Simply the Best!
June 23, 2005
Cruisin' my way through Blogistan!
And how appropriate that logo above is for SOME Republicans and Conservatives.
You almost had me Rusty... Almost. LMAO!
Another crazy online video!
More to come.... Diaper changing Break!
Don't let the Ministry of Propaganda seize PBS!
Tom Cruise is GAY? Say it aint so Sadie!
Eh.... What happened to the Black Dudes who were supposed to have did this?
And in the story that everyone is talking about... Looks like even our property rights are going down the shitter these days.
Philippines pays again? Hostage Released. Terrorist bank accounts grow. News at 11.
This one I gotta agree with some of the Righties on. No one should be allowed to burn the U.S. flag.
Did you see ole Teddy Kenny whup Rumsfeld ass today? Well if you didn't here is your chance. It was classic.
Man how much I miss L.A. Tony hit me sometimes via email, I want a favor from you. I want some pictures for my blog of some of my old hangouts????
Tell me the truth... (wink) Do you really feel safer these days?
Tas has open blogging going on at Loaded Mouth. Just for shits and grins, go over sign up for an account and post a long love letter to George W. Bush! LMAO!
There is a conspiracy afoot to get me back to Los Angeles. But what I really want is a Johnny's Pastrami Sandwich.
Of course since Bush does not care about opinion in the the Homeland, we know he doesn't give a shit about THIS.
Did ANY OF YOU REALLY expect these folks to think Rove was wrong. I mean they own the flag, patriotism, apple pie and all that shit right? No Democrats died on 9/11. No Democrats signed up to fight in Afghanistan? No Democrats stood arm and arm with the Republicans after 9/11. You know what? These people have a major freakin' problem.
One of my Blog buddies has a message for those of you who subscribe to this theory and who's major battles have been fought from behind a keyboard. See that logo at the top of this post??? Think about it long and hard, then go fuck yourself with your chickenhawk fantasies. Cause you just insulted every Democrat... and there were, and are many... who are putting their lives on the line while you sit back and use them for political gain. My blogging buddy... A Pilot, just finished his second tour in Iraq, and he votes Blue. Oh, and the Moderate Voice just weighed in on the issue as well.
Ah, the things kids say... LMAO!
Anyone catch the VP today trying to explain "Last Throes?" I thought it was hillarious!
I have really not had much interest in the Durbin thing, but I am "feeling," this response.
Eh... J.... There are Liberal Soldiers too ya know... Just thought I would mention that.
Posted by David A at June 23, 2005 05:29 PM
Filed Under Other Blogs | 510 Words
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Some of my best friends are lib soldiers :-D
And would have though that we, you and I, would take the positions that we have on the desecration of the flag?
Strange world, I tell ya.
Posted by: Juliette at June 23, 2005 08:13 PM
It's nice to know I'm not a yellow elephant.
Posted by: Chris Short at June 23, 2005 08:19 PM
Why shouldn't people be allowed to burn the flag?
Ever hear of the First Amendment?
Do you seriously believe the Constitution requires changing because of all the flag-burning that's happening (the last flag burning case was about 20 years ago)?
Posted by: Jadegold at June 23, 2005 08:42 PM
David, you don't REALLY think most of us for the war are "too chicken" to enlist, do you? I mean most of the people I've seen on the blogs who support the war are actually veterans, after all. Not to mention the ones in "the real world"! (And yes, that includes me.)
I can't even get upset by the stupid "chickenhawk" thing because it's so ridiculous. Don't those who go around shrieking "chickenhawk" bother to check who the people are that they try to mock? I'm just aggravated by people being stupid. I know you're above that David, don't buy into that meme.
On another topic...believe it or not, I'm not too Kool with a flag-burning amendment (the post at my site was a guest-post). I loathe those who would burn the flag, but the idiots who do that can't take away what that flag represents by acting like jackasses. I say let them show their idiocy. The idea of making it illegal just bothers me more. Flag-burning is the height of stupidity--burning that which represents their freedom to do just that. If the amendment is passed, I wouldn't be a bit surprised to see people do it even more.
Someone commented at my site that we should also decriminalize assault on those who burn the flag--although it was meant facetiously, I do like the idea of people acting offensively being forced to bear the consequences. ;-)
Posted by: Beth at June 23, 2005 09:05 PM
Beth, I am always careful not to lump all Republicans and conservatives into the same bunch, as Karl did with all Liberals in his statement. No I dont believe that all Republicans and conservatives are too chicken to fight. In fact, a couple, including Boyd and Baldilocks are people who I know have served and I respect tremendously. Chris Short likewise is serving right now I believe. But you and I both know that what Rove said was repulsive, and it just so happens that I was talking to an Iraqi Freedom Vet tonight, who is also a Liberal Dem, and he was OUTRAGED. Many on the Right like to claim the soldiers cause for their own, but cant seem to get it into their head that there are soldiers of every faith (Including Muslim), and political persuasion. As for the flag burning issue. I would be a hypocrit if I said I think it is wrong for someone to disrespect a Quaran, and yet think it was okay to burn our flag.
Posted by: David at June 23, 2005 09:38 PM
David, I was gravely disappointed to see you jump on the "chickenhawk" bandwagon. That argument is, at its core, fundamentally dishonest and contemptible. It takes what should be a reasoned discussion on an issue and reduces it to a simple personal attack. It shifts the focus from WHAT people are saying to WHO says it, and neatly sidesteps the merit of whatever the individual has to say.
But I'll play along for an instant, and allow the assholes who put this forth a brief moment of credibility. In my personal case, enlisting in the military was never an option. I have a variety of health issues that not only render me unfit for military service, but only a couple of short steps (some inevitable, but I'm trying to postpone them as best I can) short of disabled. By their reasoning, since I CAN'T enlist, I should just shut the fuck up and let my physical betters make the decisions.
And the inevitable followup is "then you should encourage others to enlist." I know what's at the end of that trap; I would be charged with hypocrisy for encouraging others to do what I know I can safely know I will never be asked to do. Screw that.
Had I known that, years ago, when I was diagnosed with my current conditions that will eventually leave me blind and crippled before they kill me, that I had just forfeited my right to ever comment on matters of grave political import, I wouldn't have spent the years since fighting my conditions. I would have either just said "screw it" and let them take their ravaging course, or (if I had found the courage) up and killed myself to spare the inevitable decline.
I'm in shitty condition right now. I look pretty much OK to the casual observer (apart from my weight), but every day I can feel myself falling more and more apart -- mostly physically, but in some ways mentally as well. Several abilities I took for granted 20 years ago are now impossible without radical assistance. Up until recently, I didn't think that my right to speak on matters political was among them.
In Robert Heinlein's "Starship Troopers," he put forth a society that his critics described as a "fascist wet dream," where voting privileges were restricted to only those who had served the government. They misread it as only "veterans," overlooking his statement that only a small percentage actually ended up in the armed services, and an even smaller percentage in combat units, and an even smaller percentage of that actually saw combat. The catch was that, when you volunteered, you had no say in where you ended up.
But those putting forth the "chicken hawk" argument take that misrepresentation of Heinlein's notion and take it even more into fascism. They want to limit the right to speak in favor of defending the nation to those willing AND ABLE to serve in the military. It's a form of discrimination and elitism that runs counter to everything that Americans have always believed in, and something that liberals have traditionally railed against.
And finally, it's one of the most contemptible debating tactics ever -- "shooting the messenger." It says that, in essence, "I'm not going to bother to refute your message. Instead, I'm going to silence you from ever making it. And if anyone else tries to say it, I'll silence them, as well."
In the General's world, I guess it's "free speech only for those willing and able to fight for it." When will he be pushing for the repeal of the Americans With Disabilities Act, not to mention the appropriate Constitutional amendment? I'd look forward to seeing just how it will affect me, but I presume I won't be allowed to comment on that, either.
To the General, and all who stand with his chickenshit chickenhawk argument, I say this: kiss my borderline-crippled ass. Just please do it while I can still see well enough to appreciate the sight.
And if this comes across as "trolling" for "making this too personal," tough shit. This whole campaign is nothing but a mass personal attack (something I would have considered an oxymoron before). I'm just tired of taking the high road while I get cheap-shotted from the cheap seats. Don't drag me down in the gutter, and then condemn me for using gutter tactics.
Posted by: Jay Tea at June 24, 2005 02:24 AM
Jay Tea: I think you make several false premises.
First, nobody has suggested you haven't the right to voice your opinion on any matter or issue. What you're demanding is that your opinion be taken seriously although you're not willing to make the sacrifces or endure the hardships you demand of others.
Surely you see the problem; if I lecture others about good health and fitness--it'd be hypocritical of me if I weigh 300 lbs and smoke like a chimney.
Second, it is recognized some folks aren't eligible for military service for a number of reasons. Even if one joins the Army, it is by no means guaranteed one will wind up in Iraq; chances are better than even one will end up serving duty elsewhere.
Of course, there are a number of alternatives to military service for those who aren't eligible--working in a VA hospital, various contractor jobs in and around Iraq, etc.
The bottomline is there are many in the 101st Keyboard Brigade who are telling us this is a war equivalent to WWII. They demand everyone unquestioningly support this war or be branded as treasonous or pro-terrorist. They demand we ignore the lies and the ever-changing rationales leading to war.
All we're asking is for the 101st to walk it like they talk it.
Posted by: Jadegold at June 24, 2005 08:19 AM
JadeGold, I think you're right about people who throw around words like treasonous, etc......but refuse themselves to serve in something they think is so important. But those who merely support the war and write about it -- without the added vitriol -- aren't being hypocritical. They're simply making a policy judgment (inocrrect in your view) about what's important to US national interests, and then expressing their views. There is no connection between the legitimacy of those views (which depends on big foreign policy issues) and the individual actions of war supporters. The fitness analogy doesn't work, because the fitness issue is a personal one -- someone who says EVERYONE should be healthy should himself be healthy. But someone who says the US should send x number of troops to Iraq should not necessarily go to Iraq himself.
That said, I agree with you wholeheartedly on flag-burning.
Posted by: Answerman at June 24, 2005 09:58 AM
Jay, No I dont think you are trolling. And I dont think the yellow elephant applies to you. But I will say this. I find it absolutely fascinating that someone like you can get so juiced over that little graphic, and yet think it is perfectly okay for Karl Rove to call every Liberal a pacifist idiot. I am sorry my friend, but for my two cents worth, the hypcricy from your side is staggering.
Posted by: David at June 24, 2005 10:42 AM
hypcricy = hypocrisy
Posted by: David at June 24, 2005 10:43 AM
But those who merely support the war and write about it -- without the added vitriol -- aren't being hypocritical. They're simply making a policy judgment (inocrrect in your view) about what's important to US national interests, and then expressing their views.
In other circumstances, you might have a valid argument. There are factors you're ignoring, however. These factors are: the rationale leading to war was false (depending on your viewpoint, the US was delberately deceived or merely mistaken); the objectives have constantly evolved; and the war has been poorly prosecuted.
Perhaps the biggest factor you're overlooking is the fact this war is putting an enormous strain on our armed services. Whether you're for or against the war, it cannot be denied a terrible toll is being paid by our troops and their families.
Thus, if you deem this war is necessary and the price paid by our folks to be required--you really have no choice but to internalize those sacrifices and hardships.
The fitness analogy points up what you seem to agree with: if you lecture others on fitness--you should be fit. If you're not, you really shouldn't expect your lectures to be taken seriously. Doesn't mean you can't lecture on fitness--it just means your lecture won't be necessarily well-received.
WRT flag-burning--of course I'm correct. It's a gift.
Posted by: Jadegold at June 24, 2005 10:46 AM
Jade, Answer, I see you're going out of your way to avoid answering the core charge I made: that the entire argument is an attempt to discredit my statements by discrediting me. To irrevocably tie WHAT is said with WHO says it. To silence the message by shooting the messenger.
Truth is truth, whether it's handed down from God on Mount Sinai or read out over the air by Baghdad Bob. If you want to argue an issue, fine. But if you're going to insist that the argument be about ME, I will repeat myself: kiss my borderline-disabled ass. I'm looking for a serious discussion of the issues.
Here's a little hint for the Left, from a militant moderate who finds himself closer and closer to the right as the Left keeps running further and further from the Center: we're not all raving egomaniacs. It's NOT all about Me. I consider myself utterly irrelevant to the issue at hand; it's my thoughts and analysis that I present, not myself. Find fault with my reasoning, criticize my arguments, dispute the facts I cite.
But if you want to dispense with all the niceties that come with civilized discourse and instead try to lambaste ME for daring to have these opinions without meeting whatever personal standards of conduct you think I need to fulfill before I can say anything, you are cordially invited to GFY. With a rusty chainsaw.
(David, out of respect for your being such a gracious host, I didn't spell out "GFY." If anyone needs it defined, feel free to Google it or e-mail me directly.)
OK, this particularly rank and odious excuse for a debate has chewed up enough of my lunch break.
Posted by: Jay Tea at June 24, 2005 10:49 AM
that the entire argument is an attempt to discredit my statements by discrediting me. To irrevocably tie WHAT is said with WHO says it. To silence the message by shooting the messenger.
I addressed that issue; you just didn't like the answer. I said, very clearly, you had every right to address any issue or matter you wish. But you're demanding what you say be automatically endowed with a gravitas, it may not deserve.
If I try to sell you a book on how to make millions in the market--would you not be dubious if you found I kept all my money stuffed in a mattress?
Posted by: Jadegold at June 24, 2005 11:15 AM
Fair point on the issue of strain on the military.
And there is certainly something troubling about modern society, where it is so easy for us NOT to internalize the sacrifices that need to be made, as you say.
But I guess I've never been really impressed with hypocrisy arguments, because they really don't get at any of the underlying issues. Let's say a really smart person who knows a lot about foreign policy, Middle East history, and military affairs also happens to be a physical coward. And lazy. And let's say he admits both things, but because of his knowledge has a lot to say about a particular foreign policy, or war, or whatever. His hypocrisy tells us a lot about him, but it doesn't tell us anything about the underlying point, and it shouldn't affect our willingness to engage with his arguments.
How is this any different from your refusal to tell David if you're black or male or female or whatever? If we can debate tokenism with you with no knowledge of your race or gender, then why do you need to know whether someone is a coward at a keyboard in order to debate foreign policy with him?
(I recognize it's a totally different issue if we're talking about the actual day-to-day experience in Iraq -- issues of body armor, etc. -- because there the argument from authority is appropriate.)
Posted by: Answerman at June 24, 2005 11:19 AM
JG your last comment was deleted. I have known Rogue for 10 years and do not take her comments as being racist. I happen to share her feelings about illegal immigration. Like you said, this debate is not about that, but I will not allow you to bring past discussions into this discussion and then to attack another commenter who has nothing to do with the conversation. My anti troll rules are in effect. I will not censor you, but I will not allow the personal attacks and misrepresentations of others point of view to continue either. One more time and I will be forced to ban you, despite the fact that I enjoy much of what you bring to the discussion, even when it differs from my own point of view.
Posted by: David at June 24, 2005 11:43 AM
His hypocrisy tells us a lot about him, but it doesn't tell us anything about the underlying point, and it shouldn't affect our willingness to engage with his arguments.
It seems you're asking us to believe his character (or lack thereof) doesn't inform his views on foreign policy. I'd argue that's a pretty remote scenario.
And let's not divorce ourselves from the specifics of this particular situation because of the various factors I listed previously. This is a unique situation in that we over-stressing our armed forces in a war of debatable necessity and evolving objectives.
WRT tokenism, can you explain why my race or gender is germane? Truth be told, I hold some very strong views on the desinated hitter rule--though I've never played pro ball.
Posted by: Jadegold at June 24, 2005 11:52 AM
I didn't say someone's character isn't relative to their views, but the view itself isn't right or wrong based on someone's character. But since you believe that by definition, anyone who supports the war (or is a conservative, or has ever voted for a Republican, or whatever) has no character, this conversation is likely to get really circular really quickly.
Presumably, being black would affect your view of tokenism, for the same reason that your character would affect your foreign policy views -- we can't divorce the idea, the abstraction, from the person who adopts the idea as his own. Ideas don't exist on their own. David wants to discuss tokenism with you, and one's potential experiences with tokenism are relevant to such a discussion. But he can't know if you've had any such experiences.
Posted by: Answerman at June 24, 2005 11:57 AM
David: Your blog, your rules.
You're wrong to censor my posts. Go ahead ban me. I'm out of here.
Posted by: Jadegold at June 24, 2005 12:26 PM
I will only censor anyones post if they use them to personaly attack other commentors or misrepresent their statements. If you feel a need to leave, it is your choice. Goodbye and thanks for your previous comments.
Posted by: David at June 24, 2005 12:35 PM
Actually, as I see the General's effort - exclusive of how I used it on my blog where I suggested Karl Rove enlist - as specifically looking at Young Republicans, most of whom are both the right age and health to serve but choose not to do so while also lamenting that other Americans aren't enlisting as in "Do as I say, not as I do."
If you believe I'm wrong, go look at the General's blog. I've used it rather casually, but the General is specifically targeting the younger crowd who are all gung ho to fight as long as they aren't the ones fighting.
I just want to be clear that while some of you are looking at the Operation Yellow Elephant ad on my site, the General's got a much more specific group in mind. I think his campaign is perfectly legitimate considering these "great young Republican minds" love to promote war so long as they can sit home.
Posted by: Katharine at June 24, 2005 02:15 PM
First of all, I reject the "but we didn't mean YOU, we meant THEM" argument. A personal attack is still a personal attack, whether it was directed at me or those who agree with me. In fact, if it'll make you feel any better, I'll proudly embrace the "chickenhawk" label for the purposes of this argument. Why don't you just presume that I was lying about my physical conditions and am really 1-A or whatever they're calling those perfectly suited for duty. Because despite what you've said, this is NOT about the issue, but about individuals. And I will take up that gauntlet, even if you didn't throw it directly at my feet.
Secondly, I reject the "chickenhawk" argument because it is, at its core, fundamentally dishonest. It violently skews the terms of the debate. One side presents its side, then you don't bother to present your own side or arguments or evidence. You simply look past whatever the other side has presented and challenge them to offer what you define as the only true test of their argument's merit. It doesn't require any thought or research or planning whatsoever.
It's like a modern-day version of the duels of honor. Only if you're willing to put your own life on the line are your arguments considered valid. It presumes that cowards are also congenital liars, incapable of speaking the truth. And worse, it presumes that physical courage is synonymous with honesty and truthfulness and wisdom and insight -- again, playing to the stereotypes we outgrew centuries ago.
I've spent hours and hours looking into the circumstances and events leading up to the decision to go to war, and it has been my unshakable conclusion that invading Iraq was the least worst option. I present the fruits of my labors, the evidence backing it up, the arguments I've had with myself, hoping that others will see the reasoning behind it and either accept it, or try to show me where I was mistaken.
Instead, I get a response that would be rejected as too juvenile by a third-grader: "I dare you." "What are you, chicken?" "Ain't you got the guts?"
Fuck that. One of the most important lessons I've learned in my tenure in the blogosphere (barely over a year) is that one cannot reason someone away from a position that they did not reach reasonably. And as my mother once told me (and Lord knows I should have listened to her), "never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig."
If anyone wants to have a serious discussion about the war in Iraq, please say so. But if anyone else wants to toss aside the trappings of civility and reasoned discourse and genuine debate, and reduce the whole matter to playground politics, you're out of luck. I outgrew that a good 30 years ago.
Posted by: Jay Tea at June 24, 2005 06:18 PM
Post a comment