In a tragic setback in Iraq, it was announced today that a dog ate the just completed Iraqi constitution.
"We finished it, honest to god," said assembly speaker Hajim al-Hasani, looking greatly chagrined and scuffing his toe. "It was all done, we had it, we just needed that extra day to make it look really good. And then we were carrying it to work and this dog just came out of nowhere. It barked and scared us, and I was so startled that I dropped the constitution. Next thing we knew, it was in this dog's mouth and he was running away with it, chewing on it."
The constitution and dog have eluded capture. Authorities believe that the dog may have been associated with insurrectionists, since there have been several instances of dogs being employed as suicide bombers.
Fox News reported CIA suspicions that protestor Cindy Sheehan may have been behind the theft, stopping at nothing to make President George W. Bush look bad.
"I sympathize with the Iraqi assembly," President Bush stated from his annual one month vacation in Crawford, Texas. "I remember when a dog ate my copy of the Bill of Rights and the Geneva Convention. We still haven't gotten over that one."
With the Iraqi assembly now having to start all over again, a new delivery date for the Constitution is uncertain since they'll have to re-create it from memory.
PAD
Posted by Peter David at August 16, 2005 09:03 AM | TrackBack | Other blogs commentingHAHA... I can imagine the thoughtful look on Bush's face as he gives that statement.
Heh. Very nice.
since there have been several instances of dogs being employed as suicide bombers.
What's really sad is that this part is true.
TWL
"Since there have been several instances of dogs being employed as suicide bombers.
What's really sad is that this part is true."
Yeah, I know.
Good time to be a cat owner. Strap a bomb to a dog and tell him to run into a crowded area, and the poor thing will do it. Try it with a cat, and it's just as likely to pick that moment to crawl into your lap and hold on until the bomb goes off.
PAD
Good time to be a cat owner. Strap a bomb to a dog and tell him to run into a crowded area, and the poor thing will do it. Try it with a cat, and it's just as likely to pick that moment to crawl into your lap and hold on until the bomb goes off.
Depends on the cat -- I've known some that'd crawl into your lap, wriggle out of the straps, then run away leaving you with the bomb. (Gotta love Maine Coons.)
TWL
Peter, I'm really annoyed that you misrepresented Fox News and their reporting that their was a connection between Mrs. Sheehan and the dog when nothing could be further from the truth and you know it. What Fox News actually said was that Mrs. Sheehan was in fact associating with Michael Moore, who in turn is allied with MoveOn.org, who on their website have reportedly been urging Iraqi dogs to engage in active protests against the interim government, be it eating constitutions or any other form of documentation. Fox News went on to point out that it was widely believed that it was a member of the terrier family that actually ate the master list outlining the location and size of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, thus giving the Bush government a black eye when they weren't able to find those weapons witout said list.
In the future Peter, we'd all be very grateful if you could report the facts accurately instead of going for cheap laughs at the expense of our president.
Complete rubbish. Unbelievable.
you expect me to swallow that Bush only takes one month of vacation a year?
I can hear President Bush already:
"We must do everything we can to stop these terrierists!"
"...since they'll have to re-create it from memory"... and their memories keep changing depending on what they're told from day to day.
I think the real prize goes to Mark L...
"Terrierists"
Beautiful!
"In the future Peter, we'd all be very grateful if you could report the facts accurately instead of going for cheap laughs at the expense of our president."
With all due respect, Mr. Nazarro, I don't ever remember asking you to speak for me.
I donut care what side of the fence you call home, this is funny! ^_^
And Mark L gets second place. :D
And I actually went to news.bbc.co.uk to find out more...
Fox News went on to point out that it was widely believed that it was a member of the terrier family that actually ate the master list outlining the location and size of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, thus giving the Bush government a black eye when they weren't able to find those weapons witout said list.
Fox News has since reported that the constitution was in fact eaten by a poodle.
Never trust those French dogs.
I am a gigantic fan of Peter David but I really don’t think humor is appropriate here. Over eighteen hundred Americans and only god knows how many Iraqis, journalists and various foreign solders have died in this pointless war. I don’t blame the president as he is simply carrying out the mandate of the people that voted him into office. All that said though I must admit I did smile and laugh at reading Peter blog before the guilt kicked in really hard so maybe I’m being overcritical of Peter.
Well, Lester, after 5 years of this guy in office, all I have to say is that if we didn't laugh, we'd cry.
Also, I admit that maybe my memory of the 2000 election may be fuzzy, but I don't recall Bush campaigning on the "I promise to invade Iraq on the most specious reasons possible and then giggle in front of the camaeras daily as our troops sink into an escapable quagmire" platform. So, I'm sure if he is acting on the mandate of the people who elected him.
Someone poll the Supreme Court on that question, please.
Lester: This isn't a thread about the war or the dead (on both sides!) this is a thread about the government (bboth American and Iraqi) saying "WE WILL GET THIS DONE BY THIS DATE." and then not doing it. They didn't do it but the sun still came up, the world continues to spin. I think PAD was just poking fun at that attitude of WE MUST GET THIS DONE BY AUGUST 18th OR ELSE!!!!"
Den: Stupid dogs!
Den: He's acting on the mandate of the corporations that supported him in his bid to become president!
Does anyone else think the only reason he got elected was because his dad used to be head of the CIA and so knows where all the bodies are buried? Do you suppose Sr. flipped a coin:
"OK, heads, it'll be Jeb, tails, Dubbya. Tails"
"WOO HOO, In yer face Jeb! Mom always like me better too!"
What about Neil?
Poor Marvin, all he got was mom telling the world about his Krohn's disease.
Oh, and that should have said INescapable quagmire." Damnit.
Oh, Peter. Why you don't write for the Onion is beyond me.
This whole thing is emblematic of the US's prediliction for trying to impose our solutions on situations where they don't necessarily fit....*sigh*
In the future Peter, we'd all be very grateful if you could report the facts accurately instead of going for cheap laughs at the expense of our president.
Not me. I much prefer the cheap laughs at the expense of our president.
Last week I got my new bumper sticker:
FRODO FAILED
BUSH HAS THE RING
Forgive me, this has nothing to do with the (admittedly hilarious) posting about doggie terrorists...just a letter directly to Peter David, and some questions on writing...
I know you probably get an obnoxious amount of fan e-mail every day (and I know that an obnoxious number of those e-mails probably start with "I know you probably get an obnoxious amount of fan e-mail every day"...I could go on in this vein, but then I'd run the risk of inadvertently opening some sort of temporal vortex...)
...BUT I just saw the link to your website listed in the latest issue of WIZARD, and I simply had to write. When I was growing up, your were one of my very favorite comic scribes and novelists. I read and re-read (and re-re-read) all your amazing, humorous and touching stories about Troi, Riker and Q. I pored over VENDETTA so much that the pages turned yellow and the cover fell off (that book was my most prized possession throughout grade school...it finally left my hands, when I gave it to my best friend and fellow Borg fanatic, in the hope that it would blow his mind the way it did my own). THE SIEGE became, not only the definitive DS9 story to me, but also a future horror writer's first real encounter with a writer's power to shock and terrify (I didn't discover Stephen King until I was much, much older). And although "The X-Cutioner's Song" remains one of the coolest and most solid story events in X-history, your contributions were what added the depth and elements of human (or post-human) drama that really captivated me.
But the very first story of yours I ever picked up and read remains the most amazing to me: the novelization of THE ROCKETEER. When the movie came out, I carried that book around with me everywhere. To this day, whenever I put in the movie (still excellent after all these years), my mind can't help but fill in the blanks between scenes with the fantastic little moments you added (like the Wicked Witch bumping into Secord on the movie set, and Clark Gable scoffing at the young comic-reading P.A. for thinking a man could fly).
Now, as an adult (and a riter in my own wright...no, wait, that's not how that's supposed to look...), I recently found the trade paperback of MADROX: MULTIPLE CHOICE at Wizard World Chicago, and I immediately bought it and read it that very night. I was delighted to rediscover, not only the characters I enjoyed so much as a child, but also the unfailing talent of the man who brought them to life.
Because I almost never write fan letters like these to my favorite creators, I'm also compelled to take this opportunity to ask some questions about our chosen field. (Don't worry, I'm not going to ask the dreaded "Where do you get your ideas?" My favorite answer to this question was provided by Robertson Davies: "Sit down, take out a blank sheet of paper, and at the top, write, 'Once upon a time.' If you can't think of anything to write after that, then you're not a writer. End of story.")
All professional writers offer their eager acolytes the familiar advice, "A 'writer' writes...write every day, always be writing something, if only to keep in practice." To say "I have taken this advice to heart" would imply that I had some choice in the matter. The truth is, I sit down at my computer to write every day, simply to purge the various banalities of the day and because I must exorcise my ideas and emotions onto the screen/page. Often I develop my own characters and mythologies, and I also frequently indulge my vanity by writing stories featuring established characters (Punisher, Sabretooth, even Batman) that, I am sure, will never see the light of day, just to keep in practice. So being prolific is hardly a problem for me. Likewise, I've read Dennis O'Neil's guide to writing comics, and I've scanned the published comic scripts of Grant Morrison, Briand Michael Bendis and the like, so proper formatting is the least of my concerns.
However, in the year since I graduated (from Columbia College Chicago, with a B.A. in Directing and Screenwriting), I've come to realize how unfriendly the comic book industry is to aspiring writers. This shouldn't come as a surprise to me, since I know from experience that most of the "writers" of my generation can't spell out a coherent and grammatically-correct sentence, let alone frame any sort of dramatically-captivating tale with a relevent theme to it. (I'm immensely frustrated by this, as I come from a family of editors and book people.) But--as Wizard World demonstrated all-too-clearly--artists in this field are given an infinite number of opportunities to showcase their work while seeking employment, and although the "Digital Webbing" site has led me to a couple of low-paying gigs (the published results of which I have yet to see, and I doubt whether I ever will), it's often difficult for me to feel like I'm making any genuine professional progress. The natural impatience of my youth (and the constant bombardment of our increasingly youth-obsessed culture) make it hard not to feel like I'm toiling in utter obscurity at 23, with no end in sight. (But like Charlie Kaufman and Mark Millar, I try to let these feelings FUEL my writing, rather than discourage it.)
So, in a nutshell, what advice would you offer someone like me? I'm immensely tempted to ask whether you'd be willing to read some of my work (the work on established characters, because then there wouldn't be issues of ideas and properties, since the characters clearly aren't mine to begin with). But such a request would doubtless seem rather impertinent, as I'm sure you have many projects you're currently laboring on, and probably wouldn't have time to peruse fan fiction. Still, any insight you could offer would earn my eternal gratitude.
But meanwhile, Thanks for the Memories...
Joshua Bermont
I don’t blame the president as he is simply carrying out the mandate of the people that voted him into office.
When 25% (or so) of the voting population equals a mandate, you know this country is up Shit Creek.
And not just because of the math involved.
Craig,
Welcome to the wonderful world of a fat and lazy electorate. Turnout is typically low in most western countries. The last election we hit nearly 60% of registered voters - a record in the last several decades. In Texas we have early voting - so Election Day is really almost two weeks long. Even with that, a lot of people just don't care, or don't think there's enough difference between the parties.
Even with that, a lot of people just don't care, or don't think there's enough difference between the parties.
Oh, I know, but it's just another reason to despise Bush and those that use the argument.
Mandates tend to come from majorities. True majorities.
Dennis Miller had the right idea in one of his rants...
Move Election Day to April 15. Pay your taxes and vote at the same time. We'll see how many of these scumbags keep their cushy jobs...
I'm sure most of you have heard this idea before, but wouldn't it be nice if voting was manditory? If people didn't want to vote, they could spoil their ballot or pay a fine, say $250.00 not to vote.
"Last week I got my new bumper sticker:
FRODO FAILED
BUSH HAS THE RING"
OMG- That's awesome!
Posted by: Hermann at August 16, 2005 01:37 PM
"I'm sure most of you have heard this idea before, but wouldn't it be nice if voting was manditory? If people didn't want to vote, they could spoil their ballot or pay a fine, say $250.00 not to vote."
Don't you think that people who refuse to vote are already making the greatest contribution to the democratic process of which they are capable?
Steve Leavell
Well, if you're looking for a new wallpaper:
http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/images/blbushlordrings.htm
Good time to be a cat owner. Strap a bomb to a dog and tell him to run into a crowded area, and the poor thing will do it. Try it with a cat, and it's just as likely to pick that moment to crawl into your lap and hold on until the bomb goes off.
Too damned true (I write as I have two cats trying to occupy my lap at the same time).
And Lester, if you think that's offensive, you certainly shouldn't hang around with any combat vets, cuz they're raunchier, rowdier, and ruder than anything PAD has ever said here. Humour is what gets you thru it.
-Kelly
I thought Bush was pushing for an amendment against man dates. (Okay, so it's not nearly as good as Mark's "terrierist" comment...)
As for "Bush has the Ring", I have to disagree. He thinks he's got it, but it's a fake. Cheney's got the real one, which is why the "undisclosed location" is so easy to come up with. He can actually be at Bush's side the whole time.
TWL
Mike (going way back in the comments),
Peter didn't say that Bush takes only one month of vacation a year, he said he was on his annual one month vacation in Crawford. He didn't say anything about any of the two week vacations in Crawford, or the one month vacation in Kennebunkport, or any of many vacations of other lengths.
"So, in a nutshell, what advice would you offer someone like me? I'm immensely tempted to ask whether you'd be willing to read some of my work (the work on established characters, because then there wouldn't be issues of ideas and properties, since the characters clearly aren't mine to begin with). But such a request would doubtless seem rather impertinent, as I'm sure you have many projects you're currently laboring on, and probably wouldn't have time to peruse fan fiction. Still, any insight you could offer would earn my eternal gratitude."
This is going to sound unspeakably cheesy, and I apologize in advance, but the best thing I can suggest for you is...buy my book. "The Art of Writing Comics" will be published in June 2006 by Impact Books/F&W Publishing. I pretty much give you all the advice on writing comics that I can think of, plus comments from various publishers on submitting material to them (and I even explain why I can't and don't read material from fans; sorry.)
If you want to discus it further, feel free to write me at padguy@aol.com.
PAD
What happens when you make voting mandatory is that the people who don't care enough about politics to vote under your current system would now make their choices based on the most stupid of reasons. Like, because candidate A is more handsome than candidate B, or because I have a co-worker that is a pain and since he supports A I'll vote for B, etc.
Now people who don't vote because they know politics but are disgusted by both parties would just go there and cast some kind of null vote (not sure if American voting machines allow for this possibility now, but if voting is mandatory, they should, no one should be *forced* to choose the less evil of a limited list of candidates).
So, I suppose I envy America this. Non-mandatory voting is the way to go. Better this than to let people who aren't really interested make the choice for you.
>I'm sure most of you have heard this idea before, but wouldn't it be nice if voting was manditory? If people didn't want to vote, they could spoil their ballot or pay a fine, say $250.00 not to vote.
Ok, that was funny. It is totally divorced from the true facts of the case, but you made a better case for your side in a few short sentences than whole websites I have gone to. So well done, even if I disagree.
Iowa Jim
I can hear President Bush already:
"We must do everything we can to stop these terrierists!"
Mark L wins today!
I am a gigantic fan of Peter David but I really don’t think humor is appropriate here.
Actually, I think humor -- or perhaps more accurately, sarcasm -- is exactly what is needed here. Skillful use of this tool helps set forth a point of view far better than if PAD had ranted and raved about Bush, etc. This was not a cheap joke for a comedy show, this was a well conceived political statement packaged in a way to ensure it conveyed PAD's point of view. While I may disagree with the view, you can't help but admire the skill involved in crafting this "humor."
If you don't believe me, just try to do it yourself. But I would suggest practicing first on friends before posting it here! :-)
Iowa Jim
PAD, and SEVERAL subsequent posters (including Joe Nazzaro - anybody who took his "annoyance" at PAD seriously didn't read his post that closely) - LOL!!
I don't think the Vice-President is wearing the Ring while next to President Bush. The phrase they usually use is SECURE undisclosed location. Considering Bush has no sense of balance and can barely swallow a pretzel, being right next to him is hardly secure.
What happens when you make voting mandatory is that the people who don't care enough about politics to vote under your current system would now make their choices based on the most stupid of reasons. Like, because candidate A is more handsome than candidate B, or because I have a co-worker that is a pain and since he supports A I'll vote for B, etc.
I'd say that half of American voters pick their candidates based on reasons like those already.
See: The election of George W. Bush.
Now people who don't vote because they know politics but are disgusted by both parties would just go there and cast some kind of null vote (not sure if American voting machines allow for this possibility now, but if voting is mandatory, they should, no one should be *forced* to choose the less evil of a limited list of candidates).
You always have the option to write-in someone else if you don't like any of the candidates. I've written my own name in for Congress several times.
"You always have the option to write-in someone else if you don't like any of the candidates. I've written my own name in for Congress several times."
The problem with that option is that it is, while amusing and momentarily gratifying, a completely meaningless gesture within the context of the electoral college system.
The reason a lot of people don't vote is that the system is simply broken. It's an outdated relic of a system where, regardless of what we may be told, a lot of people's votes simply don't count.
*shrug* but I think I've gone a little far afield of the original thread. Sorry, just kind of a hot button topic for me...
-Rex Hondo-
Sadly, the use of animals as suicide bombers was first used by the USA against Germany in World War 2. They strapped tiny bombs onto bats (!) and dropped them over Germany, thinking that they would go into barns and dislodge the attached devices, setting fire to German farmland and crippling their food supply.
Tragically, the plan did not work. The bats fell asleep at the cold temperatures of the high flying planes and fell straight down, blowing up and sending bits of fledermaus all over confused German farmers.
And if this is some urban legend I DON'T want you to tell me. I don't care if Davey Crockett died like a coward, screaming out "Shoot the women and children but let me live!" but damn it, I want my exploding World War 2 bats.
As a country that prides itself on being "The Land of the Free," it would be a bit silly if it's citizens weren't free NOT to vote. Right?
Not to mention to be free from the reoccuring nightmare of never having your favorite candidate win! ::grumbles::
Oh.. and one thing about cats and bombs. What self-respecting cat would stand still while a bomb was belted to it? I say that the bomb explodes as the terrorist attempts to coax the kitty out from under the bed. ;)
"but damn it, I want my exploding World War 2 bats."
I can confirm that that is a true story. I got it from a guy who worked in the OSS during the war.
My favorite "odd weapon" story, though, is the one about what I like to call "the all-American Grenade."
It seems that at the begining of WWII, a lot of our boys were having trouble working the British grenades. So some smart guy invents a "baseball" grenade. It was about the size of a baseball, and would arm itslf when thrown, and detonate when it hit the ground. Apparently the inventor resoned that the one thing every Red Blooded 'Merican boy know how to do was throw a baseball.
So, they gather the troops for a demonstration of this wonderful new weapon, and the demonstrator hands one to a nearby sargeant while he commences explaining the workings of this weapon. However, what is the first thing any Red Blooded 'Merican boy is gonna do with a baseball? He is going to throw it up in the air (arming it) and catch it. (BOOOM!)
It was discontinued.
It's a little known fact that the officer in charge of the abortive bats operation was heard to say afterwards, "As God is my witness, I thought bats could fly."
TWL
I know this is (among other things) a bash Bush site. But could someone please explain to me how things would be if someone other than Bush were in office. Can you be so sure a different President wouldn't have gone to war, etc. ? Can you hate person 'A' so much that you are 100% positive that person 'B' would have done things any differently?
Dave,
No, we can't be sure of the things you suggest, not having access to alternate universes. (Where's a quantum fissure when you need one?)
Speaking for myself (as the line of people asking me to speak for them in all things is inexplicably sparse), I can only judge based on the actions and personalities I *do* see in the corridors of power, and criticize them on the basis of those actions and personalities.
There are some things I'm pretty sure a Pres. Gore (or Kerry) wouldn't have done, and some things I disagree with that one of them might well have done. I'm well aware that no candidate I support is going to agree with me 100% of the time unless I lead an amazingly charmed life. I don't criticize an action with "Gore wouldn't have done it," at least so far as I can remember back.
How would things have been different? Damned if I know. But I know that right now, things are very very bad (and not looking likely to improve any time soon) and I call it on that basis.
TWL
There is simply no way that a President Gore would have attacked Iraq. First of all, the Iraqi invasion had been advocated by Bush's "lamebrain trust" years before Bush was even in office. Bush wanted to go after Saddam, and 9/11 handed him the perfect excuse.
Second, I firmly believe that a GOP congress--which fell into lockstep behind their president--would never have given President Gore the authority to attack Iraq.
PAD
There is simply no way that a President Gore would have attacked Iraq. First of all, the Iraqi invasion had been advocated by Bush's "lamebrain trust" years before Bush was even in office. Bush wanted to go after Saddam, and 9/11 handed him the perfect excuse.
Even if true, this first point has no bearing on what a President Gore would have done.
Second, I firmly believe that a GOP congress--which fell into lockstep behind their president--would never have given President Gore the authority to attack Iraq.
I disagree with this as well. No WAY the Republicans would allow themselves to be outflanked on the military issue.
If anything, I suspect the Republicans would have begun loudly calling for an attack on Iraq immediately after 9/11. Whether or not Gore would have agreed is unknowable. My guess is that Bill Clinton, who has been more supportive of Bush than many would have guessed, would have urged him to take action--Clinton seems genuinely regretful at not having done MORE militarily.
But of course, we'll never know, so one person's theory is about as useless as anothers.
I know this is (among other things) a bash Bush site.
Really? I just thought PAD was a great writer of fiction? There is actually non-fiction on this site?
;-)
Iowa Jim
"There is simply no way that a President Gore would have attacked Iraq. First of all, the Iraqi invasion had been advocated by Bush's "lamebrain trust" years before Bush was even in office. Bush wanted to go after Saddam, and 9/11 handed him the perfect excuse."
"Even if true, this first point has no bearing on what a President Gore would have done."
The notion that you could say "even IF true" considering it's been thoroughly proven, speaks volumes. And it has every bearing on what Gore would have done, because there was NO 9/11- RELATED REASON TO ATTACK SADDAM. I know it, I suspect you know it, and I'll wager that Gore knows it as well.
"Second, I firmly believe that a GOP congress--which fell into lockstep behind their president--would never have given President Gore the authority to attack Iraq."
"I disagree with this as well."
There's a shock.
"No WAY the Republicans would allow themselves to be outflanked on the military issue. If anything, I suspect the Republicans would have begun loudly calling for an attack on Iraq immediately after 9/11."
Really. And you base this on...what? Even in THIS reality there was no call by the GOP for an attack on Iraq. What I suspect is that the RAM (Republican Attack Machine)would have immediately launched an investigation looking to blame Gore for 9/11. It wouldn't have taken months to get it going, either. The same people who declared that we had to fall into line behind Bush would have, I believe, sought to pillory Gore, saying, "See? See? You put Gore into office and immediately we're attacked!"
PAD
PAD should write for The Daily Show. It'd be a perfect fit. :)
Posted by Bill Mulligan
Sadly, the use of animals as suicide bombers was first used by the USA against Germany in World War 2. They strapped tiny bombs onto bats (!) and dropped them over Germany, thinking that they would go into barns and dislodge the attached devices, setting fire to German farmland and crippling their food supply.
Tragically, the plan did not work. The bats fell asleep at the cold temperatures of the high flying planes and fell straight down, blowing up and sending bits of fledermaus all over confused German farmers.
Actually, i believe you've got parts of a true story there; i think that the fire-bats WERE used -- but against the Japanese, on the theory that if dropped over cities, they would find places to sleep under the eaves of houses and so on. The idea arose from the image held in the US (true or not) that Japanese houses use a lot of paper partitions and would burn readily.
And here's an interesting true tidbit (i know the guy involved) -- as a solution to an Army Staff College assignement ("Devise a means of widely disseminating biological warfare agents within the the Peoples' Republic of China.", one student recommended using mice to carry the germs; delivery would be easy, since a mouse can survive a fall from ANY height -- even 20,000 feet.*
Fly over under the radar with a C130, dump a few thousand infected mice out the back, and beat it. Repeat as needed along all borders.
*They're small enough that the square-cube law makes them so light in relation to their aerodynamic cross-ection that their termainal velocity is low enough to be non-fatal when they hit.
it has every bearing on what Gore would have done, because there was NO 9/11- RELATED REASON TO ATTACK SADDAM. I know it, I suspect you know it, and I'll wager that Gore knows it as well.
No, it really doesn't. It may explain why BUSH did what he did, but it doesn't tell us anything about what would have gone through Gore's mind.
Unlike some folks who did not vote for him, I seriously doubt that Gore would not have invaded Afghanistan. Cindy Sheehan aside, there are very few people who did not support that war and had he shown any reluctance to pursue it there would have been a long line of Democrats ready to challenge him for the 2004 election. And, although I'm no Gore fan, I don't see any reason why he wouldn't have done the right thing and taken the Taliban out.
I know there was no 9/11 related reason to take out Iraq, other than a general "let's take out as many terrorist supporting states as possible" mentality that resonated with many after the attacks. But lots of folks expected a showdown with Iraq even before 9/11. Almost certainly not on this scale but I would have been surprised if Gore or a third term Clinton (as long as we are playing with reality) has allowed Saddam to last much longer.
Really. And you base this on...what? Even in THIS reality there was no call by the GOP for an attack on Iraq. What I suspect is that the RAM (Republican Attack Machine)would have immediately launched an investigation looking to blame Gore for 9/11. It wouldn't have taken months to get it going, either. The same people who declared that we had to fall into line behind Bush would have, I believe, sought to pillory Gore, saying, "See? See? You put Gore into office and immediately we're attacked!"
The statement you made was "I firmly believe that a GOP congress--which fell into lockstep behind their president--would never have given President Gore the authority to attack Iraq."
Sure they would have. You can make a valid argument that Gore would not have asked for it but there is no way that the Republicans would have turned him down. The reality that I base this on is that even John Kerry was forced to vote to give Bush such authority either because he believed it was the right thing to do or because it was the politically smart thing to do at the time. Had the shoe been on the other foot, I am pretty sure that the Republicans would have come to the same conclusion.
I note that my speculation on the actions of my ideological opponents is not based on the idea that they must be stupid or mendacious. Yours seem to be. Well, as you say, there's a shock.
*They're small enough that the square-cube law makes them so light in relation to their aerodynamic cross-ection that their termainal velocity is low enough to be non-fatal when they hit.
before I go out and do something that may make me very very ashamed of myself...is this true?
I have NO idea where to put this. At all. So this seems as good a place as any. Also have no idea if the site is a joke. But what the hell.
All I can say is: Sean Hannity makes an....interesting superhero. And if that don't pique your interest, nothing will.
oh- for the love of sattire!
even if my mother in law sends me a nasty letter after this, I still have to say "i'm lovin it!"
I'm sure most of you have heard this idea before, but wouldn't it be nice if voting was manditory? If people didn't want to vote, they could spoil their ballot or pay a fine, say $250.00 not to vote.
It apparently works quite well in Australia. One point I'd like to make is that folks who don't vote usually get the government they deserve.
In this case, they got the government they did NOT deserve! However, two things:
1.) You'll be fairly hard-pressed to find anyone who didn't vote if you ask them now.
2.) Freedom is a responsibility and should not be taken for granted. Maybe if more folks took it as a responsibility they might exercise their franchise. Also, if you don't vote, then you have absolutely no right whatsoever to criticize the government that gets elected. Zero. Zilch. Zip. You might have made a difference. Goodness knows there are lots of people roaming around Florida these days who just wonder what might have been.....
I think a President Gore would have gone into Afghanistan after 9/11. We were going to flex our muscles after 9/11 and the Taliban was deliberate in their shielding of OBL. He was a guest, he couldn't be turned in, etc.
I don't think Gore would have gone into Iraq, though I think he would have (based on the same intelligence) worked on keeping the UN sanctions in place - which were in danger of being lifted - pre-9/11.
If Gore had gone into Iraq, I think there would have been concern from the Republicans, but not outright protest. Republicans gave Clinton some trouble for going into Bosnia (where we still have troops), but generally let the President call the shots without a lot of serious opposition.
Bill,
The statement you made was "I firmly believe that a GOP congress--which fell into lockstep behind their president--would never have given President Gore the authority to attack Iraq."
Sure they would have. You can make a valid argument that Gore would not have asked for it but there is no way that the Republicans would have turned him down.
That's not really his argument. He's suggesting that the Congress would have acted quickly enough to blame Gore for 9/11 that Gore would be stymied at every turn and thus wouldn't have had time to dream up the Iraq invasion.
I supposed that's an argument that he wouldn't have asked, but it's certainly not an argument of such based solely on Gore's own opinions, which I think was the gist of the point.
If it had gotten to the point where Congress needed to vote to give him the authority ... then yeah, I suspect he'd probably have gotten it, though even there I think the speechmaking on the floor would've been very, very different.
TWL
The problem with that option is that it is, while amusing and momentarily gratifying, a completely meaningless gesture within the context of the electoral college system.
So is voting for a Democrat in a staunchly red state or vice versa.
I was speaking generally and not specifically within the context of the electoral college. I agree the system is broke, but it's easier to rig this way, so don't look for the powers that be to change it anytime soon.
If anything, I suspect the Republicans would have begun loudly calling for an attack on Iraq immediately after 9/11.
Would that be before or after they held 1000 hours of congressional hearings to make sure the blame for 9/11 fell squarely on Gore's shoulders?
Also, if you don't vote, then you have absolutely no right whatsoever to criticize the government that gets elected.
This is like saying that, because you didn't write the book, you have no right to critique it.
Which is, of course, bs.
I didn't vote in 2000, which was the first election I could vote in.
I didn't vote because I thought all the candidates are crap; I don't recall whether Iowa allows write-ins, although I do know that Nevada has a wonderful "None of the above" option.
Yes, in hindsight, I would've voted for Gore. But at the time, I had no reason to suspect Bush was anything other than a bumbling idiot.
It wasn't until later that I realized somebody was pulling strings.
So, to summarize: people have valid reasons for not voting.
In general, I think people are greatly frustrated by the entire process, since Florida in 2000 proved that every vote doesn't count, and thus doesn't matter.
Republicans gave Clinton some trouble for going into Bosnia (where we still have troops), but generally let the President call the shots without a lot of serious opposition.
Except for the whole "You're just bombing them to distract from zippergate" attack.
Craig, glad to see that someone that made a decision not to vote in an election is speaking up. Maybe other have that I've missed, but that just supports my thought that at least some portion of the silent 78 million are actually making a statement by not voting.
I've had this idea rolling around my head that, sometime in the next 2 or 3 Presidential elections, that 78 million needs to flex a little muscle. Start an internet campaign and just vote Green (heck, or even Nader), just to show both parties that they don't have the lock on the government that they think they do. Honestly, if you don't care for either of the big 2 candidates, doesn't that mean that, whatever you do, someone you don't want in the office will be elected? And if that's the case, if you can't win for trying, at least you can send a message to those 2 that, if their candidates are not worthy of taking the White House, we, as a People, instead of sending one of their stooges up, are going to send someone else's stooge up. And it's not like either party is going to lose that many legislative seats, meaning that whoever does take the Presidency won't really have any power, but can you imagine the symbolic impact such an event would have on both parties?
Except for the whole "You're just bombing them to distract from zippergate" attack.
Maybe it's just faded memory, but I don't remember that being a serious discussion point. Don't get me wrong, I remember the whole "Wagging the Dog" lines, but I just don't remember that it got much traction outside the extreme right other than as a punch line for Leno.
I know that I took it about as seriously as I did the criticism of Clinton being a supposed "draft dodger".
Re: Mr. Nazarro's post...
Forgot to put the ";>" emoticon at the end of my post. Mea culpa.
Mark: It got plenty of traction among members of Congress like Bob Dornan and Orin Hatch.
Bobb: I like your idea, but I think it will require someone with more crossover appeal than Ralph Nader to pull off.
Bobb:
The internet is a great tool to be used and abused by the current parties as a supplement to their existing methods, but to try and build an internet-based party out of the non-voters overlooks how big the digital divide still is in this country. Among the many reasons I feel Kerry failed, in the debates he kept referring to his website as the source for answers, i.e. "I have a great explanation for how I'll handle that... on my website. Go there and read it yourself so I can spend the remaining time for this question saying 'Hey, at least I'm not Bush'" The problem is that the lower socio-economic base that Kerry really needed to appeal to DOESN'T HAVE THE INTERNET, so to them, he appeared kinda snobby and/or unable to effectively communicate not just that he was different, but HOW he'd be different. I think we're ten, fifteen years away from a completely web-based election campaign for a serious candidate in contention for a national office. On a local level, though, there are precincts and locales with enough internet penetration to run an effective internet election campaign, and these will likely serve as models for future national efforts. And, frankly, party hardliners WANT to get out and go door-to-door, etc., in the ground campaign; it's how they get noticed in the political machine and get a place in line for political jobs and appointments down the road.
Jason, I totally agree with you. It won't be the next election, but in 8-12 years, who knows? With Cell phones getting increased e-mail capability, wi-fi spots popping up all over, and in general connectivity on the rise, it won't take long until what is only now discusses on blogs such as this becomes water-cooler chat. You can already see it happening, with news channels carrying Blog reports, which basically report out what the discussion of the day on a few blogs is.
But it's coming. And you saw some of that in just the past elections, with both sides making use of internet resources to supplement their campaign efforts. Winning an election is all about reaching the voters, and the internet will be a big tool in future elections.
The flaw that I see is in getting that silent 78 to agree on someone. Nader might be a poor choice, indeed. But if the point is that you're going to have a loser in the White House, why not make it one that really leaves a bad taste in the Party leaders mouths?
I've had this idea rolling around my head that, sometime in the next 2 or 3 Presidential elections, that 78 million needs to flex a little muscle. Start an internet campaign and just vote Green (heck, or even Nader), just to show both parties that they don't have the lock on the government that they think they do.
Actually, I'd like to see every state have the "None of the above option" on the ballot.
I think doing that, and getting the word out that people should vote that way, would get people of all political affiliations who are sick of the current choices (which are, in reality, no more than 2), and would be a wake up call for Republicans and Democrats alike.
Sure, the Big Two would call it "throwing away your vote", but they say the same thing now about third parties. They want you to think that your vote is worthless... unless you're voting for them.
Unfortunately, seeing as how you might have to go through the Big Two to get it enacted in the first place (and Nevada is the only state with the "None of the Above" choice) is easier said than done.
I don't think developing a successful, impactful third party completely independent of the current two parties is really feasible. However, I do think the 2008 election would be ripe for a splintering of one of the major parties. Especially on the Republican side, the party has been clamping down on party discipline for several years now. There are bound to be some key players just chaffing under this, and depending on how political fortunes fair in the 2006 elections (for example, despite the party discipline and efforts, a lot of Republican incumbents are voted out in hotly contested campaigns), they might see 2008, with the presidency up for grabs anyway thanks to term limits, decide to strike out on their own. Or, what if the Democrats turn some of this partisanship against the Republicans and work hard on wedge issues to splinter the cohesiveness between the major GOP interest groups? Sure, it might not help the Democratic party in the short term for the 2008 election, but the only way the Democrats can even begin to rebuild their own party as a cohesive force would be to splinter the GOP and shave off some folks for themselves. Of course, if the 2006 elections are another boon for the GOP, or even if it's a draw or better, that will keep all but the most outspoken in lockstep with the party and keep the GOP juggernaut rolling through the 2008 campaign.
The best bet, it seems to me, for a viable third party campaign would be for a democrat and a republican to run together--a sort of Unity Party to "Bring the country back together" after the devisiveness of the Clinton/Bush 16 years.
As to who could do it...McCain, obviously, Guliani, Bill Bradley, Lieberman, maybe Joe Biden.
Imagine a McCaine/Bradley ticket. McCain would be 72 in 2008, Bradley 65. The expectation would be that McCaine would be a one term president with Bradley being almost a co-president, getting ready for his stint in 2012. Limiting himself to a single term would bolster McCain's rep as an independent thinker unafraid to take on the special interests. The fact that they do not agree on every issue could even be a strength--"I want to be surrounded by the best people, not just the ones who agree with me on every issue."
Whether or not it would work would depend in part on the Big 2 parties nominating people who appeal mostly to their base. Whether or not such an administration would be succesful with a congress full of people who deeply resent them is another matter.
Den,
Notice I said extreme right. Dornan was a loon. I have a hard time taking a Congressman seriously when he assaults members of the other party on the floor.
The best bet, it seems to me, for a viable third party campaign would be for a democrat and a republican to run together--a sort of Unity Party to "Bring the country back together" after the devisiveness of the Clinton/Bush 16 years.
I remember talk of a possible Kerry/McCain ticket for this past election, but it fizzled because McCain, regardless of what needs to be done, is too loyal to the Republican party and doesn't want to be second fiddle to anybody when it comes to his own presidential ambitions.
Which is a shame, because it would've been a pretty good pairing.
You'd have to wonder if the same would happen if McCain ran and wanted a Democrat for vise president. You know Republicans would fight it tooth and nail.
You'd have to wonder if the same would happen if McCain ran and wanted a Democrat for vise president. You know Republicans would fight it tooth and nail.
Well, yeah. I guess they would. And dod you think that the Democrats would roll over and say, "Hey, we've got nothing better, vote for those guys?"
If Kerry had convinced McCain to join the ticket I think there might have been a serious revolt within the Democratic party. McCain is strongly pro-life and a major advocate for the war. Democrats may like him personally but if the party is at all serious about the positions they take it's hard to see how they could have gone along with him being a heartbeat away from the presidency.
Also, choosing McCain would have been a tacit admission that the party was bereft of talent--the best man that Kerry could find was a Republican?
That said, if Kerry HAD managed to get it approved, I think they would have won.
wonder what they would do it the
"none of the above" got more votes than the actual candidates?
heh heh... oh well I can dream can't I ?!
Mark,
I noticed you didn't mention Hatch, who actually considers Ted Kennedy to be a personal friend of his despite being 180 degrees opposite from each other politically. He also played up the "Clinton is bombing other countries to distract from zippergate" card.
Den,
Maybe so, but my original point was that the Republicans overall were much less vocal about their opposition. You can always find exceptions. I think a Gore assault on Iraq after 9/11 would have been the same.
I think, regardless of who was in control of what, at the time the congress signed away the Constitutional power to declare war to the President, it would have happened, IF the President made the same accusations, and presented the same support for it at the time. I doubt the republicans at the time would have opposed any swift action in the face of the same presentations made by Bush, had Gore made them. What's unknown is whether Gore would have manipulated the evidence the way Bush did, and if Gore would further have actually acted upon the grant of power from congress.
Also, choosing McCain would have been a tacit admission that the party was bereft of talent--the best man that Kerry could find was a Republican?
Well, snip that last part of your comment off, and you could say the same thing about Republicans - that it would have been an admission that Republicans are so bereft of worthwhile leadership, that McCain would join up with a Democrat.
If the best ticket is a combination of a worthwhile Republican and a wortwhile Democrat, then, by all means.
Doesn't a good portion of the country already feel that the candidates being presented by both parties pretty much stink? It seems in both cases over the past 2 elections, one of the parties failed to put their best man forward.
"Sure they would have. You can make a valid argument that Gore would not have asked for it but there is no way that the Republicans would have turned him down."
Sure there is. From the people who claimed that Clinton was attacking Bosnia to distract from Monica would come "Gore wants to attack Iraq in order to distract from the fact that he hasn't caught bin Laden yet." Plus, frankly, I don't think Gore is as good a liar as Bush. He'd never have been able to heighten the atmosphere of fear as well as Bush and thus would never have gotten the public and congressional support he required.
Nothing in GOP behavior over the past years has given me the slightest reason to believe that they would cut a Democratic president the slightest break, no matter what the circumstance.
PAD
Huh. I broke my internet connection in the middle of writing a post, to answer a call from my wife, and return to find that PAD has made some of the points I was about to post. Well, who better to be beaten out by around here?
Anyway, I was going to chime in with my agreement that it does not seem likely that President Al Gore would have invaded Iraq, certainly compared to an administration which really was looking for any excuse for just this action. Certainly not as an immediate follow-up to invading Afghanistan (which, credit to this administration where due, was a more justified and relevent reaction to 9/11), certainly not with such a flimsy, contrived connection to the 9/11 attack.
And, like PAD and others, I am dubious that the Republican Congress would have lined up in as unified support for him if he had undertaken military action. Many of us find it hard to envision many of the current Republican politicians putting even the good of the country ahead of sticking it to the Democrats/emphasizing their own power. Maybe less of these "Republican Revolution" politicians are in office now, or maybe less of the Republicans in power are of this ilk than I think. This would be a case in which I'd like to be wrong; but I really haven't seen much from many modern Republican officials in the way of admirable qualities.
Sure there is. From the people who claimed that Clinton was attacking Bosnia to distract from Monica would come "Gore wants to attack Iraq in order to distract from the fact that he hasn't caught bin Laden yet."
While I recall that there were those who made such claims, does anyone have any evidence of actual Republican obstruction of Clinton's military adventures? I mean, I know that some made hurtful comments but since the Republicans dominated the house and Senate for most of BC's time in office they could have passed resolution after resolution denying him the ability or authority to go into Somalia, or Bosnia, or Sudan. Did they?
And if they didn't, the idea that they would have to President Gore after 9/11 is just wishful thinking.
But of course, we'll never know and at some point we begin to look awfully silly, like two kids arguing over who would win in a fight, Buck Rogers or Tarzan.
Oh come on; now you've just gone off your rocker, Bill. I can't believe you'd be so stupid... Buck Rogers has frickin' laser beams. By the time monkey boy yodeled for the animals of the jungle, Buck's gonna mow him down like an American-contracted lumberjack in an Amazon rainforest. And honestly, Rogers gets the nod when it comes to sidekicks AND love interests; robots and Tanya Roberts in a tight, bosomy space suit versus a chimp and Jane?
Bill, you know I love ya, right?
While Rogers hides behind his laser pistol like a stinking coward, Tarzan would use his jungle know-how to go all Rambo on his ass. What's Buck gonna do when a herd of stampeding Rhinos sends him straight into the quicksand? Call on his 20th century wisdom?
This is easy to settle: www.googlefight.com.
RESULTS:
Tarzan-1,790,000 results
Buck Rogers- 1,040,000 results
Booyah! In your FACE! I now do the Dance of Victory!
Nahh.....Buck Rogers wouldn't have the guts to face Tarzan. He'd just nuke 'em from orbit. After all, it's the only way to be sure. :)
So he would win, but he'd win like a pansy. It'd be: Game over man... Game over! (damn, I loved that movie.)
Now the match I'd like to see......Buck Rodgers vs.....FLASH GORDON!!
Plus the villians match-up: Ming the Merciless vs Killer Kane.
"This is easy to settle: www.googlefight.com.
RESULTS:
Tarzan-1,790,000 results
Buck Rogers- 1,040,000 results
Booyah! In your FACE! I now do the Dance of Victory"
Yeah, well, not so fast, tap-dance boy...
Tarzan-1,750,000 results
Cindy Sheehan-2,400,000 results
The lord of the jungle just got his ass kicked by a middle aged protestor.
PAD
Tarzan would never fight a lady. He's English, you know.
But it raises an interesting point: Tarzan, one of the single greatest pop culture characters in history, got beaten by a story that is only a few weeks old. Will the internet, with its ability to create a level of recognition in days what it once took decades to achieve hasten the demise of the old icons? It's already getting difficult to reach kids; my killer Edward G Robinson impression falls on deaf ears.
One last one:
Cindy Sheehan: 2,290,000 results
paris Hilton: 7,840,000 results
Jesus wept.
The Texas (clean-up-the-ranch) Chainsaw Massacre:
George W. Bush: 23,800,000
beats everyone above put together.
Well, it's not Bushlike numbers, but
Results 1 - 10 of about 14,300,000 for spongebob
Ok, I found out who can topple Bush...
Results 1 - 10 of about 32,900,000 for barbie.
King (err, queen, even if anatomically incorrect) of the hill goes to she of the corvette/hair salon driving, ageless (one would almost say...plastic?) queen of all things unattainably female.
So Tarzan's got a better publicist; big whoop. That just means the story of how he got his ass fricasseed with Roger's death ray will spread that much faster. If I was trying to pick who I want on my team, sure, I'll pick Tarzan because he's gonna keep me alive in the jungle. But if we're talking who's gonna win in a throwdown, then I pick Buck Rogers because of the frickin' laser beams and, honestly, the more rogueish personality that would let him fight a little dirty to win. Cuz Buck's a winner; Greystoke's an environmentalist :-P
And just for your information, using your questionable number of hits statistic as an indicator, laser beams and robots definitely win against Mister Throws-His-Feces, if they're the right robots:
Tarzan: 1,790,000 results
Transformers: 3,620,000 results
Yeah, note I didn't use the Go-Bots...
Rogers doesn't have laser beams. He uses them. Only I think they're called Ray Guns, or something. Anyway, more often, Buck wins by NOT using his future century technology, but rather by relying on his 20th century wits. Which, Tarzan repeatedly displays his uncanny ability to use his jungle-skills to outwit his 20th century counterparts.
So, even though Buck has access to future technology, he still demonstrates 20th century thinking. He's clever, but not experienced. Kir..err, Tarzan would just think 3 dimensionally, and sneak up behind Buck and incapacitate him. Or something.
But they all bow down before the power that is....BARBIE....
Ok, so to get particular, Buck Rogers has access to laser beams; I'm willing to let Tarzan use what he has access to, like sticks, vines, and his own waste. And the 3D thinking doesn't give Tarzan an advantage versus Buck, because Buck's a space pilot and thinks in those terms all the time. I guess I'm thinking of Buck like Indiana Jones in Raiders of the Lost Ark; jungle boy's gonna swing and jump around, hollerin' his ever-lovin' head off for his forest friends to come save him, and Buck's gonna look at him, whip out his ray gun, and blow his smelly, unwashed opponent away before he can fling his first man-patty.
Rogers gets the nod when it comes to sidekicks AND love interests; robots and Tanya Roberts in a tight, bosomy space suit versus a chimp and Jane?
Well...what beats robots and Tanya Roberts as well as a chimp and Jane...is...
A chimp and Trixie!
Googlefight:
Tarzan: 1,790,000
Speed Racer: 1,920,000
Of course...Superman whups even the Transformers with 4,430,000
And by the way, my visit to googlefight shows Barbie only has 4,600,000 hits...but even if she did have 32 million...do you know who has 53 million?
And of course, having thought to check myself, all of the instances where I said "Tanya Roberts" were really meant to be "Erin Gray" - obviously some malicious keystroke virus affected my posts...
"And of course, having thought to check myself, all of the instances where I said "Tanya Roberts" were really meant to be "Erin Gray" - obviously some malicious keystroke virus affected my posts..."
I was wondering about that. Isn't Ms. Roberts Beastmaster's girl Friday?
And who are you stacking Buck up against, Tarzan or Cheetah, his chimp buddy? Tarzan may have been raised by apes, but he pulled that stint in England for a while after he was found, didn't he? So he's got all the benefits of a 19th century civilized society, paired with the canny and wits of the jungle life. All Buck's got are some neat gadgets (from his first season, anyway. After that, his ray guns became little fragile things) and 20th century machismo.
Now, if we start bringing in the whole crew, Buck clearly gets the advantage. Twicki, Hawk, Dr. Theopolis, and of course, the aformentioned Wilma.
Say, anyone see Hawk showing up on one of those so-called TRUTH ads aimed at revealing how evil Big Tobaccy is?
Tanya Roberts: 945,000
Erin Gray: 975,000
Bo Derek (Jane in 1981 Tarzan, The Ape Man): 2,510,000
"And by the way, my visit to googlefight shows Barbie only has 4,600,000 hits...but even if she did have 32 million...do you know who has 53 million?"
Googlefight? As in, that's an actual site? Is just do a word search on yahoo, powered by Google.
At least Googlefight ends two of the great JLA/Avengers crossover debates...Superman (4,430,000 results) trounces Thor (3,550,000 results). And while Batman's assessment was probably accurate that he and Captain America were evenly matched, Batman narrowly beats Cap at 8.6 million v. 7.89 million.
Wheras my less accurate yahoo/google search yields 27,900,000 for Superman, 20,700,000 for Thor, 24,500,000 for Captain America, and a whopping 51,600,000 for Batman.
Not sure why the numbers are significantly larger at Yahoo. The numbers are identical, whether you go to google.com or googlefight.com, as googlefight.com draws its numbers from Google.
It's possible Yahoo has more pages catalogued than Google does. That surprises me, but it's possible.
Yahoo also might be reporting partial hits, whereas google only reports full hits. Dunno.
Damn... I was hoping to dumb down Tarzan a little with the "Tarzan, Lord of the Apes = feces flinging" angle, but you're too quick for me, Bobb (though he did pee on one of the apes in "Greystoke, the Legend of Tarzan, Lord of the Apes" movie).
However, I still say ray gun wins. I'm sorry, but I don't think you're giving Buck enough credit for wits and skill, and taking into account that Buck's a fellow hero, so he can actually shoot straight and take good shots, as opposed to the villianous hunters and other civilized men that Tarzan usually fights. I will say in a dense jungle, it would depend on whether Tarzan gets the drop or not, but in most other environments, especially anything really urban, Tarzan's gonna be at a disadvantage, or at least have less of an advantage. In a white, empty room, with their preferred weapons, just man to man, Buck's gonna win.
Now, Conan versus Tarzan, that would be interesting... and extremely deadly...
There seems to be some dispute between Yahoo and Google over their relative sizes
Of course, if Tarzan and Buck really were to come up against each other, we all know what would really happen. There'd be some misunderstanding or mistaken identity, they would tussle, it'd be a stalemate (unless they clahsed more than once...then they'd split wins) and eventually they'd discover that someone else was manipulating them into fighting. At which point they'd team up to defeat the nefarious villian.
Not to take away anything from PAD but if you want to know how many actual hits that Peter, the man, the legend, has, you have to put the name in quotation marks.
That said, here be the results:
"peter david" -- 292,000 results
vs
"John Byrne" -- 197,000 results
King Kong -- 1,980,000 results
vs
Godzilla -- 1,340,000 results
Monkey -- 16,000,000 results
vs
Robot -- 21,000,000 results
everything -- 182,000,000 results
vs
nothing -- 120,000,000 results
Jesse James --- 763,000 results
vs
Frankenstein's Daughter --- 776 results
"Peter david leaving Hulk" --- 4 results
vs
"a poke in the eye with a sharp stick"-- 7,940 results
Bill - LOL!!!
But - King Kong beat Godzilla? Boo!
As far as Tarzan vs. Rodgers ... Tarzan just strikes me as a lot smarter than ol' Buck. Of course, I'm thinking primarily of the print version of Tarzan; he's really a lot like Batman ... in a loincloth and with less gritty grimness. But, if we go with a TV or film Lord of the Apes - which seems fair, since we're going with TV Buck - I'm less sure. One thing I do know, thtough: if we're talking about supporting cast, forget Jane or Wilma - no offense to either - but Buck had Pamela "Princess Ardala" Hensley. Or, rather, he could have had her, but he kept turning her down; not sure if she counts for or against him, then .... (You know KIRK wouldn't've turned her down ;) )
Hey,
Jon Stwart beat David Letterman:
JS: 4220000
DL: 1770000
Erin Grey beats Pamela Hensley hands down.
Even Googlefight agrees.
Googlefight:
Peter David 54,700,000
Vs.
X-Ray 18,700,000
Writer Of Stuff 16,500,000
Vs.
But I Digress 1,010,000
All the names in all the contests above were without quotes...Erin Gray, Tanya Roberts, etc.
Barbie searches include all results of pages with people nicknamed Barbie. Yes, there are people with that nickname. Or Australian references to "Shrimps on the Barbie".
What I'm saying is, it's OK that PAD battled without quotes, since everyone else did too. The rules don't matter as long as everyone's treated equally.
Spyboy: 61,300
Madrox: 37,500
"Johnny Storm": 134,000
"The Hulk": 671,000
"Mark Hazzard": 1,770
Atlanna: 453,000
so Iraq needs a constitution, heck, send em ours, we're not using it!
Truth: 54,900,000 results
vs
Justice: 96,200,000 results
Heh. Make of this what you will:
Truth Justice: 11,900,000 results
The American Way: 125,000,000 results
Even being Republican, I have to admit I'm beginning to understand the driving force behind our current foreign policy - I hope the makers of googlefight.com are happy...
John wrote "obviously even googlefight is wrong, occasionally"
Yeah, I figured that out when King Kong beat Godzilla ... and Erin Grey beat Pamela Hensley ;)
And also, I'm wrong occasionally - namely, when pointing out Captain Kirk wouldn't've turned Ardala down. Which he wouldn't've; but since he really wouldn't turn down much of anyone he came across of a female persuasion, it really doesn't prove that much ;)
Bad News Sports fans. Seems that registering to vote has now become fashionable in the four Sunni dominated provinces. A NO Vote for ratifification of the constitution in 3/4 makes the constitution means it is a nonstarter. Back to Square One in I R A Q M I R E!!!!!