adams on several occassions.
**[B]
Nor is writing coherent sentences yours
[/B]
Hilarious. I point out that you are not qualified to make such a conclusive statement**
PAD was been a professional writer for, what, 20+ years? I would say that qualifies as being “qualified to make such a conclusive statement”. Or does he need to be an editor of the OED?
Ah…. man. This is all a pretty funny read, guys. Good to know that PAD readers have an opinion, but really, it’s being debated on a forum in which nothing could possibly be settled.
Though quite frankly, I’m surprised at how much of a little tool PAD is being. Of course everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but he seems physically offended that people disagree with him — regardless of what their particularly political alignment is. PAD, for god’s sake, you write comic books. COMIC BOOKS!!! (yes, yes, and the occasional hardcover). Feel free to claim expertise in matters relating to such, but don’t buy your own press outside of it. Just like no one cares what athletes think about the economy, no one really gives two šhìŧš what your opinion is on politics. Nor should they, especially when you post with the emotional maturity of a five-year old.
Good stuff.
“PAD, for god’s sake, you write comic books. COMIC BOOKS!!! “
And of what conceivable relevance is that to anything whatsoever? I am a delivery person and I agree with everything PAD had said. Am I not allowed to have an informed opinion (and mine and PADs are both informed opinions) about anything except what we do for a living?
Personally, even though I started out as a fan of PAD with his comic work (‘The Death of Jean DeWolff’ specifically), I havent bought a comic in years and consider PAD to be a novelist. (Other that Trek Ive read both Sir Aporpos books, both ‘Knight Life’ books and ‘Howling Mad’),
“Nor should they, especially when you post with the emotional maturity of a five-year old.”
Posted by DanTaussig “
Look whos talking.
“PAD, for god’s sake, you write comic books. COMIC BOOKS!!! (yes, yes, and the occasional hardcover). Feel free to claim expertise in matters relating to such, but don’t buy your own press outside of it. Just like no one cares what athletes think about the economy, no one really gives two šhìŧš what your opinion is on politics. Nor should they, especially when you post with the emotional maturity of a five-year old.” – DanTaussig
Oh, my goodness! Stop everyone and look! We have yet another authority on who has a right to express an opinion. I mean, what would we all to do without the benefit of such lauded expertise on, well, just EVERYTHING. DanTaussig, I’m in awe of you.
In awe that you think that “anyone really gives two šhìŧš what //your// opinion is” on PAD. Nor should they, especially since in one post you showed that your emotional maturity isn’t much higher than what you are accusing PAD of. Since you think all of this is such a good read, maybe you’ve noticed that there are some people who disagree with PAD who actually present an excellent counter-argument. Why don’t you try to be like one of those guys? As it is, you wasted like 150 words when you could have said “get bent” and been just as stupid.
M Davis
To follow up on DanTaussig’s comment, PAD, could you at least indicate where you’re getting the information on which you’re basing your postings about articles outside the realm of your expertise? For instance, have you read news articles in which Iraqis have said they feel like America’s bìŧçhëš, or are you projecting your own values onto them based on the fact that you hate George Bush? Or are you just making šhìŧ up? (Hey, did you give a gøddámņ when the Iraqis were being Saddam’s bìŧçhëš on a scale we could never achieve?)
And what about your prediction that we were going to slaughter hundreds of thousands of Iraqis in the war? What happened?
Oh, and we just killed Saddam’s sons in a firefight. Guess they’re not alive and well any more.
Did those of you who are against this war protest the War in Kosovo in 1999, when President Bill Clinton went into Yugoslavia without the consent of the UN?
Yes.
Okay, since everybody in America seems to have taken to the left or right on the argument of whether or not we should have entered Iraq (and that in and of itself makes me wonder why the American public allows itself to be horse-wrangled into toeing either the Dems or the Reps ideology)… let me throw another spin on this issue.
Taking the whole issue of “should we?” and placing it aside, let’s examine the area of “where do we go from here?” Looking at what the U.S. military has done since the overthrow of the Iraqi government has me thinking of the political shortsightedness that complicated the Vietnam conflict.
Before everybody starts frothing at the mouth, hear me out. We enter into the country and hit it hard and fast- knocking out communications, munitions, etc. And then what do we do? We allow the citizens to begin looting, robbing, destroying property, etc. What are we thinking here? I can’t understand why they didn’t just declare a form of martial-law after the end of the major fighting (curfews, etc.).
Of course, we know why they didn’t do this- POLITICS! Rather than tarnish our already soiled reputation in the eyes of the Middle East Oil Barons, the U.S. Powers That Be opted for a more “politcally sensitive” approach. Let the people run around for a bit- (see everyone, we’re letting them live their lives- we’re the good guys, right?) loot the palace, make off with heaven knows what kind of information, dangerous equipment, etc.
I just don’t understand how they thought this could be conducive to rebuilding a strong, healthy, viable nation.
They should borrow a page out of WW2 history here. Think “European/Japanese Reconstruction” here- rebuild it from the ground up with a solid foundation, etc. It would certainly help ease the situation… although I know it would more than likely tick off the already angered Arabic World.
Man… this seems more and more like we bit off more than we could chew, especially since the other nations aren’t really putting any kind of effort into helping this situation. (Yes, I know that other nations have expressed interest- but that’s like me expressing interest in wanting to go shopping with my girlfriend.. I don’t really want to go, but if I’m pressured long enuf I will) I mean, how many other nations have actually put themselves into the mix here? It seems like the rest of the Democratic World is taking the “it’s your mess, you clean it up” approach to this situation.
Anyways… that’s just my twisted point of view… what do you guys and gals think?
*Noooo no no. You write a snotty posting, I responded with a dose of your own medicine, but hey. I’m supposed to feel bad because you’re legally blind? I don’t care if you’re the guy from “My Left Foot.”*
Take a deep breath and think a minute. You said I did not write a choherent sentence. I told you I can’t see very well and make typing errors.
At no point did I imply I gave a rat’s behind about your sympathy.
*You post snotty, you’re not entitled to your opinion*
I never said that, It’s your blog. You may be as insightful or ignorant as you please. I merely suggested you shouldn’t be such a crybaby if someone disagrees with you.
You tried to make a parallel between the checks and the Iraqis. I thought that was ridiculous. Two cultures, not the same mindset. How dare I imply such a thing, no?
You lea this board open for comments, yopu are going to get dissenters as well as sycophants. You don’t want to hear a differing opinion, get rid of the board.
When you leave your frnt door open, you can’t be upset about who is siting in the living room when you get home.
(God. This is too, too rich…)
The longer the U.S. does nothing or next to nothing concerning Arab dictatorships (y’know, our *enemies*),
We do plenty about Arab dictatorships. The problem is, what we do is primarily SUPPORT them (Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Egypt, and, yes, Iraq in the ’80’s).
the more they end up like their impotent neighbors to the north, constrained as they are by their virtually nonexistent military.
Yeah, but funny thing, nobody seems to be plotting to crash airplanes into anything in Canada, either…
But who needs security when you have your own inefficient and outdated health care system
Hate to break it to you, but the US pays more TAX money, per capita, for health care than any nation that DOES provide universal health care. And they STILL have to pay for their own insurence. The US healtcare system costs more and provides less. Who’s inefficient, exactly?
Why do wealthy Canadians come to the US for heart bypasses and other major surgery? Because the medicine is good and there’s no wait. Our system isn’t perfect, but it’s far better than any socialized program.
Cadillac makes a mighty fine automobile, but that doesn’t help you if you’ve only got a buck-fifty and there’s not city bus, if you get my meaning.
The US is a much better place to be rich, there’s no doubt…
We’re a capitalist, market-based economy, in spite of the Clintons.
There is no “free market” in healtcare, and never was. You can’t shop around for the cheapest hospital when you’ve got a sucking chest wound. More to the point, the US and state governments pay for health care for the uninsured JUST LIKE they do in Canada and the rest of the civilized world. The only difference is, the US only does it when the patients show up in ER’s needing critical treatment, instead of paying for regular care. This is why it costs US taxpayers MORE to maintain the “capitalist” healthcare system than it would to provide universal coverage.
You do the math: would you rather pay MORE in taxes, and have less coverage; or pay LESS in taxes and have more coverage?
Do you truly think this happens in the states?
The Institute of Medecine estimates that about 18,000 Americans die needlessly each year because they had inadequate access to healthcare.
http://www.iom.edu/report.asp?id=4333
Yes, there are programs that provide healtcare for the poor in the US, but a great many of the uninsured are in the MIDDLE CLASS. Regardless, the programs that exist do not provide the sorts of routine care and screenings necessary to keep people healthy. If you have a acute illness or injury, you can get care, but if you have a prolonged chronic illness, you’re scrod.
I have a headache now.
“I have a headache now.”
…. ditto
Ah…. man. This is all a pretty funny read, guys. Good to know that PAD readers have an opinion, but really, it’s being debated on a forum in which nothing could possibly be settled.
I don’t think the goal here is to settle matters, any more than discussions about evolution vs. creationism are intended to settle that argument.
Though quite frankly, I’m surprised at how much of a little tool PAD is being. Of course everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but he seems physically offended that people disagree with him — regardless of what their particularly political alignment is.
I haven’t seen that at all. Sure, I think he’s getting a bit offended at times, but it’s understandable. See, I don’t think he cares one way or the other if people agree with him or not, as long as they can defend their positions on the matter. Sure, it’s nice to have people agree, but if the response is, “I don’t think it’s a matter of national pride. Rather, I think the case is (some other thing), and I think we can deal with it by (whatever).” That’s an intelligent argument. A bad response is “Oh yeah, well what the hëll do you know you clueless liberal, who gives a dámņ what you think, you write COMIC BOOKS, for god’s sake.”
See the difference? Say anything you want about the argument, no matter how vicious or mean-spirited, and you’ve done nothing wrong. The moment you turn your venom on the individual who holds that opinion, you’re heading into trouble, and you deserve to be smacked down.
Feel free to claim expertise in matters relating to such, but don’t buy your own press outside of it.
Ummmm…. When did Peter David claim expertise at these matters? He’s expressing his opinion. He can do that if he wants. We have laws that say so and everything!
There’s nothing, no topic in creation, that two genuinely rational adults can’t discuss peacefully and without any sort of name-calling, no matter how strongly they disagree with one another. I like seeing other people’s perspectives on matters such as this. I don’t necessarily agree with him on everything, and I’m not required to. Nor do I feel I have the right to tromp onto his website and tell him to shut the hëll up, just because I may disagree with him on some matter or another. I would think that that would just be common sense.
Of course, in this day and age, perhaps that’s too much to ask.
When it came to healthcare, President Clinton entrusted his wife with the task, which they tried to keep secret, of socializing America’s healthcare.
Actually, he abandoned that position as soon as it ceased to be to his advantage, which is one of the reasons real liberals don’t much care for him.
If you want to look at Clinton’s conservative legacy, remember that he was the one who did away with Aid for Parents of Dependent Children (“welfare”), and came up with the idea of government funding for “faith-based initiatives”.
The only difference between Clinton and the average Republican is that Clinton has gotten a blow-job in the bast 15 years…
Varjak – I wholeheartedly agree with you… it seems the concept of manners and civility is a dying one in today’s world. Thanks for taking the time to write up that wonderfully put exposition on the difference between debating and name-calling. Cheers!
Varjak – I wholeheartedly agree with you… it seems the concept of manners and civility is a dying one in today’s world. Thanks for taking the time to write up that wonderfully put exposition on the difference between debating and name-calling. Cheers!
Posted by Tony
I agree with you as well. Although I think part of the problem is the medium in which we have these discussions. Would some these anonymous people be so rude in a face to face discussion? Or do they take advantage of the safety of a BBS format to be real prìçkš? (yeah I know ‘prìçkš’ constitutes name-calling. I never claimed to be too-overly civilized.)
You know Steve, I was wondering the same thing myself the other day. Does the anonymity of the internet free oneself to say…er, type things that you wouldn’t normally do in person? I mean, how many of the people who have typed rude comments on this Board would have the conviction to say them in person? I mean, it’s all well and good for me to disagree with someone’s POV online and type back that they’re an F-ing Snotrag- but how many of us would also do that to the person’s face? Just a random thought…
“Personally, even though I started out as a fan of PAD with his comic work (‘The Death of Jean DeWolff’ specifically), I havent bought a comic in years and consider PAD to be a novelist. “
Well, I think you’re the norm, because evidently nooone else considers PAD a comic writer either, since anytime I point out a Peter David book in my store people tend to run the other direction. Evidently, contrary to PAD’s assertion that it is wrong to do, people do vote with thier wallet, and when someone pìššëš them off, the don’t buy their stuff. Being in the middle of conservative America doesn’t help. (Not my opinion, but one that does effect my pocket book. I’d rather sell more of PAD’s stuff, since I have tons of it sitting on my shelf, not moving).
Jerry
“Evidently, contrary to PAD’s assertion that it is wrong to do, people do vote with thier wallet, and when someone pìššëš them off, the don’t buy their stuff.”
I can assert to this. I saw T3, but the ticket I bought was for Legally Blonde 2 because there was no way in hëll I was going to contribute to Arnies Gubenatorial campaign fund. I like him as an actor, but as a politician, he needs to get real. Of course the difference here is that PAD isn’t running for office.
Does the anonymity of the internet free oneself to say…er, type things that you wouldn’t normally do in person?
Absolutely. And like most other things, it’s a double-edged sword. People who are timid or shy, or are easily intimidated, can feel free to take things at their own pace, piece things together, and post them at their leisure. People can open up about things that they would never tell another individual in person, private or traumatic things that they need to open up about, and can finally feel comfortable enough about it in a setting as depersonalized and anonymous as an internet server.
At the same time, paradoxically, people can get to know each other in a more genuine manner, because of that anonymity. You don’t know if the other person is black or white or whatever, how old they are or what gender or if they’re in a wheelchair or talk with a lisp or have a scar that would always draw your attention in person. Or even their gender, if push comes to shove. (Sure, they can tell you all these things about themselves, but you never really be sure, can you?) Therefore, your opinions about them tend to be formed more by who they are inside, rather than what they are outside.
Also, you have no shared experiences with the person on the other end, so you can’t just reminisce. On a topic, you need to discuss the matter at hand, or explain how your story is relevant to that topic. In that way, discissions tend to stick to matters of more depth.
On the other hand, of course, are the people who take advantage of this to attack people with impunity and use strangers as their own whipping boys, knowing that when they’ve finished they can turn off the computer and get on with their day, leaving the wreckage they create behind. (I’ve had to deal with someone online who openly admitted that was the only reason they ever visited that particular chat server.)
This medium also allows you to type things and post them without taking the time to actually consider them, so one angry (or misinterpreted) post can pìšš øff incredible numbers of people.
But my feeling is, on the internet there are still good people, there are still bad people, there are people you like and people you hate, profound and eloquent speakers, and juvenile and offensive speakers… There’s a change of context, but in the end, it’s still real life.
Steve,
While I disagree with PADs stance on economic boycotts of entertainers, what you did is essentially theft. It’s like buying a Tolkien book, but then secretly swapping it for Harry Potter on the way out of the bookstore because you don’t want to financially support witchcraft. The bookstore gets money, you get your entertainment, and nobody gets hurt? Nope, sorry. If you are opposed to giving Arnie support for his campaign, then don’t go see the movie. If the movie is so important that you have to see it, then give Arnie his deserved dollars.
A boycott is “speaking with dollars” and it is within your rights. Theft isn’t.
You know Peter, you say that people insult you for having “Logical” view points.
You say some people insult you on your blog, and I sometimes can’t tell who exactly your talking about. You say people are attacking you, but it seems very much that you can give as good as you can take.
It’s only my opinion, but if you really want to discourage name calling and non-rational views than try doing it yourself.
*Honk Honk*??? Gee, real mature. And making fun of someone’s writing abilities. Sorry it’s not a perfect world. Sorry we don’t see the “Logic” of your arguments all the time.
I don’t know you personally, and you certinly don’t know me. So why can’t you accept someone who see’s the same situation diffrently. We don’t all see through logical “Peter Eyes”
Really, I don’t mean to insult, but from my view you seem to insult just as much. Just my opinion. Hope this wasn’t insulting. Hope you can accept that some people just won’t “get it”. Live with it.
More or less, i agree with Surges. Just less tactful then him. C’mon now, gentlemen. PAD writes his political commentary like it’s a sermon from the mount. That alone deserves some contempt in light of how much information there is to synthesize. As a result, I respect him less than i did before. It doesn’t cost him jack šhìŧ, but he should at least be entitled to hear what a barebacker he is.
Incidentally, i agree entirely that everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Deliveryman, dogwalker, or whoever, feel free to express yourself however you want. But do so at the risk of your own credibility. I simply state this — peter david posts as if he is the mouthpiece of god, despite having no particular expertise on the topic.
For the record, i have a B.A. in cultural anthropology, concentration in middle eastern studies. I’ve worked with IFMSA and now work for an MD/MPH for international relief work. i still feel unqualified to assess the middle eastern quagmire without limiting the boundaries of the discussion. I feel nothing but contempt for someone who does.
Yeah, we do vote with our dollars. for me, i can’t seperate the art from the artist, and i doubt i would ever want to. So i’ll be thinking a little more next time i decide to pick up a title that PAD writes. That sucks donkey balls, but what can you do?
“If the movie is so important that you have to see it, then give Arnie his deserved dollars”
Even if I hadnt seen the movie in the theaters, I would just buy it used when it comes out on DVD, which is how I buy all DVDs.
Arnie doesnt get his money there either. Is that theft?.
Arnie doesnt get his money there either. Is that theft?.
That’s a bit more grey. The artist feels a sense of entitlement to that extra sale, but someone has already bought and paid for that DVD before. He’s really got all the money he’s entitled to off that one.
“He’s really got all the money he’s entitled to off that one.”
As long as he doesnt get it from me.
Second-hand stores are not theft. Artists/Companies shouldn’t get money from a resale for the same reason the government shouldn’t be taxing money twice.
(Of course, government DOES tax twice – which is why we have corporate taxation followed by capital gains taxation and income taxation followed by estate taxation. The second of each of these should be eliminated, but that’s a totally different debate.)
“The only difference is that Conservative pundits are all for challenging Clinton’s motives while supporting Bush’s. Liberals protest wars. Conservatives protest liberals.”
PAD, I didn’t claim to be conservative or liberal. If you must know I’m neither a Republican nor a Democrat.
However, to say that Liberals protest wars and Conservatives protest liberals is just silly.
Both sides support, for the most part, the actions the leaders of their political parties take.
I can assure you that if Al Gore was president today and made the same choices President Bush has made Liberals would be using the same propaganda to support this war that conservatives are using.
Saying that most of the world is against this war as a reason for protest is lame at best. While the UN is against this war they were also against action in Kosovo. Clinton collected support from Canada, Britain and others and claimed he had support. In the same way Bush has support from Britain, Italy, Spain, Japan, Australia, and others. No matter what the conflict most of the world will be against it.
Europe was a little more pro Kosovo as it was in their backyard. Though even they understood that it was a lost cause and to this day skirmishes and bloodshed continue.
You know what? *This* is never gonna end. Not until people get over the fact that they are from this country, and it’s so great and so on and bla bla bla and just learn to like/tolerate each other. We are all part of the human race here people. We are not supposed to be killing each other. Once we realize this, maybe, we’ll stop hurting each other.
That or aliens landing, taking myself and others who have no desire to cause pain, away to a place where no one wants to hurt anyone, and the rest of the human race can continue to kill each other. To whomever that may be, once I’m gone, have at ‘er! Once you’ve wiped yourselves off of the planet in a hundred years or so, then maybe I can come back, and go through a day where I won’t have to worry about who’s gonna kill who next. Wouldn’t that be nice.
And to those of you who think I am being rather silly and far-fetched, ask yourselves, why is an idea where no one hurts anyone silly or far-fetched.
Jamie: Still to writing funny books. International politics isn’t your forte.
Dan Taussig: PAD, for god’s sake, you write comic books. COMIC BOOKS!!!
Luigi Novi: Ya know, I’m really sick and tired of people responding to opinions by comic book professionals by pointing out that they can’t argue about politics because they’re comic book professionals.
The ability of any person to draw a conclusion or develop a belief and articulate or argue it stems from their ability to properly obtain all the relevant facts, and to illustrate their point with logic, consistency, and objectivity. It has nothing to do with their occupation, and ultimately, any argument rises or falls on its own merits.
No one would ever walk up to a janitor or garbage man, and say to them that they aren’t qualified to argue about international politics because of what they do for a living. It’s a snotty, stuck-up position that implies that those in less prestigious jobs are uneducated, stupid, and have no interest in learning about their world around them. But with people who work in the entertainment industry, there’s this odd tendency to act as if they’re not citizens first, with the right to speak their minds, and this bizarre resentment on the part of some people when they hear a celebrity say something they don’t like, a resentment that degenerates into an non sequitural “stick to your chosen profession” refrain that they don’t use with the everyday schmuck that they disagree with standing next to them. Sure, they might employ a logical fallacy when disagreeing with them, but generally, they don’t say, “Stick to [fill in the profession].” It’s cheat, and a copout.
I myself am an aspiring illustrator currently working in market research for the film industry. I had a B average in high school and art school. But I READ. I read books, novels, newspapers, the Internet, listen to the radio, watch TV, and go to the movies. I read about history, politics & current events, science & pseudoscience, criminology, trivia, and of course, science fiction and fantasy. I pay attention to the news. I recognize the scientific method as it pertains to debating, as well as study the logical fallacies that make poor arguments. Ultimately, my ability to argue a point rests on those things, not what I do for a living. If you want to disagree with me, do so by pointing out where the logic is faulty, or inconsistent, or biased, not by invoking my occupation, which has nothing to do with it.
So let’s get this straight: Peter’s occupation, and for that matter, anyone else’s has absolutely, 100%, NOTHING to do with the validity of their arguments or opinions. Whether he writes comics or novels is 100% irrelevant to his statements on politics. (And should we assume, Jamie and Dan, that you are both foreign policy experts yourselves?)
Acting like Peter’s a pee-on because he writes novels, TV episodes, B movies, newspaper columns and comics may pass for a valid argument in your minds, Jamie and Dan, but in the real world, we have a word for it: Argumentum Ad hominem. Attacking the person instead of their argument.
Perhaps debating honestly and objectively isn’t your forte.
Jamie: Hilarious. I point out that you are not qualified to make such a conclusive statement and international relations, and hurl back a schoolyard taunt. Beautiful. Truly. You know nothing of my “purpose,” nor apparently, any historical context regarding the aftermath of war in countries that have been oppressed.
Luigi Novi: So he doesn’t know anything about you, but you know enough about his knowledge of history? You see it as your place to determine what his qualifications are to discuss a given topic, but when he points out that your own qualifications to post messages are less than ideal, it’s a schoolyard taunt? It seems that this is just your hypocrisy stemming from your resentment over his having an opinion you disagree with.
Jamie: If you must know, I am legally blind. Typing isn’t my strong point.
Luigi Novi: The mistakes in your posts don’t seem very different from the same mistakes other posters make. For example, when you say, “Still to writing funny books,” how is it that you confused the “l” key for both the “c” key and the ‘’k” key? How can you hit the same key twice when you intend it for two different letters?
Moreover, when I write lengthy post, I usually do so in Microsoft Word first, so I can use the Spell and Grammar Check.
Dan Taussig: he seems physically offended that people disagree with him…
Luigi Novi: He physically offended? What exactly does this mean? Is it something distinct from being emotionally offended?
And where did Peter express offense at someone disagreeing with him? Peter gave his view on something. People challenged his views, and he responded to them. Where did he express offense at the mere disagreement?
Dan Taussig: Just like no one cares what athletes think about the economy, no one really gives two šhìŧš what your opinion is on politics.
Luigi Novi: I think what you mean to say is that you disagree with his opinion on politics, not that no one cares about it. People actually do care about his opinion, and you’re one of them, because they—and you—posted here to respond to it.
Dan Taussig: Nor should they, especially when you post with the emotional maturity of a five-year old.
Luigi Novi: What precisely was immature in Peter’s response to Jamie? He pointed out Jamie’s sentences were less than perfectly coherent, and responded to the devil’s advocate quote of Jamie’s by pointing out that the Iraqis never asked us to invade their country.
Given both Jamie’s and your own reliance on stuck-up ad hominem arguments, perhaps it is your own ability to debate with maturity that is in question, rather than Peter’s.
You post snotty, you’re not entitled to your opinion*
Jamie: I never said that.
Luigi Novi: Neither did Peter.
He said You post snotty, you’re not entitled to get huffy if I respond in kind. He did not say, You post snotty, you’re not entitled to your opinion
First you used an ad hominem argument, and now you’ve attributed words to him that he never said.
Jamie: It’s your blog. You may be as insightful or ignorant as you please. I merely suggested you shouldn’t be such a crybaby if someone disagrees with you.
Luigi Novi: No, you did not say that.
You indicated that his occupation was somehow germane to his ability to argue a point regarding international politics. Not once did you ever make any statement about Peter’s reaction to someone disagreeing with him, nor have you demonstrated where he displayed this reaction.
Jamie: You tried to make a parallel between the checks and the Iraqis. I thought that was ridiculous. Two cultures, not the same mindset. How dare I imply such a thing, no?
Luigi Novi: If you actually did imply such a thing, that might’ve made for a better argument from you.
But you didn’t.
Putting aside the fact that Peter never drew a parallel between the two, but instead tried to speculate as to how Iraqis might feel, and why, using only Romania as an example (not Czechoslovakia), you never implied that any such analogy was false. What you did was to make a devil’s advocate quote, and to tauntingly remark that Peter’s argument did not rise or fall on its merits, but on what he does for a living. Subsequent to that, you and Dan Taussig have argued that Peter has resorted to schoolyard taunts and immaturity (not once considering that your own arguments had a fair share of them), and that he should accept people disagreeing with him, when his acceptance of others disagreeing with him had nothing to do with his response to you.
The problem isn’t that you’re legally blind. It’s that you’re a poor debater.
Steve: I saw T3, but the ticket I bought was for Legally Blonde 2 because there was no way in hëll I was going to contribute to Arnies Gubenatorial campaign fund
Luigi Novi: Steve, Arnold got a flat salary of $30 million for T3. Unless he were to get a share of the profits, your paying for that ticket one way or the other wouldn’t make a difference.
Surges: Really, I don’t mean to insult, but from my view you seem to insult just as much. Just my opinion. Hope this wasn’t insulting. Hope you can accept that some people just won’t “get it”. Live with it.
Luigi Novi: Well, this is just my observation, but as someone who has disagreed with Peter on a great number of issues (the death penalty, invading Iraq, not patronizing the work of someone who offends you), I’ve never observed Peter speaking disrespectfully to anyone who didn’t do so first with him.
If, however, you can recall an instance in which he insulted someone without provocation, Surges, I’d be interested to read it.
James Tichy: I can assure you that if Al Gore was president today and made the same choices President Bush has made Liberals would be using the same propaganda to support this war that conservatives are using.
Luigi Novi: If you say so. But to the best of my recollection—and it’s possible my recollection isn’t perfect—I don’t recall liberals saying that anyone who disagreed with Clinton’s interventions in Somalia, Kosovo or Iraq was somehow anti-American, or anti-patriotic.
You know what? *This* is never gonna end. Not until people get over the fact that they are from this country, and it’s so great and so on and bla bla bla and just learn to like/tolerate each other. We are all part of the human race here people. We are not supposed to be killing each other. Once we realize this, maybe, we’ll stop hurting each other.
Luigi Novi: First of all, Ryan, people are not going to get over the fact that they are from this country for the simple reason that they’re not. Iraqis aren’t from this country. Saddam Hussein isn’t from this country. Neither is France, or everyone in the United Nations. Second, I’m pretty sure you and I know that we’re not supposed to be killing each other, but I don’t think Saddam Hussein has taken that lesson to heart. There will always be war so long as there are tyrants who rule over poor oppressed people.
“Just like no one cares what athletes think about the economy, no one really gives two šhìŧš what your opinion is on politics. Nor should they, especially when you post with the emotional maturity of a five-year old.” – DanTaussig”
How DARE you insult every five-year old of the planet??
Three year old is more like it.
“You know Peter, you say that people insult you for having “Logical” view points.
You say some people insult you on your blog, and I sometimes can’t tell who exactly your talking about. You say people are attacking you, but it seems very much that you can give as good as you can take.”
Sadly he is as bad if not worse then those he accuse of being insulting,
But since he his “logical”, he has to be right and every one elses has to be wrong.
“Nor is writing coherent sentences yours (could you possibly have meant “stick to writing”).”
Great argument.
That almost helped to prove your point.
I guess we went from “might is right” to “the one with the best spelling his right”.
Goddam. A child in grade shool wouldn’t go so low.
Sorry to hear about your problem Jamie.
I know exactly how you feel. I have been fighting for the past 15 years with a desease that is slowly but surely destroying my eye sight. So I sure as hëll do more then my share of spelling mistakes. Also English ain’t even my first language.
Hang in there buddy.
So now it’s several years later. A President–not only without the cooperation of most other nations, but in direct opposition to them–unilaterally attacks another country, NOT because of humanitarian concerns, but because ostensibly the country poses a direct threat to the United States via weapons so destructive, so devastating, so awesome, that in four months of fighting they’ve yet to be trotted out or even found.
Yeah, that’s my major beef with Bush too. I knew that the reasons he gave us for going to war weren’t his real reasons. I mean, the guy sucks at communicating. I look at the guy, and the word “liar” just pops into my head. Yet every once in a while, the truth slips through, such as when he vows on live television that he will “restore chaos” to Iraq. Some people thought he meant “order,” but I got the feeling that was the one time he was being honest with us.
Whenever I hear him speak, it’s infuriating. Anyone ever look him in the eyes while he was delivering his “let’s go to war” speeches? Couldn’t you just tell he was full of BS? He has the same vacant look in his eyes that Ben Afflek does when he looks at Jennifer Lopez. No benevolence. No conviction. Nothing. Like an actor playing a part, and not doing it particularly well, either.
I was speaking with my friends about the reasons Bush gave America for his war. Why did he push the weapons thing instead of the oppressed people thing? Obviously, because he believed that pushing the weapons–appealing to our fear and hate, strengthened by 9-11–would gain more support from us. That caring for the welfare of other human beings and wanting to act on that alone was beyond us. That our primal instincts were stronger than our more evolved senses of justice and empathy. If that’s not what he wanted, then why did most of his reasons revolve around the whole weapons thing? Does he think that all we care about are the threats to ourselves? Has 9-11 transformed America into a new generation of foreigner-fearing isolationists?
Anyone out there actually got the answers? I sure don’t.
“PAD writes his political commentary like it’s a sermon from the mount.” Actually, I don’t see that much difference between the way he writes political commentary on this blog and the way he writes non-political commentary. Perhaps the whole nature of blogs or columns is that they feel like sermons on the Mount, because after all they’re one-to-many communication.
Ah, Rumania (or, as Jamie might say, Czechoslovakia) under Ceausescu. Been there, done that, got detained at the airport until my dad could convince the authorities that his 13-year-old daughter, who was carrying around a bit of paper that said, “To be is to do – Kant; To do is to be – Rousseau; Do be do be do – Sinatra; Do be a do be – Romper Room” wasn’t a spy but just a kid who liked wordplay. Bucharest under Ceausescu was a lovely city where every hotel room was bugged, where you could stroll through gorgeous parks in which you heard no children laughing. And that’s only the tip of the iceberg that’s stuck with me these lst 30 years.
“Oh, whatever minor “condescension” I might muster can’t compare to the barrage of everything from arrogance to name calling (and everything in between) routinely hurled at me on this blog by those with opposing views”
-PAD
And to think, these are your fans! LOL.
The problem with your argument is that you’re comparing this situation with an ideal and unrealistic one. No one disputes that the best scenario would be for the Iraqis to overthrow the Saddam regime. Yet after decades of repression, Saddam was firmly in control. And with really nasty sons waiting in the wings.
Then you say that the Iraqis will resent our intervention. Some will, others may not. For the sake of argument, let’s say you’re correct. That doesn’t mean that they’re worse off. It’s entirely possible that the vast majority of Iraqis will be much happier (better standard of living, etc.) and still resent our invasion. The important thing is helping people, not getting a “thank you.”
And then there’s our national interests and those of our allies…
I did not support the war, but I will reserve judgment on whether it was the right course of action. Let’s see how it plays out.