Ralph Sevush, all around good guy, wrote the following short essay which he calls “The Cultural Divide.” I thought it was an interesting take on the current status of things and decided to close out political blog entries for a bit with it:
Regarding the cultural divide
This morning, I woke up thinking…
… that, as Spalding Gray observed, I live on an island off the coast
of America;
… that we should have just let the south secede when they wanted to;
… that perhaps we could consider a new form of secession, a Northern
secession;
… that if Canada could just give up a strip of land along the northern
border of North Dakota and Montana, we could build a “Freedom Trail”
with an “underground railroad” that connected the northwestern corner of
Minnesota to the northeastern corner of Washington state, thus creating
an independent, contiguous nation consisting of the Northeast, the Great
Lake region, the northern midwest, and the westcoast (plus Hawaii) with
full autonomy from the United States;
… that we could then forge a union with Canada, and become the
Federation of North American States (FONAS);
… that we would then be Fonasians, with access to Canada’s national
health care, with religious and ethnic diversity and tolerance,
relationships with the rest of the world, economic justice, individual
freedoms, and great hockey teams;
… that we would then have a nation composed of the cultural, financial
and industrial centers of the former US, and have Canada as our farmland
and ranch, and still have great vacation spots in the south pacific;
… that we could learn a lesson from Israel and build a massive wall
along our southern border that would separate us from the belligerent,
imperialistic, crypto-Fascist military theocracy that continues to grip
the US government, as it presides over a small-minded citizenry steeped
in religious zealotry who love only their god, themselves, their first
cousins and their sheep, and whose leading export to the world is death;
… that I should just roll over and go back to sleep. Perhaps I’ll
dream of Fonasia, in repose on my island off the coast of America.
But when I wake up, I’ll still be here.
Shìŧ.
Did you ever have one of those mornings?
– by Ralph Sevush, Esq.
(a card-carrying member of the ACLU and the MMMS)
• 
” 51% who are middle-class who don’t worry so much about the DMA, but much more about terrorism”
If they do, why did they vote for the man who dangerously upped the ante by invading a country which didn’t have much to do with the problem (as opposed to Bush’s friends the Saudis) and managed to pìšš øff many of the U.S.’ now former allies, thus making it a hëll of a lot more difficult to get help when the time comes. And, make no mistake, the U.S. is NOT all-powerful and it WILL need help in the long run, be it from the foreign intelligence community, or in support of its overstretched military. But Bush’s ill-advised actions have pretty much put paid to that on a lot of fronts.
“Society dictates what is right and wrong in our culture, and right now, the majority of society says that gay marriage is not right, and shouldn’t be.”
And society used to say blacks were subhumans who didn’t merit any of the rights and priviledges of the rest of us. Does it make it right? News flash: there are an awful lot of ill-informed, or just flat-out ignorant or stupid people out there. Just because Democracy has us putting equivalent weight on their vote as on everyone else’s doesn’t mean they’re going to make the correct choice.
“My friends from Canada, some of whom live here now, all prefer American health care …”
That’s because you only know people who can afford the steep rates in the U.S.. You forget, the U.S. spends MORE per capita than Canada on health care, but still has millions who are not covered. What’s wrong with this picture?
“There is evidence that children of gays are more likely to turn out gay themselves, or to experiment more, and if that doesn’t demonstrate that upbringing has some effect over sexual orientation, i don’t know what would.”
Does the word “genetics” exist in your dictionary? If it did, the fact that they are “children of gays” just might be a hint as to how wrong you are as to ’cause-and-effect’.
Mark L posted up there a ways that Bush was the guy who looked more willing to take terrorism “head on.”
And darn it, the Starwolf beat me to a response…
But, yeah, if Bush is so willing and able to take terrorism (and I’m guessing that means terrorists, as well) then why did he get our military bogged down in an occupation/rebuilding of a state that, hey, it turns out really DIDN’T have any proven connection to those terrorists we WERE chasing over in Afghanistan. And while Hussein sure was a terror to people in his own country, I don’t think he really fit the classic picture of a terrorist.
So, while Bush continues to allow a good portion of our military to be bogged down in Iraq because he won’t take the time to re-forge good relations with those allies who could help us, and by the way continue to place our trained, experienced military in harm’s way as militant Iraqis continue to resist our efforts to help them help themselves, actual terrorists are more free than ever, because the US war machine that would normally be hunting them down is stuck in Iraq.
So, sure, I can see how voting for Bush on the idea that he’s going to make us safer from terrorism makes perfect sense.
Oh, wait, no, actually, I don’t.
But I sure do see a GOP, for all their safety and “no terror” stance, legislating morality. Not everyone who aligns with the GOP fits that bill, of course, just as not everyone who voted for Kerry believes in the unfettered right to an abortion. But don’t deceive yourself into thinking that supporting the GOP is anything other than supporting a religiously and culturally intolerant group of bigots.
If gay marraige bans become the norm, it’s only a matter of time before public hand-holding becomes taboo, and then outlaw. And heavan (literally) help you if you actually KISS in public….
**I’ve always been a Democrat and just this past election I have noticed how far to the left they have gone. Democrats had certain Liberal views and principles , but now they are the same exact thing and I think that is what’s hurting us. **
The Democrats? Liberal?
BWAHAHAHAHAHA..
Oh, wait.
You were serious.
When they turn liberal, let me know.
Travis (who is registered Democrat, but secretly a liberal)
A while back, I attended a meeting of the League of Pìššëd-Off voters.Being a severely annoyed voter, I was wondering if this was a group for me.
I answered that with a question. “We’re talking about how to deal with idiot conservatives. Has anyone thought about how to deal with conservatives who aren’t idiots?”
The response I got was that “idiot conservative” was a redundancy.
Pfui on that sort of thinking. I run left of center, but McCain was the only guy I liked heading to 2000. I feel more secure with an intelligent leader I disagree with than with someone who runs based on pleasing the larger crowd.
From The Guardian:
“Faith-driven politics may even have had a hand in delivering Florida to Bush by a surprising margin, since it seems possible that Jewish voters there who voted for “my son the vice-president” Joe Lieberman (not to mention Hadassah, oy what nachas) in 2000, actually switched sides as a result of the president’s support for Ariel Sharon.”
Wow, thinly veiled anti-semitism from Europe. Knock me over with a feather.
The fact that Jewish support of Bush only went up by 5% or so (depending, of course, on whether or not you can trust ANYTHING the exit polls say) is ignored. Why waste time with facts if it means you can’t get in another gratuitous slap at them Jewfolks?
Not everyone who aligns with the GOP fits that bill, of course, just as not everyone who voted for Kerry believes in the unfettered right to an abortion. But don’t deceive yourself into thinking that supporting the GOP is anything other than supporting a religiously and culturally intolerant group of bigots.
Not all Democrats are arrogant elitists who want to force political correctness down everyone’s throat, nor are they all supportive of abortion-on-demand. However, that’s what the national party supports. Almost no one gets a political party that has 100% of their personal views. You pick what’s more important and hold your nose at the rest.
The Democrats should adopt the Republican Policies and force their beliefs on others rather than just wishing everyone could live in peace as they wish.
1. Propose a “Sanctity of Marriage” amendment to the constitution. Making Marriage illegal. If you want to marry your first girlfriend at 18 and have 9 kids, good luck with that. You’re never getting divorced.
2. “An end to subsidies.” End Welfare and Farm Subsidies. The Republicans believe in the “Pull yourself up by the bootstraps” mentality lets hold them too it. No more welfare for the Midwest or south, no more corporate welfare, no more farm subsidies.
3. “Creationism in School.” This is a great idea. Teach Evolution, Creationism, Teach from Ymir’s flesh, Odin and his brothers made the earth, and from his shattered bones and teeth, they made the rocks and stones. From Ymir’s blood, they made the rivers and lakes, and they circled the earth with an ocean of blood. Teach that the Earth consists of flat disc (complete with edge-of-the-world drop-off and consequent waterfall) resting on the backs of four huge elephants (Great T’phon, Tubul, Berilia, and Jerakeen) which are in turn standing on the back of an enormous turtle (Great A’Tuin) as it slowly swims through space.
Teach it all. Because really, how can one be more valid than the other?
4) “Prayer in School” Lets make this issue our own. Every day from 10-10:30 every school has forced prayer. Pray to God, Face east and pray to wards the Mecca. Pray to Odin. Pray to Satan if you wish, just make sure to PRAY PRAY PRAY! Hallelujah!
5. “Make War Not Love!” Support your president and back him on every war. Hëll, push him to invade more countries. With no divorce and no welfare the red states kids won’t have anywhere to go but to the Middle East. Send your young to die for an unjust war and still vote for the President. Hallelujah!
Democrats need to start finding some Terrorist Ties in Iran. We MUST win the war on Terror by attacking other countries.
“And it’s the red states they call ignorant, bigoted and intolerant. Go figure.”
You might want to add “Unable to appreciate irony” to the list.
PAD
Somebody wrote:
“”Page 3″‘s from Rupert Murdoch’s The Sun, actually.”
The Mirror had Page 3 pin-up girls as well, at least they did in the early 1980s.
From Andrew Sullivan:
Say this about Clinton: he always understood how to triangulate. The president who doubled the number of gay discharges form the military, signed the ban on HIV-positive immigrants, and jumped energetically on the Defense of Marriage Act, told Kerry to back marriage and civil union bans for gays in the campaign. Kerry, to his enormous credit, didn’t go there. But then Kerry never presided over the execution of a retarded man for his own political purposes either.
Since most people believe that Kerry, in his heart, is FOR gay marriage, he should have come out and said so. Would have gotten credit for having some guts. (Although once he was on record as being opposed it was too late–he would have looked like a flip-flopper. That reputation was a masterstroke of the Bush campaign, effectively hamstringing him from allowing the polls to drive his convictions, as I suspect is his preference).
PAD,
Re: Unable to appriciate irony
I live in Mass, I’m, as stated before, a supporter of neither party, and yet I’ve heard at least a dozen people over the last few days make comments on some variation of the succession piece. It is a very popular meme, and it is both intolerant and ignorant.
One stat just to illustrate how stupid the simplistic red/blue state view is.
Kerry voters in ME, VT, NH, MA = 2.56 Million
Kerry voters in TX = 2.82 Million
“I have no problem with colored people. I don’t care what they do in their own place, as long as they leave me and my friends alone and understand that they had better stay away from me and mine.
Oh.
Wait.
You were talking about *Gay* people.
Okay. Just change the word ‘colored’ to ‘gay’. Same argument, just a different word.
So many people in this country try to use words to cover up the fact that they are bigots.”
Many say the same thing with changing the word ‘colored’ to ‘Christian’ or ‘religious’.
“Same argument, just a different word.”
Sometimes I think people staunchly Dem were listening too long to the people who were demonizing the right in order to get the vote.
There are too many ‘conservatives’ who will not allow Bush to establish a
> From The Guardian:
“Faith-driven politics may even have had a hand in delivering Florida to Bush by a surprising margin, since it seems possible that Jewish voters there who voted for “my son the vice-president” Joe Lieberman (not to mention Hadassah, oy what nachas) in 2000, actually switched sides as a result of the president’s support for Ariel Sharon.”
Bill Mulligan: Wow, thinly veiled anti-semitism from Europe. Knock me over with a feather.
Ummm… you realise that the guy who wrote that piece IS JEWISH don’t you?!
>”And it’s the red states they call ignorant, bigoted and intolerant. Go figure.”
>You might want to add “Unable to appreciate irony” to the list.
>PAD
Thanks, Peter.
You’d think a collection of comicbook fans would recognize satire and irony. But i guess, as Steve Martin observed in ROXANNE about his small town, “Irony? Oh, we don’t get that here.”
To the uncomprehending amongst you, i was NOT actually calling for secession. i was NOT saying everybody in a “blue state” felt this way, and everybody in a “red state” felt that way.
I was NOT suggesting national health care was good or bad, or that tolerance is the private preserve of liberals (the intolerance suggested by the whole piece should have tipped somebody off).
I’m not even suggesting that religion in the public sphere is necessarily bad per se, as Americans of faith have a long history of fighting FOR civil rights and social justice (not merely opposing them), and AGAINST wars (not merely supporting them).
What i DID do was send out a private e-mail to a few friends about my post-election blues (and then mistakenly allow PAD to post here). I was simply reacting to the fact that the overwhelming majority of Bush supporters said “moral values” was the biggest factor in their vote… as if Kerry is somehow deficient in moral values. But, of course, they weren’t really talking about “moral values”. They were talking about THEIR values.
What my essay reflects is my own personal sense of alienation from my own country… that I’m apparently a barely tolerated visitor here, despite the accident of my birth in NYC. And that my brand of secular humanism and libertarianism is wholly unwelcome by a vast majority of this nation, despite the fact that those values are the bedrock of our republic as articulated in its founding documents.
In 2000, i could blame the election process. But this time? I can only see it as a fundamental shift in nature of the electorate.
With Bush having to bear the burdens of an unpopular war into which we were led by lies and which is managed with incompetence, with a record loss of jobs, a sluggish economy, dreadful relationships with the rest of the world, out-of-control oil prices, with low “job approval” and “right track/wrong track” polling numbers, with having had the worst attack on American soil in history occur on his watch, and having done everything possible since then to increase terrorist recruitment… well, in any rational world, the incumbent would’ve been washed out of office in a tidal wave, regardless of the mediocrity of his opponent.
But when people show up at the polls, in light of all of these circumstances, and start talking about “moral values” as the issue of greatest importance… we are no longer dealing with a rational world.
And that makes me afraid.
Your mileage, of course, may vary.
Believe it or not Many “Christians” are pacifists and don’t believe in war.
Yet, how is it that then that this campaign was won by “moral values”, up to an including approval of the war in Iraq?
You talk about demonizing, yet all the Bush campaign did was demonize everybody else.
Deh. I’m tired.
I’m heading over to Amazon to pre-order “NF:After the Fall”.
Take care All.
If we allow a very small minority, the gay community, to dictate how their deviant behavior is treated, whats to stop other groups from trying the same behavior?
This amounts to a nicer version of “so how long till someone wants to marry their dog?” and the answer is, as always, not till it comes out that somewhere between 1 and 7% of people have been in loving, peaceful, romantic relationships with their dogs since the beginning of time.
Not, mind you, that anyone has explained to me exactly what the harm would be to me if my neighbor started telling people he’d married his dog. If you don’t want a dog marraige, don’t have one.
Uh, I got the irony. I doubt anyone thought you actually were serious.
When I was teaching at a university in 1992, and Clinton won, I remmeber my students all walking around like they had been shot. They commented that the world was going to end. The country collapse. Many said they would move to Canada (I was never sure why, if they found Clinton too liberal, they thought Canada would be an improvement).
I knew they were simply expressing their alienation and commiserating. But after a bit it got tiresome and seemed silly and overdone.
I remembered all that as I read your message.
I’m sorry you are so down and all, but it got grating.
Here is the situation as I see it.
Bush is not a good president. Bush is not a popular president. Bush is not a smart president.
And the Democratic party, full of bright, morally superior people, pretty much can’t figure out how to beat a stupid, unpopular, ineffective president. (Note, there is some real life irony).
Once the Democratic party period of mourning is over, could the party please figure out why they couldn’t sell their message to the majority of voters so something like this doesn’t happen again? I wanted Bush out of office, and I watched Kerry’s campaign with great frustration.
The response I got was that “idiot conservative” was a redundancy. Pfui on that sort of thinking. I run left of center, but McCain was the only guy I liked heading to 2000
Amen, Mitch. I registered as an independent in 88 despite my parents’ observation that I’d never get to vote in a primary and I haven’t regretted it once. I’ve screamed at both parties on the television but fall on average left of center only because I decided I’d rather pay my government toll financially to be left alone personally rather than the other way around.
I think there’s a market for a party for a lot of us who feel like we’d like to keep government out of our affairs (as many pubs claim they want to do right before they squabble over gender preference rights) and make social decisions based on economic utility (like offering civil unions rather than get in protracted legal fights over hospital visitation rights, locking people up forever rather than spending 3x as much to execute them, etc).
And the Democratic party, full of bright, morally superior people, pretty much can’t figure out how to beat a stupid, unpopular, ineffective president. (Note, there is some real life irony).
Once the Democratic party period of mourning is over, could the party please figure out why they couldn’t sell their message to the majority of voters so something like this doesn’t happen again? I wanted Bush out of office, and I watched Kerry’s campaign with great frustration.
I never figured out why they didn’t make competency a more core issue. Would have made a great place to come back from when the “Kerry had the same intelligence about Iraq” statement was going around: the intelligence agencies answer to the President and brief him a lot more often than they do Congress.
In the business world the question to a CEO would be “why are your direct reports not doing the job right?” When Bush said “my generals told me they had enough people” where was the follow-up “then why are people who lack competency working for you at that level?”
Ok, I’ll come right out and say it, ” I’m old enough to vote and I didn’t.” And I hang my head in shame. Really. *sigh*
You see, I would have had to renew all my forms of I.D. Nothing is current (I’m not a driver, so don’t worry). So basically, I didn’t vote cause I was lazy. lol.
And I’ll also say that I’m one of the people who wanted Bush to lose.
Yes, I wanted to vote. I was thinking of voting for KERRY. Not because I like him alot, but because he wasn’t Bush. I could have vote for an independent, but let’s be honest: the only guys that had a chance of winning were Bush and Kerry. And really, I guess Kerry didn’t have much of a chance…(and I also should say that I was pretty disappointed in how Kerry gave up so easy. A day after the electon and he gives up. Guess he wouldn’t have been that good a President..)
I knew though, like PAD knew, that Bush was going to win. Hoping against Hope I was. I knew Bush was going to win…but…I just hoped…and wished..that I’d be suprised. That people would realize what was going on and vote for the other guy. Even if the other guy wasn’t great, at least it would be a change from Bush. Maybe Kerry could have done something..maybe not. Giving Bush four more years, though, is like saying to Bush, ” Hey! Your doing great man! Keep doing what your doing! ” *sigh*
Anyway, I’m stupid. I should have got out there and voted. Mark my words, I’m going to vote next time (gotta get all those I.Ds up to date!) !!! Four more years of Bush though..*sigh*
You know, imo, what America really needs is a President who is not in a party, who is not a conservative or a liberal. We need a guy who thinks about the people of America first (poor, rich, middle class. everyone considered). And a guy who would focus on getting America’s problems fixed first, before we run off to play police men of the world….
Ya..I know. That person doesn’t exist.
And if he did, its doubtful anybody would vote for him…
DF2506
*hangs head in shame and walks away*
> SCOTT J: “Uh, I got the irony. I doubt anyone thought you actually were serious.”
If you got the irony, then i wasn’t talking about you. but you might want to re-read some of the other responses to my note posted above, wherein the political and logistical difficulties of secession were discussed, where running away was deemed cowardly, and my lack of tolerance was discussed seriously.
> SCOTT J: “I knew they were simply expressing their alienation and commiserating. But after a bit it got tiresome and seemed silly and overdone. I remembered all that as I read your message. I’m sorry you are so down and all, but it got grating.”
sorry you found it tiresome and grating. I was trying to be funny, to avoid that problem. but i guess i failed, in your estimation.
>SCOTT J: …”And the Democratic party, full of bright, morally superior people, pretty much can’t figure out how to beat a stupid, unpopular, ineffective president. (Note, there is some real life irony). Once the Democratic party period of mourning is over, could the party please figure out why they couldn’t sell their message to the majority of voters so something like this doesn’t happen again? I wanted Bush out of office, and I watched Kerry’s campaign with great frustration.”
Except for your satirical(?) reference to the Dems as being “morally superior”, i couldn’t agree more.
> From The Guardian:
“Faith-driven politics may even have had a hand in delivering Florida to Bush by a surprising margin, since it seems possible that Jewish voters there who voted for “my son the vice-president” Joe Lieberman (not to mention Hadassah, oy what nachas) in 2000, actually switched sides as a result of the president’s support for Ariel Sharon.”
Bill Mulligan: Wow, thinly veiled anti-semitism from Europe. Knock me over with a feather.
Ummm… you realise that the guy who wrote that piece IS JEWISH don’t you?!
No but that doesn’t surprise me overly much. I’m sure that anti-Israeli Jews are much loved in Europe. At any rate, playing to the tendency among Europeans to believe that some Jewish Cabal pulls the strings of American politicians, getting them to do only what Israel wants simply feeds the hate. I’m sure it helps him keep his job though.
“out-of-control oil prices”
Really? I’ve read that, adjusted for inflation, oil is still cheap. Which is surprising considering that we are dealing with a finite, limited resource. Sure, I’d love to have 75 cent a gallon gas again, along with 10 cent comics and being able to get change for a dollar after buying a Happy Meal. Then again, back in those days my salary would have been a good deal less as well.
And what, pray tell, is the solution to high oil prices? Drilling in Alaska? Invading Iran? Bombing Israel in return for a guarantee of $20 a barrel for the next 50 years? We could all switch to hybrid cars and keep our thermostat at temperatures that will freeze babies in their cribs but it won’t matter–China is becoming industrialized. Millions now riding bikes will soon be driving cars, sucking down oil like nothing we’ve seen.
$2 for gas? Enjoy it. Savor it. Clone FDR and re-elect him. It won’t matter.
Scott J. wrote…
Once the Democratic party period of mourning is over, could the party please figure out why they couldn’t sell their message to the majority of voters so something like this doesn’t happen again?
That’s the key, isn’t it? It’s going to be difficult for a while after the pain everyone went through with this election, but both sides are going to have to do some soul-searching and reaching out now.
Democrats: Why weren’t you able to make your voices clear? How is it that you weren’t able to win this election, despite the coveted voter turnout that was supposed to clinch it for you? What can be done in the future to appeal to a wider voter base?
Republicans: Yes, I know, you won this one and can pretty much have your way with the country for the next four years. But isn’t it worthwhile to examine just what it is about the administration’s policies that make some people so angry? Shouldn’t you be looking to extend an olive branch to those you’ve alienated, just as they should be doing the same to you? After a campaign in which foreign policy played such a pivotal role, is it not worth asking why the majority of foreign countries think that America is headed in the wrong direction?
The effect of the past four years has been to polarize your country to an extreme degree. The two parties have found themselves taking extreme opposite positions, and neither is willing to budge. And even though you never hear about them, I have to believe that the majority of your population is caught in the middle, not wishing to play too close to either extreme.
Things aren’t going to improve down there until each side is willing to understand the other.
I’ve gotta say that I’m fairly conservative, not rich, attend church regularly and still try to be open minded enough to look at an issue from all sides (hard to do that, but I try). I voted for Bush, because he and the Republican party represented more of what I believe than what the Dems were showing. And no, I voted a mixed ticket, not straight, sense the local and state level candidates don’t follow some of the hogwash that is on a national level.
The main problem I saw with Kerry, other than my disagreeing with most of his apparent stances on issues (apparent because we all know that the political machine makes some things look different than they are in privacy), was the fact that he never gave air to his “plans.”
We heard “I have a plan…” in all of his stump speeches, from Iraq to welfare to space to the budget, but never got any specifics. If he had given some specifics, or at least a plausable outline, it may have done some good. His “plans” were the same as the Repubs turning off Bob Dole’s humor for his campain, the lack of them didn’t make sense why they weren’t there.
Anyway, just remember that you do live in a country that allows forums like this, that allows differing views to be aired and discussed in public. Keep that in mind.
jeff
Considering that we were speaking of Nazi Germany on another thread, I thought you folks might be interested in the words of Herman Goring at the Nuremberg Trials:
“Of course the people don’t want war. But after all, it’s the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it’s always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it’s a democracy, a facist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. The is easy. All you havea to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger.”
Always remember, kids–there’s no present and no future. Just a past being endlessly repeated.
Hmmmmm, all I know, everything that’s been said, to even consider wanting to stop being a proud American enjoying our country’s unique freedoms ’cause an election didn’t go “the right way”………. welp, that means you didn’t see yourself as a proud American living in freedoms our ancestors shed rivers of blood for and the country would be better off without you. Funny thing though, I loved seeing a report saying that countries were not going to just take Americans carte blanche, they had to have a *reason* for immigration. Too dámņëd funny. If my side could suffer 8 humilating years with that assclown Clinton and the Chinese Ho Algore, then you can stand 4 more of GWB, suck it up you whiney li’l bìŧçhëš. Apologies for the language but man, I would been pìššëd if Kerry had won but I sure wouldn’t be running away like a toddler with a full Pamper, I would be starting the champaign for 2008 and sure as hëll not fielding one of the most loathed women in America as the “great white hope”. Welp, guess that’s enough for now, now, can we get back to comics? Oh yeah, I bought more Excaliber books and Madrox #2 last week, haven’t read them yet. Cuss me, curse me, call me a basteche, but I will never give up PAD’s works. Thank you and be well…
If my side could suffer 8 humilating years with that assclown Clinton and the Chinese Ho Algore, then you can stand 4 more of GWB,
You know, that latter comment was pretty dámņ insulting. Can you guess why?
Talk about humiliating….
Democrats: Why weren’t you able to make your voices clear?
Maybe the problem is that they were clear, but that we live in a moderate-to-conservative nation that didn’t like what it heard?
I don’t think Carl really gets it. People are talking about leaving the country because of people like him. The dreaded feeling of these potential expatriates is that all of the Bush voters are like Carl and if that is so, then this country is not worth fighting for any longer.
David Bjorlin wrote…
Maybe the problem is that they were clear, but that we live in a moderate-to-conservative nation that didn’t like what it heard?
Of course that’s a possibility. But I’m thinking about basic factual errors, such as the polls showing upwards of 70% of Americans believing that Iraq was involved in Sept. 11. And if the majority of the population really didn’t like what it heard, then the Democrats need to figure out what needs to be done to re-brand themselves without betraying what they stand for. I fine line for any group to walk, but it has to be done.
> > > Bill Mulligan: Wow, thinly veiled anti-semitism from Europe. Knock me over with a feather.
> > Ummm… you realise that the guy who wrote that piece IS JEWISH don’t you?!
> No but that doesn’t surprise me overly much. I’m sure that anti-Israeli Jews are much loved in Europe.
So basically, the whole of Europe is anti-semitic, and all jews have to play along. Okay…
> At any rate, playing to the tendency among Europeans to believe that some Jewish Cabal pulls the strings of American politicians, getting them to do only what Israel wants simply feeds the hate. I’m sure it helps him keep his job though.
It’s an op/ed piece. His “day job” is a historian, and he does regular series for the BBC in that role.
” If my side could suffer 8 humilating years with that assclown Clinton and the Chinese Ho Algore, then you can stand 4 more of GWB,”
Over three thousand people didn’t make it through the first year of GWB…a year in which he ignored warnings about bin Laden and refused to start up a Department of Homeland Security simply because it was put forward by reps of “that assclown Clinton. Of course, once it was too late and over three thousand people died, then he flip flopped, embraced the idea, and took credit for it.
Over eleven hundred people didn’t make it through the last two years of Bush, and there will be more deaths and more deaths, including a massacre coming up in Fallujah.
Plus there will likely be another major terrorist attack in the U.S. And why not? Iraq, after all, has served as a virtual recruiting drive for terrorists.
“Stand four more years?” I’m not entirely sure we’ll even survive it.
PAD
All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked
I guess I just imagined the Cole attack, embassy bombings and the Twin Towers falling.
Peter David wrote…
Iraq, after all, has served as a virtual recruiting drive for terrorists.
The administration does deserve credit for its wildy successful terrorist creation program. The sheer number of countries that have turned against you guys over the last few years boggles the mind.
Mark L wrote…
I guess I just imagined the Cole attack, embassy bombings and the Twin Towers falling.
It can’t be denied that the U.S. has been attacked. It’s probably true, though, that the actions taken by the Bush government have been gross overreactions to those attacks, paving the way for blatant disregard for that “freedom” Americans seem to value so highly, and probably making your country a more dangerous place to live, rather than safer.
If you got the irony, then i wasn’t talking about you. but you might want to re-read some of the other responses to my note posted above, wherein the political and logistical difficulties of secession were discussed, where running away was deemed cowardly, and my lack of tolerance was discussed seriously.
The irony is noted, but I stand by my accusation. We don’t know you, so we had no way to guage your use of hyperbole. As Lou posted earlier, in the last few days I’ve heard several people talk about leaving the country, and they were only half kidding. If you were more than half kidding, then perhaps you weren’t the best one for me to vent about, but it does sound as though you were engaging in quite similar daydreams; I say this because you end your essay, “But when I wake up, I’ll still be here. Shìŧ.”
And yes, I do perceive that entire line of thought, whether jest, daydream, or serious travel plans, as chickenshit. You lost an election. So dámņëd what? You ran an experienced Senator, a war hero no less, who was intelligent and articulate about a heartfelt ideology, and he lost to a populist demogogue’s reelection bid in a campaign where your Senator could only complain “Where’s the outrage?” Welcome to my world, circa 1996. Get over it. I did. Don’t just take my word for it, take Molly Ivins’s: “So, fellow progressives, stop thinking about suicide or moving abroad. Want to feel better? Eat a sour grape, then figure out what you can do to help rescue the country – join something, send a little money to some group, call somewhere and offer to volunteer, find a politician you like at the local level and start helping him or her to move up. Don’t mourn, organize.”
I have now quoted Molly Ivins and John Edwards in the same thread. If TWL is still reading this blog he will plotz.
And with regard to a perceived lack of tolerance, anyone who wrote the following screed SHOULD be called on it. (Although I don’t think anyone really believed you really think this is a nation of incestuous bëšŧìálìšŧš.)
belligerent, imperialistic, crypto-Fascist military theocracy that continues to grip
the US government, as it presides over a small-minded citizenry steeped in religious zealotry who love only their god, themselves, their first
cousins and their sheep, and whose leading export to the world is death;
And what the hëll is a crypto-Fascist anyway? A fascist who likes to communicate through codes? (I know, the crypto- prefix should mean “covert” or “secret” but I don’t think anyone could accuse the Republican party of keeping its agenda hidden.)
“So basically, the whole of Europe is anti-semitic, and all jews have to play along. Okay…”
Starw man argument, as I said no such thing.
It’s hard to deny, however, that blatant anti-semites are tolerated in Europe to a degree unimaginable here. In the USA it is not considered a viable political position (except among a small number of inner city race baiters). Europe has political parties that actually get people elected on the agenda.
A condemnation of Europeans as a whole? No, but I’d rather be a Jew here than there.
“Society dictates what is right and wrong in our culture”
Nope, that’s why we have a representative democracy, not a direct democracy. We elect leaders who lead through wisdom. We choose the wisest and they make moral decisions, at least that’s the way its supposed to work.
It doesn’t matter whether the majority wants slavery or Jim Crow. They’re wrong whether 99% of the population or 50% of the population wants it.
“eventually it’ll be fine to sleep with little boys, animals”
You don’t understand the simplest, and most intrinsic value in american culture.
“We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, and endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights.”
All men, all human beings. We are constituted such that we have rights, by the nature of our being. Animals have no rights, none at all. Animals can never get married, can never vote, and can never exercise any rights afforded to humans, period.
So animals can never marry, nor can humans marry animals. You only have the right to such things insofar as it applies to other creatures with the same rights. Period.
As far as children go, again, you don’t understand a single thing about the culture you live in. We have, already built into our intellectual framework, the notion of age of reason/age of consent. All of us have the right to vote, but not until we come into the age of reason. All of us have the right to marry, but not until we come to the age of consent. Its simple a part of our conceptual framework. Children cannot marry because they have not yet reached the age of consent. Period.
So these arguments are just so much reactionary hysteria, which have nothing at all to do with the actual philosophical underpinnings of our society.
Period.
Peter said “Over three thousand people didn’t make it through the first year of GWB…a year in which he ignored warnings about bin Laden and refused to start up a Department of Homeland Security simply because it was put forward by reps of “that assclown Clinton. Of course, once it was too late and over three thousand people died, then he flip flopped, embraced the idea, and took credit for it.“
So now you blame Bush for the attack on 9/11. Give me a freaking break. It wasn’t his fault we were attacked then.
Start singing a new tune why don’t ya? Btw, I seriously doubt this will be your last politcal blog entry in a while. You can’t help but attack George any chance you get.
Good grief.
PAD,
Blaming Bush for 9/11 as you did with your comment about 3,000 dead is unfathomable to me. Are you not aware that Sandy Berger four times vetoed proposals to go after Bin Laden? Read the 9/11 report. One has to be extremely partisan to think that Bush is to blame for not achieving in 8 months what Clinton blew off (no pun intended, but apropos nonetheless) for 8 years. Come on. There are a lot of things that Bush has messed up and can be deservedly blamed for, but 9/11 is Clinton’s stigma.
Dennis
but 9/11 is Clinton’s stigma.
I’m not a Clinton fan, but let’s hold OBL accountable for 9/11. We spent many, many years ignoring the build-up of Islamic extremism. If we want to lay blame on politicians, then let’s look at the many generations of politicians too afraid to rock the boat.
What’s good (and potentially bad) about Bush is that he’s not willing to accept the status quo anymore.
However, OBL is who needs to be taken to task, not Clinton.
Regarding Mark’s comment about holding OBL responsible, yes he is quite correct. I overreacted to PAD putting 3,000 deaths as Bush’s responsibility. That is nonsense. No American president is responsible for this atrocity – despite the blame being laid on Bush. You can’t blame the victim, namely our country. However, if there is blame for not being prepared – that is at the feet of Clinton rather than Bush.
How did we get into this discussion anyway?
Regards,
Dennis
I don’t know if anyone else has mentioned this so far–hard to keep up with the multiple threads going on here–but Elizabeth Edwards was just diagnosed with breast cancer. To have this on top of the natural depression that comes with a failed campaign seems just too cruel. I would hope that everyone, regardless of political affiliation, would wish her a speedy recovery.
“All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked”
“I guess I just imagined the Cole attack, embassy bombings and the Twin Towers falling.”
Is it my imagination, or is the quality of conservative responses here just spiralling into the toilet?
The Goring quote is relevant to Iraq. Bush and Company mentioned Saddam, threats, and 9/11 so often and so frequently together that they managed to falsely convince 71% of Americans that Saddam was behind, or connected to, 9/11. He wasn’t. Doesn’t matter. Americans became convinced that America was attacked by Saddam, and thus gave him his war. When historians look for examples of “the Big Lie,” they will have Bush’s picture right up there with other spewers of big lies.
PAD
“There are a lot of things that Bush has messed up and can be deservedly blamed for, but 9/11 is Clinton’s stigma.”
Now that you and Novafan are busy attacking what I didn’t say, howzabout you take a whack at what I did say.
I didn’t say 9/11 is Bush’s fault. It’s the fault of bin Laden (you know, the guy Bush said he would catch dead or alive except now he doesn’t think about him all that much.) But everything I said was true. Three thousand people did die in the first nine months of Bush’s watch. He did ignore calls for a Department of Homeland Security. And he did ignore voiced concerns about bin Laden. Do I know he could have stopped it? No. But three thousand people died and Bush didn’t do šhìŧ TO stop it. Now you can mischaracterize it all you want, but it’s all true.
And while we’re at it, when speaking of songs getting tired: I absolutely cannot wait to see how Conservatives are going to spin the upcoming horror show on Clinton. GOP Congress, Senate, President, Supreme Court vacancies to be filled by GOP…and yet, somehow, everything that’s going to go wrong will mysteriously be Clinton’s fault. Just watch.
PAD
Peter said “The Goring quote is relevant to Iraq. Bush and Company mentioned Saddam, threats, and 9/11 so often and so frequently together that they managed to falsely convince 71% of Americans that Saddam was behind, or connected to, 9/11. He wasn’t. Doesn’t matter. Americans became convinced that America was attacked by Saddam, and thus gave him his war. When historians look for examples of “the Big Lie,” they will have Bush’s picture right up there with other spewers of big lies.“
Yes, us stupid, ignorant Right wing Conservative nuts are convinced that Saddam and 9/11 are connected. You sure got the nail on the head that time Peter. You better be careful about saying who people will remember as spewing lies. Your comment there is a lie since you have no way of proving it. Back your statement up with facts. You can’t do it can you? I didn’t think so.
“With Bush having to bear the burdens of an unpopular war into which we were led by lies and which is managed with incompetence, with a record loss of jobs, a sluggish economy, dreadful relationships with the rest of the world, out-of-control oil prices, with low “job approval” and “right track/wrong track” polling numbers, with having had the worst attack on American soil in history occur on his watch, and having done everything possible since then to increase terrorist recruitment… well, in any rational world, the incumbent would’ve been washed out of office in a tidal wave, regardless of the mediocrity of his opponent.”
The REAL irony I suspect is that, should things pan out as many here expect, the voters who supported the President in the “red states” will suddenly become a very rare commodity indeed. You might have a hard time finding one. It’s like here in Manitoba this year we re-elected the New Democrats, a socialist party. No one likes their high-tax, high-spend and don’t worry about paying for it today philosophy, but you go find ONE person who will admit they voted for the NDP. But somehow the NDP won.
More fun to come…..
Peter,you’ve said everything is Bush’s fault. I bet if it rained tomorrow to ruin your picnic, you’d blame Bush for not having the Weather channel predictions be more accurate. This is an overgeneralization, but it rings true doesn’t it?
Why don’t you stop trying to find faults with people, especially our Commander in Chief, and start being more optimistic. My guess on your response to this, “I don’t have to find faults with Bush, he does that all on his own”. Good grief.
“start singing a new tune why don’t ya? Btw, I seriously doubt this will be your last politcal blog entry in a while. You can’t help but attack George any chance you get.”
Well, first of all, thanks for calling me a liar, to which I can only reply, Go to hëll.
Second, “any chance” I get? This is my blog, I talk about what I’m thinking about, and the chances I have to attack Bush are when I’m sitting at a keyboard. That I write about politics such a staggeringly small percentage of the time underscores the falsity of your snot-faced response. Furthermore, no one is forcing you to read it, no one is forcing you to post, and nothing save your own intolerant need to get in my face about it prompts you to post.
Third…go see first.
PAD