1) Outraged conservatives who think they're going to bother me when they announce that they're going to stop reading my books can forget it. I don't worry about whether saying what I think is going to cost me money because I don't put a dollar value on speaking the truth as I see it.
2) I will henceforth be treating some of the more belligerent conservatives in the spirit they're treating me. Specifically, there seems to be this belief that liberals should just shut up even though they don't like the way things are. So any conservative postings that I don't like, I will shut up for them, thus enabling me to practice on their behalf what they preach on mine. Particularly postings that consist mainly of insults pertaining to race, color, creed and national origin.
Back to the snow.
PAD
Posted by Peter David at January 23, 2005 04:53 PM | TrackBack | Other blogs commentingGreat googly moogly, PAD Smash!
If the conservatives on the site are getting your goat, why keep posting political topics? It'd remove a significant amount of mental stress.
Probably because he feels no need to censor himself just to please those who wish to censor him....
Just a thought. *g*
One hope that any liberal postings that "consist mainly of insults pertaining to race, color, creed and national origin" will receive equal treatment but it's your call.
Personally, I think you're doing folks like Poe a favor when you delete their most vile postings, leaving only the ones that make them look less like the, well, let's just say "sort of people that they are". I say, when someone is foolish enough to het the send button after writing idiocy they should have to twist in the wind for a while, taking their well deserved lumps.
But wanting to remove the stink from the blog has its value as well.
PAD,
I am very sorry that you have to put up with the racial and religious hate remarks from these uneducated, pathetic idgits.
I enjoy your work immensely. I enjoy your commentary on here regardless of whether I agree with it or don't agree with it.
Tammie.
"One hope that any liberal postings that "consist mainly of insults pertaining to race, color, creed and national origin" will receive equal treatment"
Yes.
PAD
You go, PAD.
Keep it up with the political topics if it pleases you. This is your blog, you can write whatever the hell you want in it, and if people can't comment intelligently without blowing up like cheap balloons, well, who gives a shit about them anyway?
Peter, perhaps you should follow John Scalzi's MO. Scalzi not-so-politely reminded readers of The Whatever that it's his blog, and if you don't like it, go screw yourself.
I think you should employ that policy here.
See, I like coming here because of political discussions. I don't join in much because others more eloquently put my thoughts into words, but I enjoy reading the posts.
But there's a right way and a wrong way to engage in a discussion. In the other thread, I noticed a lot of generalizations about, for example, liberals. "Liberals and Lefties are a bunch of whiny cry babies who lost and now want to spend their time moaning and wailing about what a terrible place the country is in. Grow up."
Well, I'm a liberal. I'm not way left on the political spectrum, but I'm pretty liberal. At the same time, I'm someone who respects people who disagree with me when they express their opinions intelligently. For example, from my time at this blog, I've often found myself disagreeing with Bill Mulligan. Yet he expresses himself very honestly, very sincerely, and very respectfully, and while I may not agree with him on many issues, I respect the man. As for the liberal contingent on this site, I often haven't spoken up because someone like Tim Lynch does such a great job at making the arguments I would make.
I've been visiting this site since it's been live, and I've seen a lot of really great, really respectful people, who disagree and debate and discuss. Unfortunately, I've also seen those who make it their mission to belittle, to insinuate, to insult, to be rude, crass, and inflammatory.
I'm rather liberal. I don't go to Chuck Dixon's board, who seems rather conservative to me, and rant about what Chuck posts. I don't organize boycotts or threaten to stop reading Chuck's work. I respect him.
In political debates, I've never had an experience where the person who feels differently than I do scratched their head and said, "You know what? You're right. I'm such a fool." People who engage in political debates have strong opinions, and just as my stubborn mind won't be swayed easily, neither will I be successful in changing someone else's mind. It's fun to debate, but seriously, it's an exercise in futility.
Respect, people. A wise woman once said, "R-E-S-P-E-C-T. Find out what it means to me." Hands Across America, We Are the World, and all that. ;-)
I love it!
I f fox news can censor our left views, why cant we censor the wrongs, I mean, rights, view?
WAY TO GO PETER!!!!!!
Michael,
You and grimjack both have nice things to say about me and I thank you. the screamers get the most attention but it's the rational decent folks of ALL political persuasions that actually get things done (and are, in general, worth being around).
I really love this blog. I like the mix of people, I like the unpredictability, it's given me a number of laugh out loud moments. I disagree with many of PAD's politics but he's one of my favorite comics writers--right up there with Alan Moore and Neil Gaimen and he comes across as a very good father and husband, which to me is vastly more important than whether or not he agrees with who I vote for.
Some of the less mature postings may be due to, well, immaturity. The blogosphere may end up serving the purpose that Junior High Lunchroom was supposed to do--show you by bitter example the right and wrong way to communicate with your fellow human beings. Unfortunately the easy anonymity of the web allows folks to lob grenades and not have to pay any penalty.
I just hope they don't get to the point that PAD ditches the whole thing.
Probably because he feels no need to censor himself just to please those who wish to censor him....
Just a thought. *g*
That's all well and good, and props to PAD for speaking his mind on his own website as he's entitled too. But the simplest way to not feed the trolls is to not give them any bait in the first place. Though I can't see PAD actually going for that, considering how he likes talking about it and Bush's policies obviously get on his nerves so he's using his blog as a sounding board to vent his frustration. Problem is anyone can read this site, so he's obviously going to take some flack about whatever he's posting.
I'm less into this whole political debate hanky-panky cuz I'm Canadian. American politics are interesting to watch from the outside, but I can do Jack and Shit about it. Its fascinating to see both sides so passionate about it and all. I always find it kind of amazing when Bush supporters are putting across well reasoned and eloquent support for the administration's policies - policies which seem to just piss everyone else on the entire globe off but I'll be goddamned if Bush supporters can't throw me for a loop once in awhile because they can at times come off as an educated and thought-out bunch. Which its crazy to see since the policies of the administration just seem so very VERY wrong to me and a hellova lot of other people on the planet. I figure anyone who can write up a 3000+ word diatribe on "How Bush Is Making The World Safe" would also have the brains to sit back and look rationally at the damage these same policies are causing people around the world.
Anyway, since 99.9% of the sites that I go to are American sites so I keep seeing debates spring up *all* over the place. And, I'd be lying if I didn't admit that its kind of annoying when I go to a site like "Ain't It Cool News" to read about the Fantastic Four movie and the talkbacks degenerate into a "Bush suxs! Bush roxs!" flame war.
I'm not sure exactly what the point of that whole above post was (I had a bit to get off my chest) but, in sum, can't we all just get along?
And, I'd be lying if I didn't admit that its kind of annoying when I go to a site like "Ain't It Cool News" to read about the Fantastic Four movie and the talkbacks degenerate into a "Bush suxs! Bush roxs!" flame war.
Or, to use another example: AICN posting about the Tenacious D movie. I love the D. The D friggin rock. I'm excited to talk about The D.
Problem is Jack Black supported Kerry and made some passing remarks about the Bush administration in his interview. So what do I get when I read the talkbacks about seeing "The D"? Pages and pages of pro-Bush & Anti-Bush flame wars. Its REALLY frustrating once in awhile.
I think PAD knows what I'm talking about - in spirit at least - check out a recent Newsarama post about Madrox #5. It spawned 2 pages of content and all that content was just a friggin flamewar. PAD himself commented on how disappointing the Internet can be sometimes. This is kind of how I feel when I see political flamewars popping up all over the place on the Internet when, goddamnit, I want to read about Ultimate Spider-Man or somethin.
Like someone else said, at the end of the day this is PAD's blog, so his house, his rules. No different than the old WEF, no different than the John Byrne board, or anyone's board. Just because the public is allowed to comment doesn't mean that the owner can't have a little say in what goes under his roof.
On a slightly different note, as a big ol' Lefty Liberal I have to say the political discussions do get old, if only because I get an inbox full of the same stuff from my big ol' Lefty Liberal friends everyday. Much of which contains material that is completely unfair to those that hold conservative views. Which is part of what I think helped kill the election for us, despite the Red/Blue debate. Republican bile didn't poison Bill Clinton, so I doubt Democrat bile will have any more effect on GW Bush, except maybe make him stronger.
Yeah, I have as much dislike of the current administration in the White House as any Lefty Lib, but I have to say that some things, like the Freedom Clock, don't really say or do too much for the cause of brining people over.
However, PAD is absolutely mild in his political rhetoric compared to most, and it is his house, so good on him for saying he'll keep a bit of order.
Jim
Peter said Outraged conservatives who think they're going to bother me when they announce that they're going to stop reading my books can forget it. I don't worry about whether saying what I think is going to cost me money because I don't put a dollar value on speaking the truth as I see it.
I never said I would stop reading your books, thus costing you money in the long run. But hey, thanks for the great idea. It would be the only Marvel comic I don't read except for anything written by Chuckie boy.
Something to think about. Thanks Pad. :0)
That's the problem with a lot of extreme conservatives and extreme liberals. Instead of presenting their views in a well-thought-out, intelligently written argument, they feel the need to attack other people's beliefs. There ought to be an asterisk onto that whole "freedom of speech" thing that reads "Remember, you can say whatever you want, but you're going to earn more respect for saying it if you're not an asshole about it."
Why is it that so many people think that attacking other people is a valid way of defending their way of thinking? People, think. No one is going to listen to reason if the first thing you do is insult them.
Common sense. Respect for others. Hey, let's spread those ideals instead of this deliberately vague "freedom" as the American Way.
Qapla! PAD!
It still amazes me that these folks continually
bemoan the supposed liberal slant to, well, pretty much everything.
Anytime someone criticisizes the Bush administration and it's cronies they are accused of having some liberal agenda.
First, the media isn't controlled by liberals,
it's controlled by huge corporations like Gannett, Time Warner, Disney, Clear Channel, Fox etc. Not liberals. We're stuck in a disastrous war that these folks have helped Bush peddle to the public.
Next, movies, TV shows, books, music, art of all
kinds have one thing in common. They are all made by creative people. The Right has a long track record of embracing censorship, and suppressing free thought. To them, to be different is to be evil. Check out how they speak about say, gays or feminists. Should it be any surprise that creative people (like PAD)
don't care to have Jerry Falwell and James Dobson looking over their shoulder?
You know I dont believe some people.If you cant express your opinions or disagreements with someone elses opinion's in a civil manner it just shows how weak you are as a person.
I personally dont agree with Jim from Iowa on just about everything but
1.I dont recall him being insulting anyone's religion,race or creed.
2.I pretty much dont read his posts because i know i how much i dont agree with his opinions and choose not to anger myself.
3.I very rarely if ever have responded to his posts but if i did would not insult him.
The Poe and Dee's of the world dont seem to get that part of the reason "liberals" and "conservatives " dont seem to be able to sit down and discuss things is because of the petty
namecalling that just breeds more animosity between people with differing opinions.
PAD has every right to delete posts that are nothing more than insult laden,hateful rants
Good job sir
I'm less into this whole political debate hanky-panky cuz I'm Canadian. American politics are interesting to watch from the outside, but I can do Jack and Shit about it. Its fascinating to see both sides so passionate about it and all.
Trust me, you're better off watching from the outside. There are days where I feel like I'm trapped in an insane asylum with 270 million of the dumbest people on the face of the Earth.
But then I remember that this, too, shall pass. Like a kidney stone, but it'll pass.
1.I dont recall him being insulting anyone's religion,race or creed
Should read" being insulting to"
Sorry for the typo
I'm with the self-proclaimed Tallest Fan Ever. It's eerily fascinating to follow American politics, and given the administration's policies there's certainly good reason for foreigners to take an interest.
Mostly though, seeing the way some of the people here and elsewhere treat each other over the issues is just downright depressing.
Do what you gotta do, PAD. This is your corner of the Interweb, and you can do as you see fit.
PAD - I've been conservative Republican all my life, mostly thanks to parents involved in local Essex County, NJ, politics & business, who demanded a high level of conversation and reasoning at the dinner table. Personally, while I don't agree with many of the views you present, I very much respect the well-thought-out and logical way you present them. (I also would not want to get into an argument with you about them, because I'm afraid that I'd lose.)
Please don't stick all of us conservatives in the same bunch as the ones flaming your viewpoint. Most of us are normal folks that buy everything you write because we appreciate it.
The problem with suggesting PAD avoid politics is, it doesn't help. I've seen almost everything he's posted in the past year get overwhelmed by political flameage.
His comics? "Yeah, no wonder Banner's such a wimp - he's a pinko liberal!"
His Star Trek books? "If Calhoun wasn't such a whiny lefty, he'd take over the Federation!"
(And let's not even touch the Arthur novels...)
His family? Well, we went there once, and had to shroud a couple of people as a result.
No, I agree with PAD. Write what you want to, sir, and damn the torpedoes! (Or, one of my favorite Car Wars bumper stickers - "Damn the pedestrians! Ramming speed!")
If the conservatives on the site are getting your goat, why keep posting political topics?
That's what the conservatives would like, wouldn't they?
You don't like their policies, but you'll suck it up and accept their crap, instead of speaking out about it like a good American.
"If the conservatives on the site are getting your goat, why keep posting political topics?"
I don't think it's the Conservatives who are getting PAD's goat so much as it is the idiots on the board that annoy him.
There are a lot of conservative posters who are articulate and polite. Unfortunately, they're the ones who says something succinctly and then don't post again.
It's the idiots who post again and again trying to get a rise out of people by insulting and misunderstanding...
That's what the conservatives would like, wouldn't they?
The authoritarian ones, at least. And seems to me that there's a strong authoritarian streak in the current Republican party.
When I was growing up "liberal" was another word for wishy washy, now it seems to mean Anti Christ . This is another reason why I dislike all humans untill they prove themselves to be a least reasonable. Oh by the way seem to be some sensable people here at least.
His Star Trek books? "If Calhoun wasn't such a whiny lefty, he'd take over the Federation!"
Not to go off on a rant here or try to hijack the thread, but t'heck with it, this has been bugging me for awhile-
I've been re-reading all the NF novels for the past few months (up to "Gods Above" now on my way to "After the Fall") and I find it kind of weird that Calhoun is such a take charge, goddamn what everyone else or your society says I'm friggin right dictator-ish Captain. Does that attitude seem kind of familiar to anyone? To be blunt, he strikes me as kinda Bush-ish. And he's the hero of the books! I can't wrap my head around it. Sure, NF started before the Bush administration, but Calhoun has a kind of authoritarian attitude that's definitely a few steps above most Captains in Trek.
Yeah, Calhoun is inevitably proven right in the end , the society of Danteri or whatever are just totalitarian evil jerks with designs on galactic domination, but I still can't quite understand why PAD writes Calhoun the way he is when you can squint and see Mac as a Bush-y type of figure.
Course, PAD did mention that the biggest inspiration for Calhoun was Kirk in a startrek dot com chat, so maybe I'm thinking about this too much. . .
If the conservatives on the site are getting your goat
In other news, is this a proper saying or is it "getting goaded" or something. What the hell kind of metaphor is that anyway? "getting your goat". What the hell are they doing to my goat anyway?
I'd like to offically take this opportunity to apologize for using that phrase. Thank you.
I consider myself about as liberal they come, but that doesn't mean I can't understand where those that disagree with me come from. (except those people who want to keep privleges away from Gays that everyone else has. THAT I'll never grasp.)
Frankly, I appreciate people with opposing views that can articulate their feelings without insults or posturing. Granted, any debate is ultimately an exercise in futility, but differing opinions are going to happen, and change is slow, regardless.
...I think that last sentence rambled jes' a bit, yes...
The biggest problem here seems to be a lack of acceptance. Some people simply aren't brought up in an environment that encourages people to make educated choices about their opinions. I've seen man families raise a single stance on many issues, and telling their children that the opposite is a pack of foolishness and lies. It's simply not healthy. Only by presenting all sides of an issue can anyone make an intelligent stance of their own. Without any balance, things quickly resort to petty name calling and the very poor bahavior PAD is talking about.
PAD, might I suggest advocating the explanation of both sides of any debate to future generations? It might help future generations to not be like Dee.
...Or Bush. (ducks)
I say it is your site PAD, handle it however you like. It is unfortunate you feel there is a need to censor some people, but I feel it is unfortunate for them, not for you. Simple human kindness should dictate what they say.
On the other hand, you and I easily disagree quite a bit politically. I am economically conservative/socially liberal. But, your viewpoint still has no bearing on whether I enjoy your products or not only because I don't see your political viewpoint in your products compared to a Michael Moore creation. Heck, even knowing your views, you were still the only creator I have ever snail mailed a fan letter to, and that was just a couple of years ago.
So stay at it, and thanks for all you do.
PAD,
Frankly Peter, you're much better off with liberal rather than conservative readers. More liberals read! More liberals have gone to universities! Many conservatives actually complain that college professors don't share their views! They hate it that informed people don't agree with them!
...and the brighter conservatives (who likely are not ditto-heads) don't mind reading people with different viewpoints. They probably get their news from other sources than FOX. So, I douubt that they would stop reading your stuff.
I don't think you have anything to lose.
Should it be any surprise that creative people (like PAD)don't care to have Jerry Falwell and James Dobson looking over their shoulder?>>
Would they rather have Tipper Gore or Joe Lieberman looking over their shoulder?
That was said with tongue mildly in cheek, but it's always good to point out that we're not exactly in an either/or proposition, and that the idea that we are is part of the problem with politics in this country.
Not that I'm rushing out to vote Nader or anything ;)
Jim
Could you people do me a favor and, if you're not going to use the dictionary definitions of the words, please lay off entirely using the terms "liberal" and "conservative?" 'Cause I gotta tell ya, taking the largest surplus in US history and turning it into the largest deficit in just three years by cutting taxes on the rich and paying for two simultaneous wars, is anything but "conservative." And I wouldn't call leaving Social Security alone the most "liberal" of ideas, either.
Just one question off topic. When the heck is Cowboy Pete gonna make a comeback? I know most of your regular shows have been on an unbelievably long hiatus but I miss the comments I love your insites on non-political topics. I need a fix. Help me out Dude.
Okay two questions. What did ya think of the Pats/Steelers game? Or don't you watch football...
I'm Tom Clancy fan. I think his politics are shit. Do I stop reading his work? No.
Why should an author's politics affect my enjoyment of their work (except of course for political writers).
Everyone has a right to their opinion. It's like TV, if you don't like what's on, change the f***ing channel. You don't like Peter's politics, grow up!
"Frankly Peter, you're much better off with liberal rather than conservative readers. More liberals read! More liberals have gone to universities!"
Highly debatable.
According to at least one Pew Research poll, college graduates are 38% Republican and 27% Democrat (in fairness, Democrats have an advantage with those who have done post grad studies -- 33% to 31%)
I believe that Republican also won among those with just high school education while Democrats won the high school dropouts.
A few points about all this-- the definition of "liberal" and "conservative" is so subjective as to make most generalizations meaningless. Yeah, we all use the terms but they mean more or less what we want them to mean.
But even given all that, assuming that Pew poll is any better than a thousand other polls which may show vastly different results...so what? Many great ideas were once unpopular among the educated elite and many bad ideas have be expounded by the same. One's convictions should not require validation from academia.
(of course, if the whole world thinks you're an idiot there is a pretty good possibility that, in fact, you are one. But it's not necessarily a done deal)
Although I consider myself conservative on domestic issues and liberal on social issues, I applaud anyone who provides an avenue for their unbiased thoughts, even though there will be those who disagree. You have that right, that freedom, as it were...
Posting political thoughts and opinions is not only enlightening, it can be a learning experience, and those who have closed their minds completely have ceased learning and growing as human beings.
To quote Roy Scheider from 2010:
"Just because our governments are acting like asses doesn't mean we have to."
Bill,
(of course, if the whole world thinks you're an idiot there is a pretty good possibility that, in fact, you are one.)
And what does the world think of Bush? Outside of half the US of A.
I love good intelligent, respectful debate. That's what our country was founded on! Whether you are on the right or left or stuck right in the middle, it is important to share your ideas, get informed about what the other side believes, and then THINK about things. I'm a conservative. Heck, I even went to the Inauguration this week. (not a coronation) and I brought along Woad to Wuin to read in the evenings!
Intelligence is not limited to either side. Great points are given on both. However, what we seem to be losing, (and I think what is ticking Peter off) is the venom that spews forth whenever ideas that we don't agree with are given.
Are these "bad" conservatives afraid that they might be "converted?"
Let's tone down the rehetoric, get more than 3 talking points about every issue, and remember that we are all sharing this planet and we need to find some type of common ground.
I agree, Jack. I also enjoy good, intelligent, respectful debate.
My question:
When the hell are we going to see any of that on THIS blog??
Novafan wrote:
"I never said I would stop reading your books, thus costing you money in the long run. But hey, thanks for the great idea. It would be the only Marvel comic I don't read except for anything written by Chuckie boy.
Something to think about. Thanks Pad. :0)"
Clearly, you're a man of truly discriminating taste.
It's your blog. Your pages. You have a right to say what the f**k you want. If they don't like it they can kiss your butt. You're an American, you were born here, you have the freedom of speech just like everybody else. I continue to read and enjoy your work, your blog and opinions.
LR.
Rob Staeger wrote...
Clearly, you're a man of truly discriminating taste.
I think what amuses me the most is that Novafan apparently lacks the three brain cells required to come up with the concept of a boycott.
Michael Cravens posted: A wise woman once said, "R-E-S-P-E-C-T. Find out what it means to me.".
For the sake of historical accuracy, it's worth pointing out that the song was written and originally recorded by a man, the great Otis Redding -- though Redding was the first to admit that Aretha took the song and made it all her own.
I've been re-reading all the NF novels for the past few months ... and I find it kind of weird that Calhoun is such a take charge, goddamn what everyone else or your society says I'm friggin right dictator-ish Captain. Does that attitude seem kind of familiar to anyone? To be blunt, he strikes me as kinda Bush-ish. And he's the hero of the books! I can't wrap my head around it. Sure, NF started before the Bush administration, but Calhoun has a kind of authoritarian attitude that's definitely a few steps above most Captains in Trek.
I just finished "Stone and Anvil" and "After the Fall" and I had a similar question. So I will go ahead and ask it:
PAD, you are the creator of Calhoun, so you are the one who knows your character. My question is this: Assuming for the moment that Iraq was as conservatives portray it (human rights violations, intelligence that says Saddam has and is working towards getting more WMD's, etc.), would Calhoun have taken us into Iraq? (I am fine with a simple "yes" or "no". And saying yes does not mean you are agreeing with Bush, since I know you do NOT believe things were as conservatives portrayed them to be.)
Iowa Jim (aka Jim in Iowa)
Maybe it's my 21 year old naivete, but I still can't fathom why someone would refuse to read something just because they disagree with the author on a political level IF the work has nothing to do with said political opinions. I may not agree with every opinion you've expressed (being more conservative than you), but that's never stopped me from enjoying anything you've written. Maybe when I grow up, I'll understand more. :) @_@...
As for your second point, good. I grow tired of seeing conservatives complain when liberals are making intelligent comments about the current situation in an attempt at discussion (as opposed to those "Bush suxor$ posts" which are just insulting to thought in general). It's become too heavy all over the rest of the 'net and I'm glad it's not to be like that every where.
It's nice to see some of the venom spewing finally set aside, even if it is just for one thread.
chuckfiala: More liberals read! More liberals have gone to universities! Many conservatives actually complain that college professors don't share their views! They hate it that informed people don't agree with them!
Luigi Novi: That’s a pretty serious assertion. Can you document or reference it?
Bunch: I agree, Jack. I also enjoy good, intelligent, respectful debate. My question: When the hell are we going to see any of that on THIS blog??
Luigi Novi: I think we’ve seen plenty of it already. Or are you saying that the conservative and liberal visitors to this site are not apparently educated, intelligent and eloquent in the way they argue their points of view?
Jeff Lawson: I think what amuses me the most is that Novafan apparently lacks the three brain cells required to come up with the concept of a boycott.
Luigi Novi: Novafan didn’t say he was necessarily interested in a boycott, only that he was making a personal decision for himself. And I think that personal comment was uncalled for, Jeff.
Hmmmmmm, I might be a conservative and get annoyed that you apparently think you are behind enemy lines (welcome to the party, how did I stand it in Clinton's AmeriKGBa? I took it like a grown-up). But give up your books and comics? They give me too much joy for that. And I like you as a person, PAD, you are gracious to fans and are a big sweetheart to us fanboy/girls...
Michael Cravens writes:It's fun to debate, but seriously, it's an exercise in futility.
Not at all. I don't post here much, but I read this blog several times a day. Many of the people here on both sides are articulate and well-informed.
And when carefully thought-out arguments are made, I certainly consider them, regardless of political persuasion.
But when obviously intelligent people start rationalizing, rather than presenting a well thought-out argument, it's a pretty strong alert that that emotions are taking over. If I'm agreeing with said rationalizations, it's a sign to me that I'd better think things through a bit more clearly first.
Take gay-marriage. Can't say I strongly opposed it, but I never really liked the concept. After reading arguments for both sides here, I realized I was agreeing with the "shouldn't be allowed" crowd. But why? How would it weaken my marriage with my wife? I didn't have a problem with gays, so why gay marriage?
So that sparked a lot of good conversation in our household, at the end of which I (actually we) concluded that, to be consistent, I had to support gay marriage.
Not trying to start a gay-marriage debate, I'm just making the point that these discussions are not a waste of time by any means. I'm sure that for every person posting here, there are ten reading this.
People who engage in juvenile ranting and posturing (you don't seem to be quite capable of comprehending who you are, but everyone else does) have little effect other than to mildly annoy readers, after which the posts are generally skipped over anyway.
But civil, well-written thoughts are read and listened to.
Luigi, I am apolitical, largely due to the face that I have NEVER, EVER seen intelligent debate or discourse when it comes to politics. This blog is no exception. It's never anything but "Bush sucks" "Clinton sucked" "You suck for following Bush or Clinton," etc. The day that I can see somebody express a rational, intelligent comment on anything political [and that is a blanket statement meant to cover EVERYBODY on this blog, including the author]is the day that I might actually take an interest in politics. That is MY opinion on all things political.
Please note that I am not posting this to seem rude or insulting. It's just my view that politics turns nice people into idiots.
Bill (me) says:
(of course, if the whole world thinks you're an idiot there is a pretty good possibility that, in fact, you are one.)
Karen replies:
"And what does the world think of Bush? Outside of half the US of A."
The whole world? Overstate it much? You were careful to point out that only half the USA voted for Bush (which, BTW, is different from "thinking he's an idiot") but for other countries it seems to be all or nothing.
But, for the record, it seems to be true that much of the world (with some exceptions--India, interestingly, for one) is less than thrilled with the man. Of course, by probably the same margin or worse, many of those citizens also think that Israel is really calling the shots and US policy is all some big Jewish conspiracy. So world opinion should be taken with a grain of salt.
"Half the USA" didn't vote for BushJr. Only half the people who actually voted (or were allowed to vote) did. Which wasn't much more than half of the people who were registered to vote. And everybody I've talked to who voted for BushJr. (I'm the only one I know who didn't) only voted for him — not because they like him, agree with his policies, or think he's actually not an idiot — because they were afraid to change leaders in the middle of a war. How convenient.
My first reaction when I read this post was, "why does this even needed to be a post?" I would think that editing would be a given since the site is owned by PAD. I post here with the knowledge that it might be edited or deleted all together. I think of it as a right that PAD allows us to post here and that same right can be taken away as the owner sees fit.
Now with that said - I don't always agree with the political views shared on this site (more nots than do-s as it were), but I am certainly not going to stop reading any of PAD's work (as I read most everything thing he does) because of a difference in political views.
That is just plain stupid.
Maybe I am missing something but I will say it again.
That is just plain stupid.
This country is set up to where we are all guaranteed the right to form our own opinion and political views. Why should I let one's political views dictate what FICTION I enjoy. Is it the thought that by not buying said material that it will make some statement to force PAD to not write what he wants to write on HIS site? To me that is infringing on said owner's rights. Will I protest if my opinion is censored or deleted off this site? Of course not - 1. it is not a public domain and 2. I do not own this domain in which it is "published."
What would be wrong is if money is taken out of PAD's pocket(which would also be taken out of his children's pocket) because of him expressing his political views.
If you don't like PAD's views and he writes a book on the 8 year term of the current president then don't buy it. But don't let his political views stop you from supporting his phenomenal material (such as Fallen Angel, The New Frontier Novel Series, Hulk, Sir Apropos Series, Madrox, or the Knight Life series and its upcoming sequels. Not to mention the new fantasy novel "Darkness of the Light" coming soon from TOR (which I heard PAD read an excerpt at the 2004 DragonCon panel and it sounds extraordinary).
One bright spot if this picks up steam causing PAD to lost lots of money, Keith DeCandido is there to pick up any extra college bills for his kids. :) At least I read that somewhere... ;)
because they were afraid to change leaders in the middle of a war. How convenient.
Which would be something I, along with I'm sure many other people, predicted would happen 4 years ago.
Granted, it doesn't take a Nostradamus to come up with that, but the truth is rather hard for conservatives to accept.
I'm rather liberal. I don't go to Chuck Dixon's board, who seems rather conservative to me, and rant about what Chuck posts. I don't organize boycotts or threaten to stop reading Chuck's work. I respect him.
Say, you got a web address for that?
Luigi Novi wrote...
Novafan didn’t say he was necessarily interested in a boycott, only that he was making a personal decision for himself. And I think that personal comment was uncalled for, Jeff.
What he said was, "I never said I would stop reading your books, thus costing you money in the long run. But hey, thanks for the great idea." To me, that's a pretty clear indication of interest. Keep in mind that a boycott doesn't have to be an organized effort. One person can boycott something just as well (though not as effectively) as a group.
As for it being an uncalled-for personal statement...well yeah, it probably was. I stand by it in this case, though.
Bill Mulligan wrote...
So world opinion should be taken with a grain of salt.
Agreed. We foreigners should not be allowed to call the shots in your country, but I do think that world opinion of your government should at least be a factor. Too many Americans (and I'm not necessarily singling out a side here) are willing to write the rest of the world off as stupid and uninformed.
Peter I think you and every other liberal (myself included) need to get over the fact that Bush won the election because there is nothing we can do to alter that fact. What our focus needs to be on is the fact that every two years a third of the House and Senate are up for election. As Democrats our focus should be not in complaining about Bush, as that is a done deal, but rather focus on 2006 being the year that we regain control of Congress. After 2006 comes and goes then we can worry about the presidential election 2008.
In a previous post I probably should have said that liberals were able to read with strong comprehension, unlike some conservatives who read with blinders on, supplied by Fox or Rush or some conservative dunk tank.
LesterCarthan posted: What our focus needs to be on is the fact that every two years a third of the House and Senate are up for election.
Actually, that's the entire House and 1/3 of the Senate. House terms run two years, so every Representative's seat is theoretically up for grabs every two years, assuming they draw an opponent.
Senate terms run six years and are staggered so that 1/3 of the seats are up for grabs every two years (again, assuming that each candidate draws an opponent).
In a previous post I probably should have said that liberals were able to read with strong comprehension, unlike some conservatives who read with blinders on, supplied by Fox or Rush or some conservative dunk tank.
Nice way to keep this discourse civil. Of course, as a conservative, my reading comprehension skills are so weak that I have no idea I was just told that I am a mindless idiot who has to be programmed by Rush and Fox News.
I know a few of you will find this hard to believe, but conservatives can be well read and get their information from a broad list of sources. The fact that we still disagree with you does not make us stupid or brainwashed, it just means we have studied the data and come to a different conclusion. And that is life. Most of the political/social issues on this site (such as the war on Iraq, abortion, or gay marriage) are not simple math equations. They are based on a lot of presuppositions that everyone brings to the table. I may think PAD is very out to lunch in his opinion about Bush, but that does not mean PAD is not well read, intelligent, or a good person to have lunch with. It simply means that the perspective we use to approach issues is so different, we see two different things.
That leads to a key question: Who is right? I happen to believe there IS an objective reality, so it is possible for one of us to be right and the other wrong. But I also am humble enough to know that I may be the one who is wrong. So I while it is quite frustrating to read what I consider lies about Bush or other conservatives on this site, I am given the opportunity to look at things through another set of eyes to see if perhaps I might be wrong and need to change my understanding of the truth.
Bottom line, I appreciate PAD and his site, and even respect him, even if I think he is totally wrong on some issues. I do wish that those who disagree with others on this site would be a little more civil about it.
Iowa Jim
Ok, what just happened? Let me repost this the way it should have appeared:
[sarcasm on] Nice way to keep this discourse civil. Of course, as a conservative, my reading comprehension skills are so weak that I have no idea I was just told that I am a mindless idiot who has to be programmed by Rush and Fox News. [sarcasm off]
I put a around the sarcasm comment on my first try, and it disappeared!
Iowa Jim
Peter I think you and every other liberal (myself included) need to get over the fact that Bush won the election because there is nothing we can do to alter that fact.
Well, that is where a baseless and pointless waste of taxpayer money that leads to an impeachment comes in.
So, yes, we learned the hard way 5 years or so ago that there is something you can do about it: impeach Bush.
After all, it's only fair.
I am not really partial to reading your politics on you site. So for the most part I don’t read them. Its not that I agree or disagree, but that is not why I visit your site. As far as your novels and comics go, I will buy and read them until I go blind or you stop writing (then I will have to buy the audio or read your old stuff).
Maybe we should buy some of your works for friends to make up for the unimportant few that choose to think that a few sales here and there make a difference.
So, keep writing and posting what you wish and I will read what I wish. What a concept.
This is PETER's webpage. This is also America. We're supposed to have Freedom of Speech here. Peter can post whatever he wants to post. If you disagree with Peter's views, post your own views on your own webpage. If you try to censor Peter, or anyone else, then you open yourself up for censorship. It works both ways. How would we learn anything at all - including what we choose to believe and stand for - if we close our eyes and ears to opposing viewpoints?
Peter's personal beliefs about God, politics, or otherwise have no bearing on his talents and abilities as a writer. I have followed his work for years, and I choose to read Peter's work because he has a PASSION for the material he writes about, and he LOVES what he writes about. LOVE is the secret ingredient in all he produces, and Peter is clearly a GOOD MAN at heart. I love him and his family, and I love this website. That's not to say that I agree with everything that is expressed, but I RESPECT the fact that this is PETER'S webpage, and this is the United States of America.
I say, God Bless Peter David, and God Bless his right to express himself. I might not agree with all he says, but I - for one - defend his right to Freedom of Speech.
I am a conservative Peter David fan. I will neither stop reading the blog nor stop reading Peter David novels.
Because, unlike the rabid, crazy, Ann-Coulter-ish conservatives, I can separate my political ideology from my personally-enjoyed reading material and the people who write it.
I never heard of Ann Coulter until recently in the Fahrenheit 9/11 "debunking" called Fahren-HYPE 9/11 (clever, huh?). Then I saw her on the cover of her book at a discount store. I think she's pretty hot for a trannie, don't you?
Oh, and read Joshua Dysart and Brad Rader's "TEX" from Atomic Basement —
http://www.atomicbasement.com/ab_cms/
Chuck Dixon's website and message board is at: http://www.dixonverse.net/ It's less a blog and more a message board, but Chuck frequently posts, and sometimes about political subjects. Gail Simone also visits there, as well as Beau Smith, and there are others.
Oh, and as for Aretha...I stand corrected, but come on...can you really imagine that song sung by anyone else but Aretha? ;-)
Bunch: Luigi, I am apolitical, largely due to the face that I have NEVER, EVER seen intelligent debate or discourse when it comes to politics. This blog is no exception. It's never anything but "Bush sucks" "Clinton sucked" "You suck for following Bush or Clinton," etc.
Luigi Novi: Untrue. The vast majority of the political posts here are made with intelligent arguments. Posts that consist of nothing but invective and venom tend to be the minority. If you think there’s never been intelligent debate or discourse on this blog, then you obviously haven’t read it much.
Bunch: The day that I can see somebody express a rational, intelligent comment on anything political [and that is a blanket statement meant to cover EVERYBODY on this blog, including the author]is the day that I might actually take an interest in politics. That is MY opinion on all things political.
Luigi Novi: Well, thanks for saying that I’ve never expressed a rational, intelligent comment on anything political. It would seem that these comments say far more about yourself than about the blog.
Jeff Lawson: As for it being an uncalled-for personal statement...well yeah, it probably was. I stand by it in this case, though.
Luigi Novi: So you admit that it was a personal comment that was uncalled for, but stand by it anyway? Wow, way to uphold your principles. Left side of mouth, meet right side of mouth. Right side of mouth, meet left side of mouth.
You know, saying that one refuses to buy Peter David novels because of his political ideology would make almost as much sense as my saying I'd never buy anything with Keith R. A. DeCandido's name on it because he and I once (okay, more than once) had huge arguments on a Spider-Man mailing list about the Ben Reilly character.
One thing (Peter's political beliefs, Keith's bias against clones) has no bearing on the other (my enjoyment of both men's writing). Why would I give up something I love because I happen to disagree with the person creating it?
Luigi Novi wrote...
So you admit that it was a personal comment that was uncalled for, but stand by it anyway?
Upon further thought, I think that it was called for. The guy's an idiot, he said something that indicated exactly what an idiot he is, and I said so. I've got nothing against anyone who can be bothered to make a case for their arguments, but I've got zero tolerance for Novafan. On the reverse side of things, I have an equal amount of respect for Bladestar, who's just as stupid, but has the unfortunate distinction of being on my "team."
PAD, I lean toward conservative, not going to stop reading your work based on your views. I also want you to get your views out there, keep going with the impeach, war crimes, freedom clock, Day or Mourning and so on. The more Americans hear this type of talk I think the more likely they will want to distance themselves from it and vote correctly next time out as well.
Ok liberals, scream from the highest tree top, go tell it on the mountain, go forth and spread your word to everyone....please!
Yeah, that seems fair. I've never posted to this place but I've been reading for...Hell, how long has it been...
I'm finding that these kind of announcements are having to go up with more regularity. What I admire most is your wording of this particular grief, and keeping it to the "belligerent" faction that would censor *you*. Other places aren't that civil about things, deleting text they disagree with wholesale or pointing and saying "What an idiot; get 'im, guys."
I'm between comic shops for now, but last I checked Madrox is still getting a bound collection; is that still a go?
Nick Soapdish and Michael Cravens.
Thank you for the web address to Chuck Dixon's blog, guys. I really appreciate it.
Someone posted that Calhoun looks very much like Bush to him. Well, if Calhoun would indeed be like Bush, I don`t think NF would be my favourite book series.
No way would Calhoun be in favour of invading a country using dubious intelligence as an excuse. No way would he "free" a country but after the dictator is gone, it is obvious that the invader has little idea how to rebuild what had been destroyed. Calhoun would not be in favour of Guantanamo Bay or Belmarsh prison, for that matter. The list goes on...
No, Calhoun is certainly willing and able to bend, occasionally also break rules when he thinks it is the right thing to do. But he has his limits and he knows best, also because of his personal history, that you can`t (or better, shouldn`t) preach about freedom and rights when you don`t practise them yourself.
I don`t have the time to read all of these postings and anyway, this discussion isn`t new to me either. Some people have an amazing logic: I am sure also PAD doesn`t mind reading about different opinions. One of my friends is a Bush supporter which I am certainly not but the result were some interesting discussions. Not that there is a chance that I or he will change attitudes but nevertheless, we had exchanges that made us think.
Coming into a home (and this is PAD`s domain), be hostile, even abusive and complain later that PAD "can`t take it and therefore shouldn`t talk about politics" is not something I would accept either.
I expected this to happen after PAD, not so long ago, posted how tolerant he will be at accepting postings here. I welcome it because I have better things to do than wading through insulting postings of all kinds. It is really not so difficult to disagree without becoming abusive.
"R-E-S-P-E-C-T" sung by someone else? I don't have to imagine it. Maureen McGovern did it in the movie "Airplane". She made it uniquely her own, I think.
No way would Calhoun be in favour of invading a country using dubious intelligence as an excuse.
But that is exactly the problem. You believe that Bush used bad intelligence as an excuse. I have yet to see one shred of credible evidence that Bush did so. Clearly, in hindsight, our intelligence was wrong in many areas. But unless there is proof that Bush knew it at the time, your point is merely changing the starting values to get the result that you want.
No way would he "free" a country but after the dictator is gone, it is obvious that the invader has little idea how to rebuild what had been destroyed.
Did you read "Stone & Anvil"? Calhoun left his planet after it was liberated and did not stay long term to restore order. He left that to his brother and others. Obviously, he was fighting to free his own people, not invade to liberate. But there is some reason for comparison none the less.
Calhoun would not be in favour of Guantanamo Bay or Belmarsh prison, for that matter. The list goes on...
Neither is Bush in favor of the torture and atrocities that have happened. He is in favor of stopping terrorism. Somewhere there is a line that should not be crossed. Clearly it was, but also clearly it was more of the exception rather than the rule (unless you don't want terrorists to be held at all in the first place).
It is obvious that if Calhoun had the facts as many on the "Left" portray them, he would not have invaded Iraq. But that is not the issue. I don't think Bush would have either if the facts were as the "Left" portrays them. The question is if there was reason to believe what the "Right" accused, would Calhoun have invaded. I think the answer is a qualified yes -- he would have, but in a little more original way! But that is just my thoughts on the matter.
Iowa Jim
Calhoun would have convinced the Iraqis to overthrow Saddam themselves with a little creative effort on the side. Or his intuition would have told him that Iraq didn't have WMDs and he would have gone after North Korea instead, despite endless harping by Shelby. But Calhoun has always been the Bond "everything works out for me" type. You can be sure he wouldn't have ended up looking like an idiot over something like WMDs, nor had over 1,000 of his command die.
But then... maybe he did? Perhaps that's the mysterious incident he regrets so much? In that case, he would still be unlike Bush- he recognizes and regrets his mistakes.
Jim (going to take a while to get used to Iowa Jim, rather than Jim in Iowa...unless there're 2 of you now...maybe the Jim Clone era has started?)
The issue is that Bush issued an order to invade, and was pretty much proven wrong on many of his major invasion justifications. No WMDs, no huge amounts of terror cells, no plans that indicated that Saddam was going to sell or give WMDs to terrorists, and pretty much no evidence that Saddam had the capability to produce or use WMDs anywhere. Bush was wrong there.
And now we're learning that he was wrong on his plans for how the war would go. He thought that we'd have millions of Iraqi's lining up to fight with us, and that resistance would be light and intermittant. He's been wrong on both counts.
Now, winning the election goes a long way to supporting the idea that more voting Americans than not don't care that he was wrong there. Which doesn't change the fact that the C in C of the most destructive military in the world issued orders to launch an attack on information that was wrong. Did he know it at the time? Probably not, because his administration is not one that searches for the truth, but dictates what they want the truth to be, and then sifts through information until they get the support they need. It's how he works. I know....I'm just 4 (or 5, depending on who you count) places removed from the President here in my Federal job. Granted, there are hundreds of miles and thousands of people I'd need to go through to cover those 4 (or 5) people, but I *know* things.
All kidding aside, I do think that this administration is more concerned with advancing an agenda than with dealing with facts. Mostly, this is based on my belief that a smart C in C does not launch a ground war against a country that may retaliate with gas, biological, or nuclear weapons. The potential devastation to our military would be too great a cost. So, to my mind, Bush just giving the order to invade tells me that he knew, or had very little reason to suspect, that Saddam did not have the capacity to use WMDs against our troops there.
Because despite what others may think my opinion is, I don't think our president is an idiot, and only an idiot would attack an enemy that has the capacity to kill thousands of US troops at the touch of a button.
I forget the title of the book (I call it Space Cowboy/Sherrif Calhoun, because I can never remember it), but my favorite Calhoun tactic was against the desparado that Calhoun realized he couldn't beat in a shoot-out. His solution was, let's say, to take full advantage of his "terrain."
And no, it did not involve building some kind of rudimentary lathe....
I am a big believer in the concept that a country should find its own destiny. It is different if a country asks for help and is attacked as it was the case with Kuwait but I am very much against the idea that the USA seems to see its destiny in being the world policeman, that it decides who to invade or not and if most of the world disagrees, so what?
German unification happened not because someone invaded. Apartheit in South Africa is at least officially gone not because of violent intervention. It took time and patience but eventually, it happened. And the consequence is, although there is still a lot of work to be done, the countries are stable and moving in the right direction.
The idea of invading a country "for its own good", get rid of grown political structures and then try to introduce western style democracy in a country that has its own values, culture and social structures isn`t something that should be done. Afghanistan is still unstable and it is unlikely that all troops will leave in the forseeable future. If people think that after the elections everything will be fine, they are mistaken. I am not optimistic and that means, also this is a long term commitment for many years to come. And then there is talk about Iran...
Calhoun and Xenex is the example that it is indeed first of all the inhabitants who should form their own destiny. But I am sure, if the Federation would have OFFERED help (which they wouldn`t because of the Prime Directive and Xenex is a very poor, unimportant planet anyway), they might have welcomed it to do so WITH the cooperation of the Xenexians.
Calhoun was one man, not a one man army. He did his job, if you want to call it that, and left a relatively stable Xenex behind.
Concerning weapons of mass destruction, I remember the presentation of the so-called evidence in British parliament and found it very dubious indeed. I wasn`t convinced. Maybe the future will reveal one day if Bush and Blair actually lied but it had been revealed that dossiers had been polished so that the threat looked worse than it did at the beginning. (Like "Saddam can fire WMDs within 45 minutes", something like that) At the very least, Bush was too much in a hurry and the quality of intelligence suffered accordingly.
To be fair, I don`t know how far it is known in the USA that recently also genuine photos of British soldiers mistreating prisoners, here civilians, emerged. Some of them are disgusting. I want to believe that they are really the exception of the rule also in the USA, I really hope so! I am afraid, the people at the very top who might ordered these atrocities might never be punished.
No, I don`t think Calhoun would have invaded Iraq. It is more likely, he would have supported or even founded a resistance movment.
Jeff Lawson said I think what amuses me the most is that Novafan apparently lacks the three brain cells required to come up with the concept of a boycott.
and Upon further thought, I think that it was called for. The guy's an idiot, he said something that indicated exactly what an idiot he is, and I said so. I've got nothing against anyone who can be bothered to make a case for their arguments, but I've got zero tolerance for Novafan. On the reverse side of things, I have an equal amount of respect for Bladestar, who's just as stupid, but has the unfortunate distinction of being on my "team."
Apparently, Jeff Lawson, you're so stupid you didn't even see my little smiley on the end of my post.
Who's the idiot now?
Stand by, I'll be shadowing every single post of yours on this board from now on you jerk. I've dealt with attacks on this board before but that one steals the cake.
Again, I say stand by.
btw, thanks Luigi for the nice comments
Novafan
As a matter of fact I did see the end of your post. The smiley could mean anything - in this case it appeared (still does) to be a rude and malicious one.
If it was not, you have my wholehearted apologies - I'm the first to admit I can make mistakes. In the future, though, try to remember one of the cardinal rules of the internet: sarcasm doesn't translate well. Be very careful when using it.
I'm perfectly content to live in mutual ignorance if that's what you wish.
I forgot to add some advice that I think you could benefit from (not that you give to shits about my advice, but here it is nonetheless).
Stop posting under "Novafan" and start fresh, under your real name. Don't be as inflammatory as you've been in the past, contribute to discussions when possible. I think you'll find that people, including myself, respect you a lot more.
Jeff Lawson said Mostly though, seeing the way some of the people here and elsewhere treat each other over the issues is just downright depressing.
Do the words "practise what you preach" mean anything to you?
Alright, alright, I'll bite. It's bad enough I was the instigator, I'm not going to make things worse by perpetuating the conflict.
I apologize for insulting you, it was contradictory to the way I feel people should act online. I caved too easily to the annoyances I was feeling. In the future, I shall endeavour to be a better role model.
Jeff,
You cave very easily, Bush would love you...
Have fun on his team!
Bladestar wrote...
You cave very easily, Bush would love you...
I wouldn't say I caved - my opinion of Novafan and many of his comments here remains unchanged.
However, I am man enough to admit that my comments were unproductive and contradictory to what I was saying earlier.
Neither is Bush in favor of the torture and atrocities that have happened.
Really? Maybe then he should have somebody else as Attorney General than a man who called the Geneva Conventions "quaint"?
and only an idiot would attack an enemy that has the capacity to kill thousands of US troops at the touch of a button.
Well, it's a question that conservatives have never bothered to answer, that's for sure.
Maybe they just won't like the answer that they know they'll find: that Bush was lying out the ass and deserves to be removed from office.
Or that he put our troops in harms way to such a degree that it defies all logic: why not just stick 'em out in New Mexico and drop atomic bombs on them instead? Again, rather deserving of impeachment.
All comic book writers and artists that I can think of (except Chuck Dixon) have wacky far-left beliefs. I don't know what the cause of this is, but I'm not going to throw away my Hulk and Fallen Angel comics just because PAD talks shit sometimes.
and only an idiot would attack an enemy that has the capacity to kill thousands of US troops at the touch of a button.
Well, it's a question that conservatives have never bothered to answer, that's for sure.
If you believe they could use those same weapons on American soil as planes were used on 9/11, yes, you would send in troops to take out those WMD's, even if it meant some of them might be killed. You don't go to war unless you are willing to sacrifice some of your own men to protect the nation.
You also ignore the propoganda Bush's administration and the Pentagon engaged in before the war started. They did everything they could to warn the Iraqi leaders and soldiers to not use WMD's. So Bush did not blindly send men in without consideration of the risk involved to the troops.
Iowa Jim
So, to my mind, Bush just giving the order to invade tells me that he knew, or had very little reason to suspect, that Saddam did not have the capacity to use WMDs against our troops there.
Your argument does make some sense. But there are other scenarios that could also apply. Bush may have believed Saddam had the materials for WMD's but had not yet put together the delivery system for it. Thus, it would be safe to invade the country (and in fact would argue for the urgency of not waiting), but also be a reason to invade in that those raw materials could be turned over to other terrorists. Obviously, not being 5 people removed from Bush, I am just speculating, but my suggestion would fit the known facts as well as would yours.
In addition, your portrayal of Bush, though I would disagree, would fit the facts. I think he is a little more principled than you suggest, but fully admit that he is a politician, and more importantly, a human. To suggest he is ruthlessly lieing and deliberately deceiving does not fit the actual facts. Your suggestion could, and if true, would scare me. The one reason I come down on my side is that the second hand testimony of Republicans friends I have who knew Bush in Texas and who believe he is more principled and intelligent than many give him credit for being.
At the end of the day, I have to go with what Bush does. In most ways, Bush follows through on the issues I support, and there is no evidence of his deliberately deceiving us. So I continue to support him while continuing to hold him accountable.
Iowa Jim
(No, I am not a clone. "Jim in Iowa" sounded too much like a call in radio name, and since I only have called a radio show once in my life, and it was not a political show that I called, and since I wanted something shorter, I decided to change my name.)
John Rearden Wrote
All comic book writers and artists that I can think of (except Chuck Dixon) have wacky far-left beliefs. I don't know what the cause of this is, but I'm not going to throw away my Hulk and Fallen Angel comics just because PAD talks shit sometimes.
Have your heard of the writer/artist John Byrne? I'm not saying he's not wacky, just not far left wacky.
Bush may have believed Saddam had the materials for WMD's but had not yet put together the delivery system for it.
Which means, either way, he did not have WMD taht were a PRESENT AND IMMEDIATE THREAT.
Maybe you're just missing the obvious here, Jim, but Bush sold this war on the fact that Saddam had WMD and he was ready to use them.
I've said it before and I say it again: I was naive enough to believe Bush's bullshit. I fully believe that when our troops got to Baghdad, Saddam would let loose, killing everybody.
It didn't happen. So Bush is so full of shit that you could squeeze his head and it'll come out his years.
And the people in this country are so damn stupid that they reward him for lying to us all with another four years.
and there is no evidence of his deliberately deceiving us
Too bad you're too blind to see otherwise.
And, good gods, what the hell is this world coming to?
Some nutbags in Russia want to outlaw Jewish organizations?
Are these relatives of the Nazis that we forgot to round up and have hung with the rest of them during the Nuremburg Trials?
Man, humanity makes me sick...
"Russian Lawmakers Targets Jewish Groups
Mon Jan 24, 3:11 PM ET
Europe - AP
By STEVE GUTTERMAN, Associated Press Writer
MOSCOW - A group of nationalist Russian lawmakers called Monday for a sweeping investigation aimed at outlawing all Jewish organizations and punishing officials who support them, accusing Jews of fomenting ethnic hatred and saying they provoke anti-Semitism.
In a letter dated Jan. 13, about 20 members of the lower house of parliament, the State Duma, asked Prosecutor General Vladimir Ustinov to investigate their claims and to launch proceedings "on the prohibition in our country of all religious and ethnic Jewish organizations as extremist."
The letter, faxed in part to The Associated Press by the office of lawmaker Alexander Krutov, said, "The negative assessments by Russian patriots of the qualities and actions against non-Jews that are typical of Jews correspond to the truth ... The statements and publications against Jews that have incriminated patriots are self-defense, which is not always stylistically correct but is justified in essence."
The stunning call to ban all Jewish groups raised concerns of persistent anti-Semitism in Russia.
Jewish leaders have praised President Vladimir Putin (news - web sites)'s government for encouraging religious tolerance, but rights groups accuse the authorities of failing to prosecute the perpetrators of anti-Semitic and racial violence.
Russia's chief rabbi, Berel Lazar, said lawmakers were looking for support "by playing the anti-Semitic card."
The prosecutor general's office could not immediately be reached for comment on the letter, which the Interfax news agency said was signed by lawmakers from the nationalist Rodina and Liberal Democratic parties as well as the Communist Party.
Krutov, a Rodina member, is deputy chief of the Duma's Committee on Information Policy.
With Putin planning to join events this week commemorating the liberation of the Auschwitz concentration camp by Soviet troops, Russia's Holocaust Foundation head Alla Gerber said it was "horrible that as we're marking the 60th anniversary of this tragic and great day ... we can speak of the danger of fascism in the countries that defeated fascism."
While the Russian state itself is no longer anti-Semitic, there are "anti-Semitic campaigns that are led by all sorts of organizations," she said.
"The economic situation is ripe for this. An enemy is needed, and the enemy is well-known, traditional," Gerber said.
Echoing anti-Semitic tracts of the Czarist era, the letter's authors accuse Jews of working against the interests of the countries where they live and of monopolizing power worldwide. They say the United States "has become an instrument for achieving the global aims of Judaism."
"It is possible to say that the entire democratic world today is under the monetary and political control of international Judaism, which high-profile bankers are openly proud of," the letter says.
Along with outlawing Jewish organizations, the lawmakers call for the prosecution of "individuals responsible for providing these groups with state and municipal property, privileges and state financing."
Calhoun "Bush-ish"? Yeah, Right.
What about The Redeemers?
Aren't they part of the Religious Right?
If Calhoun was more "Bush-ish" he wouldn't be happy out there in Thallonian space. No, he would have disregarded common sense and went
charging after, say, The Dogs of War, or for that matter, The Dominion or The Borg, and gotten a lot of people killed while trying to promote "democracy" to societies that have never had a clue what freedom is.
Furthermore, if Calhoun were more like Bush, he wouldn't ever be a part of Starfleet, The Federation and it's "Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations" credo. M'k'n'zy has found his place because IDIC applies even to someone like him. Bush's friends are worried about SpongeBob and Tinky-Winky.
Michael Cravens posted: Oh, and as for Aretha...I stand corrected, but come on...can you really imagine that song sung by anyone else but Aretha? ;-)
Well, yeah, that was more or less Otis' point, too. I believe his exact quote on the matter, after he first heard Aretha's rendition, was (said with the utmost of admiration and respect), "that girl done stole my song."
In other news, is this a proper saying or is it "getting goaded" or something. What the hell kind of metaphor is that anyway? "getting your goat". What the hell are they doing to my goat anyway?
http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-get1.htm
http://www.word-detective.com/back-j2.html#goat
Jim, there's two problems I see, although just thinking about it, I can see the counter to my own argument.
Problem one is that for years, the USSR could and did have WMDs, and had the ability to deploy them to US soil. We never invaded. We never attacked. The reason why was MAD (mutually assured destruction..."Do You Want To Play A Game?") Sure, we could have taken them out, but only at great risk of getting ourselves melted into slag.
Problem two is that Bush didn't justify his invasion on a potentiality of Saddam having WMDs, or because Saddam wouldn't stop trying to get/make WMDs, it was because Saddam HAD WMDs, and could delpoy them to neighboring nations with as little as 45 minutes prep time. Essentially, Bush presented as fact that WMDs existed, Saddam had them, and we needed to take them out.
Now, I know arguing against yourself is counter productive, but I can already see how my own cold-war example works against me. 9/11 could be viewed as a "first strike" event, triggering the MAD scenario that stayed our hand against the USSR. In that case, we've already suffered the loss of thousands, and if we're gonna get nuked anyway, may as well as take them with us.
Except, the first strike turned out to be an only strike. There was no follow-up barrage, meaning MAD isn't coming about.
I guess my point is, if Bush really thought there was a chance that WMDs could have been deployed against our troops, then it was a collossal blunder to launch a ground attack. We have the weapons and technology to seek out and destroy WMD facilities without risking thousands of troops, and while you can't eliminate all risk, there should have been some indication or statement that lowered that risk to a statistical improbabilty. To do anything else is to put America's core defense, our military in the way of catastrophic harm. And yes, suffering another 9/11 would be horrific. But losing a good portion of the best trained military in the world would literally open up our borders to, well, Canada, or Mexico.
Ahem.
Jim,
I do agree with your take on Bush that he does have a high standard of morals, and is trying to act true to them. I've kinda questioned his religious morals in the past, but that was more of trying to understand him, rather than condeming him. But I also think that his administration, including when he was in Texas, is a My way or Bye way administration. And from what I know of Texas government (my dad lives there, so this is really his opinion), Bush as governer had far less authority and responsibility than Bush as President. So it may very well be that he hasn't lied, but niether has he made a strenuous effort to discover a large range of facts. I think he does set a condition, and then seek facts to support that condition, to the extent that he ignores facts that suggest that another condition might actually exist.
Professor James Lindgren of Northwestern writes:
"In the 1994-2002 General Social Surveys (GSS), Republicans have over 6/10ths of a year more education on average than Democrats. Republicans also have a higher final mean educational degree. Further, Republicans scored better than Democrats on two word tests in the GSS—a short vocabulary test and a modified analogies test.
"If one breaks down the data by party affiliation and political orientation, the most highly educated group is conservative Republicans, who also score highest on the vocabulary and analogical reasoning tests. Liberal Democrats score only insignificantly lower than conservative Republicans.
“The least educated subgroups are moderate and conservative Democrats, who also score at the bottom (or very near the bottom) on vocabulary and analogy tests."
Bush as governer had far less authority and responsibility than Bush as President.
That is a very accurate statement. The Texas legislature only meets every other year! So there is a world of difference between being the governor of Texas and the President of America. But it is probably as close as you can get (except for perhaps being the governor of a state with a stronger governor position), so I do think it gave him important experience.
Regarding WMD's, I would love to read a book 20 years from now that does honest interviews with the key players. Something doesn't add up. That does not have to mean Bush lied, etc. It could be that there is intelligence that is still so sensitive (for real or political reasons) that it has not yet come out. There are things we only learned 20 or 30 years after the Cuban missle crisis, and understandably so. I suspect Bush will, for the most part, be vindicated in his actions BASED ON WHAT HE COULD HAVE KNOWN AT THE TIME. But it is possible that he made many blunders. The one option that does not fit the facts (in my opinion) is that he deliberately lied and did things for anything other than a desire to protect and defend America.
Iowa Jim
Jim,
Would you find the idea of Bush not deliberately lying so much as taking a position of...let's call it "determined ignorance" to be a more plausible explanation for his actions?
That is, he may not have known the intelligence was bad, but he also wasn't going out of his way to find out. From what I've heard of snippets from former intelligence officials and the like, the White House seems to have disregarded a lot of information.
BASED ON WHAT HE COULD HAVE KNOWN AT THE TIME.
Jim, you're ignoring the scenarios again.
Either Saddam had WMD and Bush sent over 100k troops into a situation that could have killed tens of thousands of them in minutes.
Or he didn't have WMD, and Bush lied to us.
Neither is very pretty, but you seem just as determined to go out of your way to excuse this pathetic war.
Then I saw [Ann Coulter] on the cover of her book at a discount store. I think she's pretty hot for a trannie, don't you?
Now that was below the belt.
- Z
Yes, I'd imagine it is. Unless she's had it removed, that is... ;-P
'Have your heard of the writer/artist John Byrne? I'm not saying he's not wacky, just not far left wacky.'
John Byrne has some antiquated impressions of women and minorities, but that doesn't mean that he is not a leftist. Look at Sen. Robert KKK Byrd (who, ironically, also has a massive ego.)
There are things we only learned 20 or 30 years after the Cuban missle crisis, and understandably so.
Like Sokolov and the completion of the Shagohod? I'm sorry, I've been playing and obsessed with Metal Gear Solid 3 way too much. Sorry. To continue with the over-analyzing of a ficticious alien... Calhoun being Bush-like... when I first heard that, I could see a connection. But after analyzing Calhoun's behavior and motives, the connection fell apart. I doubt Calhoun would risk other people to meet his own ends. While he would pull together people for a just cause, when it's just something only HE has a stake in, he goes alone. (He would have resigned from Starfleet to go after his son). To move on to another (but similar) topic: I feel I'm the minority in thinking that the US shouldn't police the world. I've only seen one or 2 people agree with me on that. I'm curious, does anyone else feel that way? Not that you necessarily dis/agree with any political views or leaders, but that there seems to be something wrong with the US making it its sacred and holy duty to impose its worldview on other countries. (Side note, I recall hearing "Manifest Destiny" was the US' sacred and holy duty to expand itself from one shore to the other).
Jim, I'm going to have to agree with you again...
Ok, the world still here? Good.
The thing is, for Bush to have lied would take a conspiracy/control over those who knew that of an unprecedented kind. And I just don't think that's the case. If he truly did lie, and no credible source has come forward to expose that, then he probably was acting from a position of truth. But that does not equal accuracy. If we do get a chance to review this administration in 20 or so years, I would not be surprised at all to see that the administration had access to information that indicated that their case was not as strong as they made it out, but the adminstration decided to discount it. It fits in with the things you hear about how they only want to see information that supports their goals.
I do think that Bush felt it was necessary to go after Iraq to keep the US safe. I also think he was wrong, and that a truly objective observer would not have made the same decision Bush did.
Under that premise, I guess you could look at it this way: Bush's actions, if applied to the standards of our legal system, would likely allow him to be found guilty of gross negligence in performing his duties as President. Which is all good and well as a theory, but the election proves that most voters either don't see it that way, or don't care enough to vote him out.
Hi, long time reader first time poster. It's proably been mentioned before, but I really have to wonder why would someone come back to a site that contains political views they don't like and constantly get into shouting matches. Wait I get it these guys must have been "Crossfire" fans.
1Posted by Neil C at January 24, 2005 04:43 AM
Michael Cravens writes:It's fun to debate, but seriously, it's an exercise in futility.
Not at all. I don't post here much, but I read this blog several times a day. Many of the people here on both sides are articulate and well-informed.
And when carefully thought-out arguments are made, I certainly consider them, regardless of political persuasion.
But when obviously intelligent people start rationalizing, rather than presenting a well thought-out argument, it's a pretty strong alert that that emotions are taking over. If I'm agreeing with said rationalizations, it's a sign to me that I'd better think things through a bit more clearly first.
Take gay-marriage. Can't say I strongly opposed it, but I never really liked the concept. After reading arguments for both sides here, I realized I was agreeing with the "shouldn't be allowed" crowd. But why? How would it weaken my marriage with my wife? I didn't have a problem with gays, so why gay marriage?
So that sparked a lot of good conversation in our household, at the end of which I (actually we) concluded that, to be consistent, I had to support gay marriage.
Not trying to start a gay-marriage debate, I'm just making the point that these discussions are not a waste of time by any means. I'm sure that for every person posting here, there are ten reading this.
People who engage in juvenile ranting and posturing (you don't seem to be quite capable of comprehending who you are, but everyone else does) have little effect other than to mildly annoy readers, after which the posts are generally skipped over anyway.
But civil, well-written thoughts are read and listened to.
--it's funny, but as a gay man, I'm rather ambivalent towards gay marriage. I mean, give me a civil union with all the benefits of marriage and I'll be fine. I don't think it's the correct fight. I think we should be focusing on equality (just as the Civil Rights Movement did) for all.
Tony
I've read several posts that mention how "odd" it is that someone would stop reading a book by a writer who's politics differ from theirs.
It's incredibly easy for me to imagine (and I've never done that).
The fact is it boils down to protest. By not buying someone's work, you're not supporting them. You don't agree with their politics, so you don't give them your money.
It may not be the most *logical* argument--since as people have pointed out, a good writer doesn't let his politics invade his stories--but it is one nonetheless.
Tony wrote...
It may not be the most *logical* argument--since as people have pointed out, a good writer doesn't let his politics invade his stories--but it is one nonetheless.
That's true, and I think most people here are critical of it because it is illogical, particularly because PAD doesn't turn his work into political propaganda. If every book he wrote came out like a mid-70s issue of Green Arrow, a boycott might be pretty reasonable.
On another note, I applaud your taking the time to consider and debate the gay marriage argument. It's always good to see someone who is willing to think critically about their own views, and (my goodness!) even change their mind.
As for the "civil unions" argument, while that would be a step in the right direction, I don't feel that it's enough. If it's going to have all the benefits of marriage (including, in some cases, religious approval - the United Church of Canada, to name one, decided to sanction same-sex marriages last year), why would you call it something else? In my opinion, that whole line of thought smacks of "separate but equal" policies.
And yes, I realize that it's not quite the same thing, so there's no need to point that out. The ideas are highly similar in principle, though.
Separate but equal? I don't know, I kind of think that's exactly what it is. Basically, if by allowing civil unions, and they contain rights of inheritance, survivorship, medical rights, health insurance sharing, adoptive and custody rights, and pretty much all the other trappings of marraige, why call it something else except to exclude some class from sharing in a little "hetero club?"
And it raises the question, will civil unions only be available to same sex couples, or can male-female pairs enter into them as well? And what is going to be the criteria to obtain one? Civil marraige calls for consenting adults, or parental approval in some cases, a few witnesses, and an administrative fee. It's relatively simple.
Posted by: John Rearden
John Byrne has some antiquated impressions of women and minorities, but that doesn't mean that he is not a leftist. Look at Sen. Robert KKK Byrd (who, ironically, also has a massive ego.)
Wrong.
JB Quote:
"The Right Wing is not automatically synonymous
with the Republican party. I don't agree with much of what the Right Wing expounds, and I consider myself a pretty Right Wing kinda guy!"
kingbobb wrote...
Separate but equal? I don't know, I kind of think that's exactly what it is.
I do too, but I figured that if I didn't throw in a disclaimer, someone would start talking about the inferior water fountains mentioned in the definition I linked to. Sure, "civil unions" don't have anything functionally wrong with them, but the very act of denying an equal title to homosexuals implies that their unions are inferior to "real marriage."
How about these other examples of separate but equal?
Support President Bush, get allowed to attend his public appearances. Oppose President Bush, and get relegated to a "free speech zone" 2 miles off the parade route, fenced in, and guarded by police that are more than happy to mace you if you try to leave?
Ok, that last bit is a slight exaggeration, but still, the point, I think, is that for a President claiming to be a "uniter, not a divider," he's sure going out of his way to divide people into distinct groups.
Your point is correct, but I wish I could say that sort of thing happens only in the U.S. Unfortunately, that happens to protestors just about everywhere nowadays, which is one of two reasons I don't think protesting is effective any more.
"Echoing anti-Semitic tracts of the Czarist era, the letter's authors accuse Jews of working against the interests of the countries where they live and of monopolizing power worldwide. They say the United States "has become an instrument for achieving the global aims of Judaism."
I'm gonna go out on a limb here and guess that PAD doesn't feel that George Bush is being "an instrument for achieving the global aims of Judaism"
Furthermore if someone could fill me in on the sinister goals of the jewish people that I seem to have missed....
hmm there are no HTML tags to indicate sarcasm. there should be!!!
For those of you who still think gay marriage is a recent development:
http://www.ashe-prem.org/five/duffy.shtml
Yeah, so? Jesus only professed love, and God only wants people's souls to re-join him in heaven. The problem with gay marriages here in America is that they don't produce any children that we can send to war. Duh!
Back to the original topic, PAD, I thought you might want to know youare not alone with your troll problem. Would that be a troll infestation?)From http://seetheforest.blogspot.com/ at 1:59 on January 27:
Many Progressive bloggers have been noticing a recent increase in "trolls" -- right-wingers showing up and disrupting the comments. The recent trolls also seem more sophisticated. Whatever the reason for the increase, I'm not going to let them disrupt Seeing the Forest.
Warning to Conservatives: This is a very Progressive blog. Enter at your own risk.
The problem with gay marriages here in America is that they don't produce any children that we can send to war. Duh!
I've wondered for a while why the people who oppose gay marriage "because there isn't the possibility of having a child" are fine with hetersexual couples who choost not to have kids. It seems like the same kind of situation.
Karen Wrote:
Warning to Conservatives: This is a very Progressive blog. Enter at your own risk.
Why are Liberals so afraid of calling themselves Liberals anymore? They start using the term "progressive"? I guess it's the negative connotation "liberal" has with the general public. I see the forest fine, it's the liberals hiding behind "progressive" trees.
It's kinda like how the right-wingers gave up the word "privatization" in raltion to Social Security in exchange for "choice." It's an awkward fit, though, since they take the opposite side of the fence on the same word coupled with Abortion (or "Reproductive Rights" as the left-wingers call it).
And again, the terms "liberal" and "conservative" don't mean anything if you don't use the dictionary definitions of them. If you did, you'd have to admit that the BushJr. administration is far more liberal than the worst Hillary Clinton or Ted Kennedy have ever proposed.
"I've wondered for a while why the people who oppose gay marriage "because there isn't the possibility of having a child" are fine with hetersexual couples who choost not to have kids. It seems like the same kind of situation."
Because they don't have to sit up late at night fearing that somewhere a hetero couple without kids might be taking it up the butt.
Ha, my flawed logic strikes again!!!!!!
Why are Liberals so afraid of calling themselves Liberals anymore?
This would be the first I've heard of it.
Although, it's downright pathetic that conservatives have turned "liberal" into a dirty word.
PAD,
On the slightly tangental topic of trolls, there's an article in today's Detroit Free Press about a "honeypot" computer program for dealing with people who spam weblogs.
http://www.freep.com/money/tech/mwendland28e_20050128.htm
Thought you might like to see it.
Rick
"It may not be the most *logical* argument--since as people have pointed out, a good writer doesn't let his politics invade his stories--but it is one nonetheless"
It doesn't bother me if people start boycotting an author for his opinion if they admit that it's senseless and illogical. It's when they pretend it makes sense and is perfectly reasonable that it bugs me.
PAD
Posted by: Craig J. Ries
Although, it's downright pathetic that conservatives have turned "liberal" into a dirty word.
...or liberals turned it into a dirty word all by themselves. What makes it more pathetic is liberals making it more of a dirty word by hiding from it.
Eirc!
>>Although, it's downright pathetic that conservatives have turned "liberal" into a dirty word.
>...or liberals turned it into a dirty word all by themselves. What makes it more pathetic is liberals making it more of a dirty word by hiding from it.
So does that make the continual generakizing that seems typical in these discussions even more outrageous than all of the above?
Fred
...or liberals turned it into a dirty word all by themselves.
Umm, ok.
Too bad neocons have taken the word "conservative" and run with it too... all the way off a rather large cliff.
What makes it more pathetic is liberals making it more of a dirty word by hiding from it.
Like I said, this si the first I've heard of anybody hiding from it.
Frankly, I consider that just "parisan" propoganda like what's coming from the crap-filled mouths of conservative Republicans in the White House.
It sort of makes me glad to be in Canada, where "Liberal" is the name of the ruling party. I don't know how/when it became some sort of 4-letter word down there...it's really bizarre.
I don't know how/when it became some sort of 4-letter word down there...it's really bizarre.
When conservatives stopped being conservatives and became something else. This happened with Reagan.
I mean, really... this country is really in serious role-reversal mode right now.
Craig says:
Why are Liberals so afraid of calling themselves Liberals anymore?
This would be the first I've heard of it.
Although, it's downright pathetic that conservatives have turned "liberal" into a dirty word."
"Frankly, I consider that just "parisan" propoganda like what's coming from the crap-filled mouths of conservative Republicans in the White House."
If you are believe that "liberal" has "been turned into a dirty word" then you can certainly see why some might shy away from it.
The idea that "liberal" is a dirty word comes mostly from liberal politicians who insist that they are "moderates", whereas conservatives tend to embrace the label. So any discussion of Clinton or Kerry will almost inevitably have one of their supporters chirp in with "actually, he wasn't as much of a liberal as the republicans tried to make him out to be", like liberal was the equivalent of "child molester" or "cat vivisectionist".
The word will be reclaimed when liberal politicians not named Ted Kennedy are willing to loudly proclaim themselves liberals. Why John Kerry didn't do so is a mystery--apparently he also bought all that "parison propoganda" from the crap filled republicans. Which may be why they are still in the White House.
The idea that "liberal" is a dirty word comes mostly from liberal politicians who insist that they are "moderates", whereas conservatives tend to embrace the label.
I don't see that, myself. I am more than willing to proclaim myself as liberal - although I am registered independent.
No, I see it more as a situation of it being more 9/11 fallout: you're with us or against us, you're for the war or you're unpatriotic (regardless of whether you support our troops.
And since liberals likely aren't supporting Bush, they're enemies of the US, unpatriotic, and going to Hell. The Bush Administration has painted such a picture. That is why "liberal" is becoming a four-letter word.
Liberal has always been a dirty word to many people long before Bush. I was well into my twenties before I first heard anyone claim themselves proud of their liberalism and that in 92 when the Clintons were coming into power.
If you look at many of the old comics, it was always good vs evil, conservative vs. liberal.
"No, I see it more as a situation of it being more 9/11 fallout: you're with us or against us, you're for the war or you're unpatriotic (regardless of whether you support our troops."
I think you're just plain wrong about this one. The reluctance of politicians to call themselves liberal (with a few exceptions--Ted kennedy, Paul Wellstone) began way before 9/11.
Reagan, for example, called himself a conservative at every opportunity. His opponents did not take the opportunity to do them same with liberal. And, as I've pointed out, the defense that many democrats give to their candidates is that they are NOT as liberal as the republicans make them out to be--as though liberal was something to flee from.
"I don't see that, myself. I am more than willing to proclaim myself as liberal - although I am registered independent"
Which is to your credit. But then, you aren't running for office. Aparently most who do have made the determionation that the liberal label is not a major vote getter in much of the country.
Reagan, for example, called himself a conservative at every opportunity.
And yet, Republicans haven't been truly conservatives since Reagan.
Small government, anyone?
Aparently most who do have made the determionation that the liberal label is not a major vote getter in much of the country.
And for that I'd blame the fact that this country is a bunch of god-fearing hypocrits.
Small government, anyone?
Just out of curiosity, what do you consider "small government" to mean? And do you allow that what you consider "small government" and what a conservative considers "small government" may not even close?
Just out of curiosity, what do you consider "small government" to mean?
Small government is what the conservatives used to preach, up and including the states having rights over the federal government.
How times have changed, however, when you have the feds constantly trying to overrule the states: on marriage, on the right to die, and more.
How times have changed, however, when you have the feds constantly trying to overrule the states: on marriage, on the right to die, and more.
Yeah, yeah, and Liberals used to want federal "Standards" controlling everything, but now they're talking about "states rights".
I don't think any one side can lord it over the other in this instance. Both sides are guilty for trying to get the federal government to strong arm people when it suits their purpose and crying foul when it doesn't. And many conservatives have always argued that the federal government can do somethings better than the states such as national defense and trade policies.
A perfect example of the "liberal as a dirty word" meme this morning, albeit from an unlikely source:
TIM RUSSERT: "Some Democrats and many Republicans believe that Howard Dean is too liberal to be chairman of the Democratic Party. Do you agree?"
SEN. KERRY: "No, I don't agree with that. I think, in fact, if you look at Howard's record as a governor, he was a strong balance-the-budget governor. He was conservative on a lot of issues. And I think that's part of what happens in campaigns. You get these stamps and broad brushes that aren't exactly accurate."
Amazing. Confronted with a perfect opportunity to proclaim the value of the liberal ideology, Kerry instead claims that Dean is conservative. And that this is a good thing. Ladies and gentlemen of the Democratic Party, I give you your candidate for president.
An intriguing comment, Bill, given that earlier this month you claimed I was being way too hard on Kerry. (I am still planning to answer that long piece eventually -- I just have no idea when time will permit.)
That said, I partly agree with him in this case -- Dean *isn't* as liberal as the media portrait of him suggests. What he is, at least in my book, is an unashamed truth-teller -- and that's what I think we need more than anything. (The broad strokes of your critique, however, I agree with.)
Now, as far as reclaiming the term "liberal", I think I agree with both sides of this argument. Democratic candidates have let the word "liberal" be demonized for far too long, and it's both absurd and really quite sad at this point.
TWL
Tim,
I look forward to your reply on that old piece.
And I'm beginning to think that Kerry may have been as bad as you made him out to be. Given his performance of the last few weeks, his stock has fallen tremendously in my book. He is obviously planning to run again in 2008 but I can't imagine that the Democrats are too impressed with what he's been showing lately.