September 11, 2006

Five years later

People keep talking about how the world changed on 9/11.

It didn't. The world was filled with terrorists, and bombs, and people living in fear, and attacks on home grounds. The world remained exactly the same. Only our perception of it changed. We became both of and in the world.

It's five years later. Anyone feeling safer?

I also find it interesting that the Democrats have surrendered the moral high ground in terms of TV presentation. Here the GOP managed to get the Reagan biopic banished to cable because they didn't like the way it presented their political saint, and now the Democrats managed to get the miniseries on 9/11, based on the findings of the bi-partisan committee, re-edited so that it wouldn't seem as if President Clinton was too distracted by Monicagate to go after bin Laden...except I find it difficult to believe any reasonable person could think that the harassment over Lewinsky didn't impede Clinton's effectiveness on any number of levels.

Quick, kids. There's some history. Let's rewrite it.

PAD

Posted by Peter David at September 11, 2006 10:03 AM | TrackBack | Other blogs commenting
Comments
Posted by: Matt Adler at September 11, 2006 11:00 AM

Ok, off-topic once again, and at the risk of becoming "that annoying guy" (who knows, maybe I crossed that line a long time ago!)... have I done or said anything to cause offense PAD? You told me to send those interview questions, but I've received no response to my e-mails, or my posts here on the blog. If I have done something to offend, please let me know, as I am sincerely unaware. Thanks PAD.

Posted by: Kelly at September 11, 2006 11:15 AM

The world remained exactly the same. Only our perception of it changed.
While I agree with you, I also think this is quite splitting hairs - not to mention presupposes that there is some "real" version of the world that we can return or otherwise go to.

If we don't perceive something, does it exist? It's a question people have been tossing around a lot longer than Descartes.

For a lot of folks, I think the world did change - it became a bigger, nastier place. I don't think we can discount that, even if we fundamentally disagree with the premise behind it.

Posted by: Joe Nazzaro at September 11, 2006 11:30 AM

Yeah, I feel a lot safer five years on, knowing that poorly-paid government workers are checking my toothpaste before I board a plane, while most of the cargo that comes into this country goes unchecked.

I totally agree with you Peter, the Democrats continue to infuriate by not offering an alternative or by challenging the Bush party line. Watching Dick Cheney on Meet the Press yesterday trotting out that old chestnut that the justification for, well, just about everything the Bush administration have done the past six years is the fact that we haven't been hit by terrorists again. I'm not quite sure how you prove a negative, but I keep thinking it's like saying the fact that American hasn't been overrun by giant African killer bees is due to the Bush administration's crackdown on illegal immigration. I know I'm exaggerating for effect here, but why are the Democrats not challenging the Republican administration on this issue? It's infuriating.

Posted by: AIJ at September 11, 2006 11:31 AM

I think the HAS changed, not because of the events of 9/11 but because of the reactions to that horrible day.

Priorities are different. Lives have been forever altered. Foriegn policy has starkly changed. The social climate has changed. The cementing of the 24-hour news cycle has reeked untold social change, both good and bad. And economic fallout from the ramifications of that day continue to plague the US. More than mere perception, there has been a clear shift throughout the world.

A domino effect of events post-9/11 has driven the world into a different direction, and that you would suggest otherwise ... THAT is what makes me feel less safe.

And that the President has been hampered, instead of helped, in effectively executing a necessary 'war on terror' by domestic politicization and jihadist elements, like the Council for American Islamic Relations, makes me feel less safe, too.

Posted by: Blaine at September 11, 2006 11:38 AM

except I find it difficult to believe any reasonable person could think that the harassment over Lewinsky didn't impede Clinton's effectiveness on any number of levels.Richard Clarke is of the opinion that it didn't. As is the rest of Clinton's staff.

Even if you assume they are just protecting their old boss for political reasons, there's no evidence that there was anything he could have done that he didn't do to catch Bin Laden.

Posted by: Jerry C at September 11, 2006 11:54 AM

Gee, and here I thought that most of the complaints the last two weeks were over issues bigger then Lewinsky.

I kinda thought that the complaints were about all the scenes that were written to be 180 degrees from what really happened. Or how ABC spent months claiming that this was a just the facts kinda thing, something that they worked hard at to get right, and then turned around at the last minute and admitted that it was filled with fictions cooked up by the writer. But they still aired it and billed it as a fact based program based on the 9/11 report (which contradicts many of the films scenes) and let many of the fictions stand as facts.

Nah, Lewinsky was nothing but a minor quibble.

Posted by: Thom at September 11, 2006 12:13 PM

Actually, the events they were complaining avout were not entirely made up, they combined several events into one, much like a movie based on a true story will sometimes combine several people. But then, that Reagan TV movie Peter mentions made up stuff out of whole cloth as well.

It floors me that people rush to defend the Democrats on this. Face it, they went the route of censorship. They decried Republicans for doing exactly the things they did.

Posted by: billy fegan at September 11, 2006 12:21 PM

i flew from belfast to scotland during the recent terrorist scare and was not allowed onto the plane with hand baggage. i had brought some sweets and a star trek novel, by none other than yourself, to read on the plane. i was disgusted that my sweets and book were confiscated by airport security. at first i thought it was a joke and made a retort about giving cabin crew a paper-cut which did not go down at all well. i was told that if i did not hand over the book/sweets i would not be allowed onto the plane. i asked if i could have an envelope and post the book back to myself but was told staff were too busy to comply so my book/sweets were thrown into a bin. i agree that airport security should be tightened but we must retain some common sense. i now have to track down another copy of the book as i was only 3 chapters into it. bloody terrorists!!!!!
BILL

Posted by: Joe Nazzaro at September 11, 2006 12:23 PM

I think ABC is perfectly within their rights to air their 9/11 mini-series, but if you're going to label it a dramatization (meaning you can pretty much change anything) you should make it clear to the viewing public that what they're watching is about as accurate as last week's Different Strokes TV movie. If on the other hand, you're trying to pretend that this is an accurate representation of real-life events, then maybe you should try to make them accurate.

And I'm not sure the Republicans have any moral high ground here, having applied enough political pressure to get the Reagan TV movie pulled, or at least consigned to a time and place that nobody would ever see it.

Posted by: The StarWolf at September 11, 2006 12:23 PM

"Quick, kids. There's some history. Let's rewrite it."

Oh yeah, as though it would be the first time.

When I brought my junior high history text home that first time, my parents (historians both) took a look through it and laughed a lot. They then dug up photocopies of period documents they'd amassed through part of their working lives and showed me just how inaccurate, or outright incorrect the text was. Not exactly reassuring. Texts from later grades weren't quite as bad, but also needed a lot of work before they could be genuinely called "history" instead of "inspired by".

Posted by: The StarWolf at September 11, 2006 12:24 PM

"Quick, kids. There's some history. Let's rewrite it."

Oh yeah, as though it would be the first time.

When I brought my junior high history text home that first time, my parents (historians both) took a look through it and laughed a lot. They then dug up photocopies of period documents they'd amassed through part of their working lives and showed me just how inaccurate, or outright incorrect the text was. Not exactly reassuring. Texts from later grades weren't quite as bad, but also needed a lot of work before they could be genuinely called "history" instead of "inspired by".

Posted by: The StarWolf at September 11, 2006 12:30 PM

Sorry for the duplication. Something went awry in posting.

Billy, as for your airport experience? People will tell you "you should just put it with the 'checked in' luggage." Feel free to then ask them "So tell me, when was the last time you had YOUR baggage go astray? Hmm? Never? Thought so. You might feel differently about not having carry-on otherwise."

Posted by: Craig J. Ries at September 11, 2006 12:33 PM

I kinda thought that the complaints were about all the scenes that were written to be 180 degrees from what really happened.

ABC said that this movie was based on the 9/11 report.

Which is amusing, because at least one 9/11 Commissioner said that the movie seems to be anything but based on their report.

I can understand the Republicans being upset about the Reagan biopic (although, let's face it, they want to canonize him; nobody's really talking about doing that to Clinton).

And if Rush Limbaugh basically says that this film will lay the proper blame at Clinton's feet, then I can understand the Clinton administration being upset about it.

Even worse is that, unlike what I recall of CBS and their biopic of Reagan, ABC WANTS this film to change people's perceptions of what lead to 9/11, even if it's so farking wrong on so many levels.

Posted by: Miles Vorkosigan at September 11, 2006 12:46 PM

It's been a while back, but I had a copy of Stephanopoulis' book about working in the West Wing, and he referred to Bill's peckerdillos as "bimbo eruptions", which I actually thought was kinda cute... There are a lot of reasons why both parties failed on the bin Laden end of things, not the least of which is the fact that Binladen Brothers construction and the Saudi royal family pump a hell of a lot of money into the Republican party. Why do you think we didn't go after the real base of operations for Al Queda? It's in Riyadh, not Baghdad...

As for Bill and his fooling about, well, if he'd gotten what he wanted from Hillary, he wouldn't have had to screw around. It's not like he's the only one who's done this; every other president from Washington on down has had some sort of sexual shenanigans while in office, with Warren Harding, a Republican, being one of the worst. When he went up for reelection, the party put all eight or however many of his mistresses on a boat for an around the world cruise to get them out of the way, so that he could focus on the campaign.

The Dems have blown it, and blown it badly, of late. What we need is a really strong independent to run and win. And even though some of you will laugh, who we need is Jesse Ventura and Kinky Friedman. Those two kiss no asses, have no hidden agendas, and would work hard to get the country on the right track again.

But that's just my tuppence worth.

Miles

Posted by: cjmahoney at September 11, 2006 12:48 PM

"...except I find it difficult to believe any reasonable person could think that the harassment over Lewinsky didn't impede Clinton's effectiveness on any number of levels."

Wow. I find myself feeling sort of disappointed in Peter David's words. This has never happened before.

I can certainly agree that the partisan harrassment of Clinton likely hampered his effectiveness. We can only ponder what might have been accomplished during his presidency if the Republicans had cared to work together with Clinton for the greater public good.

But I am not aware of any factual evidence that Clinton's job performance fell below the competent level on any policy issue, notwithstanding the Republican witch hunts that were launched against his administration from day one.

If you really want to make the argument that (due to his preoccupation with the Monica Lewinsky scandal) Clinton made specific screw-ups in his job as Commander in Chief, please cite facts. Mere speculation sometimes leads to misinformed or inaccurate revisionist nonsense.

Posted by: Thom at September 11, 2006 12:58 PM

"And I'm not sure the Republicans have any moral high ground here, having applied enough political pressure to get the Reagan TV movie pulled, or at least consigned to a time and place that nobody would ever see it."

Well, no...but the problem is, neither do the Democrats.

Posted by: Douglas at September 11, 2006 01:06 PM

"Wow. I find myself feeling sort of disappointed in Peter David's words. This has never happened before."

He states an opinion contrary to your own, which "disappoints" you? I find myself disagreeing with almost every political statement PAD makes, but I'm never disappointed. It's his opinion, which is just contrary to mine.

"I can certainly agree that the partisan harrassment of Clinton likely hampered his effectiveness. [sic] But I am not aware of any factual evidence that Clinton's job performance fell below the competent level on any policy issue"

So, in a world where the Lewinsky scandal never took place, every single one of Clinton's decision would have been exactly, 100% the same? Wait, that first sentence of yours actually is what PAD said. So, why the argument?

"We can only ponder what might have been accomplished during his presidency if the Republicans had cared to work together with Clinton for the greater public good."

A loaded statement, which depends completely on the subjectivity of one's definition of "the greater public good." Someone from the Right could make the same argument against Democrats. Social Security reform anyone?

"Mere speculation sometimes leads to misinformed or inaccurate revisionist nonsense."

Heh. PAD is promoting inacurrate revisionist nonsense. Heh.

Posted by: The Rev. Mr. Black at September 11, 2006 01:12 PM

Has anything changed? No, I don't think so. The overwhelming majority of people I know still are incapable of stepping outside of their own hardheld perceptions to consider other possiblities. How many people watch the news and ask themselves "How does an Iraqi/Palestinian/Talib/Chechnyan/Tamil/Isreali/ordinary Joe herding his sheep feel when the bombs fall/detonate/kill all he has ever known?" Empathy seems to be dead. The ability to consider the possiblity that we are wrong about anything vanished, if it ever existed.

I listen to people say things like I have been a conservative/liberal/Republican/Democrat all my life and wonder "How is that possible? Has nothing changed during your entire existance? Can you truly believe that one philosophy can address all the problems of humanity? The answer, for most people, is apparently "Yes".

9/11 was monstrous but so was supporting a dictator and then bombing his people when he was no longer flavour of the month. If flying an airplane into a building is terrorism, what is dropping bombs from 30,000 feet? Some days, I just dispair. I used to say semi-jokingly "I love humanity; it's people I can't stand." I no longer do. It is simply too close to the truth.

I hold out little hope for our species. If there is indeed an omniscient God who micromanages the universe, then frankly I think he should just delete this particular creation - we've been a disaster since the very beginning and only a God who revels in morbidity would allow the experiment to continue to play out.

That being said, I sympathize and mourn with all those who lost someone that day and more,with those who continue to suffer from its after-effects. My thoughts are with you all from my relatively safe haven up in Canada.

The Rev

Posted by: Kim Metzger at September 11, 2006 01:21 PM

First, someone sent me this link. The rest of you might want to check it out:
http://ragingblaze.homestead.com/remember.html

I've listened to an unabridged audiobook of AFTER, by Steven Brill, which is about life after the attacks of 9-11 and how life eventually did continue as it was -- for better or worse.

I've read microfilms of newspapers, including the CHICAGO TRIBUNE for December 8, 1941. As some may remember, the TRIBUNE was an extremely anti-New Deal, anti-Roosevelt paper. (Those who think Clinton or Nixon were the most hated presidents of the 20th Century need to go back and read some of the vitriol aimed at Roosevelt.) The TRIBUNE for the first seven days of December 1941 were filled with accusations that Roosevelt was trying to involve us in a war that wasn't the business of anyone in America. (A front-page editorial cartoon showed ships representing earlier wars wrecked on a reef, including one ship labeled "Wilson's War.") Isolationism was a good and wise policy for America.

Then came Pearl Harbor. And the TRIBUNE, in a front-page editorial, said it was time to cast aside doubts and suspicions, because we were at war.

Just as important, there was no attempt by the administration after 12-7-41 to point fingers at anyone. Instead of "We told you so," the attitude was "Come and join us in this fight." We were united.

That feeling lasted all too briefly after 9-11. In too many editorial pages, on too many talk shows, I saw liberals being blamed for what happened and told that such people should stay away from the "true Americans" supporting the President. Never mind that all but the most extreme liberals fervently supported the invasion of Afghanistan. Similarly, there were liberals who immediately decided the Bush administration knew in advance about the planned attacks and "allowed" them so all of the administration's programs could find support.

And, then, when the invasion of Iraq was proposed, the divisions became wider as more people questioned Iraq's involvement in 9-11. Depending on political preferences, we ended up dividing more than ever.

Yes, things changed, but things remained the same. Except, perhaps, the divisions intensified.

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at September 11, 2006 01:26 PM

One of the disadvantages of having principles is that when you find yourself being true to them at the expense of one's usual allies you don't get any credit from your usual opponents while catching all kinds of hell from your usual supporters.

So congrats to PAD for telling it like it is vis a vis the clumsy Democratic Party attempt to censor the miniseries. He's being consistant, which is more then many others can say.

Personally I dislike it when they put words into the mouths of people who are still alive and can convincingly say that they said no such thing. I thought it was in poor taste to do it to the Reagans and it's equally wrong to do it even to a scumbag like Sandy Berger. But it would be far worse to allow political parties to threaten, overtly or not, an entertainment company. So, as with The Reagans, I think the production company deserves criticism from anyone who feels they were malaigned (though they might want to be careful--if they REALLY wanted to make Clinton look like an ass they could have portrayed the famous "ninja" quote. And Sandy should just be thankful they didn't show him stuffing classified documents down his pants).

zIf it's any consolation, I think the campaign against the show backfired. It would have simply been another low rated 9/11 show. Now folks are thinking about the 9 years Clinton had to do something about Al Qeada, which, frankly, is not to his advantage. (Unfairly, I think--it's not as though terrorism was a major issue in the minds of most people, any more than the upcoming Big California Earthquake is. But when it happens watch for all the folks who will say something should have been done.).

Posted by: Craig J. Ries at September 11, 2006 01:43 PM

This is probably the most important part of your post, Bill, which I highly agree with as a whole.

Everybody wants to play hindsight, when it's pretty obvious that the Republicans during the Clinton Administration, who had control of Congress since 1994? weren't doing much either.

And yeah, it's pretty straight forward: the President is usually the one to take the blame, fairly or unfairly.

In this case, Clinton will never win on the issue of terrorism during his administration.

Either he is accused of ignoring terrorism (which he wasn't), or if he did try and do something, he was merely trying to bring focus away from Lewinsky (which is absurd).

Even though, as Bill said, the country as a whole wasn't concerned about fighting terrorism at the time.

Posted by: Tom Tryon at September 11, 2006 01:47 PM

I posted this on a few other sites. Please let me share it here as well.

We, University EMS in Newark N.J. just broadcast this at 8:45AM (authored by yours truly):

September 11 2006

"Five years ago today, this hour, this minute, we the people of the United States of America suffered an unprovoked attack in our best known metropolis.

Five years ago today, we the people of Emergency Medical Services across our country responded to that travesty to do what could be done to fight off death and alleviate suffering.

Five years ago today, as a result of that response, many of our Public Safety family were lost to this life.

In their honor, we must never forget this day.
In their honor, we must never forget their sacrifice.
In their honor, we must never forget the privilege we share in carrying on their legacy.
In their honor, we must simply never forget.

On this day of days University EMS in conjunction with many agencies will be observing a moment of respectful silence to mark that day of devastation and heroism.

Your patient care situation permitting, we invite you to join us.

God Bless America
God bless Dave LeMange, our fallen brother.
Never forget."

******
From the EMS family, thanks for all your prayers and good wishes. May we NEVER be heroes again!

Posted by: Bobb Alfred at September 11, 2006 02:22 PM

All I can say is that this about kills Clinton's efforts to get re-elected in a couple years.

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at September 11, 2006 02:33 PM

Bobb-- that's funny!

Me- 9 years??? Um, 8 years. Poly sci obviously not my forte.

Posted by: BobbSWaller at September 11, 2006 02:41 PM

I think this is the outcome when two things happen;
1. People expect Hollywood to make a show that puts all types of truth before ratings and sensationalism. TV is about making people watch your show, and controversy is alway a way to get viewers.

2. Expecting that your truth is the only truth. On both sides of the aisle there is plenty of blame to go around. Whether it is a black-faced Joe Leiberman, or a Willie Horton type ad. Both parties often forget we are supposed to be a people united, and not just partisian tribes.

It is sad that we forget the people who died in the 9/11 attacks, the Bombing of Pear Harbor, or the Battle of Little Big Horn, come from all sides of the political spectrum. But that is what America is Millions of disunited people United in our love for this country.

Someday to twist a phrase from two Presidents from both sides of the aisle, "Ask not what your country can do for you, Ask what you can do for your country with malice towards none."

Bobb from Irving, Texas

Posted by: Jeff Coney (www.hedgehoggames.com)) at September 11, 2006 02:44 PM

"who we need is Jesse Ventura and Kinky Friedman"

I'd vote for them fo no other reason to have President "The Body" in office


But then I also wanted Gore to win mainly so we'd have President Gooorrrre!!!!

JAC

Posted by: Scott Iskow at September 11, 2006 02:44 PM

What I find fascinating is the media's insistence that we "remember" 9-11--as if we were in danger of forgetting. I keep thinking that there's some sort of political motive behind this, to remind us why we're fighting and to reduce the number of voices in dissent. Pretty soon, Bush will be reminding us that the events of 9-11 are why we must "stay the course." And the democrats and republicans will be blaming one another for exploiting people's vulnerability to achieve their own political ends.

Posted by: Brian Douglas at September 11, 2006 03:24 PM

PAD, I have to disagree. The world has changed because of 9/11. Instead of being a lame-duck president, GWB capitilized on 9/11 to promote whatever program he wants, from illegal wire tappings to the invasion of a certain country and the removal of a certain dictator from power. Huge change!

I'm surprised we haven't heard the following from our president.

Bush: "I don't think we should do this stem cell research."

Reporter: "Why's that, mister president?"

Bush: "9/11!"

Reporter: "Yes, I see now. Stem-cell research is bad."

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at September 11, 2006 03:26 PM

Random thread thoughts...

I do feel safer taking an airplane. Some of the security measures are foolish but overall I am happy that it has become more difficult to hijack an airplane. I also love how anyone who acts like a dick on or near an airplane is unceremoniously kicked off. Some of the worst behavior I've ever seen has been on airplanes. Nice to see it no longer tolerated. Almost makes me wish the terrorists would next attack the express lane at a supermarket.

Yeah, I feel a lot safer five years on, knowing that poorly-paid government workers are checking my toothpaste

I don't know about everywhere but at some places these "poorly paid" workers make some pretty nice bread. I wouldn't want the job because of the utter boredome involved but I don't see too many help wanted signs there.

Even if you assume they are just protecting their old boss for political reasons, there's no evidence that there was anything he could have done that he didn't do to catch Bin Laden.

Oh there's evidence. How definitive it is may be open to debate. Whether any of the plans would have actually worked is something we can't answer.

Personally...I don't find it terribly useful to worry about it. As Bobb pointed out, it isn't like Clinton is running. If Hillary wins rest assured she will do anything to make sure that the "soft on terrorism" tag will not apply to her (3 years into Hillary's term some people will be talking about the good old days of Bush multilateralism). From a a strategic point of view I think this was a foolish move by the DailyKos gang to make a big deal out of this--it allows Republicans to frame the argument in a way that helps them. I still think teh Democratic party will win big this November but not by as much as I once thought (And if they fail to take the house or senate I will not be as amazed as I would have been).

Watching Dick Cheney on Meet the Press yesterday trotting out that old chestnut that the justification for, well, just about everything the Bush administration have done the past six years is the fact that we haven't been hit by terrorists again. I'm not quite sure how you prove a negative, but I keep thinking it's like saying the fact that American hasn't been overrun by giant African killer bees is due to the Bush administration's crackdown on illegal immigration. I know I'm exaggerating for effect here, but why are the Democrats not challenging the Republican administration on this issue? It's infuriating.

Joe, if another attack happens--God forbid--the administration will catch hell for it. Fairly or not. As long as it doesn't happen they will get credit. Fairly or not.

One other point--it may be that there have been sevral attacks that have been thwarted and the Democrats know it. If they try to pretend that the admistration has done nothing those accounts may trickle out, making them look bad and the administration look good.

Face it, they went the route of censorship. They decried Republicans for doing exactly the things they did.

I seem to recall the NYT saying something to the effect that the scent of fascism was in the air. Haven't seen the same level of concern in this instance.

but if you're going to label it a dramatization (meaning you can pretty much change anything) you should make it clear to the viewing public that what they're watching is about as accurate as last week's Different Strokes TV movie.

Um, isn't calling it a dramatization making that clear? As opposed to some of the factually challanged "documentaries" floating out there.

And I'm not sure the Republicans have any moral high ground here, having applied enough political pressure to get the Reagan TV movie pulled, or at least consigned to a time and place that nobody would ever see it.

"Nobody"? You're breaking the heart of Showtime's president. You can also get it on DVD. Getting an unedditted copy of the 9/11 miniseries may take some more work.

There are a lot of reasons why both parties failed on the bin Laden end of things, not the least of which is the fact that Binladen Brothers construction and the Saudi royal family pump a hell of a lot of money into the Republican party. Why do you think we didn't go after the real base of operations for Al Queda? It's in Riyadh, not Baghdad...

How that's a reason why "both" parties failed on the bin laden end of things escapes me. But it's based on faulty logic. The Bin Laden family is not Osama Bin Laden. And I seriously doubt any amount of money his family has donated would stop Bush from grabbing him and parading him around in chains before the november elections. (I still think he's dead and has been for a while. The CIA disagrees. We'll see.).

As for Bill and his fooling about, well, if he'd gotten what he wanted from Hillary, he wouldn't have had to screw around.

C'mon. That's ridiculous. Don't blame the victim.

Wow. I find myself feeling sort of disappointed in Peter David's words. This has never happened before.

I can certainly agree that the partisan harrassment of Clinton likely hampered his effectiveness.

Well, that's what he said, so why are you disapponted? It's obvious to me that Clinton did not do everything he could have to combat terrorism. Neither did Bush, in his first 8 months. I'm less likely to call what the Republicans did "harassment" than PAD but there you go. I would also be less inclined to call anyone who disagrees with the notion "unreasonable"...Bill Clinton has said that the impeachment didn't affect his ability to govern...ok, bad example but there ARE reasonable people who may disagree.

I hold out little hope for our species. If there is indeed an omniscient God who micromanages the universe, then frankly I think he should just delete this particular creation - we've been a disaster since the very beginning and only a God who revels in morbidity would allow the experiment to continue to play out.

This right after you bemoan our lack of empathy. Mixed meassages, Rev.


Posted by: Bill Myers at September 11, 2006 04:10 PM

The Rev. Mr. Black: "I hold out little hope for our species."

Rev, I'm afraid that sort of nihilism is nothing more nor less than an all-too-easy cop-out.

You've omitted the amazing acts of kindness that co-exist with the acts of barbarity our species commits.

Acts like those of Bill Gates, who is giving away huge chunks of his vast fortune to provide immunizations to children in underdeveloped nations, and who has vowed to give away the bulk of his fortune in such a fashion before he dies.

Acts like those of the U.S. Government and the U.S. citizens who donated large sums of money to aid the victims of the tsunami that ravaged Thailand in 2004.

Acts like those of the firefighters who sacrificed their lives on 9/11 in the service of strangers.

People engage in acts of kindness and generosity every day, in large and small ways. That you choose to ignore those acts doesn't in any way mitigate their existence.

"I hold out little hope for our species."

Rev, what you mean is that the fight is too much for you, the idea of trying and failing is too daunting, and thus you'd rather give up on our species. Sorry, but that won't absolve you of anything. Each and every one of us in some way, big or small, can and will have an impact on humanity's ultimate fate.

A passage from the lyrics to the song "Freewill" by Rush sums it up nicely:

"If you choose not to decide / You still have made a choice."

Posted by: spiderrob8 at September 11, 2006 04:12 PM

Do I feel safer than September 10? No. But I was oblivious to the danger.

Do I feel safer than September 12?

Yes, yes I do.

As for The Path to 9/11, I thought it was fair. It wasn't really about Clinton anyway.

I did find it odd that for years I've been hearing that because of a stupid oral sex thing, the Congressional Republicans distracted Clinton from dealing with terrorism, and now, hearing "No, no distraction."

That said, while everyone made mistakes, hindsight is 20/20. We have an American tendency to believe the best, and we have Presidents distracted by 10,000 things.

I wish they had stopped this, and it was possible, but something slips through eventually. If we had stopped it, it is odd how we never would have really known the scope of what it was. Never really felt it. So many times things almost happen and we never really how bad it would been if it did happen

My condolences to any who lost a loved one on 9/11. I mourn for all of you.

Posted by: Blaine at September 11, 2006 04:14 PM

Oh there's evidence. How definitive it is may be open to debate. Whether any of the plans would have actually worked is something we can't answer.

Care to point this evidence out? And that Monica Lewinsky was at least part of the reason why such actions were insufficient and/or failed?

Posted by: spiderrob8 at September 11, 2006 04:15 PM

Even if you assume they are just protecting their old boss for political reasons, there's no evidence that there was anything he could have done that he didn't do to catch Bin Laden.
****
Sure there is. In the 9/11 Report, it clearly idetifies 3-5 times that it might have been possible to kill Bin Laden, but we chose not to for one reason or another (and one time, we tipped off Pakistan that tipped off Al Quaeda, apparently) There are geo political reasons why not, but they happened. THere was confusion among people whether they could kill or just capture knowing he would be killed in the capture.

There was also the decision that attacks on our embassies and the harboring of Bin Laden did not jsutify bombing the Taliban

There were reasons that were in good faith at the time, but choices were made.

This isn't politics. Just history.

Posted by: spiderrob8 at September 11, 2006 04:20 PM

At any rate, I felt the controversy was overblown. The movie was good and factual from what i could see. Bureacratic bumbling occurred. It goes pretty high up. But it wasn't purposeful. THe movie is about the terrorists and our people in the field more than anything.

Tonight, it will be Bush's peoples turn to feel uncomfortable.

But the screwups go back to Carter's day, at least.

Posted by: spiderrob8 at September 11, 2006 04:27 PM

By the early hours of the morning of August 20, President Clinton and all his principal advisers had agreed to strike Bin Ladin camps in Afghanistan near Khowst,as well as hitting al Shifa.The President took the Sudanese tannery off the target list because he saw little point in killing uninvolved people without doing significant harm to Bin Ladin. The principal with the most qualms regarding al Shifa was Attorney General Reno. She expressed concern about attacking two Muslim countries at the same time. Looking back, she said that she felt the “premise kept shifting.”45 Later on August 20, Navy vessels in the Arabian Sea fired their cruise missiles.
Though most of them hit their intended targets, neither Bin Ladin nor any other terrorist leader was killed.Berger told us that an after-action review by Director Tenet concluded that the strikes had killed 20–30 people in the camps but probably missed Bin Ladin by a few hours.Since the missiles headed for Afghanistan had had to cross Pakistan, the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs was sent to meet with Pakistan’s army chief of staff to assure him the missiles were not coming from India. Officials in Washington speculated that one or another Pakistani official might have sent a warning to the Taliban or Bin Ladin.46 The air strikes marked the climax of an intense 48-hour period in which Berger notified congressional leaders, the principals called their foreign counterparts,
and President Clinton flew back from his vacation on Martha’s Vine-yard to address the nation from the Oval Office. The President spoke to the congressional leadership from Air Force One,and he called British Prime Minister
Tony Blair,Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif,and Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak from the White House.47 House Speaker Newt Gingrich and Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott initially supported the President.The next month, Gingrich’s office dismissed the cruise missile attacks as “pinpricks.”48 At the time,President Clinton was embroiled in the Lewinsky scandal,which continued to consume public attention for the rest of that year and the first months of 1999. As it happened, a popular 1997 movie, Wag the Dog, features a
118 THE 9/11 COMMISSION REPORT
president who fakes a war to distract public attention from a domestic scandal. Some Republicans in Congress raised questions about the timing of the strikes. Berger was particularly rankled by an editorial in the Economist that said that only the future would tell whether the U.S. missile strikes had “created 10,000 new fanatics where there would have been none.”49 Much public commentary turned immediately to scalding criticism that the action was too aggressive. The Sudanese denied that al Shifa produced nerve gas, and they allowed journalists to visit what was left of a seemingly harmless facility.President Clinton,Vice President Gore,Berger,Tenet,and Clarke insisted to us that their judgment was right, pointing to the soil sample
evidence.No independent evidence has emerged to corroborate the CIA’s assessment.50 Everyone involved in the decision had, of course, been aware of President Clinton’s problems. He told them to ignore them. Berger recalled the President
saying to him “that they were going to get crap either way,so they should do the right thing.”51 All his aides testified to us that they based their advice solely on national security considerations.We have found no reason to question
their statements. The failure of the strikes, the “wag the dog” slur, the intense partisanship of the period,and the nature of the al Shifa evidence likely had a cumulative effect on future decisions about the use of force against Bin Ladin. Berger told us that he did not feel any sense of constraint.52

Posted by: spiderrob8 at September 11, 2006 04:28 PM

In July 1999, President Clinton authorized the CIA to work with several governments to capture Bin Ladin, and extended the scope of efforts to Bin Ladin’s principal lieutenants.The President reportedly also authorized a covert action under carefully limited circumstances which, if successful, would have resulted in Bin Ladin’s death.189 Attorney General Reno again expressed concerns
on policy grounds. She was worried about the danger of retaliation.

Posted by: spiderrob8 at September 11, 2006 04:30 PM

Qaeda was in pre-attack mode, perhaps again involving Abu Hafs the Mauritanian.
On June 25, at Clarke’s request, Berger convened the Small Group in his office to discuss the alert, Bin Ladin’s WMD programs, and his location. “Should we pre-empt by attacking UBL facilities?”Clarke urged Berger to ask his colleagues.182 In his handwritten notes on the meeting paper,Berger jotted down the presence
of 7 to 11 families in the Tarnak Farms facility,which could mean 60–65 casualties. Berger noted the possible “slight impact” on Bin Ladin and added, “if he responds, we’re blamed.”183 The NSC staff raised the option of waiting until after a terrorist attack, and then retaliating, including possible strikes on the Taliban. But Clarke observed that Bin Ladin would probably empty his camps after an attack.184The military route seemed to have reached a dead end. In December 1999, Clarke urged Berger to ask the principals to ask themselves:“Why have there been no real options lately for direct US military action?”185There are no notes recording whether the question was discussed or,if it was,how it was answered.

Posted by: spiderrob8 at September 11, 2006 04:31 PM

Kandahar, May 1999 It was in Kandahar that perhaps the last, and most likely the best, opportunity arose for targeting Bin Ladin with cruise missiles before 9/11. In May 1999, CIA assets in Afghanistan reported on Bin Ladin’s location in and around Kandahar
over the course of five days and nights.The reporting was very detailed and came from several sources. If this intelligence was not “actionable,” working-level officials said at the time and today,it was hard for them to imagine
how any intelligence on Bin Ladin in Afghanistan would meet the standard.
Communications were good,and the cruise missiles were ready.“This was in our strike zone,” a senior military officer said. “It was a fat pitch, a home run.”He expected the missiles to fly.When the decision came back that they should stand down, not shoot, the officer said,“we all just slumped.” He told us he knew of no one at the Pentagon or the CIA who thought it was a bad gamble. Bin Ladin “should have been a dead man” that night, he said.173 Working-level CIA officials agreed.While there was a conflicting intelligence
report about Bin Ladin’s whereabouts,the experts discounted it.At the time, CIA working-level officials were told by their managers that the strikes were not ordered because the military doubted the intelligence and worried about collateral damage.Replying to a frustrated colleague in the field,the Bin Ladin unit chief wrote:“having a chance to get [Bin Ladin] three times in 36 hours and foregoing the chance each time has made me a bit angry.... [T]he DCI finds himself alone at the table, with the other princip[als] basically saying
‘we’ll go along with your decision Mr. Director,’ and implicitly saying that the Agency will hang alone if the attack doesn’t get Bin Ladin.”174 But the military
officer quoted earlier recalled that the Pentagon had been willing to act. He told us that Clarke informed him and others that Tenet assessed the chance of the intelligence being accurate as 50–50.This officer believed that Tenet’s assessment was the key to the decision.175

Posted by: spiderrob8 at September 11, 2006 04:32 PM

Again, not blaming Clinton. There were reasons they did what they did, and not what they didn't do. And, like Iraq showed, intelligence is never 100%.

Posted by: Max Headroom at September 11, 2006 05:01 PM

So it is okay for Democrats to demand censorship? CBS shouldn't have caved in for the Reagans, neither should ABC cave in this matter.

CBS did cave; ABC didn't. Who gives a freak. And this was a made for television docudrama - not a freakin' documentary - and any normal person should have been watching the Manning Bowl on NBC.

And yes, I feel safer. We have overthrown two terrorist sponsored states in Iraq and Afghanistan. Libya also gave up their evil ways.

Like 2001, we still have issues with Iran and North Korea among others that we will eventually face. There are people out there that want to kill us because we do not accept their belief system. Whether or not you want to perceive that is up to you.

-bh

Posted by: indestructibleman at September 11, 2006 05:26 PM

And Sandy should just be thankful they didn't show him stuffing classified documents down his pants).

hopefully that tale has been put to bed by now.

Berger's already plead guilty removing copies of classified documents. thought apparently they were in his jacket pocket not his pants pockets.

according to the National Archives, the originals were never removed.

just for fun, i'm going to quote Bill O'Reilly on this. O'Reilly said, "I want to stay away from the speculation. But even so, he's not going to cover up anything because the 9-11 Commission had access to all of the original documents. They were going to see what Berger saw, whether he took these copies out or not."

the 9/11 commission has also stated that no documents were missing.

Noel Hillman, chief of the Justice Department's public integrity section also says that only copies were removed.

i realize you were making a joke and i'm not accusing you of misrepresenting this Bill, but it does seem that a lot of people still don't know the truth on this one.

Posted by: Bladestar at September 11, 2006 06:11 PM

"CBS did cave; ABC didn't."

Hmmmm... and which party controls the FCC and broadcast licenses in each case?

CBS made the republican's "God" look bad, ABC made the most recent democratic president look bad. Funny how the controlling party got their movie pulled...

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at September 11, 2006 06:51 PM

Me- Oh there's evidence. How definitive it is may be open to debate. Whether any of the plans would have actually worked is something we can't answer.

Blaine-Care to point this evidence out? And that Monica Lewinsky was at least part of the reason why such actions were insufficient and/or failed?

Blaine, you're kind of moving the goalposts here. Originally you just said Even if you assume they are just protecting their old boss for political reasons, there's no evidence that there was anything he could have done that he didn't do to catch Bin Laden.

There's no way anyone will ever prove that the Lewinsky mess was affecting Clinton's mind because none of us are mind readers. Clinton says it didn't. You can think he's lying or accept it but there is nothing you can do to prove either case.

Now, as to the evidence--there are the claims by former U.S. ambassador to Sudan Tim Carney that he and others had negotiated a deal with the Sudanese to deliver Bin Laden and the USA turned it down. This has been denied by Clinton officials and by Clinton himself. As there has been, to my knowledge, no proof either way it seems to me that one must give Clinton the benefit of the doubt here. I don't subscribe to the theory, popular among both Clinton and Bush haters, that one must always assume the worst of politicians one dislikes, until proven otherwise.

Spiderrob does a good job of listing other situations (but I wish there were references for those who want to check--are these from wikipedia?). I note with approval that he does not claim Clinton was influenced by the Bin Laden family or some other conspiracy nonsense.

CBS did cave; ABC didn't.
I thought that parts did get editted out.

Indestructableman--I was joking, yeah, but let's not reduce the severity of what berger did-- (from wkipedia-- On July 19, 2004, it was revealed that the U.S. Justice Department was investigating Berger for taking as many as fifty classified documents, in October 2003, from a National Archives reading room prior to testifying before the 9/11 Commission. The documents were commissioned from Richard Clarke about the Clinton administration's handling of terrorist threats. When initially questioned, Berger claimed that the removal of top-secret documents in his attache-case and handwritten notes in his jacket and pants pockets was accidental. He would later, in a guilty plea, admit to deliberately removing materials and then cutting them up with scissors. Some suggested that Berger's removal of the documents constituted theft and moreover had serious national security implications, while others claimed that the documents taken were only drafts and all were flattering to Clinton and Berger (relating to the failed 2000 millennium attack plots). Noel Hillman, chief of the Justice Department's public integrity section, asserted that the documents Berger removed were only copies, and government sources have said that no original material was taken. [1]

The document theft raised questions about whether Mr. Berger was attempting to cover up the Clinton administration's anti-terrorism policies and actions. The records he took were related to internal assessments of the Clinton administration's handling of the terrorist threat in December 1999 to bomb airports in the United States. [2]

According to the Wall Street Journal, "After a long investigation, however, Justice says the picture that emerged is of a man who knowingly and recklessly violated the law in handling classified documents, but who was not trying to hide any evidence. Prosecutors believe Mr. Berger genuinely wanted to prepare for his testimony before the 9/11 Commission but felt he was somehow above having to spend numerous hours in the Archives as the rules required, and that he didn't exactly know how to return the documents once he'd taken them out...We called Justice Department Public Integrity chief prosecutor Noel Hillman, who assured us that Mr. Berger did not deny any documents to history. 'There is no evidence that he intended to destroy originals,' said Mr. Hillman. 'There is no evidence that he did destroy originals. We have objectively and affirmatively confirmed that the contents of all the five documents at issue exist today and were made available to the 9/11 Commission.'"[3]

Yet it remains unclear exactly what was removed from the National Archives. "What information could be so embarrassing that a man with decades of experience in handling classified documents would risk being caught pilfering our nation's most sensitive secrets?" House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., said. [4]

Posted by: Jim at September 11, 2006 07:00 PM

>It's five years later. Anyone feeling safer?

Let me play the Dave Sim card on this: Do I *feel* safer? No. Do I *think* I'm safer? Yes. Ignorance was bliss.

I know a heck of a lot more now about the holes you could have driven a fertilizer-filled truck through back in 2001, and about the ones you still could drive one through today. Unnerves me, doesn't make me feel safe, etc. But I also know that we've plugged (or at least made smaller) many of those holes, and found and dealt with ones that we didn't know about before.

Safe, no. Safer, yes. But only when I give it conscious thought.

But I don't attribute "safer" to anything specific by the current administration or anyone in it (nor to the previous one). An ideology doesn't get credit for the changes, since 98% of them would have happened no matter who was President (and I include 9/11 in that).

Posted by: Matt Adler at September 11, 2006 07:00 PM

PAD, got the e-mail, thanks, sorry for the pestering! Yeah, I definitely think your AOL account is filtering out e-mails too heavily.

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at September 11, 2006 07:07 PM

Jim--good post.

Here's something that will hopefully cheer everyone up--somecongressional nitwit, giving a speech that was supposed to commemorate 9/11, decided to get political and got booed for it. Good. Damn good.

http://www.sungazette.net/articles/2006/09/11/arlington/news/nws868.txt

Right/left, liberal/conservative, Democrat/Republican, I hope any politician that uses this day to try to rip on their opposition gets the same treatment.

Posted by: The Rev. Mr. Black at September 11, 2006 07:27 PM

Easy to give up on the species? Too daunting? Perhaps. Yes, there are exceptional people, people of true courage and selflessness, people willing to die for strangers. But, you see, they are exceptional.

You cannot, obviously, know anything about me but I am not one who as lived my life indifferent to others. I have often found hope in places that I did not expect.

What grinds me down is what I see as the casual indifference, even meanness, in daily interactions. People seem to chose to treat people badly when it would be just as easy to treat them nicely. Few people seem to want to provide the social lubrication needed for civilisation to function, let alone survive. Giving up to easily? Perhaps. But when you put the kite in the air a thousand times and it falls to the ground a thousand times, you start to believe that it will never soar.

The Rev

For the record, I don't believe in a God who micromanages the universe. The boredom would drive him to suicide.

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at September 11, 2006 07:53 PM

Rev. You're hanging out with the wrong people.

Posted by: Blaine at September 11, 2006 07:53 PM

Blaine, you're kind of moving the goalposts here. Originally you just said Even if you assume they are just protecting their old boss for political reasons, there's no evidence that there was anything he could have done that he didn't do to catch Bin Laden.

No moving of the goalposts. I'm not saying that he couldn't have killed/done something Bin Laden. I replied to PAD when he said he wasn't as effective in dealing with Bin Laden BECAUSE of Monica Lewinsky. If you don't think he did all he could about BL, fine, I don't care. I have seen no evidence that that happened because of his "little" scandal though, which was the original claim being discussed.

Posted by: Craig J. Ries at September 11, 2006 08:05 PM

Bill Myers -
Acts like those of Bill Gates

Bill Gates, philanthropist. LOL.

It's all his wife, you know. ;)

Posted by: Tim Lynch at September 11, 2006 08:10 PM

It's been a long day, not least because my current school had a very clear hilltop view of the towers falling 5 years ago and also lost 3 alumni on that day. I figured I'd weigh in at least a little.

While I think there are certainly grounds to ask ABC to change a "docudrama" when the events being presented are demonstrably false, I by and large have to agree that the Democrats didn't exactly do themselves proud here. I can understand their frustration, since so much network time has been devoted to fellating Bush over the last five years ... but unfortunately, that's not an especially good justification. Not having seen the miniseries or having any plans to, I can't really discuss the issue beyond that.

As to the rest, I do think the world has changed: it's gotten meaner. I'm not quite as far into my cynicism as the Rev here, but I think far too much of the world, and the US in particular, suffers from one primary problem: myopia. By and large, people are prone to glorify ignorance over knowledge (much less wisdom), jingoism over partnership, and "winning" over truth, or even a willingness to think about what's going to do the greatest common good. Sometimes I truly question my own wisdom in bringing a child into this world, even given how wonderful she is. I hope the world we leave her is one worthy of her, but I fear we may be leaving her no world at all.

(It may surprise people that I don't hold Bush responsible for the above situation. I think the tendencies have gotten much much worse during his tenure, but I actually think he's far more a symptom than he is a cause.)

Beyond that ... I'm not sure I know what I think. Our student body president made a great speech today pointing out the difference between simple remembering (i.e. the "we will never forget" bumper stickers) and actually reflecting on events, placing them into context. It was thoughtful, it was mature ... and I've no doubt that it will be utterly ignored.

And that's sad.

TWL

Posted by: Bill Myers at September 11, 2006 08:16 PM

Uhm, Craig, where do you think she's getting all of that money?

Seriously, life isn't just a series of stark contrasts between good and evil (although such contrasts do exist -- the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks were villains, plain and simple). Bill Gates may be a ruthless businessman, but that doesn't mean he can't also be capable of great kindness and generosity as well.

Posted by: Jason M. Bryant at September 11, 2006 08:43 PM

"except I find it difficult to believe any reasonable person could think that the harassment over Lewinsky didn't impede Clinton's effectiveness on any number of levels."

I consider myself reasonable, and I don't believe it had a significant effect. He had people in place who's job was to do the kinds of terrorist tracking that Bush still isn't doing. According to Richard Clark, Clinton constantly read political and spy thrillers and asked them if those things were actually possible, even after his personal troubles started. Sometimes the questions were too far out, sometimes they were real issues and actually pushed Clark's people. Apparently, Clinton really did try to do everything he could, and didn't hesitate after his scandal got rolling.

Just to be clear, I'm a republican. I didn't really like Clinton at the time, but I've come to respect him more since. PAD, I can understand your position that you think there's evidence that Clinton slacked off after the scandal, but I disagree that it is completely unreasonable to believe otherwise.

Posted by: Bill Myers at September 11, 2006 08:45 PM

The Rev. Mr. Black: "Easy to give up on the species? Too daunting? Perhaps. Yes, there are exceptional people, people of true courage and selflessness, people willing to die for strangers. But, you see, they are exceptional."

Rev, I have been called "one of the more reasonable posters" in this blog, a "peacemaker," and an "upstanding guy." With this post, I believe I will have cost myself any goodwill I have accrued over the months I have been posting here. Nevertheless, I feel a strong need to express my feelings, regardless of the cost.

You. Are. Wrong.

Period.

I don't think I've ever expressed myself so strongly but I can't think of anything I feel more strongly about than this. Humanity is not hopeless. Kindness and generosity are not the exception.

Or have you forgotten that after the attacks of September 11, 2001, how relief agencies had received more donations of blood, more volunteers, and more money than they could handle? How they had to tell people, "No, we can't take any more blood, we have more donations than we know what to do with?"

No, such kindness and generosity are not the exception. Those things coexist with the evil.

Nihilism is the coward's way out. It's a thin veil of world-weariness that does a poor job of hiding the fear underneath. It's the rationalization that says outwardly, "Only fools will fight this hopeless battle," but says inwardly, "I am too afraid to try because of the risk of failure."

You say I don't know you, and that's true to an extent. I can't know the totality of you from your posts here. But I can indeed glean something about you from what you've said.

Mr. Black (I'm no longer comfortable calling you "Rev" as that's an honorific I'm not sure you deserve), 2,996 people died on September 11, 2001. People with pasts and presents that could have and should have led to futures. We cannot bring them back to life. But the least we can do for them is to avoid dishonoring their memories by abandoning hope and giving into the evil which is only ONE aspect of that which we call humanity.

We are at war. Like it or not. Want it or not. We need to show courage and resolve. No, I don't mean we need to agree with the policies of any U.S. presidential administration, past, present, or future. Our courage and resolve must manifest themselves in the steadfast refusal to give up hope, and in the willingness to acknowledge that in spite of our legitimate differences we can be united in a higher purpose that will allow us to disagree while at the same time standing together against a terrible, terrible enemy.

And I put it to you, Mr. Black, that if you are willing to simply dismiss humanity as a failed experiment, you have become part of the problem.

Posted by: indestructibleman at September 11, 2006 08:51 PM

And I put it to you, Mr. Black, that if you are willing to simply dismiss humanity as a failed experiment, you have become part of the problem.

or an adolescent.

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at September 11, 2006 08:56 PM

ok, we need a laugh. And nothing published in the last 5 years has ever made me chuckle as much as what The Onion published on Sept 26 2001.

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/38673?issue=4228&special=2001

Hijackers Surprised To Find Selves In Hell

"We Expected Eternal Paradise For This,' Say Suicide Bombers"

AHANNEM, OUTER DARKNESS—The hijackers who carried out the Sept. 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon expressed confusion and surprise Monday to find themselves in the lowest plane of Na'ar, Islam's Hell.

"I was promised I would spend eternity in Paradise, being fed honeyed cakes by 67 virgins in a tree-lined garden, if only I would fly the airplane into one of the Twin Towers," said Mohammed Atta, one of the hijackers of American Airlines Flight 11, between attempts to vomit up the wasps, hornets, and live coals infesting his stomach. "But instead, I am fed the boiling feces of traitors by malicious, laughing Ifrit. Is this to be my reward for destroying the enemies of my faith?"

..."I was told that these Americans were enemies of the one true religion, and that Heaven would be my reward for my noble sacrifice," said Alomari, moments before his jaw was sheared away by faceless homunculi. "But now I am forced to suckle from the 16 poisoned leathern teats of Gophahmet, Whore of Betrayal, until I burst from an unwholesome engorgement of curdled bile. This must be some sort of terrible mistake."


Classic stuff.

Posted by: Tim Lynch at September 11, 2006 09:00 PM

Bill,

Yes, those things do coexist with the evil -- but at the risk of sounding too nihilistic here, do those things last? These days, who gets talked about? About whom are the songs sung? Who do our children (real or hypothetical) see as the movers and shakers of the human race?

On good days, I like to think that you're right -- that we should fight the good fight, and that it can make a difference. On other days, though ... I'm really not sure any more. I feel like we're fighting against a current that may brook no opposition.

TWL

Posted by: Tim Lynch at September 11, 2006 09:01 PM

Bill (Mulligan this time),

I remember reading that story when it was first posted. Very, very funny stuff -- good man.

TWL

Posted by: Bill Myers at September 11, 2006 09:10 PM

Tim Lynch: "Yes, those things do coexist with the evil -- but at the risk of sounding too nihilistic here, do those things last? These days, who gets talked about? About whom are the songs sung? Who do our children (real or hypothetical) see as the movers and shakers of the human race?

"On good days, I like to think that you're right -- that we should fight the good fight, and that it can make a difference. On other days, though ... I'm really not sure any more. I feel like we're fighting against a current that may brook no opposition."

Tim, I would rather go to my grave having fought a hopeless battle than to die not having fought, and always wondering if I could have made a difference.

At the risk of trivializing this discussion I will turn to the words of Neil Peart, lyricist and drummer for the rock band Rush. He is as eloquent as I pretend to be. These are words from the song "Everyday Glory:"

"If the future's looking dark, we're the ones who have to shine / If there's no one in control, we're the ones who must draw the line / Though we living in trying times, we're the ones who have to try / And though we know that time has wings, we're the ones who have to fly."

Posted by: Tim Lynch at September 11, 2006 09:12 PM

Fair enough, Bill -- just felt the need to ask.

(And given how often I tend to quote all sorts of people and things, B5 being a common choice, you are by no means trivializing the discussion!)

TWL

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at September 11, 2006 09:24 PM

Tim, it's too easy to see the negative as equal to or greater than the positives. If you have a rug with a stain in it, all you see is the stain.

But can anyone deny that the vast majority of people love their children? Care about their friends? Treat strangers with courtesy? The people who do none of those things stand out as the abberations they are.

I don't know about you but I've had classes that became, in my mind, my "Bad class", the one I dreaded every day. But never has it been the case that the class was really bad, just that maybe 5 or 6 kids out of a class of 30 were unmanagable. That still leaves the big majority of the kids as just fine (and even a few of the "bad" kids would have been fine if they hadn't had the others to feed off of).

I'm not naive. We may be in for some bad times ahead. But I have no doubt that our best years are ahead of us and if we get cracking on what needs to be done I may even live to enjoy some of them.

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at September 11, 2006 09:27 PM

Hey, if we're quoting songs...

nothing worth having comes without some kind of fight

Got to kick at the darkness 'til it bleeds daylight

Bruce Cockburn, "Lovers In A Dangerous Time"

Posted by: Tim Lynch at September 11, 2006 09:30 PM

Tim, it's too easy to see the negative as equal to or greater than the positives. If you have a rug with a stain in it, all you see is the stain.

But can anyone deny that the vast majority of people love their children? Care about their friends? Treat strangers with courtesy? The people who do none of those things stand out as the abberations they are.

I'll agree with that, certainly -- but in this day and age, is that enough? Plenty of people who love their children don't seem to think twice about the deaths of other people's children, and plenty of public figures have made it plain that their friends are good, my friends are bad.

Your class example is dead on (and yes, I've had the same experience), and is my main reason for hope: that the next generation can rise above what the current ones are doing.

'night, all.

TWL

Posted by: Bill Myers at September 11, 2006 09:30 PM

To the "Rev. Mr. Black:"

I re-read your posts and my anger has been replaced with a degree of... concern.

"But when you put the kite in the air a thousand times and it falls to the ground a thousand times, you start to believe that it will never soar."

That sounds a lot like the kind of thing I used to say when I was severely depressed. I spent years in a black hole of despair, contemplating the ways in which I could end my own life.

I can't tell from your post if you are suffering from depression in any way, shape, or form. And perhaps I risk making a fool of myself by reaching out to you, someone who may not want it, and for that matter may not need it.

But if there is the slightest chance that you're going through what I did, I have to say something.

Life is not hopeless. Trust me. I once believed that. I tried to fly my kite one thousand times and it crashed to the ground one thousand times. I believed that was proof of the hopelessness of my situation. And so I thought of ending my own life.

I'm glad I didn't. The kite flew on the one-thousand-and-first attempt.

If I'm overreacting -- if you're not experiencing anything like what I went through and I'm just making a fool of myself -- I'm glad to hear it.

By the way, you know how I got out of that dark pit? With the help of other people. Other very good people.

They're out there, Rev. They really are.

Posted by: Tim Lynch at September 11, 2006 09:39 PM

Oh, all right -- one more post.

No song lyrics, but a quote from B5's finale (particularly for Mr. Mulligan, since he's said he never got into the series). Ivanova, talking about the station:

It taught us that we have to create the future, or others will do it for us.

It showed us that we have to care for one another, because if we don't, who will?

And that true strength sometimes comes from the most unlikely places.

Mostly, though, I think it gave us hope that there can always be new beginnings...even for people like us.

TWL

Posted by: Bill Myers at September 11, 2006 09:41 PM

Bill Mulligan: "ok, we need a laugh."

You're absolutely right. Say the "f-word" again! It always cracks me up when a teacher drops the "f-bomb." :P

Posted by: Bill Myers at September 11, 2006 09:42 PM

Tim -- a very appropriate and very beautiful quote. Thanks for sharing.

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at September 11, 2006 10:25 PM

Nice.

Posted by: The Rev. Mr. Black at September 11, 2006 10:52 PM

Bill, Bill and Tim. Thank your for your thoughts, in agreement or otherwise. (Bill Mulligan - no I was not offended. I understand where you are coming from and there are actually days when I agree with you ... but not lately). Yes, I do suffer from chronic depression and some days are worse than others. It just seems that lately, for every decent act, I seem to witness a thousand indecent ones. I wonder if parents indeed love their children when I see so many obese children fated to struggle with life. I wonder if citizens care for each other when I see drivers threaten the lives of their fellow motorists talking on cellphones, tailgating, etc., etc,. etc You all know the drill.

I sincerely hope my despair these days is ill-founded, but frankly, I've lived too long, seen too much, to be optimistic. However, I don't plan to stop helping people or being courteous or being concerned. Frankly, it's all I know and, I think, all I want to know.

Thanks guys

(By the way, The Rev is a nickname given to me many years past because, if you had a problem, you went to the Rev for a solution or maybe just a shoulder to cry on. You may be right, Mr. Mulligan - perhaps I no longer deserve it.

Posted by: Stephen Soymonoff at September 11, 2006 11:01 PM

For a lot of folks, I think the world did change

I don't believe that the world changed in any way; however people's perceptions of it changed markedly. Many peoples' worlds expanded considerably, to encompass concepts and even people and countries that they had never considered before.

The tragedy lies not in that expansion of perception but in how so many people reacted to it. And the realisation that, had the US been that aware earlier then the whole thing may never have happened.

Yes, that's a big assumption and could very easily be wrong. But I cannot see that being more aware of how some cultures regarded you could be a bad thing in general. And if you know, then you may be able to start some communication - assuming that they were open to it, which is of course not a given.

Posted by: Iowa JIm at September 11, 2006 11:15 PM

The world remained exactly the same. Only our perception of it changed. We became both of and in the world.

PAD, that is just plain weak. That is like saying if I find out that I have cancer, nothing really changed, just my perception of it. Yes, that is true on one level. But I guarantee you that everyone I have ever known who finds out they have cancer, things are never the same.

Not only is it weak, it sure sounds fatalistic. It sounds like we can't really even make a difference. I am convinced we are safer today. Not that another attack could not happen, but we are definitely more alert (as demonstrated by the British stopping the most recent attempt).

Concerning the movie, the hypocrisy is quite fun to see. Democrats in Congress threatening action if the movie is not stopped. Where are the howls of censorship? I am actually sympathetic to the fact that the docudrama is misleading. But the irony is that some on the Democratic side are now getting a taste of what it means to rewrite history.

Bottom line, I was hoping for something a little more respectful focusing on those who died at the hands of terrorists. And whatever you may think of Bush, the fact is this terrorism was going on long before he even ran for President. He is not the cause of 9/11. Whether he could have stopped it or not is beside the point today. The reality is there are evil men who would kill a democrat as quickly as they would a republican. The agenda of at least some leaders in Islam is the elimination not just of Israel but of Western Culture. And the failure by some to recognize this fact is chilling.

I can respect those who say invading Iraq was the wrong way to handle the threat. But I have no tolerance for those who say Bush is no better than Saddam (which some, not all, on this site and in other media have suggested). Until we as a country unify against the true enemy, there will be another 9/11 sooner than we may imagine.

Iowa Jim

Posted by: Danny at September 11, 2006 11:29 PM

It did change...instead of the Twin Towers, five years later we are having a BS docudrama tell us who really is responsible for letting them give us a hole in the ground.

If nothing demonstrates who won that horrible day, it's what is not there anymore.

And because we have done nothing in NYC, no I don't feel safer.

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at September 12, 2006 12:00 AM

Rev, people get me and Bill Myers mixed up all the time. He's much taller. (and having met him I can assure you that he's a good guy who hates to see someone like yourself in despair.

Chronic depression can color one's perceptions, make you see things in a way that defies logic. I know this from experience and there are others on the board that can say the same. If you ever want to talk about it in private send an email.

And please keep on helping people, it'll pay you back in ways you may never know.

Posted by: Den at September 12, 2006 12:26 AM

Not for nothing, but today I saw a flier for a "Patriot Day picnic" and nearly lost my lunch.

As for whether or not I feel safer: No. Too much has been bungled to believe that looking the dresses of 80 year old grandmas will make us safer when we can't even inspect over 5% of the cargo containers being shipped into this country.

Has any of the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission been implemented yet?

In regards to the ABC mini: If you don't like it's political slant, don't watch it. There you go. Problem solved.

Posted by: indestructibleman at September 12, 2006 01:04 AM

now that the edited version of the docudrama is out, everyone's saying, "so what was the big deal."

my understanding is that much of the offending material was ultimately cut. so now the public has no idea what the complaints were about.

it might have been better to let it air as it was, the tear it apart for misinformation.

that said, i can't blame anyone for complaining about something that they believe slanders them.

however, one bit that i don't think has been discussed here was the deal with Scholastic to market the film as a teaching aid for history classes.

if the innaccuracies were as significant and partisan as is alleged, then having this shown as part of public school curriculum is kind of scary.

it's been pointed out that existing textbooks are already pretty bad, but it's still worth fighting against misinformation in our schools. especially if it's propagandistic.

Posted by: indestructibleman at September 12, 2006 01:09 AM

an intelligent curriculum could make very good use of the film if, in addition to it presumably having some accurate information, the film was used as a starting point for discussing the concept of misinformation.

on a related note, i can't help but think that having every high school graduate have a good foundation in logic, rhetoric, debate and at the very least an understanding of some of the classic fallacies might do a lot for political discourse in this country.

Posted by: Neil C at September 12, 2006 01:25 AM

PAD, that is just plain weak. That is like saying if I find out that I have cancer, nothing really changed, just my perception of it. Yes, that is true on one level. But I guarantee you that everyone I have ever known who finds out they have cancer, things are never the same.

Not only is it weak, it sure sounds fatalistic.

That's kind of an interesting take. I have lost most members of my once large family to cancer, and seen a pretty wide variety of ways to handle that particular illness.

By far the most successful attitude I've seen was a friend who, after finding she had cancer, that's exactly what she said: "Nothing really changed. I already had it before I was told. I feel the same as I did yesterday. Why should I allow this to change my life, just because someone gave a name to something in my body that was already there?"

She just continued to live as she had, accommodating her illness physically, but not emotionally or spiritually. And boy did she have a good life. And inspired others in my family, too. Gave her a lot of power to make the choices best for her.

Weak? Fatalistic? Not her. Strong and self-possessed.

Posted by: JosephW at September 12, 2006 04:11 AM

What have we learned in the 5 years after 9/11? That Bush and Company are complete and utter scum.

Not a single thing has TRULY been done to make this country one iota safer.

We're in an era in which people are actually being led to believe that the best way to fight enemies who hate our way of life and our freedoms is to give up some of those freedoms to "protect" us. This is appalling, especially when there is NO absolute enemy.

To Bill Mulligan: I read that Sun-Gazette link and I have to say I came away with a somewhat different take. The politician wasn't making 9/11 "political". He uttered a truth. He said that our policies were causing people to hate us and some nitwit in the audience decided to shout him down (I'm becoming so cynical at this point that I wouldn't be surprised if the audience member had been a GOP plant--the speaker was a Democrat, after all). It was HATE for us that led to the hijackings and the downfall of the Towers and the attack on the Pentagon. And what our "leaders" have done since then--especially with regard to Iraq and, more recently, Lebanon--have not earned us any admiration around the world. Dubya has spent most of the past 5 years USING 9/11 to get what he wants or, at the very least, as justification for what he wants. I'd also note that I read that when Dubya decided to lay wreaths at Ground Zero, he did so in the company of fellow GOPers, Pataki, Bloomburg and Giuliani, but apparently devoid of New York's two Democratic Senators (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/10/AR2006091000679.html). Both of New York's Senators were in office on 9/11, representing not only the State but the City, yet apparently neither was "worthy" to be seen with Dubya at the wreath-laying ceremony. Now, why would that be if there's no politics about 9/11?

Posted by: Bill Myers at September 12, 2006 05:17 AM

The Rev. Mr. Black: "Yes, I do suffer from chronic depression and some days are worse than others."

Rev, I never thought I'd pull out of my own depression. I did. It took a few years of psychotherapy, medication which I still take to this day, and the support of my friends, but I made it through. I haven't had a severe depression in ten years.

If you aren't getting treatment, please, get it.

The Rev. Mr. Black: "By the way, The Rev is a nickname given to me many years past because, if you had a problem, you went to the Rev for a solution or maybe just a shoulder to cry on. You may be right, Mr. Mulligan - perhaps I no longer deserve it."

Actually, it was me, Mr. Myers, who questioned whether or not you deserve it. KEEP THE NICKNAME, REV. I attacked you out of anger, and I was wrong for doing so. I really should have seen your despair for what it was, because I've been there. If I wasn't so inflexible these days, I would kick myself.

I can be a royal asshole sometimes. That's all on my shoulders, Rev, not yours.

Feel free to e-mail me if you ever need to talk with someone who has been where you are today. The address is bill.myers@billmyerscreations.com.

I mean it. I know what you are going through and would be happy to lend an ear.

And there IS hope, Rev. Hang in there.

Posted by: Peter David at September 12, 2006 06:42 AM

"The world remained exactly the same. Only our perception of it changed. We became both of and in the world.

PAD, that is just plain weak. That is like saying if I find out that I have cancer, nothing really changed, just my perception of it."

It's "like saying" that only in that both sentences were in English. Not only is it an inept simile, it requires that you reword what I said in order to make a wrong point. Find me where I said "nothing really changed." Can't find it? That's because I didn't say it. You said that I said it, which is not the same thing. So howzabout you stick to what I said and not reword it to your liking, okay?

PAD

Posted by: Peter David at September 12, 2006 06:45 AM

"PAD, that is just plain weak. That is like saying if I find out that I have cancer, nothing really changed, just my perception of it. Yes, that is true on one level. But I guarantee you that everyone I have ever known who finds out they have cancer, things are never the same.

Not only is it weak, it sure sounds fatalistic."

And, again, it is not what I said. As is typical, IJ elevates his need to attack what I said above the need to accurately quote or read what I said. He's the one who claimed I said "nothing changed." I never said that. Simply reading my posting with an unbiased eye, which IJ cannot do, should discern that.

PAD

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at September 12, 2006 06:58 AM

To Bill Mulligan: I read that Sun-Gazette link and I have to say I came away with a somewhat different take. The politician wasn't making 9/11 "political". He uttered a truth. He said that our policies were causing people to hate us and some nitwit in the audience decided to shout him down (I'm becoming so cynical at this point that I wouldn't be surprised if the audience member had been a GOP plant--the speaker was a Democrat, after all). It was HATE for us that led to the hijackings and the downfall of the Towers and the attack on the Pentagon. And what our "leaders" have done since then--especially with regard to Iraq and, more recently, Lebanon--have not earned us any admiration around the world. Dubya has spent most of the past 5 years USING 9/11 to get what he wants or, at the very least, as justification for what he wants. I'd also note that I read that when Dubya decided to lay wreaths at Ground Zero, he did so in the company of fellow GOPers, Pataki, Bloomburg and Giuliani, but apparently devoid of New York's two Democratic Senators (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/10/AR2006091000679.html). Both of New York's Senators were in office on 9/11, representing not only the State but the City, yet apparently neither was "worthy" to be seen with Dubya at the wreath-laying ceremony. Now, why would that be if there's no politics about 9/11?

If Senators Schumer and Clinton wished to be at the memorial by all means they should have been there. Is there evidence that this was the case or are you assuming that their absence was a deliberate snub on Bush's part? (Neither Senator strikes me as the sort who would take such an affront without comment.)

As for Congressman Moran's statement I stand by what I said and I'd feel the same if he had taken the opportunity to lavish praise on the president instead. The "nitwit" (who said that her brother had died on 9/11 and not to make the day political) had it right. Shouldn't be too hard for some enterprising reporter to find out if she's genuine or a plant.

I'm tired of people who take the opportunity given them at funerals, memorials, graduations, wedding toasts, whatever, to puff themselves up and clumsily push their agenda, even if I think their version is the "truth".

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at September 12, 2006 07:09 AM

Upon further review I discover that this Jim Moran is the same idiot who blamed Jews for the war in Iraq.

"If it were not for the strong support of the Jewish community for this war with Iraq, we would not be doing this. The leaders of the Jewish community are influential enough that they could change the direction of where this is going, and I think they should."

Why this guy is invited to comment on ANYTHING is beyond me, unless Al Jazeer is looking for some pithy commentary.

Posted by: Malkie at September 12, 2006 07:41 AM

You know, I find it funny that people are calling Bush scum and railing about how horrible Republicans are when, in this topic about The Road to 9/11, it was the entire Democrat party that was trying, so very very hard to black ball ABC/Disney into changing the facts about what happened during the Clinton Administration and nobody really wants to talk about that. They want to avoid the fact that the party that is SUPPOSE to be about freedoms and fighting for the "little people" (as they keep telling us they are doing) is in fact the party acting like facist dictators, threatening ABC's liscencing for showing a documentary, meanwhile.. The "evil" Republicans have done NOTHING about the fact that the New York Times released secure information that is a threat to national security and endangered the lives of many soldiers (not to mention that whoever leaked the information to New York Times performed what is paramount to an act of treason by aiding and abedding the enemy and hampering any attempts to actually CATCH terrorists) NOR have the "Nazi-like" Republicans done anything to the company that made Michael Moore's Mockumentary, Farenheitt 9/11 or anything to Michael Moore himself. It's too bad nobody botheres to look at their terminology and think a bit about which group is acting more like facists.

Posted by: Fred Chamberlain at September 12, 2006 08:17 AM

>>"The world remained exactly the same. Only our perception of it changed. We became both of and in the world.

>PAD, that is just plain weak. That is like saying if I find out that I have cancer, nothing really changed, just my perception of it. Yes, that is true on one level. But I guarantee you that everyone I have ever known who finds out they have cancer, things are never the same.

While your latter point is true, it actually seems to support Peter's statement even more. The only thing that changes when one discovers that he/she has cancer. They had cancer prior to discovering it. It is the revelation and realization that has changed. The body was already dying before this point.

Posted by: Tim Lynch at September 12, 2006 08:46 AM

Malkie,

You must be reading a different thread than the rest of us. The thread for barely-literate folks reciting talk radio talking points is down the road a ways.

Safe journeys!

TWL

Posted by: Craig J. Ries at September 12, 2006 08:49 AM

Bill Myers -
Uhm, Craig, where do you think she's getting all of that money?

I think you miss the point, Bill. If not for his wife, Bill Gates wouldn't be this grand philanthropist everybody is suddenly making him out to be.

Let's not forget some of the specifics involved in what Gates & Microsoft have done at times. Such as in one of the cases where MS was accused of abusing their monopoly, and the solution was to give computers (with Windows, of course), to schoools.

As one of my favorite authors wrote: "When (Gates) got married, Melinda was the one who got him to start giving in areas that didn't involved (sic) 1) computers and 2) putting more MS products into people's hands".

Iowa Jim -
Until we as a country unify against the true enemy, there will be another 9/11 sooner than we may imagine.

Of course, which is why Bush used the anniversary of 9/11 to once again attempt justify the war in Iraq.

(sarcasm)Yeah, unity is really on the horizon.(/sarcasm)

That man has done more to piss on the memories of those lost on 9/11 than just about anybody else on this planet. But we're supposed to support him? Give me a break.

Posted by: Dan Nakagawa at September 12, 2006 09:40 AM

You want real change? You want real peace? There's only one way--we lose.

The Western world either dies or converts to Islam. Its the only way we'll get real peace.

Peter David knew this a long time ago when he created the Maestro.

Posted by: Den at September 12, 2006 10:01 AM

Quite a few things I want to touch on, so please forgive me for jumping around:

indestructibleman: however, one bit that i don't think has been discussed here was the deal with Scholastic to market the film as a teaching aid for history classes.

It's my understanding that Scholastic pulled the material from the schools, isn't that correct? But yes, it is troubling that a respectable producer of educational materials would allow itself to be used to distribute something that looks like it was originally intended to be a "blame everything on Clinton getting a blow job" piece of partisan propaganda.

Now, I didn't watch the "docudrama" (too busy enjoying watching the New Jersey Giants get beat on Sunday), so I don't know how much of the questionable material actually got broadcast, but I did flip over and catch the disclaimer they ran at the beginning, which said that they used "fictionalized" accounts, "composite characters" and "time compression" and that it was based on the 9/11 Report "among other sources". And yet they still claimed it was an accurate accounting of the events leading up to 9/11.

I find the continue blurring of the line between fiction and documentaries in the media to be very troubling. Michael Moor did a lot to contribute to this trend, it's true. And I also am deeply disturbed by the British "fictional documentary", "Death of a President" in which the image of Bush is digitally inserted into a fictional assassination. We've gone too far done the path of newsertainment for my taste.

Neil C.: That's kind of an interesting take. I have lost most members of my once large family to cancer, and seen a pretty wide variety of ways to handle that particular illness.

My sympathies to your family. The people I've known to have suffered from cancer have ranged from those that have persevered on and continued to live life as best as they could to those that shut themselves away from society for years at a time. There is no single reaction to something like as serious as that. People's reactions to tragedy can run the gamut. Some people spend more time in one or more of the five stages than others.

Joseph W.:What have we learned in the 5 years after 9/11? That Bush and Company are complete and utter scum.

While Joseph's wording may be stronger than some people would like it to be. I would agree with his assessment. The Bush administration's shameless exploitation of 9/11 to justify their every action over the past five years, while at the same time, deflecting all responsibility for their own failures onto previous administrations, has been nothing short of reprehensible.

Bill Myers: Rev, I never thought I'd pull out of my own depression.

At the risk of turning PAD's blog into a depression support group, after years of denial, I've finally sought help from my depression. Some days are still a struggle just to pull myself out of bed, but I can honestly say that I am happier today than I was a year ago. Hang in there Rev, things can get better.

Bill Mulligan: If Senators Schumer and Clinton wished to be at the memorial by all means they should have been there. Is there evidence that this was the case or are you assuming that their absence was a deliberate snub on Bush's part? (Neither Senator strikes me as the sort who would take such an affront without comment.)

This is just speculation, but I highly doubt that any politician, had they been invited, would have passed up an opportunity for such an historic photo op, especially one that allegedly has presidential ambitions. Public comments, however, might have severely backfired as she could have come across as crass and exploitative.

On the other hand, the Shanksville, PA wreath-laying ceremony was attended by Senators Specter (R), Santorum (R), and Gov. Rendell (D), so that event appears to have at least been a bi-partisan effort. Whether it was because Rendell was a governor and not a senator or whether NY politics are different (Rendell's reelection race has been remarkedly low-key in comparison to Santorum's), I can't say.

Bill Mulligan: Upon further review I discover that this Jim Moran is the same idiot who blamed Jews for the war in Iraq.

In that case, Moran is indeed an idiot and should be ignored in all cases.

Tim Lynch: You must be reading a different thread than the rest of us. The thread for barely-literate folks reciting talk radio talking points is down the road a ways.

I'd suggest attytood.com. It has a lively and hate-filled discussion where neither side fails to hit on the key talking points. This discussion here has been remarkably civil.

Craig J. Ries I think you miss the point, Bill. If not for his wife, Bill Gates wouldn't be this grand philanthropist everybody is suddenly making him out to be.

Be that as it may, he does deserve credit for the good he is doing with his life, just as he deserves the blame for the bad. Not everyone can achieve the lifetime of saintliness of Gandhi or Mother Teresa, but let's give Bill props for seeing the light.

Posted by: Den at September 12, 2006 10:07 AM

The Western world either dies or converts to Islam. Its the only way we'll get real peace.

The corrollary to that argument is that the only way for us to survive as a culture is to utterly destroy Islam. I don't think we are prepared to do that. Actually, if we really do want peace, then we have to not only battle the extremists, but we have to also support legitimate reformers of Islam so that it becomes less vulnerable to extremists ideology. Lots of attrocities were once justified in the name of Christianity. Those days are over (except for a tiny minority) because Christians have learned to get along peaceably with other faiths and belief systems. Islam, if it is to survive in the modern global society, will have to undergo a similar transformation.

Posted by: Dan Nakagawa at September 12, 2006 10:09 AM

Peter's Right.

Nothing has changed. Nothing EVER changes.

Think things are gonna change in November? Even if the Dem's win? Hell no. You're just replacing wittless with clueless. Who cares?

Nothing'll ever change unless someone pushes a button and the mushroom clouds start flyin'. See, that's just it...everyone has this itch to push the button and so far people have had enough self control to not scratch...

But that ain't gonna last. Just like rules were meant to be broken, weapons were made to eventually be used.

Actually, when you think about it, it'll be rather entertaining...the ultimate reality show.

Nukes going off, the death, the devastation...damn entertaining...gotta love it.

Peter David was right? Hell, George Carlin was right.

Posted by: Dan Nakagawa at September 12, 2006 10:18 AM

"The corrollary to that argument is that the only way for us to survive as a culture is to utterly destroy Islam. I don't think we are prepared to do that. Actually, if we really do want peace, then we have to not only battle the extremists, but we have to also support legitimate reformers of Islam so that it becomes less vulnerable to extremists ideology."

--And Bush ain't doing that now? If that's what needs to be done, how's some DEM yahoo gonna do it any better? Like I said, nothing's gonna change.

" Lots of attrocities were once justified in the name of Christianity. Those days are over (except for a tiny minority) because Christians have learned to get along peaceably with other faiths and belief systems. Islam, if it is to survive in the modern global society, will have to undergo a similar transformation."

---Yeah, but Richard the Lionhearted didn't have NUKES. And Christianity DID NOT learn to get along peaceably with other faiths---it became the dominant world religion. Even today, the number of believers in other faiths pales in comparison.

Like I said, give 'em what they want--convert to Islam.

Posted by: Dan Nakagawa at September 12, 2006 10:25 AM

BTW, I loved your last line--"Islam, if it is to survive in the modern global society, will have to undergo a similar transformation."

And what if it don't? Whacha gon' DO then, beeeatch? Go to WAR with them? NUKE Them?
(sorry--been reading Peter's book on writing comics, and was getting into character...)

Thank you for proving my point.

Posted by: Craig J. Ries at September 12, 2006 10:32 AM

Dan Nakagawa -
--And Bush ain't doing that now?

To some degree, yes. To some degree, no.

We continue to prop up as many dictatorships in Islam and other parts of the world (Pakistan, Kyrgyzstan) as we support Islamic countries that actually seem to be making a push for real reform (Egypt, Jordan).

As it is, we're not making enough of an effort in Afghanistan, which is just reverting back to the Taliban days in some parts of the country, and pre-Taliban days in others - opium, anyone?


Btw, Keith Olbermann strikes gold again

Posted by: Bill Myers at September 12, 2006 10:33 AM

Dan Nakagawa: "Nothing has changed. Nothing EVER changes."

I have to disagree. At one time, slavery was a legal and commonly accepted practice throughout the Western world. Today, there are no Western industrialized nations where slavery is legal.

Things can and do change.

Change, however, is rarely catalyzed by one super-powerful individual. Often it is the result of lots of small efforts by lots of individuals.

Dan Nakagawa: "Think things are gonna change in November? Even if the Dem's win? Hell no. You're just replacing wittless with clueless. Who cares?"

I care. If more people would vote, and get involved in politics at the grass-roots level, political parties would be more responsive to the needs of the people. It would break the choke-hold that the extremist elements have on both major parties.

Dan Nakagawa: "Nothing'll ever change unless someone pushes a button and the mushroom clouds start flyin'. See, that's just it...everyone has this itch to push the button and so far people have had enough self control to not scratch...

"But that ain't gonna last. Just like rules were meant to be broken, weapons were made to eventually be used."

They can't "use" themselves. And if enough nations get proactive about nuclear disarmament, and finding and destroying "loose" nukes, your apocalyptic scenario may not come true.

I remember when the doomsayers predicted that the "Millenium Bug" would bring down the world. It didn't. Not even close. Because the threat was taken seriously and acted upon.

Don't think your politicians are taking the threat seriously enough? Then do something about it. Let them know how you feel in no uncertain terms. Organize grass-roots campaigns. The Internet makes it easier than ever before.

Dan Nakagawa: "Actually, when you think about it, it'll be rather entertaining...the ultimate reality show.

"Nukes going off, the death, the devastation...damn entertaining...gotta love it."

No. No I don't "gotta love it." I find that life is very much worth living, and humanity is very much worth fighting for. I don't see any entertainment value in your scenario.

Dan, I'm not telling you for sure that we can win this fight, because I'm not sure. I'm not telling you the odds aren't against us, because I believe they are. But that doesn't mean the fight's not worth fighting.

Another quote from Rush, this time from the song "Resist:"

"You can surrender without a prayer / But never really pray, pray without surrender / You can fight, fight without ever winning / But never, ever win, win without a fight..."

Posted by: Den at September 12, 2006 10:55 AM

--And Bush ain't doing that now?

As Craig said, to some extent he is and to some extent, he isn't. I don't think his recent embracing of the term "Islamofascism" is a step in the right direction, though. What we need are reformers in every corner of the Islamic world, not just in those corners where we find it convenient. That means reformers even countries that are nonimally our "friends", like Saudi Arabia.

Could things be different under "some Dem yahoo"? Sorry, I'm not taking that bait. Diplomacy is more about personality and character, not party affiliation. Reagan and George HW Bush both had skilled diplomats in their administrations. This Bush, however, has shown nothing but contempt for whole idea of diplomacy. And without diplomacy, we have no hope of formenting any reform movement.

Yeah, but Richard the Lionhearted didn't have NUKES. And Christianity DID NOT learn to get along peaceably with other faiths---it became the dominant world religion. Even today, the number of believers in other faiths pales in comparison.

Better take a refresher in statistics. While Christianity is the largest single religion, it is far from being the "dominant world religion." Only 1/6 of the world identifies itself as being Christian. And if current birth rates continue, Islam may soon surpass Christianity just by out breeding.

Nukes going off, the death, the devastation...damn entertaining...gotta love it.

Oh grow up.

And what if it don't? Whacha gon' DO then, beeeatch? Go to WAR with them? NUKE Them?

Seriously, the adults here are trying to have a serious discussion.

Do you really think nuking a region that stretchs from North Africa to Malaysia and the Philipines is a viable strategy? Like it or noth, Islam is going to have to learn to co-exist with Christianity and vice-versa because the alternative is nothing but death for both sides.

Posted by: Dan Nakagawa at September 12, 2006 11:07 AM

"At one time, slavery was a legal and commonly accepted practice throughout the Western world. Today, there are no Western industrialized nations where slavery is legal."

--Who cares if its legal or not--its still being done. People hire illegal immigrants so that they can pay them slave wages to do work they are either too lazy or too arrogant to do themselves--oh, so that's not 'technically' slavery? Splittin' hairs, dude.


"Change, however, is rarely catalyzed by one super-powerful individual. Often it is the result of lots of small efforts by lots of individuals."

--So, you would agree that none of this 'change' since 9/11 is really Bush's fault? Your theory, in order to be valid, has to work both ways, bucko.

"I care. If more people would vote, and get involved in politics at the grass-roots level, political parties would be more responsive to the needs of the people. It would break the choke-hold that the extremist elements have on both major parties"
--Then maybe EVERYONE ought to vote INDEPENDENT in November...vote for whoever you damn well feel like--hell, vote for Peter David!

"And if enough nations get proactive about nuclear disarmament, and finding and destroying "loose" nukes, your apocalyptic scenario may not come true."
--I lived in Japan where owning handguns is illegal--crime still exists there...the knife has just replaced the pistol. Like they said in Jurrasic Park--Life finds a way...you don't beleive me? You know how to make crystal meth????

"I remember when the doomsayers predicted that the "Millenium Bug" would bring down the world. It didn't. Not even close. Because the threat was taken seriously and acted upon."
--That's because everyone together perceived the bug to be a threat, and acted cooperated. You may get America to believe that Nukes are a threat, but just try convincing North Korea...good luck, cuz' I don't think that they are gonna go for 'Okay, I'll take down mine, so you take down yours, okay?'

"Don't think your politicians are taking the threat seriously enough? Then do something about it. Let them know how you feel in no uncertain terms. Organize grass-roots campaigns. The Internet makes it easier than ever before."
--People don't listen...they are, in the words of Pink Floyd "comfortably numb." Politicians know that. The Internet is a joke--both sides have learned to use to their advantage--is it any wonder why God told Eve not to eat the apple?

"I find that life is very much worth living, and humanity is very much worth fighting for. I don't see any entertainment value in your scenario."
--Oh come on! I think humanity is worth fighting for--just not THIS particular humanity. People don't give a damn about each other--if they do, its only for a miniute or so...pathetic, really.

Besides, look at the shows on TV these days--Lost, Survivor, Survivorman, Fear Factor, etc--all these shows that look like they're designed to help you survive in the event of a NUCLEAR WAR! See, the powers that be know damn well that John Q. Public is too stupid to memorize survival manuals, but he CAN remember "that episode of Survivor where___________" Hell, even this season's Survivor has been split up according to race---in this era of political correctlness, don't you think that's strange? Almost as if they want to know exactly what each race's chance of survival are?

SOYLENT GREEN IS PEOPLE!!!!

Posted by: Dan Nakagawa at September 12, 2006 11:21 AM

"Diplomacy is more about personality and character, not party affiliation"
--Yeah, tell that to Neville Chaimberlin.

"While Christianity is the largest single religion, it is far from being the "dominant world religion." Only 1/6 of the world identifies itself as being Christian. And if current birth rates continue, Islam may soon surpass Christianity just by out breeding."
--You won the battle, but lost the war, dude...okay, so Christianity is the 'largest' religion, not the 'dominant' religion--its still the 500-pound gorilla, okay? But like you said, the more breeding, the more the relgion will spread. We may become Muslim whether we want to or not.


"Seriously, the adults here are trying to have a serious discussion."
--No you're not. You folks here haven't said anything that I haven't heard on any talk radio station. I was just trying to inject a little humor here...I mean really, how serious a discussion can you have on a blog of a webisite of a guy that writes comic books for a living (no offense, Peter.)?

"Do you really think nuking a region that stretchs from North Africa to Malaysia and the Philipines is a viable strategy? Like it or noth, Islam is going to have to learn to co-exist with Christianity and vice-versa because the alternative is nothing but death for both sides."
--Uh, yeah...I think that's why they call it WORLD WAR III...you know, ARMAGEDDON? Besides,looking at it from the Christian/Muslim persoective, the alternatives is NOT death, but eternal afterlife...you think Armageddon is supposed to SCARE them? From a relgious perspective, they're only visiting this planet.

Its the atheists and agnostics that are gonna get screwed....

Posted by: Den at September 12, 2006 11:27 AM

You folks here haven't said anything that I haven't heard on any talk radio station.

Neither have you, for that matter. Actually, your attempts to sound pithy and clever sound more like talk radio points than anything else said here. You even hit the highlights: Neville Chamberlain, World War III, convert or die. Everything you said sounds like it was pulled directly from talk radio.

Posted by: Bill Myers at September 12, 2006 11:31 AM

Dan Nakagawa: "I mean really, how serious a discussion can you have on a blog of a webisite of a guy that writes comic books for a living?"

That's a rhetorical question, so I won't bother to answer it. I will say this, though: I believe the bulk of the conversations here are quite intelligent. I believe you are sincere in your desire to merely "inject some humor," but I can also tell you that, from my perspective, you're failing to do so. Furthermore, I believe you are lowering the quality of the conversation, not because you disagree with me, but because you are expressing yourself in snarky little soundbites. From my perspective, you sound more like an talkshow on AM radio than most of the rest of the posters here.

Dan, you seem to be an intelligent and impassioned individual. Why not try toning things down a bit and engaging in a dialog, rather than all of this cyber-snark? You might be surprised at how worthwhile the results will be.

Mind you, if you want to continue with the snark, it's no skin off my nose. But I certainly can't spend anymore time engaging in conversation with you if you do. I just have too many things to do to be bothered to engage in non-productive conversations.

Posted by: Dan Nakagawa at September 12, 2006 11:35 AM

"Posted by Den at September 12, 2006 11:27 AM
You folks here haven't said anything that I haven't heard on any talk radio station.

Neither have you, for that matter. Actually, your attempts to sound pithy and clever sound more like talk radio points than anything else said here. You even hit the highlights: Neville Chamberlain, World War III, convert or die. Everything you said sounds like it was pulled directly from talk radio."

--I'm rubber, you're glue. Nyah, Nyah, Nyah.

Why is talk radio all of a sudden, wrong?

Why is posting on a blog of a website of a blog of a guy who writes comics for a living somehow more holy and pristine and talk radio?

Why, out of all the salient points I posted in my last message, did you pick the most inane one to respond to? Could it be that you see some wisdom in the other ideas?

Why can't you stay on topic?

Jesus, and they call ME childish...grow up, dude.

Posted by: Dan Nakagawa at September 12, 2006 11:42 AM

"That's a rhetorical question, so I won't bother to answer it. I will say this, though: I believe the bulk of the conversations here are quite intelligent. I believe you are sincere in your desire to merely "inject some humor," but I can also tell you that, from my perspective, you're failing to do so. Furthermore, I believe you are lowering the quality of the conversation, not because you disagree with me, but because you are expressing yourself in snarky little soundbites. From my perspective, you sound more like an talkshow on AM radio than most of the rest of the posters here.

Dan, you seem to be an intelligent and impassioned individual. Why not try toning things down a bit and engaging in a dialog, rather than all of this cyber-snark? You might be surprised at how worthwhile the results will be.

Mind you, if you want to continue with the snark, it's no skin off my nose. But I certainly can't spend anymore time engaging in conversation with you if you do. I just have too many things to do to be bothered to engage in non-productive conversations."

--Does this mean that I win?

P.S.--Regarding "snarky" dialogue--Re-read Hulk #341--in the last panel, Hulk says:
"Whatever else you do doesn't matter. You're ALREADY punishing him. you're going to let him LIVE."

Sounds pretty snarky to me.

BTW, Peter David wrote that line. I'm just trying to copy the style of the master....

Posted by: Den at September 12, 2006 11:44 AM

Why is talk radio all of a sudden, wrong?

When was it ever right?

I detest the sound bite mentality and the "you don't agree with me, so I'll just make fun of you and then hang up" attitude that talk radio promotes. It is childish and inane.

Why, out of all the salient points I posted in my last message, did you pick the most inane one to respond to? Could it be that you see some wisdom in the other ideas?

Snarky comments aren't "salient points". That's why I've been trying to explain to you. Like Bill said, you seem to be an intelligent person, but your efforts to try and sound clever are coming across as juvenile in the extreme.

And with that, I'm turning my attention to the adults in the room.

Posted by: Craig J. Ries at September 12, 2006 11:46 AM

BTW, Peter David wrote that line. I'm just trying to copy the style of the master....

Then please stop before you hurt yourself.

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at September 12, 2006 11:48 AM

Dan, you are no longer making sense. If this is a genuine attempt to engage others, quit and reevaluate. If this is just trolling...well, you did a good job but one must ask if it's a job worth doing.

Posted by: Dan Nakagawa at September 12, 2006 12:03 PM

Okay, just an off-topic point here: Snark.

Wikipedia defines snark as (or more exactly, defines snark in one way as): 'a style of speech/writing that could loosely be described as "snidely derisive".'

snidely derisive?

Now, "snide" is defined as: derogatory in a nasty, insinuating manner. "derisive" is defined as "characterized by or expressing derision; contemptuous; mocking"

So, previous comments were derogatory, nasty, insinuating, contemptuous and mocking?

How? Because I am able to express myself in short sentences, where it takes you guys paragraphs to even get one thought across?

This is the way I express myself. I grew up reading comics. I liked comics because they got their ideas across using as few words as possible.
My words may not be flowery, and I may not be long-winded, but when I am answering a question, I try not to bore the reader with other crap that I may personally think is important, and I try to get right to the point.

If that is perceived as 'snarky', I do apologize.

But like I said, that's the way I talk, that's the way I write.

Its also the reason I like Peter David's work so much.

Also, if you couldn't tell, most of the time I was trying to be sarcastic. That's another aspect of Peter David's work that I enjoy.

I mean "Quick, kids. There's some history. Let's rewrite it." Now THAT'S snark. I would argue that its even snarkier that a lot of the stuff I wrote.

So again, I apologize. If that doesn't satisfy you, tough noogies.


Posted by: Bobb Alfred at September 12, 2006 12:03 PM

Just an observation on the idea that there can be no peace between militant islams and the rest of the world.

My (admitedly limited) knowledge of the Bible includes a passage (I'm not one to remember chapter and verse) about how you're supposed to kill anyone that follows a false God, or attempts to tell you that you're following the wrong God. It seems to me that a goodly number of Christian faiths today no longer follow this bit of Old Testament directive.

So, apparantly, things do change.

Militant Islam is a small faction of the Muslim world. It's able to grow and take root because of the social and economic conditions that exist in the Middle East. By bringing about real change and stability to the region...however it's done...we'll kill off the roots that allow terrorist groups to recruit from.

We're not in a kill or be killed situation.

Posted by: Dan Nakagawa at September 12, 2006 12:17 PM

"Dan, you are no longer making sense. If this is a genuine attempt to engage others, quit and reevaluate. If this is just trolling...well, you did a good job but one must ask if it's a job worth doing."

--I guess I'm not clear in what you mean it is to 'engage others.' I thought I was expressing some ideas, some different viewpoints.

I was taking the role of the fatalist. Partly out of sarcasm, but also out of a sense that your discussion was getting nowhere--it was becoming an exercise in literary masterbation--I just do this to make me feel good.

Do you perceive my responses as snarky becuase you don't agree with my politics? I would argue that you don't even know what my politics are.

And while were's at it, YOU called me childish FIRST. I did not make any derogatory comments until you started things. I never even made this personal until you people started railing at ME PERSONALLY.

And I don't feel that I'm trolling. I think I've made some salient points, coming from a fatalist point of view. They just don't happen to agree with yours.

And if you can't handle a dissenting point of view, then I suggest you reconsider and rethink what you define as a 'discussion.'

Posted by: indestructibleman at September 12, 2006 12:21 PM

Do you perceive my responses as snarky becuase you don't agree with my politics? I would argue that you don't even know what my politics are.

snarkiness is a matter of tone. you yourself said you were trying to be sarcastic. sarcasm and snarkiness shall forever be linked.

Posted by: Dan Nakagawa at September 12, 2006 12:24 PM

"My (admitedly limited) knowledge of the Bible includes a passage (I'm not one to remember chapter and verse) about how you're supposed to kill anyone that follows a false God, or attempts to tell you that you're following the wrong God. It seems to me that a goodly number of Christian faiths today no longer follow this bit of Old Testament directive."

I'm not sure that there was such a directive, as it would naturally contradict the commandment "Thou shalt not kill." I'll do some checking...

Posted by: Peter David at September 12, 2006 12:26 PM

"At one time, slavery was a legal and commonly accepted practice throughout the Western world. "Today, there are no Western industrialized nations where slavery is legal."

--Who cares if its legal or not--its still being done. People hire illegal immigrants so that they can pay them slave wages to do work they are either too lazy or too arrogant to do themselves--oh, so that's not 'technically' slavery? Splittin' hairs, dude."

That is ridiculous. You cannot compare slavery, in which the slave oftentimes was forcibly removed from his home, has no rights and no freedom, to illegal immigrants--who were not forced to come here--and are simply underpaid. It's not "splitting hairs." The point is correct: Things DO change. Former enemies become allies. Practicing witches in the United States are no longer hung, burned, or pressed; criminals in England are no longer publicly stripped, disemboweled, drawn and quartered. The world in many respects is, quite simply, more civilized than it was. Otherwise the things done by Muslim extremists wouldn't be considered barbaric, but rather SOP.


"I mean really, how serious a discussion can you have on a blog of a webisite of a guy that writes comic books for a living (no offense, Peter.)?"

A rhetorical question, greeted by another rhetorical question: Why is it that people think that saying something remarkably offensive and following it with "no offense" somehow mitigates the offensiveness?

PAD

Posted by: Dan Nakagawa at September 12, 2006 12:33 PM

"snarkiness is a matter of tone. you yourself said you were trying to be sarcastic. sarcasm and snarkiness shall forever be linked."

So, is snarkiness necessarily a bad thing?

Peter David wrote:

"It's five years later. Anyone feeling safer?"
Tell me that you see no sarcasm in that.

He also wrote:
"Quick, kids. There's some history. Let's rewrite it."
I think the tone of that sentence speaks volumes of snarkiness.

If I am wrong, tell me how my writing differs in tone from those two sentences.

It seems to me that there's a fine line between literary perception and literary bigotry.

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at September 12, 2006 12:41 PM

Do you perceive my responses as snarky becuase you don't agree with my politics? I would argue that you don't even know what my politics are.

Er, no. Which is why I never brought up your ploitics. Or the word snarky, for that matter.

And while were's at it, YOU called me childish FIRST. I did not make any derogatory comments until you started things.

What the HELL are you talking about? You do know that our names are listed above our comments, right? Jesus. I take it back; you're not even trolling well.

And if you can't handle a dissenting point of view, then I suggest you reconsider and rethink what you define as a 'discussion.'

Please. Like anyone "can't handle" your scary intellect. I gave you the benefit of the doubt. Mistake noted.

Fly away little troll. Fly, fly.

Posted by: Bill Myers at September 12, 2006 12:51 PM

To the Rev. Mr. Black: I hope to hell I haven't scared you off, man. I very much hope to see another post from you -- or maybe even an e-mail to let me know things are all right.

To everyone: the last time I said I'd ignore someone, it was spiderrob8. I declared him a troll but I changed my mind. I was overreacting. He's cool. Danny-boy, not so much, though. So let's play a game: let's pretend Dan Nakagawa isn't around, and get back to the cracking good discussion we were having before this little boy tried to barge into the adults' table.

Anyone with me?

Posted by: Dan Nakagawa at September 12, 2006 12:58 PM

"That is ridiculous. You cannot compare slavery, in which the slave oftentimes was forcibly removed from his home, has no rights and no freedom, to illegal immigrants--who were not forced to come here--and are simply underpaid. It's not "splitting hairs." The point is correct: Things DO change. Former enemies become allies. Practicing witches in the United States are no longer hung, burned, or pressed; criminals in England are no longer publicly stripped, disemboweled, drawn and quartered. The world in many respects is, quite simply, more civilized than it was. Otherwise the things done by Muslim extremists wouldn't be considered barbaric, but rather SOP."

I would argue, sir, that events do often change, feeling sometimes do not--that was the original point that I was trying to make.

Again, your honor, I bring as evidence, Hulk #341, in which Man-Bull, arguably a 'monster' is being hunted by a town, much in the same manner the Hulk was, back in the day. Yet the Hulk is not being hunted--indeed, he has gained more than a modicum of respect.

Seems to me that either the Hulk should have been hunted down by the townspeople just as much as the Man-Bull, or the townspeople should have realized that Man-Bull was simply on a Hulk-like berzerker rage, and should have simply let the Hulk and crew handle the situation.

Wasn't a main theme of that story "the more things change, the more they stay the same?"

You're right--slavery is not exactly like illegal immigration--we have evolved in the social sense of...but my argument is that we haven't come all that far in the economic sense of 'slavery.'

I remember watching a TV show wherein a detective had one of his staff to go into a company that hired illegal immigrants and look for work. She was promised a sum of wages and went to work.

When she returned to the office, she was paid a sum that was significantly less than what she was promised. When she argued that this was not the amount she was promised, the office clerk grew violently angry (literally, like a Jekyll and Hyde) and threatend to report her to the authorities for deportation if she didn't just shut up and take the money...

I hope that I was able to argue my point without snarkiness.


Posted by: Dan Nakagawa at September 12, 2006 01:23 PM

Bill Myers Says:

"So let's play a game: let's pretend Dan Nakagawa isn't around, and get back to the cracking good discussion we were having before this little boy tried to barge into the adults' table."

I was going to comment on how painfully childish this little guy's attitude was, but I'd say that's all too painfully apparent. Geez, if he takes comments on a blog this personally, I wonder what he must be like in real life--since he's ignoring me, I guess I'll never know. I was halfway expecting threatening e-mails from the guy.

Condiering the fact that he's a comic creator himself, I wonder how he deals with negative criticism.

Kind of sad, really.

Posted by: Tim Lynch at September 12, 2006 01:24 PM

I liked comics because they got their ideas across using as few words as possible.

Clearly you've never read most of Stan Lee's scripts, then. :-)

TWL

Posted by: Dan Nakagawa at September 12, 2006 01:27 PM

"I liked comics because they got their ideas across using as few words as possible.

Clearly you've never read most of Stan Lee's scripts, then. :-)

TWL"

--LOL--That's also the reason I stopped reading John Byrne....


Posted by: Luigi Novi at September 12, 2006 01:29 PM

Den: Seriously, the adults here are trying to have a serious discussion.

Dan Nakagawa: No you're not. You folks here haven't said anything that I haven't heard on any talk radio station. I was just trying to inject a little humor here...I mean really, how serious a discussion can you have on a blog of a webisite of a guy that writes comic books for a living?
Luigi Novi: An extremely serious one. Why do you ask? Are you of the opinion that the occupation of a blog’s owner mitigates the quality of the discussion on it, rather than the intelligence of the participants in it?

Dan Nakagawa: Again, your honor, I bring as evidence, Hulk #341, in which Man-Bull, arguably a 'monster' is being hunted by a town, much in the same manner the Hulk was, back in the day. Yet the Hulk is not being hunted--indeed, he has gained more than a modicum of respect.
Luigi Novi: Um, no, because that issue in question was actually part of a storyline in which the Hulk was on the run from S.H.I.E.L.D. with Clay Quartermain and Rick Jones. Even three years later, when he allied himself with the Pantheon following his personality merge, he did so partially because he was convinced by Agamemnon that the authorities would continue to come after him because of all the destruction he had previously caused, and in allying himself with them, again came into conflict with the Avengers, and then S.H.I.E.L.D. again.

So your statement that he was not being hunted is clearly false.

Posted by: Bill Myers at September 12, 2006 01:39 PM

Dan Nakagawa: "I was going to comment on how painfully childish this little guy's attitude was, but I'd say that's all too painfully apparent."

Dan, I'm probably going to kick myself for failing to follow through on my own call to ignore you. But I keep hoping against hope that you'll see the light of reason.

You called me "bucko," you told a another poster "...I'm rubber, you're glue. Nyah, Nyah, Nyah...", and you've insulted our host, Peter. You can claim that it is I, and not you, who is being childish, but that won't change the fact that the reverse is true. It's like calling a circle a square. You can do it 'til you're blue in the face, but a circle is still a circle.


Dan Nakagawa: "Geez, if he takes comments on a blog this personally, I wonder what he must be like in real life--since he's ignoring me, I guess I'll never know. I was halfway expecting threatening e-mails from the guy."

Oh, grow the fuck up. Nothing that I've written here could be reasonably construed to be remotely threatening. Frankly, I've given back to you merely a fraction of what you've dished out to me. And clearly -- you can't take it.

Dan Nakagawa: "Condiering the fact that he's a comic creator himself, I wonder how he deals with negative criticism."

Dan, I suggest you check out my own blog. One thread consists of critiques of the first issue of my comic, from friends and strangers alike. Many of the criticisms were negative. I handled them just fine.


Dan Nakagawa: "Kind of sad, really."

Whatever.

To everyone else: yeah, I should probably just ignore this guy, but when someone accuses me of acting threateningly when I did no such thing, I get a bit hot under the collar, y'know?


Posted by: Bill Mulligan at September 12, 2006 01:43 PM

I was going to comment on how painfully childish this little guy's attitude was, but I'd say that's all too painfully apparent. Geez, if he takes comments on a blog this personally, I wonder what he must be like in real life--since he's ignoring me, I guess I'll never know. I was halfway expecting threatening e-mails from the guy.

You know, just saying something doesn't make it so. As you have noticed--if this "I'm totally oblivious to how I come off" act isn't actually how you are--the only one coming off as a petulant child is you. Bill Myers is probably too busy with his job, hobby, friends and girlfriend to pay you much mind, though your pathetic attempt to get him to pay attention to you speaks volumes.

And with that, I now task myself with ignoring your no doubt killer ripostes. I'll try to ignore you until you say something actually worth the time it takes to read it. It wouldn't be the first time someone came on the board acting like an ace high weenie and then calmed down, but I won't hold my breath.

Troll away. You get the last word.

Posted by: Dan Nakagawa at September 12, 2006 01:51 PM

Hi Luigi,
"Luigi Novi: Um, no, because that issue in question was actually part of a storyline in which the Hulk was on the run from S.H.I.E.L.D. with Clay Quartermain and Rick Jones. Even three years later, when he allied himself with the Pantheon following his personality merge, he did so partially because he was convinced by Agamemnon that the authorities would continue to come after him because of all the destruction he had previously caused, and in allying himself with them, again came into conflict with the Avengers, and then S.H.I.E.L.D. again.

So your statement that he was not being hunted is clearly false."

I stand corrected. Still, the fact remains that the townspeople did not immediately seek to hunt down the Hulk as they did Man-Bull, so clearly they saw Man-Bull as a threat, but not the Hulk (or, not as much of one, anyway).

Posted by: Den at September 12, 2006 02:03 PM

Er, no. Which is why I never brought up your ploitics. Or the word snarky, for that matter.

Since I was the one who used the word snarky, I guess I should address this: It was never about Dan's politics, whatever they are. In fact, I made it a point to avoid getting involved in his obvious "Dem yahoo administration" comments. I'm simply bored with the talk radio-inspired debating tactic of first belittling someone's opinion, then making a quick sound bite, followed by cries of innocence when someone calls them on this tactic.

I don't care which side of the political spectrum this tactic comes from, it's tiresome and does nothing to advance the debate forward.

Posted by: Chris Grillo at September 12, 2006 02:28 PM

Why is it that people think that saying something remarkably offensive and following it with "no offense" somehow mitigates the offensiveness?

One of the funnier parts of Talldega Nights: The Legend of Ricky Bobby involves a discussion on the similarly related "with all due respect" prefix.

Posted by: R.J. Carter at September 12, 2006 02:55 PM

Peter said:
People keep talking about how the world changed on 9/11.

It didn't. The world was filled with terrorists, and bombs, and people living in fear, and attacks on home grounds. The world remained exactly the same. Only our perception of it changed.

Then IJ said:

"The world remained exactly the same. Only our perception of it changed. We became both of and in the world.

PAD, that is just plain weak. That is like saying if I find out that I have cancer, nothing really changed, just my perception of it.

I'm searching for the hair that PAD is splitting, but my microscope must be on the blink. Unless it's the watering down that IJ gave with the use of "really" and "just" in his comparison. Otherwise, the simile holds up just fine.

Then again, the subtopic is about rewriting history, and the denying of things being said.

Posted by: Bobb Alfred at September 12, 2006 04:12 PM

RJ, your analogy isn't exactly correct. It's more like you knew you were sick, but then found out you had cancer. Nothing's changed but your understanding, your perception. Things you might have waited to do until later you might now work harder to do sooner, knowing that you've got cancer.

We knew before 9/11 that the world had some bad people in it. That terrorists were out there and wanted us dead. We just didn't think they could really hurt us on our own soil. We always knew they'd try, and I'm sure at some point we thought "y'know, we really ought to see about bettering our security, just in case."

So now we find out we're just as vulnerable as the rest of the world. Our understanding of this sickness that infects some parts of the world got better on 9/11. It didn't get worse, just our understanding, our perception of it did. Everything really still the same. We just have some extra motivation to do something about it now.

Posted by: Tim Lynch at September 12, 2006 04:37 PM

One of the funnier parts of Talldega Nights: The Legend of Ricky Bobby involves a discussion on the similarly related "with all due respect" prefix.

If memory serves, our host here had a bit of business about the phrase in one of his works. I'm not remembering where, though -- New Frontier, maybe? It was something about "why does that phrase always mean you're about to get your head handed to you?", or something like that.

Does anyone else remember anything like this, or am I just nuts? (And yes, I realize the two are not mutually exclusive...)

TWL

Posted by: Bobb Alfred at September 12, 2006 04:51 PM

Yes, and yes. Although I can't for certain give the credit to PAD. It seems like something you'd find in a New Frontier book. Or a Joss Whedon script.

Posted by: Kath at September 12, 2006 04:52 PM

Tim Lynch
Not crazy but I think it was in the 2nd Apropos book but I'll ask Peter when I see him later.
Kath

Posted by: Jeff Coney (www.hedgehoggames.com)) at September 12, 2006 04:55 PM

""I mean really, how serious a discussion can you have on a blog of a webisite of a guy that writes comic books for a living (no offense, Peter.)?"


OK, enlighten me please. Where is it permissible to have a serious discussion? A scientist’s blog? How exactly does Peter’s profession have anything to do with it? He also writes novels you know. Does that afford his opinions more legitimacy? Oh Wait they are Sci-fi and fantasy novels so I suppose in your opinion they don't. Hmmm lets see nope I can't see any reason that the seemingly educated (at least most of them) people who post here on this arguably brilliant and prolific fantasy writers blog can't have a serious discussion. Ahhh but many of us do read comics, so you’re right of course. Best to limit our discourse to another geeky debate on could superhero A beat superhero B. You know wouldn't want to accidentally express an opinion and hurt ourselves.

JAC

Posted by: Bill Myers at September 12, 2006 04:58 PM

Tim, you are nuts, but you are also correct. In the second New Frontier book (at least I believe it was the second), Admiral Jellico says something very close to the following: "Just once, I'd like the words 'with all due respect' to be followed with a sentiment that's genuinely respectful."

Mind you, I'm paraphrasing.

Anyway, this is something Jellico says aloud to himself after Shelby tells him, "With all due respect, you can go screw yourself," and then storms out of his office.

I really shoulda let Peter or Kath field this one, but it feels so good to be "in the know" just this once!

Posted by: Jeff Coney (www.hedgehoggames.com)) at September 12, 2006 05:05 PM

Also

"I was just trying to inject a little humor here..."

I do suppose congratulations are in order. 95% of my posts here over the last i guess 3 years are simply for humor value, and I'm not aware of anyone I've really pissed off. If I did really piss anyone off they weren't nearly as vocal about it as they are now to you. WOW

JAC

Posted by: Alan Coil at September 12, 2006 05:14 PM

Iowa Jim, sitting in the middle of a corn field in Bumf88k Iowa, telling us he feels safer is just a f88king joke.

Posted by: Alan Coil at September 12, 2006 05:16 PM

DON'T FEED THE TROLLS

Notice how many "new" posters there are for this thread.

New posters are always welcome, I am sure, but some "new" posters are obviously merely here to stir up trouble.

Posted by: Iowa Jim at September 12, 2006 05:17 PM

PAD,

Fine. I cannot read you with an unbiased eye. I won't debate the point. But my point is simply this: I would have preferred something that honored those who lost their lives at the hands of terrorists to a comment that nitpicked how we use a particular phrase. That was what was weak -- a wasted opportunity to remember those who perished on a horrible day 5 years ago.

Iowa Jim

Posted by: Jeff Coney (www.hedgehoggames.com)) at September 12, 2006 05:24 PM

"That was what was weak -- a wasted opportunity to remember those who perished on a horrible day 5 years ago."

Not to actually comment on what you and PAD are talking about, but in my opinion what was weak and wasted opportunity to remember those who perished was a presidental speech using 9/11 and Iraq together. It's like Bush has a pull string coming out of his back.

JAC

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at September 12, 2006 06:28 PM

Iowa Jim, sitting in the middle of a corn field in Bumf88k Iowa, telling us he feels safer is just a f88king joke.

Alan, that's not exactly fair. An argument can be made that we are, in fact, safer. And whether or not a person feels safer is rather entirely dependent on the person and their situation, yes? PAD asked the question and it's unfair to slam someone for giving an answer.

In point of fact, I do feel a bit safer, in some ways. Anyone who knows me will tell you that I've been predicting disaster for years. I fully expected us to be in the throes of a full fledged bio-war by this time. The fact that I was wrong about how easy it is to use anthrax as a weapon has been a tremedous relief to me. All the predictions I and many others made about how, after 9/11, our new reality would include regular terrorist attacks, turned out to be wrong. So far, at least.

Either the terrorists are less organized than I thought or our counter measures are more effective. Either way, cause for relief.

Your mileage may vary but if you are going to mock others you might at least give some rational reasons why your opinion is more valid.

Posted by: L. Walker at September 12, 2006 06:41 PM

Iowa Jim wrote: "I would have preferred something that honored those who lost their lives at the hands of terrorists to a comment that nitpicked how we use a particular phrase. That was what was weak -- a wasted opportunity to remember those who perished on a horrible day 5 years ago."

Must we tiptoe around any critical discussion of the events and attitude pertaining to September 11th because people died? Since when is every discussion on the topic an "opportunity to remember those who perished"? And since when is not taking advantage of every single said opportunity "weak"? I read Peter's post and I certainly did not FORGET those who died that day. Did you?

Opportunities to honor the dead abound. How do you, one who passes judgment on others in this regard, spend your time remembering them?

Posted by: Tim Lynch at September 12, 2006 08:08 PM

Thanks, Bill -- damn, you're good.

For anyone who wants to check, it's on page 19 of the 2nd New Frontier book. (Once I had Bill's lead, I went to my bookcase and checked.)

For the record, Bill, your quote was really close. Jellico actually says, "Just once, I'd like it if someone coupled the phrase 'with all due respect' with some sort of sentiment that was genuinely respectful."

Now I can actually sleep tonight. :-)

TWL

Posted by: Bill Myers at September 12, 2006 08:09 PM

Ahem.

As people who are familiar with my postings here can attest, I sometimes come into a thread leading with my heart. Then I cool down and re-enter the fray with my intellect ascendant.

Such is the situation here.

I wish to hell I could start over, but I can't. Instead, I'll try something unusual for me: rather than following tangents, I'll address Peter's initial post head-on.

Peter David: "People keep talking about how the world changed on 9/11.

"It didn't. The world was filled with terrorists, and bombs, and people living in fear, and attacks on home grounds. The world remained exactly the same. Only our perception of it changed. We became both of and in the world."

Peter, I hope you will take this in the spirit with which I offer it, because I don't think I disagree with you as much as I have a... different perspective.

The world did change on September 11, 2001. The United States, a sleeping giant, was awakened. We experienced foreign terrorism on our own soil of a magnitude for which there was no precedent here. It changed the way we think and feel, and thoughts and feelings are the precursors to actions.

Before September 11, 2001, no president would have been able to muster the support needed to invade Afghanistan, even though every reasonable and well-informed person knew Osama bin Laden, Al Qaeda and the Taliban were dangerous. After September 11, 2001, there was very little internal opposition to such an invasion.

And I think it goes without saying that no President would have gotten away with invading Iraq for the purpose of regime change prior to September 11, 2001. The American people would have ridden him out of town on a rail.

For better or for worse, we are a Colossus of a nation. It is impossible for us not to have a huge effect on the world. The things we do as a collective inexorably ripple outward. When we act, there is massive consequence. So, when there is a change in how we act, the world changes with us.

So, yes, I do believe the world changed on September 11, 2001. It all depends, as Obi-Wan Kenobi told Luke Skywalker in "Return of the Jedi," on one's point-of-view.

Peter David: "It's five years later. Anyone feeling safer?"

I don't know if I feel safer or not. In many ways I've become numb to our new reality. Part of that is the unfortunate decision of our current administration to attempt to make the war on terror "transparent" to us. Remember shortly after September 11, 2001, when George W. Bush asked us to resume going about our normal daily routines? I'm not sure that was a good idea. We have been lacking in unity over the last several years. Shared sacrifice often brings unity. War bonds, victory gardens, what have you... these things may sound quaint, but giving people some "skin in the game" is a great way to build true unity.

Am I safer? It's tough to say. I revile our current administration, and believe our president has waged the war on terror with great ineptitude. Yet I am forced to acknowledge that we haven't suffered another significant attack since that fateful day, five years and one day ago. Even if we aren't doing everything right, I don't think we're doing everything wrong, either. I think the recently averted plot to blow up planes en route to the U.S. from the U.K. was an example of Something Done Right. I believe that in spite of the ineptitude and corruption that exist in our government, there are nevertheless dedicated, capable and honorable individuals who are making a difference.

I've written about unity. It's a tricky concept, because I don't believe we should cease to disagree. We have legitimate differences that can and should be expressed, even in times of war. That is not our weakness, but instead our strength.

Yet there is such a thing as being too fractious. Look at this thread! Dan Nagakawa's insincere foolishness aside, look at how many of the rest of us -- myself included -- have been parsing each other's words, poring over them them with a microscope looking for fault. I believe most of us here are decent, sincere, intelligent, and well-meaning individuals, and yet it's so easy for us to come to verbal blows anyway.

I mean, I look at how I attacked the Rev (KEEP THE NICKNAME, BUDDY). I was looking for a fight. I'm not alone in that. I'm far from alone in that.

We need to find the unity that allows us to stand together against our very real enemies, yet allows us to also speak about, debate, and act on our legitimate differences.

What should that unity look like? How will we achieve it? I'm not sure. It is clear we have much work to do. Our contentiousness here is a microcosm for the divisiveness exhibited by our entire nation.

I believe I can start to contribute to the effort in a teeny, tiny way. From this day forward, I will endeavor to disagree without rancor or derision. I will endeavor to remember that men and women of goodwill can disagree without being enemies. I will endeavor to recognize that people with a perspective that is different from my own aren't necessarily any more wrong-headed than I believe myself to be.

This is a small thing, and not the only thing I can or should do. But it is a start.

I will do this in rememberance of the victims of September 11, 2001. Because I truly believe that we must eliminate unnecessary divisiveness from the national dialog. And I believe that the effort to do so starts not with someone else, but with each and every one of us as individuals.

Thank you, Peter, for allowing me to use this forum to express my thoughts. And thank you to anyone who took the time to read this post.

Posted by: Bill Myers at September 12, 2006 08:14 PM

Tim Lynch: like television character Adrian Monk, I have a memory that is both a blessing and a curse. :)

Of course I should also acknowledge that Peter has a knack for writing dialog that is memorable. That makes my memory's job a bit easier. ;)

Posted by: Sean Scullion at September 12, 2006 10:34 PM

Bill, it's funny that you should put it that way, the colossus line I mean. I've been kinda thinking of it for the other end, that there are a colossal amount of people out in the world that really don't like us and most Americans were blissfully unaware until five years ago. I've really been looking at it like people were walking around supremely comfortable in Our Place At The Top Of The World And We're America And They're ALL The Way Over There And Can't Hurt Us. Now, I'll be the first one to bemoan the seeming loss of the unity that seemed so prevalent five years ago. But, I also think that we've gained a hell of a lot. (Rev, this could kind of go to you, too.) Look around. I see people more willing to help each other than they used to be. I see people actually willing to voice their opinions, dissenting or not, rather than just letting other people worry about problems.

Now, do I feel safer? Seriously? Yeah. A little safer than I did five years ago. Now, do I feel secure? That's a different question. Five years ago, most people I know thought we were the top of the food chain as far as countries go. I'm now really aware of the fact that there is an outside world, outide of this country. Sometimes, it scares the hell out of me, but I don't miss the myopia I used to have. I see a little further than my doorstep now.

Posted by: Dan Nakagawa at September 12, 2006 11:38 PM

"I've written about unity. It's a tricky concept, because I don't believe we should cease to disagree. We have legitimate differences that can and should be expressed, even in times of war. That is not our weakness, but instead our strength.

Yet there is such a thing as being too fractious. Look at this thread! Dan Nagakawa's insincere foolishness aside, look at how many of the rest of us -- myself included -- have been parsing each other's words, poring over them them with a microscope looking for fault. I believe most of us here are decent, sincere, intelligent, and well-meaning individuals, and yet it's so easy for us to come to verbal blows anyway.

I mean, I look at how I attacked the Rev (KEEP THE NICKNAME, BUDDY). I was looking for a fight. I'm not alone in that. I'm far from alone in that.

We need to find the unity that allows us to stand together against our very real enemies, yet allows us to also speak about, debate, and act on our legitimate differences.

What should that unity look like? How will we achieve it? I'm not sure. It is clear we have much work to do. Our contentiousness here is a microcosm for the divisiveness exhibited by our entire nation.

I believe I can start to contribute to the effort in a teeny, tiny way. From this day forward, I will endeavor to disagree without rancor or derision. I will endeavor to remember that men and women of goodwill can disagree without being enemies. I will endeavor to recognize that people with a perspective that is different from my own aren't necessarily any more wrong-headed than I believe myself to be.

This is a small thing, and not the only thing I can or should do. But it is a start.

I will do this in rememberance of the victims of September 11, 2001. Because I truly believe that we must eliminate unnecessary divisiveness from the national dialog. And I believe that the effort to do so starts not with someone else, but with each and every one of us as individuals.

Thank you, Peter, for allowing me to use this forum to express my thoughts. And thank you to anyone who took the time to read this post."

---That was beautiful, man (wiping a tear from my eye)...*SNIF*..*SNIF*...just beautiful...*SNIF* *SNIF*...

Come on, everybody...group hug....

Posted by: Sean Scullion at September 12, 2006 11:57 PM

Bill, do the people in your life tell you that you gotta get on a quiz show, too? I hear that all the time. And if you hadn't pointed out NF2, I would've. Seriously! I would've! No matter how hollow that sounds!

Posted by: indestructibleman at September 13, 2006 01:38 AM

Militant Islam is a small faction of the Muslim world. It's able to grow and take root because of the social and economic conditions that exist in the Middle East. By bringing about real change and stability to the region...however it's done...we'll kill off the roots that allow terrorist groups to recruit from.

it's worth pointing out that even among islamic terrorists, those who believe in attacking the west directly are a small minority.

i strongly recommend the BBC doco The Power of Nightmares.

you may disagree with the conclusions, but there are some very interesting facts presented.

my attempts to post links seem to all disappear down the spam-catcher hole so i'll just say that the three segments of this documentary can be found on google video.

Posted by: Jerome Maida at September 13, 2006 02:34 AM

1.) Yes, I do feel safer. The a lot of people I talk to don't feel safer is because ignorance is truly bliss. PAD is right to a degree. Terrorists obviously existed and had expressed hatred of the U.S. long before 9/11.

2.) This also why I think a lot of people DON'T feel safer, even about walking down the street. Since the 24-hour news cycle now covers Natalee Hollaway and JonBenet Ramsey with minutes and presentation that once would have been reserved for truly extraordinary events like the Kennedy assassination and even local news focuses on such bad stories, is it any wonder parents are more afraid to send their children out down the block than they were in say, the 1950s? A lot more scary things are coming into people's homes than there were then. So individual incidents spread an inordinate amount of fear.

3.) So yeah, since the hostage crisis, there was really nothing Islamic terrorists had done that riveted the nation's attention. "Fear of Terrorism" wasn't a big political issue, even though the jihadists never stopped hating us or seeking to destroy us. Even the killings of over 200 Marines in Beiruit in 1983 did not wake us up, because it happened SOMEPLACE ELSE, to SOLDIERS. I feel Reagan's subsequent withdrawal was one of his bigger mistakes. It made us look weak. If there is one thing Islamic Extremist Fundamentalist Killers respect, it is strength. But with the mood of the country, the Cold War on and a Democratic Congress it is not surprising that withdrawal was deemed best politically.

4.)Again, Reagan and Bush 41 both had to contend with the Cold War. Remember the 1980s? They absolutely had to give that their focus. What, really, was Clinton's excuse? With a "peace dividend" and a good economy, couldn't he have rallied support in the War On Terror? Couldn't, in an address to the nation or even a State of the Union he have used his oratorical skils to make the case for why we HAD to go after people like Bin Laden? He spent a lot of time and energy in pushing for Health Care Reform because he thought it was important (the same way Bush has pushed for Social Security Reform). Leaders lead. We put them in office precisely because they may need to make important decisions and have access to information that we don't.

5.) One can reasonably conclude that terrorism (and foreign policy in general) was not a priority for the Clinton Administration. His initial economic plan, NAFTA and putting more cops on the streets(which succeeded) and Health Care Reform (which failed) certainly were. In foreign policy, he brokered a bad deal for the Israelis at Oslo and got faked out by North Korea. To blame his failure to recognize the threat and take the steps he could have against it on "Republicans" and Monica Lewinsky is unfair to both entities. Frankly, if Clinton was THAT distracted and that was why he couldn't make decisions to protect us, then on that basis alone he should have resigned - whether the Lewinsky scandal was an impeachable offense or not - and let President Al Gore focus on the nation's threats and problems.

6.) Tim, you beat me to the punch! I remember that line in "New Frontier" fondly and think of it whenever anyone says "With all due respect". By the way, you don't need to send me a receipt. Although we don't really know each other I do consider you to be honorable and honest. I've never called you a liar or a similar term, even if you've taken joy in calling me a "big dope" :) I was at BaltimoreCon this weekend and told Jim McLauchlin that I had gotten someone to donate $100 and he was thrilled. Thanks!

Posted by: Peter David at September 13, 2006 06:58 AM

"What, really, was Clinton's excuse? With a "peace dividend" and a good economy, couldn't he have rallied support in the War On Terror?"

With Ken Starr and the GOP congress attempting to topple his presidency? Absolutely not.

PAD

Posted by: Bill Myers at September 13, 2006 07:15 AM

Even had the Lewinsky scandal not materialized, and even had the GOP not been obsessed with toppling Clinton's presidency at all costs, I don't believe Clinton could have "rallied support" in the "War on Terror." Prior to September 11, 2001, terrorism wasn't at the forefront of the national debate, nor the minds of most individual U.S. citizens.

Again, I ask: does anyone really believe that a president -- any president -- could have mustered support for a full-scale invasion of Afghanistan prior to 9/11? Or a pre-emptive invasion of Iraq? I don't believe so.

I don't believe it is productive to argue about whether one president or another did enough about terrorism prior 9/11. I don't think we as a nation would have been willing to go to the necessary lengths.

Hindsight is 20/20.

Posted by: Sean Scullion at September 13, 2006 07:46 AM

The question is, has anyone done enough since? They stopped the plan in England, but now it seems that it was nowhere near coming to fruition, the way that all the media types seemed to be indicating. And are all the containers coming into the country checked yet?

Posted by: Brian Douglas at September 13, 2006 08:26 AM

"A rhetorical question, greeted by another rhetorical question: Why is it that people think that saying something remarkably offensive and following it with "no offense" somehow mitigates the offensiveness?"
-PAD

Thank you Admiral Jellico

Posted by: Dan Nakagawa at September 13, 2006 10:27 AM

"A rhetorical question, greeted by another rhetorical question: Why is it that people think that saying something remarkably offensive and following it with "no offense" somehow mitigates the offensiveness?"
-PAD

Wow..I must have seen that quip on 4 or 5 messages already....must be a good one.

So, all feelings aside and getting back to the point of the original comment--you're saying that this blog on peterdavid.net carries as much or more social clout as say, moveon.org, or some of the other well known politico-social blogs?

I mean really, what's this blog for anyway? What's its focus? Is it a forum for differing points of view? Clearly not, as you weenies out there seem to immediately call anyone who challenges you own little status quo a "troll" (guess that's the geek/nerd/weenie form of self defense to anyone who has a differing opinion and has the balls to stand up for it...)


I thought this blog was for fun. I did not know that it was here to make a statement--political, social or otherwise...

Really, if this blog is meant to be only for like-minded people, you ought to put a membership stipulation on it and only let people whom you all like and approve of onto it.

That way you'll keep your conversations to yourselves and won't have to deal with people you are obviously ill-equipped to handle.

And, you won't have to resort to Bill Myers' and Bill Mulligan's wonderfully mature tactic of "ok guys, let's just ignore him."

If you kiddies aren't going to let EVERYONE into your sandbox, the Jesus Christ, put a fence around the damn thing...

Posted by: Dan Nakagawa at September 13, 2006 10:33 AM

"The question is, has anyone done enough since? They stopped the plan in England, but now it seems that it was nowhere near coming to fruition, the way that all the media types seemed to be indicating. And are all the containers coming into the country checked yet?"

Nope. And I don't think they indend to check them. I think this country has fallen into a "the check's in the mail" attitude--as long as we talk about it, that's enough...we don't actually have to act on it.

Posted by: Tim Lynch at September 13, 2006 11:35 AM

Is it a forum for differing points of view?

If you seriously think the answer is "no", you need to go back and read a whole ton of threads on equally controversial topics. I've gotten into major knock-down disagreements with various people here, Bill Mulligan among them (since you mentioned him).

If you really think this place is "no disagreement allowed", it must stand to reason that you think we're all flaming liberals or all diehard conservatives. Neither is true.

There is a difference, however, between reasoned disagreement (however passionate) and simply acting like an asshole. Once you have mastered that difference, or at minimum understood it, you'll fit right in.

Some of your posts have definitely gotten more constructive in tone (the one about checking containers among them). If you're interested in the conversation, great! Have at it. If you're only going to drop bombs about everyone being "kiddies" and how nobody should be taking this discussion seriously because of its location, however, I think your energies are better directed somewhere else. Anywhere else.

TWL

Posted by: Bobb Alfred at September 13, 2006 11:45 AM

Dan, if you really want to see what an oppressive "members only" forum looks like, might I suggest Byrne Robotics? If you have problems with PAD's site, I'm truly interested in seeing what your opinion of another comic-creator's boards would be.

One bit of advice: coming into an established community and attempting to inject what you think of as humor is never going to be a good way to join that community. Especially not when it's in a written format when we can't see the smile at the end of your sentences, or hear the light tone of your voice. Followed up by you getting all defensive and resorting to calling the regular members of the community weenies and kiddies.

Of all the internet joints I hang out at, this one has the largest population of thinking, rational, mature people that share a common interest (the works of Peter David). Other than that, our backgrounds, interests, beliefs, politics, and religious ideals are all over the spectrum. We manage to discuss things mostly civil, and while we get heated at times, we try not to make it personal. There's also no outright rejection of any reasoned opinion or idea.

Which, I'd think, your continued efforts to bait people, and the lack of any significant response, would suggest to you that your efforts to paint this place and the folks that hang out here as oppressive and childish were misplaced.

But whatever. You'll probably go ahead and find something here that I've said to call me a weenie, too.

Posted by: Chris Grillo at September 13, 2006 11:48 AM

So, all feelings aside and getting back to the point of the original comment--you're saying that this blog on peterdavid.net carries as much or more social clout as say, moveon.org, or some of the other well known politico-social blogs?

That is tantamount to saying that since something is animated or is in a comic book, it is for children and all material should be expressed accordingly. Whether this is PAD.NET or MOVEON.ORG doesn't matter, it's the material contained herein that determines its "clout". Otherwise, you'd have yourself one of them there ad hominum arguments (i.e. excluding any arguments presented by PAD or the commenters simply because this is PAD's blog and PAD is a fiction writer).

Posted by: Sean Scullion at September 13, 2006 11:59 AM

I probably shouldn't even respond to Dan, but then, nobody ever accused me of either brains or wisdom. You know what this site has that moveon.org or other political sites don't? Well, diversity for one. And if you think this blog is only for "right minded people" as you put it, heck, half the people wouldn't be heard from. And the Bills(Myers and Mulligan, not Buffalo) and others would only resort to the ignore tactic if a person was, well, ignorant. You're apparently a pretty intelligent guy, in fact I think that could be said of most people here, but unlike most you seem to post not to contribute or do anything but what my 5-year-old does when he thinks I'm not paying attention to him, get louder, more obnoxious, and and right in my face. I think you showed with your response to my one post about the import containers that you DO have something to offer. Unfortunately, the rest of the packaging can tend to put people off.

Posted by: Bill Myers at September 13, 2006 12:26 PM

Dan Nakagawa: "And, you won't have to resort to Bill Myers' and Bill Mulligan's wonderfully mature tactic of "ok guys, let's just ignore him."

Dan, unless you change your posture this really will be my last response to you.

Ignoring someone who is acting execrably is not an immature tactic at all. If I continued to answer your insults with more insults of my own, that would be immature. Ignoring you is actually a very adult way of handling you.

I'm not afraid of you, Dan. The problem here isn't me. It's you. It's clear you crave my attention. But Bill Mulligan was right: I have a girlfriend, friends, a job, a time-consuming and very rewarding hobby (writing and drawing my own comic-book). I have to choose where and when to direct my efforts. If you want my attention (and it is clear you do), the best way to get it is to engage me in an intelligent conversation.

If instead you merely want to act childishly and toss around insults, then, no, I don't have the time for you. There are too many worthwhile things competing for my attention.

That isn't fear, Dan. It's apathy. I've grown weary of you.

Dan, I never asked for nor wanted your attention. Deny it if you'd like, but it is clear you want my attention, along with the attention of everyone else here. So, I want nothing from you, but you want something from me. Well, then -- earn it. I had to earn people's respect when I first started posting here.

It's not some arbitrary rule of ours, Dan. It's like that with ANY group, ANYWHERE. You earn people's respect. That's just The Way Things Are.

And if you continue to act like a snotty little brat, then, yeah, this will be my last response to you. Interpret that however you wish.

Posted by: Craig J. Ries at September 13, 2006 12:37 PM

What's its focus?

Erm, last I checked, blogs weren't expected to have a focus, as many of them are created by individuals who can talk about whatever the hell they feel like.

And that's the case with PAD's blog: his blog, he chooses what he wants to talk about.

Only more recently have they become more focused on niche areas or politics, etc.

Posted by: Jeff Coney (www.hedgehoggames.com)) at September 13, 2006 12:49 PM

"I thought this blog was for fun. I did not know that it was here to make a statement--political, social or otherwise..."

So we won't have to go through the idiotic debate on PAD unfairly censoring I'll say it. Dude if your not enjoying yourself no one is forceing you to stay. But hey, don't let the door hit you on the way out.

JAC

Posted by: Dan Nakagawa at September 13, 2006 01:03 PM

"I probably shouldn't even respond to Dan, but then, nobody ever accused me of either brains or wisdom. You know what this site has that moveon.org or other political sites don't? Well, diversity for one. And if you think this blog is only for "right minded people" as you put it, heck, half the people wouldn't be heard from. And the Bills(Myers and Mulligan, not Buffalo) and others would only resort to the ignore tactic if a person was, well, ignorant. You're apparently a pretty intelligent guy, in fact I think that could be said of most people here, but unlike most you seem to post not to contribute or do anything but what my 5-year-old does when he thinks I'm not paying attention to him, get louder, more obnoxious, and and right in my face. I think you showed with your response to my one post about the import containers that you DO have something to offer. Unfortunately, the rest of the packaging can tend to put people off."

--I guess I'm still not getting it. I appreciate your sentiments, but so far you guys sound like I'm Hal Jordan (or worse, G'Nort), and you all are the Guardians of OA...am I missing something?

I really don't understand how I'm coming off sounding like an asshole to you guys.

Admittedly, my last post was sarcastic and mean-spirited. but you have to admit that Myers and Mulligan took some pretty cheap shots at me too...and all because I called them 'bucko'? You know, in another post, Myers actually said 'grow the fuck up.' Sorry, I may be snarky, but I've never debased myself so low that I've had to resort to profanity.

Doesn't anyone even read my points of view? As I said, I was trying to argue the fatalist point of view...you may not like it, but hey guys, reality time here--it exists, and its just as menacing and as looming as Galactus is in the Marvel Universe.

My argument was to goad you all into countering that argument and really thinking--what would you do? And what IF Islam decided it wanted to take over, just like the Christian Crusaders of old?

What would you do if the basic, fundamental lifestyle of Western Civilization was going to being threatened?

As much as you say that we are not in a kill-or-be-killed situation, the possibility still does exist, and given the seeming mood of the world today, I would not say that it was a remote one.

Don't you want to discuss basic issues like that? I do. I could really care less about how people acted in the past--thats no guarantee that they're going to do the same thing in the future.

I like discussing possibilites in the future and what you or I would most likely do in those situations.

Isn't that what Science Fiction is all about?

And here, today, we have a perfect jumping off point.

Everyone is complaining about the 'current administration'--the current administration is going to be OVER in two years(two years? hell, it could be over in two months)--that's not that far off...what's going to happen then? What do you think'll happen then?

was that less snarky?

Posted by: Bobb Alfred at September 13, 2006 01:15 PM

I think a good number of us here actually consider the serious debates we have to BE fun.

Posted by: Dan Nakagawa at September 13, 2006 01:18 PM

Dan Nakagawa: "And, you won't have to resort to Bill Myers' and Bill Mulligan's wonderfully mature tactic of "ok guys, let's just ignore him."

Dan, unless you change your posture this really will be my last response to you.

Ignoring someone who is acting execrably is not an immature tactic at all. If I continued to answer your insults with more insults of my own, that would be immature. Ignoring you is actually a very adult way of handling you.

I'm not afraid of you, Dan. The problem here isn't me. It's you. It's clear you crave my attention. But Bill Mulligan was right: I have a girlfriend, friends, a job, a time-consuming and very rewarding hobby (writing and drawing my own comic-book). I have to choose where and when to direct my efforts. If you want my attention (and it is clear you do), the best way to get it is to engage me in an intelligent conversation.

If instead you merely want to act childishly and toss around insults, then, no, I don't have the time for you. There are too many worthwhile things competing for my attention.

That isn't fear, Dan. It's apathy. I've grown weary of you.

Dan, I never asked for nor wanted your attention. Deny it if you'd like, but it is clear you want my attention, along with the attention of everyone else here. So, I want nothing from you, but you want something from me. Well, then -- earn it. I had to earn people's respect when I first started posting here.

It's not some arbitrary rule of ours, Dan. It's like that with ANY group, ANYWHERE. You earn people's respect. That's just The Way Things Are.

And if you continue to act like a snotty little brat, then, yeah, this will be my last response to you. Interpret that however you wish.

---To Bill Myers:

What an incredible ego you have! You think that my posts have all been about you, don't you?

well let me tell you pal, I've got a life as well, and beleive me, worrying about pissants like you are on the bottom of my list.

Read the posts I've made--I didn't even know who you were (nor did I care) till you came out lashing at me first.

And ignoring IS a childish response--it means you have neither the guts nor the brains to take me on.

I don't crave your attention--my comments were about how childish you were acting, not on YOU personally.

But since you insist on trying to psychoanalyze me, let me do little on you.

So, you have a job, a girlfriend, a hobby--very nice--WHO CARES? I have all those things as well. I think you crave attention more than I do.
Didn't you say in another topic that you were going to Wizard World Chicago to "shmooze" Peter David? Whats the matter? Afraid that your work won't stand up on its own merit?

I want nothing from you---I find you a joke--less than a joke.

Remember, you brought this on yourself.

Respond--or not--who cares?

Posted by: The StarWolf at September 13, 2006 01:26 PM

> Militant Islam is a small faction of the Muslim world. It's able to grow and take root because of the social and economic conditions that exist in the Middle East. By bringing about real change and stability to the region...however it's done...we'll kill off the roots that allow terrorist groups to recruit from.

That'd be great if it were true, but we're increasingly seeing people from perfectly good backgrounds who are rallying to the cause just, well, "because". They aren't poor and they aren't from poor families, or even poor neighbourhoods - look at the home-grown ones in the US and Canada - but they don't let that stop them from joining up. Face it: sometimes all it takes for someone to hate is for the other fellow just to exist.

Posted by: The StarWolf at September 13, 2006 01:27 PM

>Alan, that's not exactly fair. An argument can be made that we are, in fact, safer.

Six words: North Korea and Iran + nuclear programs.

Posted by: The StarWolf at September 13, 2006 01:32 PM

>The world did change on September 11, 2001. The United States, a sleeping giant, was awakened. We experienced foreign terrorism on our own soil of a magnitude for which there was no precedent here.

Nonsesne. Two words here: Pearl Harbour.

Thousands of American citizens killed, hundreds of millions in property destroyed also in a sneak attack involving planes. The aftermath had an even stronger effect on the U.S. as it counterattacked in a far more devastating manner than has thus far been the case in the 'war on terror'. People who complain about what Shrub & Co are up to in Iraq (and I'm no fan of his) should go look at photos of Tokyo after the firebombings. Or Hiroshima & Nagasaki. The worst that's been done in Iraq is like a minor house fire in comparison.

Posted by: lloyd at September 13, 2006 01:33 PM

Dan,
What in hell is the point, I mean really?
Me, I was looking forward to sharing a few of my views and rhetoric on the shape of the world, maybe getting a response or two and given some of my opinions quite possibly a little disagreement from across the pond. Right now there seems little point, no matter, I have a home to get to.
Enjoy your purile comments, may they bring you much joy.

Posted by: Bill Myere at September 13, 2006 01:39 PM

The StarWolf: "Nonsesne. Two words here: Pearl Harbour.

"Thousands of American citizens killed, hundreds of millions in property destroyed also in a sneak attack involving planes. The aftermath had an even stronger effect on the U.S. as it counterattacked in a far more devastating manner than has thus far been the case in the 'war on terror'. People who complain about what Shrub & Co are up to in Iraq (and I'm no fan of his) should go look at photos of Tokyo after the firebombings. Or Hiroshima & Nagasaki. The worst that's been done in Iraq is like a minor house fire in comparison."

The strike on Pearl Harbor was not a terrorist attack. It was an attack by the Japanese military against a military target in the U.S. I'm not saying that justifies what the Japanese did that day, mind you, nor that it diminishes the loss of lives and the overall horror of that day. I'm merely saying that it differentiates Pearl Harbor from the attacks on September 11, 2001. Those attacks did include one military target -- The Pentagon -- but they also very deliberately included a decidedly non-military target.

Posted by: The StarWolf at September 13, 2006 01:43 PM

>>Peter David: "It's five years later. Anyone feeling safer?"
>Am I safer? ... I am forced to acknowledge that we haven't suffered another significant attack since that fateful day, five years and one day ago.

In part you need to define what's 'safer'. Society has been taking it on the chin and personal rights and freedoms have been getting chipped away from day one. I daresay what it means to be a Canadian or American is no longer 'safe'.

Too, five years? What of it? People forget, there was an attack on Marine barracks in Beirut which killed a couple hundred marines ... in '83. Nine years later? The failed attack on the World Trade Center with the explosive-laden trucks in '92. Then? Nine years later, the successful attacks. They may be lunatics, but, unlike us, know how to plan for the long term. Five years is nothing to them. This is why politicians are ill-placed to wage such 'battles' because they tend to think only of the next elections whereas the bad guys have a longer view.

Posted by: Dan Nakagawa at September 13, 2006 01:45 PM

"Dan,
What in hell is the point, I mean really?
Me, I was looking forward to sharing a few of my views and rhetoric on the shape of the world, maybe getting a response or two and given some of my opinions quite possibly a little disagreement from across the pond. Right now there seems little point, no matter, I have a home to get to.
Enjoy your purile comments, may they bring you much joy."

Lloyd,

I truly do apologize that you had to come into the middle of this...

I really didn't want this to become personal.. but I don't walk away from fights, and Myers just drew a line in the sand, and stepped over it.

What could I do?

I tried to join in the conversation. People didn't like the way I joined. Maybe I just butted in...who knows? All they would've had to have said was "Dan, this is a private conversation", and I would have backed out, no problem.


But no. I spoke my peace the way I always have, and for some reason they took offense to it. Worse yet, they took offense to me personally...you can argue and put down what I say, you can counter my arguments and I'll counter yours, but when you start implying that my opinions make me a bad person, that's when the claws come out--and I go for the throat.

So, I hope you'll understand.

Posted by: The StarWolf at September 13, 2006 01:49 PM

Bill - I'm aware of that, but the effect was the same. And someone will probably point out that what was meant was the continental US, to which I reply that people on the continent were afraid enough that well, look at what they did to American citizens of Japanese ancestry. So I say that differentiating between terrorist attacks in NYC (they didn't have the military capacity to mount a real assault or they would have) and the military operation in the Pacific is almost a quibble.

Posted by: Dan Nakagawa at September 13, 2006 01:56 PM

"The strike on Pearl Harbor was not a terrorist attack. It was an attack by the Japanese military against a military target in the U.S. I'm not saying that justifies what the Japanese did that day, mind you, nor that it diminishes the loss of lives and the overall horror of that day. I'm merely saying that it differentiates Pearl Harbor from the attacks on September 11, 2001. Those attacks did include one military target -- The Pentagon -- but they also very deliberately included a decidedly non-military target."

Pearl Harbor wasn't even a surprise attack...not technically. A message was sent warning of the attack hours before it happened.

American just didn't read it in time...

Hiroshima on the other hand, was a big Naval port town--so technically it wasn't a non-military target.

Posted by: Bill Myers at September 13, 2006 01:57 PM

The StarWolf: "Bill - I'm aware of that, but the effect was the same. And someone will probably point out that what was meant was the continental US, to which I reply that people on the continent were afraid enough that well, look at what they did to American citizens of Japanese ancestry. So I say that differentiating between terrorist attacks in NYC (they didn't have the military capacity to mount a real assault or they would have) and the military operation in the Pacific is almost a quibble."

I respectfully disagree. World War II was a war in which we knew who are enemies were. They had "return addresses," and they wore uniforms. They fought a conventional war.

We know our enemy today is Islamic fundamentalism, but beyond that we don't know much. Al Qaeda is not a nation nor a military in any meaningful sense of either word. They are spread throughout many countries. And the threat has metastesized: there are now "splinter groups" that have no real ties to Osama bin Laden other than their sympathy with his cause.

When Japan surrendered to us, World War II was officially over. When Saddam Hussein's regime was toppled, nothing was over. It had just begun.

So, no, I don't think I'm quibbling at all. The attacks on September 11, 2001, had no real precedent in terms of terrorist attacks of such magnitude on our soil. And the "war on terror" is so open-ended that I'm not sure it has a precedent in our nation's history, either.

Posted by: Dan Nakagawa at September 13, 2006 02:01 PM

"I'm aware of that, but the effect was the same. And someone will probably point out that what was meant was the continental US, to which I reply that people on the continent were afraid enough that well, look at what they did to American citizens of Japanese ancestry. So I say that differentiating between terrorist attacks in NYC (they didn't have the military capacity to mount a real assault or they would have) and the military operation in the Pacific is almost a quibble."

--The Japanese Navy had built several massive submaries with the intention of sailing around to the US East Coast and attacking their major citites--forgot what the name of the sub was. Fortunatley, the US Navy found, and sunk them in the Pacific.

Just think--Kamikaze planes hitting the Empire State building...9/11 could have been 1943 instead of 2001

And what stopped the Japanese? Nukes.

Posted by: Bobb Alfred at September 13, 2006 02:16 PM

Dan Nakagawa, I have gone back and read through your posts...Bill may have challenged you directly first, but only after several posts of yours that had taken on a beligerant and belittling tone. And Bill's first post directed to you was to suggest that you tone down your posts, because your tone was getting in the way of any good points and discussion you might otherwise be contributing.

Things predictably spiral down from there when you started reacting defensively.

I'll say again, and what others have said: this blog's been around a long time. There are regulars here, and we stay here anc keep coming here because of the atmosphere that's evolved. We have intelligent, vigorous, sometimes silly discussions. But we're mostly respectful, especially of each other. Bill offered some advice to you, a seeming newcomer, about how to better fit in, because he knew from past experiences that your tone was going to alienate people sooner or later.

Posted by: Bill Myers at September 13, 2006 02:17 PM

Dan Nakagawa: "--The Japanese Navy had built several massive submaries with the intention of sailing around to the US East Coast and attacking their major citites--forgot what the name of the sub was. Fortunatley, the US Navy found, and sunk them in the Pacific.

"Just think--Kamikaze planes hitting the Empire State building...9/11 could have been 1943 instead of 2001"

Dan, because you have indeed changed your posture with your last two posts, I am happy to re-engage you.

I must confess I didn't know about the Japanese plans to launch Kamikaze attacks on U.S. civilian targets. Thank you for contributing that.

You're obviously an intelligent and knowledgeable person, Dan.

See? Just be cool, converse, and we can be cool with you in return.

While we're at it, I never said you craved my attention alone, Dan. Here's an excerpt from the post of mine that you quoted, with a passage you obviously missed in boldface type for your convenience:

"Deny it if you'd like, but it is clear you want my attention, along with the attention of everyone else here."

Also, I never said I was going to Wizard World to shmooze Peter David. That was another poster. Comments in this blog are all archived, so you can go back and check if you don't believe me.

Finally, it is factually incorrect to say that you were ignoring me until I came out and attacked you. Anyone reading this thread in order can see that the reverse actually occurred. I never addressed you directly until you replied to one of my posts.

I don't really care if you dislike me. But I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't attribute comments to me that I never made, and I'd also appreciate it if you'd avoid distorting the facts about our interactions.

Posted by: Dan Nakagawa at September 13, 2006 02:19 PM

Just and FYI--

The Japanese viewed Americans as devils. My Dad grew up in the US and was sent to Japan at age 11. Then WWII broke out, strading him there. When the war broke out--my realtives in Japan had him convinced that his family in the US were most likey all dead--killed at the hands of those 'barbaric Americans.'

The Japanese were ready to fight to the last man, woman and child. My Uncle was a kamikaze pilot--he as my Mom's big brother--never knew him.

Even after Japan surrendered, during the US occupation in the city of Yokohama, many of the streets were not safe to walk for US G.I.'s One main street, called Huncho Doori, was one of the streets designated for American use--stay on that street, and you'd be safe.

It is from the name of that street that we get the expression "Hunky Dory"--meaning everything's OK...

Posted by: Bill Myers at September 13, 2006 02:25 PM

Whoops! Correction: I addressed Dan before he directly addressed me. I was wrong about the order in which things occurred.

See, Dan? I admitted I was wrong and it didn't hurt a bit.

Posted by: Dan Nakagawa at September 13, 2006 02:34 PM

Another FYI--
My Dad lived in Kure, a city about 70 miles Northwest of Hiroshima. On August 9, He was in school and saw a bright flash on the horizon. Then cames columns of brightly colored smoke...you don't see the mushroom shape unless you're up high ehough...

He saw first hand the devastation.

For his birthday, I gave him a complete set of Barefoot Gen...I saw the tears well up in his eyes as he read them

Yet, if you were to ask him if he thought the use of the Atomic Bomb was necessary to end the war, he would tell you, without even having to think about it,

"Yes, it was."

The Japanese were killing themselves--look at the battle of Guadalcanal--The idiot general sent thousands of foot soldiers with single-shot rifles (the US forces has machine guns) up against US Tanks!!!! The general later committed suicide from the guilt.

I say nukes may be necessary in this war because I know firsthand how zealous a people can be, given the correct motivation.

I saw the scandals of the Royal family in England (Prince Charles and Lady Diana) and asked my mother if anythig like that could ever happen in Japan. She slapped my face for even thinking such a thing.

Even after all these years.

Beliefs and loyalty die hard.

Posted by: Dan Nakagawa at September 13, 2006 02:38 PM

To Bob Alfred:
"Bill may have challenged you directly first, but only after several posts of yours that had taken on a beligerant and belittling tone."

---Examples, please, of my beligerant and belittling tone.

Posted by: Bobb Alfred at September 13, 2006 02:40 PM

"--The Japanese Navy had built several massive submaries with the intention of sailing around to the US East Coast and attacking their major citites--forgot what the name of the sub was. Fortunatley, the US Navy found, and sunk them in the Pacific.

Just think--Kamikaze planes hitting the Empire State building...9/11 could have been 1943 instead of 2001

And what stopped the Japanese? Nukes."

I hadn't heard of those massive subs before. The wreck of one was found just last year, so I guess the documentary hasn't made the Discovery Channel circuit just yet. But they did exist, were massive, and were armed with a few planes in addition to traditional sub weapons. They were found and sunk by the Navy...after Japan had surrendered.

Granted, as large as they were, the damage they could have caused was limited. The entire group had maybe 10 short-range aircraft between them, and no more than 600 sailors.

Kamikaze planes hitting the Empire State Building wouldn't have been very effective. ESB is a concrete monster, designed to withstand much greater forces and impacts than the WTC was. In fact, a US B-25 did crash into the ESB in 1945. The B-25 is about 2-3 times larger than the aircraft the Japanese had on those subs. There were a lot of people working in the building at the time, and the entire incident only claimed 14 lives. And did not do any permanent damage to the building.

So, assuming the Japanese would have wasted some of their 10 aircraft in such an attack, it would have had little, if any, effect. The planes carried but the sub carries were smaller fighter types, and Japanese warbirds were not know for their rugged durability, but rather their agile speed and grace.

Nukes did indeed bring the war to an end, reversing the emporer's decree that the Japanese fight to the last man, woman, and child. Because it demonstrated that the US had the capability and the ability to kill every man, woman, and child...at the same time. And since the view of no surrender wasn't uninversally shared amongst all the Japanese people, it brought about the end.

Pulling back to your "kill or be killed" solution, that won't work with militant Islamics. Because they don't care if we kill every last one of them. It's part of their program to die fighting us, and goes for every man, woman, and child that ascribes to their philosophy. Not to mention that they don't gather in easily identifiable groups of militant Islamic cities, with low innocent populations, that we could convientently target.

Posted by: Dan Nakagawa at September 13, 2006 02:41 PM

"Dan, because you have indeed changed your posture with your last two posts, I am happy to re-engage you."

Don't do me any favors. I DO NOT like you and will no longer respond directly to any of your postings.

I will take care in the future to make sure I start my posts with salutations to the particular individual to whom I am responding.

Posted by: Bill Myers at September 13, 2006 02:45 PM

Dan, it appears you've put me on your personal "ignore list," which is ironic given your stance about that. Nevertheless, on the off chance you're paying attention...

Dan Nakagawa: "Yet, if you were to ask him if he thought the use of the Atomic Bomb was necessary to end the war, he would tell you, without even having to think about it,

'Yes, it was.'"

This isn't the first time I've heard a Japanese person who actually lived through the horror of the first atomic bombs express the opinion that nukes were necessary.

But it floors me every time I hear it.

We in the U.S. can talk about the issue in the abstract. We didn't live through the seared flesh, the radiation poisoning, the generations touched by the atomic horror. People in Japan did. To hear someone from Japan, who was there when the bombs were dropped, say that such a thing was necessary... it floors me.

I don't think you can compare World War II to the current conflict, though. Back then, only the U.S. had "The Bomb." These days, there are plenty of countries with nukes, and more with ambitions to acquire them. The use of a nuclear weapon could upset the fragile balance that keeps us all in check.

I hope against hope we can get our leaders to recognize that fact. Because I'd hate to see the horrors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki repeated for any reason, no matter how justifiable.

Posted by: Dan Nakagawa at September 13, 2006 02:50 PM

To Bob:
"Pulling back to your "kill or be killed" solution, that won't work with militant Islamics. Because they don't care if we kill every last one of them. It's part of their program to die fighting us, and goes for every man, woman, and child that ascribes to their philosophy."
-------------------------------------------
Excuse me, but doesn't the fact that they believe that they will go to heaven and mett XX number of virgins actually prove my point about 'kill or be killed?'

They will not stop until every one of us is dead.
Indeed, they believe they will be rewarded for killing more of us (kind of a frequent-killing program .) For them, live or die, its a win-win situation.

So we need to kill them first.

Or, do you know of some CIA / Jedi mind-control thingy that'll stop them from wanting to kill us, so that we can simply imprison them?

Posted by: Bill Myers at September 13, 2006 02:51 PM

Dan Nakagawa: "Don't do me any favors. I DO NOT like you and will no longer respond directly to any of your postings."

"I will take care in the future to make sure I start my posts with salutations to the particular individual to whom I am responding."

I wasn't trying to do you any favors. I was genuinely interested in what you were saying, and far less concerned about nursing personal grudges than I was about learning something new.

Still, suit yourself, kiddo. I have to ask, though: have you so soon forgotten what you said earlier?

Dan Nakagawa: "And ignoring IS a childish response--it means you have neither the guts nor the brains to take me on."

By your standards, then, I took you on, and you had neither the "guts" nor "brains" to go toe-to-toe with me.

I guess that's game, set and match to me, then. Or, in terms you might understand: you've been PWNed. By me.

Later, kiddo.

Posted by: Craig J. Ries at September 13, 2006 03:15 PM

Dan Nakagawa -
What could I do?

Quit being a prick, for starters.

Posted by: Bobb Alfred at September 13, 2006 03:21 PM

"Examples, please, of my beligerant and belittling tone."

Ok

From your second post: "Actually, when you think about it, it'll be rather entertaining...the ultimate reality show.

Nukes going off, the death, the devastation...damn entertaining...gotta love it."

Not a common opinion, encouraging a nuclear exchange. Most of us are old enough to at least remember the end of the Cold War. Some would have lived through the years of Duck and Cover. Some might even have memories of when the world really was at the brink of total destruction. You'd later suggest that this comment was at least in some part made in jest, but at the time, it was your second post. If not beligerant, it's at least geared to start an argument that not many people would make.

From your third post: "And Bush ain't doing that now? If that's what needs to be done, how's some DEM yahoo gonna do it any better? Like I said, nothing's gonna change."

The term DEM yahoo is belittling.

This is your fourth post: "BTW, I loved your last line--"Islam, if it is to survive in the modern global society, will have to undergo a similar transformation."

And what if it don't? Whacha gon' DO then, beeeatch? Go to WAR with them? NUKE Them?
(sorry--been reading Peter's book on writing comics, and was getting into character...)

Thank you for proving my point."

It's condescending, and belittling. Again, it seems you're attempting to inject humor, but getting across the funny in a line of text is the most difficult of skills. At this point, 4 posts in, I don't think anyone was on to your sense of humor.

From your fifth post: "So, you would agree that none of this 'change' since 9/11 is really Bush's fault? Your theory, in order to be valid, has to work both ways, bucko."

Calling someone you don't know, or are otherwise unfamiliar with, "bucko" is a beligerant act. It's like Wolvering calling someone "bub." When Wolvie does it, you know he's in a fighting mood.

Also from your fifth post: "--I lived in Japan where owning handguns is illegal--crime still exists there...the knife has just replaced the pistol. Like they said in Jurrasic Park--Life finds a way...you don't beleive me? You know how to make crystal meth????"

Everything up to your last sentence is fine. I have to admit I don't know what you're trying to say with the crystal meth line, but I take it from context that it's not a good thing. Again, you're attacking personally another poster. AKA beligerant.

From your sixth post: "No you're not. You folks here haven't said anything that I haven't heard on any talk radio station. I was just trying to inject a little humor here...I mean really, how serious a discussion can you have on a blog of a webisite of a guy that writes comic books for a living (no offense, Peter.)?"

Granted, this was in response to Den's comment about the adults trying to have a discussion, but it continues and exacerbates the belittling tone running throughout your posts.

And your seventh post: "--I'm rubber, you're glue. Nyah, Nyah, Nyah.

Why is talk radio all of a sudden, wrong?

Why is posting on a blog of a website of a blog of a guy who writes comics for a living somehow more holy and pristine and talk radio?

Why, out of all the salient points I posted in my last message, did you pick the most inane one to respond to? Could it be that you see some wisdom in the other ideas?

Why can't you stay on topic?

Jesus, and they call ME childish...grow up, dude."

This post doesn't even try to address the topic, it just attacks other posters.

As I've said before, you've made some good comments. I (and I think others) think you've got some good points to add to the discussion. And I don't even think that you need to tone down things too much. But cutting people down and attacking them isn't funny.

Posted by: Craig J. Ries at September 13, 2006 03:22 PM

Oh, and for the record:

What an incredible ego you have! You think that my posts have all been about you, don't you?

Yep, this entire post was pretty bad.

I really didn't want this to become personal.. but I don't walk away from fights, and Myers just drew a line in the sand, and stepped over it.

Yep, that's pretty bad.

Don't do me any favors. I DO NOT like you and will no longer respond directly to any of your postings.

Yep, that's pretty bad.

Anything else?

Posted by: Manny at September 13, 2006 04:10 PM

Of course the world has changed.The world changes daily. In specific, the USA, once held as the ideal of democratic ideal, has become very close to a police state.

The president claims almost royal perogative. Wire tap sans warrant, secret trials, "enemy combatants" held in some quasi-legalistic limbo. Shades of Lubyanka!

I half expect the roundups to begin post haste.

As for ABC, to quote "Bob and Tom", write 'em a check and tell 'em to go to hell. Or ignore them.

If, according to the GOP, we can lay responsibility for 9/11 on Clinton, then can we not lay responsibility for the first WTC bombing in '93 on George the First? Or possibly even (hold onto yer hats) St. Ronnie? The Iran hostage crisis on Ford or Nixon?

Posted by: James Tichy at September 13, 2006 05:26 PM

The head of the RNC, Reagan's son, etc were able to get the Reagan mini moved to Showtime. Perhaps if the former president had been able to defend himself things would have been different.

To me that is vastly different than Harry Reid and a handful of other SENATORS writing a letter to ABC threatening to take away their FCC license if they showed the movie.

They call Bush a facist?

Posted by: Dan Nakagawa at September 13, 2006 05:32 PM

To Bob Alfred:

"Actually, when you think about it, it'll be rather entertaining...the ultimate reality show."
---That was a paraphrase from George Carlin's comedy routine.
-------------------------
"Nukes going off, the death, the devastation...damn entertaining...gotta love it."
--An extrapolation of the aforementioned George Carlin skit.
--------------------------
""And Bush ain't doing that now? If that's what needs to be done, how's some DEM yahoo gonna do it any better? Like I said, nothing's gonna change."
---I submit that "rightwing nutjob" is even more belittling.
--------------------------
"This is your fourth post: "BTW, I loved your last line--"Islam, if it is to survive in the modern global society, will have to undergo a similar transformation."

And what if it don't? Whacha gon' DO then, beeeatch? Go to WAR with them? NUKE Them?
(sorry--been reading Peter's book on writing comics, and was getting into character...)

Thank you for proving my point."
---Belittlement and condescention are in the eyes of the beholder, and apparently you are more sensitive than Deanna Troi at a Metallica concert.
(oh, come on, you gotta admit THAT'S funny!)
------------------------------------------
""So, you would agree that none of this 'change' since 9/11 is really Bush's fault? Your theory, in order to be valid, has to work both ways, bucko."
--All right...if you say so..I apologize for calling Bill Myers "bucko." HOWEVER, I DO take offense when HE said:
"grow the fuck up."--profanity, used in ANY context is betlittling and offensive, don't you agree?
--------------------------------------------
"You know how to make crystal meth????"
--Sorry, I thought it was common knowledge that crystal meth was made using Claratin and various cleaning products...saw it on Carlos Mencia's show...hmm...now that I think of it, HE had to explain it to the audience too...my bad.
---------------------------------------
""--I'm rubber, you're glue. Nyah, Nyah, Nyah."
--I will submit that this is no more or less belittling or condscending than "Quick, kids. There's some history. Let's rewrite it."
Why didn't Pater just come out and say "Republicans are trying to re-write history?"
Don't you feel that being called 'kid' is condescending? You seem to think being called 'bucko' is...
-----------------------------------------
Jesus, and they call ME childish...grow up, dude."
----At least I did not tell him to "grow the fuck up."
------------------------------------------
And to Craig:

Oh, and for the record:

What an incredible ego you have! You think that my posts have all been about you, don't you?

Yep, this entire post was pretty bad.

I really didn't want this to become personal.. but I don't walk away from fights, and Myers just drew a line in the sand, and stepped over it.

Yep, that's pretty bad.

Don't do me any favors. I DO NOT like you and will no longer respond directly to any of your postings.

Yep, that's pretty bad.

----for the most part, all of them were meant for one individual--not to you, and if you'd bothered to read the salutation line, you would have realized that.

oh, as you so kindly called me a 'prick' in a previous posting:
--why don't you just butt the fuck out you lousy inane moron?

There. we are now even.
-----------------------------------------


Posted by: Dan Nakagawa at September 13, 2006 05:34 PM

To Craig:
"Quit being a prick, for starters."

---I find that offensive and snarky, especially when note of the negative comments were directly aimed at you.

P.S.--Fuck you, elitist asshole--


Posted by: Joe V. at September 13, 2006 05:43 PM

Dan Nakagawa

Is that you, Bladestar?

Joe V.

Posted by: Jerry C at September 13, 2006 05:47 PM

Dan Nakagawa,

Most of what you've said seems to be devolving into nonsense that's loosing its interest factor or has been addressed by others quite well. But you've stated something several times, in one way or another, that does actually torque me. You keep belittling this forum, the idea that anything serious can be written here and, by extension, any poster here because the host writes comics for a living (putting aside the fact that his comics have dealt with such knee slappers as AIDS, abortion, child abuse, rape, the death penalty, politics and the ramifications of taking even an evil life if you are a good person).

Do you realize how genuinely insulting and ignorant, especially from a newer poster, that comes off as? Are you at all wondering why you just may be getting off on the wrong foot with people here? PAD writes comics. Big whoop. How/why exactly does that mean that he can't make a very serious and well thought out topic and then receive very serious and well thought out responses in return?

PAD does a little more with his life then just write comics and posters on this site include or have included teachers, cops, lawyers, soldiers and professionals from many walks of life. There are/have been posters here who are from other countries and often throw out ideas or viewpoints that make for serious thought and some ripping debates.

Debates that have raged here have include race, war, politics and censorship. Go read a few of the archived posts from Katrina and its aftermath. Got to be some real heated exchanges there.

Yeah, we can have humor too. There have been threads here that really did contain some absolute knee slappers. But we can also have very serious discussions and ideas exchanged here. To imply otherwise is both insulting to or host and to those of us who have been posting here for a while now.

Now, if I've taken some of your other postings wrong and if you genuinely want to contribute to discussions here rather then just being this month's troll:

Dude, chill out.

You're going to have very little fun here if you start cutting off conversation with regulars right off the bat. You'll also have trouble in future debates as both Bills are two of the most regular posters here. Refusing to respond to them can sometimes mean sitting out of most of a debate.

You have some counterpoint positions that could be welcomed here. Fine. Your only stumbling block may be, from your own statements, the over use of humor where humor is hard to detect. We can't see you or hear you. We can only read black print on white backgrounds. Hell, in person you could have the comedic vocal talents of Robin Williams. But none of us know you in person and we don't yet know enough about your personality in postings to know when something like "bucko" is being said with a wink and a grin rather then a serious tone and a raised middle finger.

You're not the only person to have done that. I've been here about two and a half years (as Jerry in Richmond or just Jerry at first) and I don't post with the regularity of some of the others. Some of my first posts were taken a little wrong because I posted like I talked. I often talk with a wink and a grin and, sometimes, more then a little friendly sarcasm. They didn't know that because they didn't know me. I said oops, apologized for the initial confusion and pointed out that some of my posts should be read with a wink and a grin. I also worked at thinking out how my posts might play in cold, voiceless black and white. I toned it down a bit. Got on fine after that. Even got to a point where I can occasionally post exactly as I talk and most everyone gets it without any offenses being taken. Humor is very welcome here.

Take it from someone who has head butted with both Bills. They're both nice guys. So are most the people here. If you drop the "I don't like you" routine, think about how some of what you type may be read by people who don't know you and be willing to restart your relationships here on a clean slate then you'll probably find yourself liking a lot of the people here who you're thinking now that you won't like. You'll certainly have more fun.

Posted by: Bill Myers at September 13, 2006 06:23 PM

Something that got lost in the Dan Nakagawa nonsense:

Posted by: Sean Scullion at September 12, 2006 11:57 PM
Bill, do the people in your life tell you that you gotta get on a quiz show, too? I hear that all the time. And if you hadn't pointed out NF2, I would've. Seriously! I would've! No matter how hollow that sounds!

It doesn't sound "hollow" coming from a stand-up guy like you. You've got street cred.

No, people don't tell me I should be on a game show. But, you know, the idea is intriguing... ;)

Posted by: David Hunt at September 13, 2006 06:31 PM

Mr. David,

I've read your blog entry and thought about whether the world has changed and how I should respond to it. I've decided that you're right. The world hasn't changed at all.

Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia.

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at September 13, 2006 06:46 PM

You'll also have trouble in future debates as both Bills are two of the most regular posters here. Refusing to respond to them can sometimes mean sitting out of most of a debate.

Jeeze, I'd hate to think my ignoring someone would ever be a threat. For one thing, I shouldn't have such power since I'll undoubtedly abuse it. Moo hoo hoo hoo hwah!

Anyway, I'll echo the fact that this is a great group. Most of the posters don't share my politics. Some have had occasion to wonder if I would benefit from a right good staking to an ant hill for an hour or two. It's all good. Most of us had had some bad impressions of people that have turned out to be unwarrented. Den and I had a bad go around a while back and he's now one of the people I most enjoy reading.

Dan's made as bad a first impression as I've seen but he also has a unique perspective--the stuff about his father was riveting. So maybe things will work out.

Posted by: Sean Scullion at September 13, 2006 07:50 PM

Bills, here's the plan. We all three get on Who Wants To Be A Millionaire or some other quiz show, maybe Jeopardy! Watch Alex Trebek do the Canadian version of the Exorcist as we bankrupt the show!

Now, Bill Mulligan, if you WERE to ignore someone, say, and they wanted to get off it, could they ask for a Mulligan? And I can't see you abusing that power. That is, until you get your own tv channel, then it's all Bill, all the time, and I, as a brilliant young TV guy, will only be too happy to be your pupppetmas--no, wait, producer, yeah, producer!

Okay, enough jocularity. Well, for now. Bobb, I hadn't heard about the Japanese plans for New York, but I DO remember hearing about some Nazi plans to do the same thing. Now, when I first saw that program on the History Channel, I couldn't help thinking, if these plans have been around since the 40's, what ELSE has been planned for that long that supposedly no one could conceive of? I mean, first episode of The Lone Gunmen has a loaded 747 heading for the World Trade Center, and granted, that came out only a short while before September 11th, 2001, but if the Axis bad guys were planning this in the forties, what other nuggets could the CURRENT group of enemies be mining from the past?

Bobb, how's your wife feeling?

Posted by: The StarWolf at September 13, 2006 08:23 PM

Re - use of nukes.

In Japan, it sped up the end of the war and wound up costing fewer lives. The war would have ended anyway, if only by the country being completely cut off from vital supplies and having its ability to strike back pretty much wiped out. It would have meant mass starvation and other hardships on the way, though. As it was, many citizens were very glad for the quicker end given how their military were treating them - almost as badly as they treated enemy prisoners in many cases.

Using atomic bombs elsewhere? A Canadian journalist, Michael Coren, is serious when he advocates a limited, tactical nuclear strike against Iran's military complex. He makes an almost plausible case for it. The only reasons I don't subscribe to it is that A) it probably wouldn't work and B) I've been to the museum in Hiroshima.

Posted by: Dan Nakagawa at September 13, 2006 09:16 PM

One last Japan story...

You know about my Dad...
Meanwhile, back in the States...My Grandparents, uncles and aunts were carted off to a detention camp in Hood River oregon. I don't know much about their time in camp, but I do know that my Uncle Chuck and Uncle Hank both joined up and fought as part of the 442nd Reginmental batallion--a group of soldiers whom it is said are to this day, the most highly decorated fighting unit in US military history.
And it was all made up of Japanese Americans.

I later found out that my Uncle Chuck was later recruited by Mc Arthur to be on his translation team for my uncle's Japanese speaking ability...or so we thought.
I found out that it wasn't the translation team that he was on...it was McArthur's interrigation squad. Uncle Chuck received so many death threats from Japanese soldier calling him traitor that he couldn't count...of all my Uncles, he was the one uncle that spoke the least Japanese as I was growing up...and I can't ever remember him ever even visitng Japan...now I know why.

Oh, and my dad wasn't alone in Japan--His brother Jack was with him, but as my dad was only 13 when the war broke out, Jack was 16 and was recruited into the Japanese Imperial Navy as an officer...

When the war ended, Dad bought his way back to the USA by acting as a translator between the Japanese Geishas and the US G.I's...he could do that because he spoke Englsih, and the geishas 'worked' at night, so it didn't interfere with his schoolwork. One day, as he was walking home from school, the windows of the geisha house were open, and out popped the heads of a couple of ladies, and they waved hello to dad...unfortunatley, who should see this but his teacher..how would these ladies know a 15-year-old-boy?
The next day he was brought in for repremand my the principal, but was immediately let go and sent back to class, much to the incredulity of dad's teacher...
Y'see, the principal was a frequent customer of the geisha house too...

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at September 13, 2006 10:18 PM

Dan, great story.

I agree that the atomic bomb hastened the end of the war and was justified. It's become popular to claim that the Japanese were about to surrender anyway but that flies in the face of logic. While some officials within the government were sending out feelers for negotiations, there is no way the military would allow it. Even after two bombs dropped there were many who wanted to fight on, even in the face of an annihilation that was without any kind of honor or glory.

Everything I've seen in regards to the mind of the Japanese military would indicate that they were willing to fight a losing battle on their soil if it would inflict casualties on the Allies. And it would have, not to mention the millions of civilian Japanese lives that would have been lost.

(I believe it has also been said that Japan threatened to execute all Allied prisoners if the mainland were ever to be invaded. I'm sure that number was in the tens of thousands at least. When you also add in the fact that every week the war was prolonged added to the butcher's bill from a variety of factors it's not hard to argue that the lives saved by the bomb could easily have numbered in the millions.).

I don't know how much any of this is applicable to the situation in the Middle East.

Posted by: Dan Nakagawa at September 13, 2006 11:03 PM

"I don't know how much any of this is applicable to the situation in the Middle East."

The mindset...the mindset is the same.

The most powerful weapon in the world is a man wholly dedicated to his cause...


Posted by: Bill Mulligan at September 13, 2006 11:55 PM

There is one situation where the use of nuclear bombs could potentially be of use in the Middle East but I'm hesitant to even bring it up. If radical Islamic types were to fear that Israel or the USA or whoever would destroy Mecca it could be a powerful deterrent. The problem is that to even threaten such an action could set them off so the deterrent factor might be greatly overwhelmed by the rage the threat would incur.

It also presupposes that the radical Islamists are, in fact, true believers, which I have some doubts over. Certainly, Bin Laden has not shown himself to be in any hurry to collect his 72 virgins. The Japanese military mindset believed that a glorious death in battle was a thing to be desired. The atomic bomb took away all hope of that and gave the Emperor the excuse he needed to overrule them. I'm not sure that the people we are facing today are of the same mind.

And, at any rate, the Japanese were first and foremost, patriots of Japan and its culture. If the people we are fighting are true believers in their version of Islam, blowing up Saudi Arabia will not mean much, unless they happen to be there. A radical living in London or New York will not be stopped. In this case we are fighting an ideology, not a country. Bombs are too broad a weapon in such fights. Seems to me that this is a war better fought with assassinations--kill the leaders, kill the leaders that replace them, then the ones that replace them, until the quality of leadership is so degenerated that they cease to be effective.

(A story today says that we had the chance to take out a bunch of them at a funeral and didn't do so because it goes against the rule of engagement. If true,our policy is asinine. What a lost opportunity.)

Posted by: Jerome Maida at September 14, 2006 12:23 AM

"What, really, was Clinton's excuse? With a "peace dividend" and a good economy, couldn't he have rallied support for the War On Terror?"

"With Ken Starr and the GOP Congress attempting to topple his Presidency? Absolutely not."

This overlooks a few things: A.) Clinton was President for SIX YEARS before the Lewinsky scandal even broke. How often did he talk about terrorism or rally the country during that time? B.) Presidents from Washington to Dubya have been "under siege" in one way or the other. The good to great ones can overcome the obstacles and, like a martial artist, even use their opponebts' aggressiveness and arrogance against them (as both Clinton and Gingrich both managed to do to each other)
C.) As stated earlier, if he truly felt he was crippled and couldn't carry out the duties of the presidency, then he should have stepped down and let Gore do what he could not. If he did feel he could rally the country, then why didn't he? Because he didn't know about the threat or didn't care?

Posted by: Dan Nakagawa at September 14, 2006 12:36 AM

"What, really, was Clinton's excuse? With a "peace dividend" and a good economy, couldn't he have rallied support for the War On Terror?"

"With Ken Starr and the GOP Congress attempting to topple his Presidency? Absolutely not."

This overlooks a few things: A.) Clinton was President for SIX YEARS before the Lewinsky scandal even broke. How often did he talk about terrorism or rally the country during that time? B.) Presidents from Washington to Dubya have been "under siege" in one way or the other. The good to great ones can overcome the obstacles and, like a martial artist, even use their opponebts' aggressiveness and arrogance against them (as both Clinton and Gingrich both managed to do to each other)
C.) As stated earlier, if he truly felt he was crippled and couldn't carry out the duties of the presidency, then he should have stepped down and let Gore do what he could not. If he did feel he could rally the country, then why didn't he? Because he didn't know about the threat or didn't care?"
----------------------

My favorite has always been Jimmy Carter and how he let a planeful of hostages suffer a LIVING hell for over a year.

Too bad he wasn't a comic book fan...he could have learned the lesson "with great power comes great responsibility"...and yeah, I know, I know, Y'all are probably gonna say that Dubya is using too much of it...whereas Carter didn't use it at all...its like giving Superman's power of flight to a guy with acrophobia.

Posted by: Dan Nakagawa at September 14, 2006 12:41 AM

"There is one situation where the use of nuclear bombs could potentially be of use in the Middle East but I'm hesitant to even bring it up. If radical Islamic types were to fear that Israel or the USA or whoever would destroy Mecca it could be a powerful deterrent"
----------------------------
all we'd have to do is destroy the Dome of the Rock and that'd get the big 3 all hot and bothered ('specially the Christians--destruction of the Dome is supposed to be the first sign that the End Times are coming....)

Posted by: Bill Myers at September 14, 2006 03:54 AM

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at September 13, 2006 11:55 PM

In this case we are fighting an ideology, not a country. Bombs are too broad a weapon in such fights.

Moreover, Bill, the atomic bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima were the only ones in existence at the time. Today there are a multitude of countries that have nukes and more with the ambition to acquire them.

Worse still, the breakup of the Soviet Union has left some nukes as yet unaccounted for. That disturbs me to no end. Enriching radioactive material into weapons-grade stuff is an incredibly expensive and labor-intensive process, and may be out of reach for a lot of terrorist groups. But there's a lot of weapons-grade shit out there that's not under the control of any responsible country...

Mutually Assured Destruction was a fragile balance of power in any event. A lot of people are unaware of how close we came to going to war with the Soviet Union during the Reagan years. His posturing was credited with toppling the Evil Empire, yet at one point during his administration the Soviet military was at the highest of high alerts. They were expecting to go to war with us. It was a much closer thing than people realized.

Posted by: Micha at September 14, 2006 04:28 AM

"all we'd have to do is destroy the Dome of the Rock and that'd get the big 3 all hot and bothered ('specially the Christians--destruction of the Dome is supposed to be the first sign that the End Times are coming....)"

This discussion is getting really strange.

I have no idea why you would want to destroy the dome of the rock, or use nuclear weapons in this war.The only people I know who want to destroy the dome of the rock are a realy small crazy faction of the Israeli extreme, religious right.

Instead of comparing the war against Islamic radicalism to WWII, think of it as more similar to the cold war.

This war is not going to end with a bang, or with the death of one leader.

Look, so long as there is no use of nuclear or major biological weapons by terrorists (and maybe even then), terrorism is not such a big deal. All terrorism does is annoy you like a fly, try to make you miserable and afraid, and cause you to make stupid decisions. What you do is take certain defensive measures, use offensive force against terrorists when possible, live our comfortable western lives (which we are still able to do), and try not to scare yourself to much, since that basically is the point of terrorism.

The hard part is dealing with the ideological sickness that has affected the Muslim world. And that requires a complex solution, applying economic, diplomatic, military, cultural and social tools. I am not sure world leaders or the people understand that sufficiently.

This is also connected to the discussion about the nature of the human species above. Humans are emotional, they seem to be able to care about others, empathize, help each other, but also to be blind and irrational.

About political discussion and divisivness. It would be nice if politicians and people at large listened and understood the reasoning, motivations and concerns beyond others' arguments, and then tried to have some form of synthesis. Instead the tendancy of each side is to treat the other as if it is crazy, and the result is that they cancel each other, instead of moving toward improvement. This is true of many issues.

By the way, I am currently visiting my sister in Burkley, and I find all the homeless + all the talk of mugging etc. to be much more scary than my country.

Posted by: Bill Myers at September 14, 2006 06:08 AM

Micha, when terrorists are able to end 2,996 lives on one day as they did on September 11, 2001, it is more than an "annoyance." Attacks of such magnitude may be the exception rather than the rule, but even one is too many.

Posted by: Bill Myers at September 14, 2006 06:17 AM

Something else I forgot to attend to...

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at September 11, 2006 09:27 PM

Hey, if we're quoting songs...

nothing worth having comes without some kind of fight

Got to kick at the darkness 'til it bleeds daylight

Bruce Cockburn, "Lovers In A Dangerous Time"

(Butthead voice) Huh-huh-huh... "cock"... huh-huh-huh...

Posted by: Robert Fuller at September 14, 2006 06:32 AM

For me personally, nothing changed. And why should it? Atrocities are committed all the time. The fact that this one happened to occur within the same arbitrarily drawn national boundaries as those that I live in doesn't really mean anything to me. That doesn't mean I'm apathetic. Quite the contrary... it pains me every single time something like this happens (although, at the same time, I'm always reminded of that line from Hannah and Her Sisters: "The question is not 'why has this happened?'. The question is, given the nature of man: "Why doesn't it happen more often?"). This was just one more.

Do I feel safer? No, but I never felt unsafe. Sure, there are people in foreign countries who would like to see me dead because I don't worship their god, or whatever. So what? There are people right here in this country who would like the same thing, simply because I married a man instead of a woman. Does this mean they get to? Why should their problems become my problems? I feel unsafe when I go swimming in the ocean, so I don't go in the ocean anymore. But there's no way to actively avoid a terrorist attack (aside from the obvious: avoiding commercial jets and major metropolitan areas), so to feel unsafe is to live in fear, and that's something I just can't do.

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at September 14, 2006 06:56 AM

His posturing was credited with toppling the Evil Empire, yet at one point during his administration the Soviet military was at the highest of high alerts. They were expecting to go to war with us. It was a much closer thing than people realized.

In fairness to reagan, the closest we ever got to war was when the Finns or Norwegians or some other country not usually associated with nuclear holocaust sent up a space rocket and the Soviets came within a minute or two of launching a full scale reprisal against the USA.

It was later discovered that the Russians HAD been told about the rocket and someone forgot to file the report. The world almost ended due not to ideology but a clerical error. There's a lesson in that somewhere.

Posted by: Nivek at September 14, 2006 07:36 AM

Did someone actually say the Japanese were going to put airplanes on Submarines?

Posted by: Bill Myers at September 14, 2006 08:28 AM

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at September 14, 2006 06:56 AM

There's a lesson in that somewhere.

Yes. The Norwegians and the Finns shouldn't be allowed to have space rockets. :)

Posted by: Bill Myers at September 14, 2006 08:34 AM

Posted by: Nivek at September 14, 2006 07:36 AM

Did someone actually say the Japanese were going to put airplanes on Submarines?

Yeah, they were going to launch them out of the screen doors.

What, you didn't know that???

;)

Posted by: Bobb Alfred at September 14, 2006 08:52 AM

Sean, my wife's doing fine. Thanks for asking :) She's tired, what with the growing one baby and caring for another one, but he's starting to play on his own more, so it's not as wearing on her as it used to be.

Thinking about what past plans we're learning of, it does make you wonder what our so-called security experts are doing with their time. I think the public has an expectation that the Federal government has all these contingency plans...like the (now-cancelled but pretty good) show Threshold from last season. Somewhere, there's an office in Washington that has a cabinet full of contingency plans that just need some triggering event and proper authorization to implement. Like what to do in case aliens actually do land on Earth. Or a nuclear power plant melts down. Or a major hurricane floods out a big US city. Or terrorists fly a couple planes into skyscrapers.

Except we know now that no such plans exist. Or if they do, no one's activating them.

I think the Feds expect the state and local emergency personnel to respond to things like 9/11. Which begs the question...how is the NYPD going to stop a hijacked plane?

It seems pretty obvious that if a group of people...like us here on PAD's blog...can come up with ways we could be attacked, and formulate effective response plans, then someone could actually PAY a group of similar people to do the same in a formal way, and have those plans on file. Sadly, it's pretty obvious that advanced planning is not a big priority for our government. I don't ever recall hearing about a politician bragging about some great contingency plan he just drafted.

Posted by: Bobb Alfred at September 14, 2006 08:56 AM

"Did someone actually say the Japanese were going to put airplanes on Submarines?"

Sure, check this out.

http://ahoy.tk-jk.net/macslog/JapaneseSubmarineI-401fou.html

And here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submarine_aircraft_carrier

Posted by: The StarWolf at September 14, 2006 09:04 AM

>Did someone actually say the Japanese were going to put airplanes on Submarines?

Why not? The Americans and British experimented with the idea. The silliest one being a British design which had the sub unable to submerge while the aircraft was aboard. Talk about "unclear on the concept."

As for the Japanese ones ...

"The Japanese employed the "submarine aircraft carrier" concept extensively, building some 47 boats capable of carrying seaplanes. I-14 was a fairly large seaplane-carrying submarine, having hangar space for 2 aircraft. Most IJN submarine aircraft carriers could carry only one aircraft, but the giant I-400 class boats could carry three. Hangars were built into the lower section of the sail. I-14 was scrapped postwar, and all the I-400s were scuttled in 1946. All had been at sea at the time of Japan's surrender, preparing for an attack on the US fleet anchorage at Ulithi Atoll. Earlier in the war they had been preparing for a cancelled attack on the Panama Canal."

Posted by: Bill Myers at September 14, 2006 09:09 AM

Aircraft-carrying submarines... who knew?

Actually, while it seems silly on its face, it makes sense when you think about it. I mean, submarines can and do come to the surface.

I learn something new here almost every day.

Posted by: Den at September 14, 2006 09:34 AM

That does sound pretty cool. I guess the main problem would be the size of the submarine to accomodate the flight deck and all of the support equipment and personnel.

Posted by: Bladestar at September 14, 2006 09:41 AM

"Except we know now that no such plans exist. Or if they do, no one's activating them. "

These plans do exist, but Harlan Ellison said they were too similar to things he's written/thought and would sue if the government tried to use them...

;)

Posted by: Bobb Alfred at September 14, 2006 10:18 AM

Den, the Wiki entry says that the I400 class used a catapult to launch the planes, probably similar to that used by some destroyer and battleships that carried a single aircraft. I can imagine that'd put a good deal of stress on the aircraft and pilot, but then again, WWII aircraft had much lower stall speeds than today's jets. The planes could be assembled and ready for launch in 45 minutes by a 4 man crew, so they didn't need that large a support crew.

The more startling fact to me is that the I400 class carried enough fuel to go around the globe 1.5 times, enough to get to America, strike, and return to Japan with fuel to spare. With planes that were designed to be ditched after use, Japan could have sailed these things 200 miles off shore, launched an attack wing, dropped several bombs up to 200 miles inland, and still have a decent chance of recovering the pilots before submerging, steaming back to Japan (or just the Japanese fleet), re-arming, and repeating. Slow, but effective, and very difficult to stop. But like the Me-262, it came too late in the war to be very effective.

Posted by: Jerry C at September 14, 2006 10:23 AM

"Aircraft-carrying submarines... who knew?"


Gerry Anderson did. Sky-Diver rocks!!!!!!

Posted by: Craig J. Ries at September 14, 2006 10:36 AM

Jerome Maida -
How often did he talk about terrorism or rally the country during that time?

How often did Clinton need to?

The people behind the WTC attack in '93 were caught, unlike some of those behind 9/11...

There's also a difference between you being able to do your job (as Clinton was able to do) and others preventing you from doing it properly (as the Republicans attempted to do).

Let's be honest here: if 9/11 never occured, we'd probably still be just as uninformed about the threat of terrorism as we were before 9/11. We'd just be saying to ourselves "gee, that stuff only happens in Jerusalem/Bali/Madrid/London".

And Bush still would've found an excuse to get us into Iraq.

Posted by: Chris Grillo at September 14, 2006 10:58 AM

And Bush still would've found an excuse to get us into Iraq.

Iraq had WMDs regardless of 9/11...

Posted by: Jerry C at September 14, 2006 11:45 AM

"Iraq had WMDs regardless of 9/11..."

1) Iraq didn't.

2) Bush would never have been able to play the fear card on the nation well enough to get us into Iraq without the threat of another 9/11 to use as his parties favorite boogie man.

Posted by: Bobb Alfred at September 14, 2006 11:51 AM

Iraq didn't have WMDs after the first Gulf War.

Even if it had them, it would not have been enough of a justification to invade them. Russia has WMDs. Korea has them. Iran has them. What would have separated Iraq from the rest?

9/11, and Bush's connecting of non-existing dots between terrorists and Iraq.

Posted by: Tom Spurgeon at September 14, 2006 12:18 PM

I actually do feel slightly safer, in that I agree with Peter that the world hasn't changed all that much and at least now terrorism threats are part of the national discussion. There's been a criminal lack of action in those areas -- airline security remains a joke but now it's inconvenient, while the police element of securing against terrorism action has been both underdeveloped and idiotically changed for political gain -- but I long thought that some sort of terrorist blow in New York, San Francisco or Seattle was inevitable and I feel better now that this isn't *totally* ignored.

I'm just sad it may take another unique, horrible incident to push these issues along, the way that some drunk drivers have to get arrested twice before they'll pay attention to that part of their life.

Posted by: Gene at September 14, 2006 12:23 PM

The world has not changed. Our perception of the world has changed. Terrorism has been around for thousands of years. The only difference between today's terrorism is the immediate media exposure. Terrorists thrive on this more than anything. Instant gratification is what they have now.
Those in power would like us to believe we are safer now, but if that were the case why would they insist on us being vigilant. I believe the chances of our country being hit by a another major terrorists attack increase everyday that our armed forces spend in Muslim countries. The people in these countries countries are glad we came, but polls show that they do not wish us to be there any longer. We are outsiders to these people. We are Crusaders, nothing more, nothing less.
I believe in the Iraq invasion's one good intent, the removal of Saddam from power. Of course, history tells that he is one our mistakes as was bin Laden. Those in power supported Saddam until he became an inconvience. Rumsfield himself is seen in a picture with Saddam from the 80s. Do you think Rummy was asking him to stop gassing his own people or trying to keep the Soviets out of Iraq?
One more thing. I am getting irritated every time Hannity, Levine, Limbaugh, etc... say that the President never said Saddam had a hand in 9/11. He damned sure had Powell mention that Saddam let Al-Queda have a presence in Iraq in the briefing before the U.N. basically saying they were in league together.
Truthfully, I don't blame Bush about what's happening. The people around him are the problem: Chaney, Rummy, Rice. The only voice of reason left his job in disgrace ruining his chances to ever be president. Despite what you hear from the right, they will never nominate Condi to be president.
As a Democrat, I want a candidate that believes what they say, not what the party tells them. With the front runners we have, that is not going to happen. I cringed when I voted for Kerry. It made me sick to my stomach, literally. I want someone that has no fear. Mainly, I want a president that doesn't embarass me everytime he says nuclear. Michael Savage says Bush's accent is faked. I hope he's wrong. Why would anyone want to sound like that?

Posted by: Micha at September 14, 2006 12:46 PM

"Micha, when terrorists are able to end 2,996 lives on one day as they did on September 11, 2001, it is more than an "annoyance." Attacks of such magnitude may be the exception rather than the rule, but even one is too many."

I hope the term annoyance did not create the impression that I don't take 9/11 seriously.

But what does an attack like that do, and what do you do about it?

It does not threaten sovereignity, it does not destroy the economy, or the military, nor does it topple the government. All it does is kill, create some orphans, widows, the berieved parents, and puts everybody else in a state of fear.

So you take more security percautions, you use intelligence, and try to reduce the risk as much as possible so that life can go on. Apparently you have succeeded in doing that.

Will there be another terrorist strike on US soil? Eventually probably. But it seems that natural disasters hit your country more frequently. And again, the only thing you can do is try to be better prepared.

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at September 14, 2006 01:06 PM

Slow, but effective, and very difficult to stop. But like the Me-262, it came too late in the war to be very effective.

Same thing with Atragon.

Posted by: Bobb Alfred at September 14, 2006 01:13 PM

This is taking an interesting turn.

Before I go off on this tangent, please understand that I feel that 9/11 will always live in memory as a terrible day. Both for what happened, and for what happened after. I by no means want to reduce the impact or pain felt by all of us, especially those of us who lost friends and family that day.

But where does 3000 American deaths rate? Surely the magnitude of the event, playing out live in all our living rooms, added to the horror we felt. But according to the CDC, 3000 death places 9/11 ahead of diabetes deaths, and behind cerebrovascular diseases (I had to look that one up...I think it's stroke related deaths). 9/11/terrorists would place 9th among causes of death for the 25-44 set. And that's assuming that that terrorists could kill an equal number of people each year. The rest of the list can be found here http://www.disastercenter.com/cdc/111riske.html , but accidents are #1, HIV #2, heart disease #4, and suicide #5.

All of which is in the Fun With Statistics realm. I'm sure someone could dig up numbers on what we spend as a country in an effort to combat these deaths, and compare it to the price tag for killing terrorists using the US armed forces. My gut feeling is that you could add up the entire top 10 and not equal what we've spent over the past three years overseas.

I think the reality is that, right now, terrorism for the average American ranks up as an annoyance.

Which is not to say that our efforts have not been well spent. The threat posed by the top 10 should be relatively stable. We're not at any serious risk of accidents suddenly skyrocketing, and killing 3 million people, the way a terrorist could were they to activate a nuclar device in New York or Chicago.

It's an interesting thing I like to airplane crashes. When it comes to actual life lost, air travel is safer than walking. That may be an exaggeration, but not by much. But because plane crashes are so graphic, and the concentrate the loss of life to a single moment, they carry a greater impact than the simple loss of life would suggest. 9/11 takes this effect and magnifies a thousand times.

Posted by: Bobb Alfred at September 14, 2006 01:19 PM

"Same thing with Atragon."

Thank goodness for that. I don't know how we'd have withstood a flying super submarine armed with freeze cannons. ;)

Posted by: Bill Myers at September 14, 2006 01:25 PM

Uhm... who's Atragon?

Posted by: indestructibleman at September 14, 2006 01:29 PM

By the way, I am currently visiting my sister in Burkley, and I find all the homeless + all the talk of mugging etc. to be much more scary than my country.

this is much like terrorism in that the fear is disproportionate to the risk.

you being scared to go out on the street there because someone might mug you would be like me being scared to go out on the street in Jerusalem because someone might blow me up.

Posted by: Chris Grillo at September 14, 2006 01:30 PM

Bobb and Jerry, what I'm saying is that Bush would have found a way to invade Iraq and would likely have used the threat of WMDs and the UN's inaction over Iraq's acitivities. Would he have had as much support from the American people? Nope. His not having much support now certainly isn't slowing him down though.

Russia has WMDs. Korea has them. Iran has them. What would have separated Iraq from the rest?
Bush wanted to invade Iraq. That's the difference.

Posted by: Bobb Alfred at September 14, 2006 01:55 PM

Chris, I guess, short of the fear generated by 9/11, I don't see how Bush could have gotten the authority to invade Iraq. It took a terrifying attack on our own soil, live and on TV, to spur Congress to grant Bush the sole authority to pursue terrorism. Absent that, he'd need another congressional delcaration/approval to send the military into Iraq. Iraq having weapons...of mass destruction or otherwise...may have been a factor in Bush's decision to attack, but it wouldn't have swayed many even in the GOP.

There's a reason why conspiracy theories about Bush having some involvement in 9/11 are still around...they make sense in a twisted, scary kind of way.

Posted by: Craig J. Ries at September 14, 2006 01:56 PM

9/11, and Bush's connecting of non-existing dots between terrorists and Iraq.

A set of dots that the Bush Administration STILL is trying to connect, even after a new Congressional report also says such dots don't exist.

Posted by: Luigi Novi at September 14, 2006 02:19 PM

Actually, isn't their current tactic trying to pretend that they never explicitly tried to connect those dots?

Posted by: Bobb Alfred at September 14, 2006 02:25 PM

"Actually, isn't their current tactic trying to pretend that they never explicitly tried to connect those dots?"

I dunno, what's today...Thursday? Don't they usually go with "last throes" on Thursdays?

Posted by: Jerry C at September 14, 2006 02:47 PM

Chris,

I see some of your point but don't think that there would have been the public support for Iraq without 9/11 having happened. No 9/11 means no mass fear. No mass fear means no support for Bush waging a war to protect us from another 9/11.

Would they have tried to find some other excuse to go into Iraq? Yeah. Some of the members of the Bush administration had been trying to do that since 1997. But it would have to have been something just as horrific as 9/11 rather then just something that they hatched on their own.

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at September 14, 2006 03:20 PM

Uhm... who's Atragon?

Yeesh. In 1963 the undersea Mu Empire demanded that the UN stop Imperial Captain Jinguji from completing his super-submarine Atragon, or the surface world would face anihilation. This request was, in hindsight, idiotic since up to that time we had no idea that Imperial Captain Jinguji was even still alive, much less completing his super-submarine Atragon. The inhabitants of Mu were indeed technologically impressive but they didn't know wise battle tactics from Shinola, the most widely quoted of which was Clauswitz' famous dictum of "Never, ever tell your enemy that they have a super-submarine at their disposal." Thus warned we were able to convice Captain Jinguji to abandon his quest to restore Imperial Japan and instead take the battle to Mu where he prevailed, despite the fact that the Mu Empire used their giant water dragon Manda against the mighty sub.

The fact that you don't know any of this is just another sad example of the failures of our public school system. I blame the teachers and wonder just when they will begin to earn those 4 figure saleries they are always complaining about.

Posted by: Bobb Alfred at September 14, 2006 03:23 PM

"Uhm... who's Atragon?"

Well, Duh. And it's not "who's Atragon," but "what's Atragon?"

Posted by: Jeff "Dr Who fan" Hartz at September 14, 2006 05:37 PM

I have a friend who has a degree in English Lit, works sometimes as a substitute English teacher in Buffalo, and spends his summer as a cartoonist at a Six Flags theme park. And he always says that it what having an English Lit degree and being a teacher will get you. You can draw cartoons if you're really lucky.

Posted by: indestructibleman at September 15, 2006 12:38 AM

Actually, isn't their current tactic trying to pretend that they never explicitly tried to connect those dots?

on Sunday, Vice President Cheney said, "You’ve got Iraq and Al Qaeda, testimony from the Director of C.I.A. that there was indeed a relationship — Zarqawi in baghdad. et cetera."

and Condoleeza Rice said, "There were ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda."

Posted by: Manny at September 15, 2006 01:13 AM

Have any of the other Canucks read Michael Coren's argument for the use of nukes in Iran to end that little situation? Please tell me you find the idea a tad ludicrous.

Other tangent, got to hear the baby's heart beat today. Apparently I grinned like a goof.

Posted by: Sean Scullion at September 15, 2006 02:01 AM

Manny--Voice Of Experience time--once you see the first sonogram picture, you won't stop grinning for a week.

Posted by: Rex Hondo at September 15, 2006 02:45 AM

Manny, just wait until you feel him or her kick for the first time! ;)

-Rex Hondo-

Posted by: Manny at September 15, 2006 02:56 AM

Sean, thanks, any and all help appreciated. Rex, apparently, last week about 4am, Erin tried to wake me up because she thought she felt the baby move.

My only problem is that I have to spend so much time on the road to keep our stuff together that I'm missing important things. The doctor put Erin on medical leave from work 5 weeks ago, so she's only taking in 55% of her pay. Things is tight, but we persevere.

Thanks again, and KEPLA!!!

Posted by: Rex Hondo at September 15, 2006 04:19 AM

Things is tight, but we persevere.

Amen to that. My wife got canned the very first day she wore maternity clothes into work, and was told that "the relationship just wasn't working out." Indiana being an at-will employment state, the burden of proof would have been on her to prove wrongdoing, so we just said "screw it," and took unemployment.

You just never really know how far you'd go for your offspring until you've got one in the oven.

-Rex Hondo-

Posted by: Manny at September 15, 2006 04:48 AM

Rex, you are so damn right. My wife and I are both truck drivers. Her employer spent the five weeks from the time she announced her pregnancy to the day our doctor said enough trying to force her out.

Two things working for us. Since her leave is a medical situation, we are still covered by her benefits. My employer is really great. When I say time to go home, I go home. The customer service rep is giving us loads of baby stuff she doesn't need anymore.

I know we can do this, I just sometimes wonder HOW?

Posted by: Micha at September 15, 2006 04:53 AM

"By the way, I am currently visiting my sister in Burkley, and I find all the homeless + all the talk of mugging etc. to be much more scary than my country.

this is much like terrorism in that the fear is disproportionate to the risk.

you being scared to go out on the street there because someone might mug you would be like me being scared to go out on the street in Jerusalem because someone might blow me up."

I'm not actualy afraid to go on the streets. I've walked quite a lot this visit. The strange thing is that it is the locals who keep talking about crime all the time, whereas in Jerusalem it is usyally the guests who are nervous.

I do find the large number of homeless troubling, but not scary. We have them in Jerusalem, but not in such quantities.

Posted by: Manny at September 15, 2006 05:04 AM

"Actually, isn't their current tactic trying to pretend that they never explicitly tried to connect those dots?"

Most accurately, I think, is that the current strategy is to try to connect non existant dots that only they can see, and that only they can connect, that we only need to know about around election time, and that's why we should trust them.

Posted by: The StarWolf at September 15, 2006 07:05 AM

> I guess, short of the fear generated by 9/11, I don't see how Bush could have gotten the authority to invade Iraq.

So? He didn't anyway. The U.N. sure didn't give it to him.

Posted by: Rex Hondo at September 15, 2006 07:07 AM

I know we can do this, I just sometimes wonder HOW?

Trust me, I have come to accept that men have no idea just how little they know until they're given a baby to take care of. :P

On the bright side (for father AND mother), it's amazing just how often you can get away with playing the "First-Time Parent" card. Most of the time early on, when people would ask us what else we needed, we'd just slap the card on the table and say, "We don't know."

Also, I was amazed at how quickly the "Me Man, me provide for family" macho bull went out the window. Yeah, I work hard to bring in a paycheck, and am happy to do so, but very early on, I decided that I'm not too proud to realize that happy grandparents (especially first-time grandparents) are GENEROUS grandparents. ;)

Well, I suppose that's enough blithering on about parenthood (Not to mention enough thread drift) for the time being.

-Rex Hondo-

Posted by: The StarWolf at September 15, 2006 07:19 AM

>Have any of the other Canucks read Michael Coren's argument for the use of nukes in Iran to end that little situation? Please tell me you find the idea a tad ludicrous.

I mentioned his piece earlier, though not by name.

The problem with it is that much of what he does say makes perfect sense. The idea of allowing Iran to complete a nuclear weapons' program is just unacceptable. I've seen people respond with "so what? The Soviet Union has had nuclear weapons for decades and haven't used them." And that's true, but irrelevant. The USSR weren't suicidal fanatics, which we KNOW Islamic extremists (such as the loons running Iran) are known to be. BIG, dangerous difference.

That said, it doesn't mean I think we should start arming the tactical nukes for immediate use. But neither can we afford to the consequences of the Iranian leadership getting their hands on such destructive toys. Anyone have a viable, demonstratably effective means of dealing with this problem which won't make things even worse? I'm open to suggestion.

Posted by: Tim Lynch at September 15, 2006 02:36 PM

Other tangent, got to hear the baby's heart beat today. Apparently I grinned like a goof.

Congrats, Manny!

We first heard the heartbeat a month or so after "The Return of the King" came out. (We found out Lisa was pregnant the night it opened, for reference.) So we hear the heartbeat, and Lisa turns to me almost immediately and says, "Drums ... in the deep."

God, I married well.

Rex:
Also, I was amazed at how quickly the "Me Man, me provide for family" macho bull went out the window. Yeah, I work hard to bring in a paycheck, and am happy to do so, but very early on, I decided that I'm not too proud to realize that happy grandparents (especially first-time grandparents) are GENEROUS grandparents. ;)

Oh, HELL yeah. Katherine is the first grandchild on both sides, so we've been very very happy with grandparents. (My mom has also been awesome for babysitting whenever she's in town; she lives a couple of hours away, but since both Katherine and her other grandchild are just ten minutes' drive from each other she likes to come down once a month or so.)

I've never bought into the "me man, me provider" bit anyway. Admittedly, I've usually been making more money than Lisa, but that's just because she stayed in grad school a lot longer than I did, and grad school and/or postdoc wages are generally pathetic, even compared to a teacher's salary.

Now that she's a professor, we're virtually equal -- I think she's marginally behind me at the moment, but given pay scales will pass me in a few years. This does not strike me as a bad thing -- maybe I can eventually be a kept man. :-)

TWL

Posted by: Joe V. at September 15, 2006 02:51 PM

> I guess, short of the fear generated by 9/11, I don't see how Bush could have gotten the authority to invade Iraq.

Star wolf: So? He didn't anyway. The U.N. sure didn't give it to him.

Since when do we need the UN permission for anything? We are a sovereign nation that looks out for our own interest. If there is even the tiniest threat to us, we sure don't need the mighty UN's permission to defend ourselves.

Joe V.

Posted by: Bladestar at September 15, 2006 03:02 PM

"Since when do we need the UN permission for anything? We are a sovereign nation that looks out for our own interest. If there is even the tiniest threat to us, we sure don't need the mighty UN's permission to defend ourselves."

Joe, you're killing me here. IRAQ was NEVER a threat to the U.S.A.

We didn't invade Iraq to defend Amerika, we invaded it because...because...because... hmmm, still haven't heard a real reason why we forced a regime change of another sovreign nation...

Posted by: Blue Spider at September 15, 2006 04:40 PM

"I can certainly agree that the partisan harrassment of Clinton likely hampered his effectiveness. We can only ponder what might have been accomplished during his presidency if the Republicans had cared to work together with Clinton for the greater public good."

This is insulting to everybody. I think it's being charitable to assume or act as if everyone in government really is working for the greater good for all of the citizenry. Let's assume that they are. The very simple fact is that Democrats and Republicans, those of the left and the right both disagree on how to achieve the greater good. That's even assuming that differences in personal, political and moral philosophies allow the respective politicians in those two disparate groups to agree what exactly the greater good is.

So you're saying, 'if only they lacked personal conviction so they would be able to set aside their own core principles in order to make some higher abstract acheivable'

Posted by: Blue Spider at September 15, 2006 04:48 PM

I also don't believe that Clinton cared as much for the public good as he did about A) being President B) having a "legacy" (something akin to having a nice epitaph but you're alive to see it) and C) getting tail.

Assuming he did care that much for the public good... no, I can't make that leap. That sort of rose-colored glasses is not something I will done for Oval Office adultery. If the first goal is the public good then.... ah what do I know about adultery? I don't know if it would distract from my chosen dedication or not.

Still, I can't be doing unspeakable acts to blue dresses and run the free world, can I?

Posted by: Blue Spider at September 15, 2006 04:51 PM

"by not offering an alternative or by challenging the Bush party line."

I think the Democrats do a fine job challenging the President's line. I think they do a terrible job offering up anything resembling a sensible reason for doing so.

I can think of some sensible reasons for doing so. But they're too right-wing for Democrats or most Republicans.

Posted by: Craig J. Ries at September 15, 2006 05:17 PM

I also don't believe that Clinton cared as much for the public good as he did about A) being President B) having a "legacy" (something akin to having a nice epitaph but you're alive to see it) and C) getting tail.

Well, you know, the above applies just as easily to Bush as Clinton. Well, except for C).

The funny thing is? Clinton's legacy is going be a helluva lot better than Bush's.

Posted by: Chadwick H. Saxelid at September 15, 2006 05:37 PM

Five years later and the term "Same s**t, different day" applies just as well today as it did five years ago.

Posted by: Manny at September 16, 2006 10:43 AM

"We didn't invade Iraq to defend Amerika, we invaded it because...because...because... hmmm, still haven't heard a real reason why we forced a regime change of another sovreign nation..."

Syriana, anyone?

Posted by: Manny at September 16, 2006 05:44 PM

Since when do we need the UN permission for anything? We are a sovereign nation that looks out for our own interest. If there is even the tiniest threat to us, we sure don't need the mighty UN's permission to defend ourselves.

You don't need permission to defend yourself, and if Iraq had a)attacked you, and b)had the first damned thing to do with 9/11, no one would have a problem.

You need the UN's permission because you are a member. Because you insist that the UN do what you want it's members to do.

If you don't want the responsibility, leave. Otherwise, suck it up Bubba.

Posted by: Sean Scullion at September 16, 2006 07:40 PM

Tim as a kept man--at LAST your master plan reveals itself, you vile schemer!

Manny--two HUGE pieces of advice. Do EVERYTHING for your wife, and make her feel like you understand that you have absolutely no clue as to what she's going through and that you know that guys got off easy in this deal. Second, if your wife's doctor is a guy, pull him aside before the delivery and make sure that under NO circumstances should he deliver the baby, look at you, and tell you that you do good work. If Stace hadn't been pretty much numb from the neck down with various organs out of their normal places, both me and that doctor would either be dead or falsettoes.

Not sure if I want to get into the whole presidential legacy thing, but the thing that strikes me is that Clinton seemed (to me, at least) to be looking out more for all of us and our international image than Bush has done. Not sure that I can make the connection that Blue Spider made above. Don't really care what or who Clinton was doing in the Oval Office. That's between him and his wife, none of my business. Still not sure how all that became public or why anyone gave a crap. No matter how much time he and Monica spent together, I'm FAIRLY sure that there was time to do other things in the office. Clinton should be remembered for more than Monica Lewinsky. I'd LOVE for Bush to be remembered for more than the Iraq war, but right now, I can't think of much.

Posted by: Sean Scullion at September 16, 2006 09:53 PM

Something interesting about the Department of Homeland Security. You can't call them after business hours. They do have an e-mail link on their site, but not for reporting suspicious type activity.