PeterDavid.net

Here's the thing: Shortly before McCain made that statement, Barack Obama made a similar remark in Des Moines about soldiers' lives being wasted.

OBAMA: We ended up launching a war that should have never been authorized and should have never been waged and to which we have now spent $400 billion and has seen over 3,000 lives of the bravest young Americans wasted.

Naturally, the conservative punditry, being such high-minded individuals, let it pass.

I'm just kidding. They screached like monkeys and of course, Obama quickly apologized. So, I'm fairly certain that when McCain made his remark, the DNC saw an opportunity to put the shoe on the other foot.

Both sides should sod off. We have wasted over 3200 American lives in this debacle initiated by a group of cowards and defended by other cowards like Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly.

"I'm just kidding. They screached like monkeys and of course, Obama quickly apologized. So, I'm fairly certain that when McCain made his remark, the DNC saw an opportunity to put the shoe on the other foot."

That being the case, then they handled it completely wrong. If the DNC had asked me (rather than just sending me regular e-mails hitting me up for money) I would have suggested this response:

"We applaud the brave stand of John McCain who, flying in the face of conservative political pundits, has aligned himself with Barak Obama in characterizing the Iraq misadventure as a 'waste' of our soldiers' lives. When Senator Obama used that exact phrasing, he was roundly attacked by GOP talking heads. We expect that those same individuals will now retract their criticism and instead join us in congratulating Senator Obamam on his foresightedness while deploring the highly charged atmosphere that causes some people to attack political candidates simply for making common sense observations shared by the majority of Americans."

PAD

See, it's crap like this that costs the Democrats credibility. Why can't they focus on actually turning their party into something that does ANYTHING except attack Republicans?

BTW, my sympathies lie with the Dems, and I agree with Peter and Den that the conservative pundits were also wrong to attack Obama over this. I'm just sick of seeing the Dems squander (waste?) opportunities like this.

Eric

This is because both the RNC and the DNC are full of crap. Have been for years. They are completely the same in their tactics, and what they do when they get into power.

I'm amazed by the number of people that foolishly think a change of party control will change a single thing of substance in Washington.

The DNC does about as good of a job representing normal Americans as the RNC does.

It's about scoring points, and of course, it's always about the "next" election, not about doing what's right.

This is why people who might actually be different breeds of candidates will never win their party nominations. Whether it's John McCain or Barack Obama, the party machine will do a good job of destroying them.

I definitely agree that both the DNC and the RNC should sod off (in regards to this issue) but I've noticed McCain has been putting his foot in his mouth quite frequently as of late.

Case and point: the "tar baby" comment he recently made.

I don't think someone thought that one through before they said something.

They should, indeed, have taken the opportunity to say something like "See? Someone who knows from stuid wars is saying this one is stupid."

If they really felt a need to distort his words for political gain, trumpeting them and exaggerating the extent his actual anti-war comments might well help cut him loose from his natural Republican power base.

Oddly enough, no one asked Cheney to apologize when called Iraq a tar baby when he was justifying Bush I's decision to not go in and depose Saddam.

It was the Republicans that joined in on that...don't always point the finger at the Dems, here. All of the candidates have spilled blood into the water, and now they are playing scared. Mike Huccabee, on Bill Mahr's show, was so cautious that he seemed like a milquetoast. I think the first candidate to truly speak his mind and stand up for himself has a good shot this year.

As always, I agree with much of what you have to say about the political environ we live in. Let us not try to put labels on groups, as siding with either Republican or Democrat (as a party) is like siding with the same team wearing a different jersey. Although I would like a "what if?" scenario to be played out with Gore taking his place as President in the 2000 election. Where would we be? Yes, put President Bush in "harm's way" and see how long we stay at war :)

I'm amazed by the number of people that foolishly think a change of party control will change a single thing of substance in Washington.

Sometimes it does. With a Dem-controlled Congress, there is now actual oversight that has been missing for the last 6 years.

Granted, oversight has the bonus of sticking it to the other side, but the Dems have done a decent job of not getting drunk with power yet.

The DNC is collectively brain dead. John McCain , while fast alienating the people who thought that he was a moderate, still has some influence in the minds of the mainstream and the more moderate conservatives. I would have held that statement up, without going to overboard with it, and pointed out that one of the more respected members of the President's own party was now saying that the President's actions have wasted soldiers' lives. Don't pound away on the point too heavily, don't play coy word games and don't try and sound too smart assed or sarcastic in any public announcements.

The fun wouldn't have lasted too long. The RNC would have had conniption fits over it and discreet word would have been sent McCain to "correct" his misstatement on Letterman. McCain would have squirmed a bit and talked about his mistaken use of the word and so on. But the DNC would have still had McCain's first statement to hold up and it would have looked far better for the DNC's political purposes to be able to say that the RNC reacted to McCain's words by going into cover-Bush's-ass mode and pressuring the fine representative from Arizona to recant his original heartfelt words.

It would also have been a fun little tool for them to swipe at McCain with if he were to end up getting the nod for '08. After all, in a time when America will need strong leadership to correct the mistakes of the last administration, how strong could McCain actually be to let the lackeys of that same president cow him and make him play the cover-Bush's-ass game that they did? Hell, the DNC is gonna need as many tricks like that as it can get in '08. None of their likely or potential picks for '08 are all that promising and could use all the help that they can get.

"...but the Dems have done a decent job of not getting drunk with power yet."

Oh, just give 'em another two years to get too self confident in their own infallibility and political indestructibleness.

Interestingly, Richard Cohen's column today, which appears here in the New York area in the Daily News deals with this subject as well.

Whether our troops were actually 'wasted' by being sent to Iraq remains to be seen, depending on what ultimately happens there, but at this point, it ain't looking good. If US troops pull out in a year or two leaving behind a power vaccuum that is filled by a theocracy that acts as a new staging error for terrorists, it would be easier to argue that our troops were wasted, simply because they weren't able to make a difference. This does not mitigate the courage or dedication of our soldier in the slightest, but if their efforts were indeed wasted, that blame will certainly fall on the current administration who sent them there.

"but the Dems have done a decent job of not getting drunk with power yet."

You kidding? They spent the last six years complaining that the majority totally ignored and ran over the minority in congress, and they would "never" do the same thing, and that "they" would work with the minority party, and cooperate, how they wouldn't hold constant hearings, and would repeat the RNC actions of the 90's with constant witchhunts, but would instead work on governing the country. Suddenly, when in power, they revert to business as usual, and ramrod bills and changes through, without any sort of cooperation with the minority party, open hearings, and get back to the normal them vs us style of politics.

Now personally, I don't feel the majority party in congress has any responsibility whatsoever to work with the minority party. You want to control things, then win elections. However, it's funny how quick things change and campaign promises are forgotten.

Well, they have six years of virtually no legislative oversight to make up for, so I for one am glad to see the return of congressional hearings.

As for ramming bills through, actually, the Senate GOP has done a pretty effective job of blocking any meaningful legislation so far, so I wouldn't worry about the feelings of the poor, neglected republicans in Congress. But of course, these are the same Senators who just a couple of years ago were threatening to use the "nuclear option" to end the filibuster so the democrats couldn't block any of their agenda. Remember that? Everything should get an up or down vote? Stop the democrat obstructionism? What happened there?

Dear Mr. David,

"To say that young lives have been wasted isn't to diminish their sacrifice or to demean them."
I have to say that you're wrong, sir. Your statements and the statements of men like McCain and Obama do demean our troops, and dishearten them as well.
“They've done as crap a job at safeguarding our troops as they did safeguarding the Constitution.”
I am always amazed that people like you use the “salad bar” approach to the Constitution. You will have a little more credibility on your approach to that document, when you support ALL of it, rather then the ones that make you feel warm and fluffy. You would have been in line to stone or lynch “Scooter" Libby if he had used the 5th amendment to try and weasel out of a perjury conviction. For the record, President Bush should not even give pardoning him a serious thought. The man is guilty. A jury said so after charges were brought. I’m not sure if you ever verbally or in writing ripped into Sandy Berger for his felonies, but I doubt you did. Please, prove me wrong.
“...while simultaneously destroying our international reputation at a time when, thanks to worldwide sympathy due to 9/11, we could have transformed that tragedy into some sort of true international coalition to fight terrorism.”
No American should be overly concerned with our international reputation. Just like Mr. Myers stated on this very blog, “Put more simply: I don't give a rat's ass about earning your respect because with your behavior, you've lost mine.” With the rest of the world’s attitude on individual liberty, not to mention human rights, no American should take them seriously. Why didn’t the beloved international community do anything about Darfur? I am disappointed in the United States for allowing that to happen, but I never really expected the international community to do anything. The solution to that problem would have meant killing the bad guys. How barbaric?!?!
And the attack on the United States on September 11, 2001 was not a tragedy. The correct term is atrocity. What happened in Rhodesia and again in R
Comments like yours above do not in any way help our military, but I’m not sure that you truly desire to do so. You are not the kind of person who supports a strong and viable military anyway, that much is obvious. As someone who has been a reader of your work for over twenty-five years, this doesn't come as a surprise to me. Most of those men joined the United States armed forces because they believed that this country represents the last best hope for liberty in the world. You obviously do not.
When it comes to the DNC or any modern Democrat, what can you expect from them, other than less?

With all due respect,

Robert Preston

"...but the Dems have done a decent job of not getting drunk with power yet."

Oh, just give 'em another two years to get too self confident in their own infallibility and political indestructibleness.

Yeah, after the 2008 election, all bets are off.

"To say that young lives have been wasted isn't to diminish their sacrifice or to demean them."
I have to say that you're wrong, sir. Your statements and the statements of men like McCain and Obama do demean our troops, and dishearten them as well."

Despite your sterling performance in "The Music Man," your assertions are ludicrous. First of all, I've had the opportunity to converse at length with military officers who told me point blank they thought that this entire escapade was "pointless," a "waste," and "utterly mismanaged."

If our troops are being disheartened, I'm quite sure it's not due to comments on my blog or passing thoughts expressed on "Letterman." Between constantly living with death hanging over their heads, car bombings, booby-traps, kidnapping, lack of proper training, lack of body armor, lack of equipment, tours of duty being extended months if not years...in short, being trapped with an indefinite mission for an indefinite period of time, courtesy of a bungled and mismanaged war pioneered by draft dodgers and incompetents...

With all that, I suspect that my blog doesn't even register on their "disheartened" meter.

PAD

Dear Mr. David and other readers,
A sentence in my last posting should have been:
"And the attack on the United States on September 11, 2001 was not a tragedy. The correct term is atrocity. What happened in Rhodesia and again in Rwanda was a tragedy."
Sorry for any confusion.

Thanks,

Robert Preston

I am always amazed that people like you use the “salad bar” approach to the Constitution.

Please defined what you mean by "people like you".

I for one, believe in the entire Constitution. That's all the articles, the Bill of Rights, and the other amendments. Unfortunately, it's clear that this administration only believes in Article II, the Presidency. Everything else to them is just a bunch of suggestions.

Could you please discuss the issues at hand without making gross generalizations about the opinions of the other posters? This may shock you, but not everyone who finds this administration to be wrongheaded and corrupt shares a single, monolithic view on everything.

Dear Mr. David,

" But if "wasted" is off the table, then fine."
I can think of several appropriate uses and variations of the word. They are as follows:
Muqtada al-Sadr should be "wasted".
O.J. Simpson should be "wasted".
Stanley "Tookie" Williams was "wasted".
Hugo Chavez is, well, just "waste".
Hillary Clinton "wastes" oxygen.

Ever at your service,

Robert Preston

I like "their sacrifices have been wasted" myself.

" But if "wasted" is off the table, then fine."
I can think of several appropriate uses and variations of the word..."

Talking to you is time "wasted." I can make that determination fairly quickly.

PAD

Oh, best snap I've heard in a while:

"America has been conducting an experiment for the past six years, trying to validate the proposition that it really doesn't make any difference who you elect president. Now we know the result of that experiment."
-- Gen. Tony McPeak (retired), member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the Gulf War

McCain wasn't in a position to brush off pressure to apologize because as far as I've heard reported, he applied the most steady pressure on George Bush to order the surge.

But, yes, the DNC missed an opportunity to leverage McCain's Freudian slip.

Wasn't McCain's appearance on Letterman something like 3 weeks ago?

Really? See, Sunshine, the world does have to occasionally be on our side if we want to be able to function beyond our boarders. Even in military matters, we depend on the cooperation of other countries. The British were a source of invaluable on the ground Intel in both Gulf I and Afghanistan. They went in first, got us information to use in our strikes and scrubbed a few targets as well. Part of the reason that we had them do it was there experience with that part of the world. Piss the Brits of bad enough and we lose a valuable friend and resource.

After 9/11 and just prior to going into Afghanistan, a hell of a lot of countries offered aid to us in going after those who struck us. Some of that aid was as simple as giving us free passage and staging areas. That does tend to make life, and military campaigns, just a wee bit easier.

That support and good will was there when we were seeking to deal justice to our attackers. It was there as we removed a dangerous presence from power in Afghanistan. It was even there when we spoke of going after the worldwide structure of that enemy.

Then we diverted our focus and got dragged into Iraq and Bush's foolishness. We went and thumbed our collective noses at the world. We trumped up garbage to use as reason for war and told everybody that they were either with us or against us. Then our leaders and there mouth pieces in the media informed the world that we didn't need them or that useless dinosaur, the U.N. At least we said that until we found ourselves up to our eyebrows in hell and went to the U.N. to ask for help in Iraq. And through all that our country's standing fell in the international community.

Yeah, lets do it your way. Screw all those other countries. They're week, useless and unneeded baggage. At least until we piss any of them off enough that they decide that we really are on our own. When they tell us that we can't stage in their country, use their resources, violate their airspace or territorial jurisdiction or count on them for ANY help. Then you'll find out the costs of your line of thinking and exactly what it means to really be operating alone and in need.

As someone who has been a reader of your work for over twenty-five years, this doesn't come as a surprise to me.

Would it be petty of me to point out that PAD's first published work was in 1987?

Oops.
________________________________________

“...while simultaneously destroying our international reputation at a time when, thanks to worldwide sympathy due to 9/11, we could have transformed that tragedy into some sort of true international coalition to fight terrorism.”

"No American should be overly concerned with our international reputation."

Really? See, Sunshine, the world does have to occasionally be on our side if we want to be able to function beyond our boarders. Even in military matters, we depend on the cooperation of other countries. The British were a source of invaluable on the ground Intel in both Gulf I and Afghanistan. They went in first, got us information to use in our strikes and scrubbed a few targets as well. Part of the reason that we had them do it was there experience with that part of the world. Piss the Brits of bad enough and we lose a valuable friend and resource.

After 9/11 and just prior to going into Afghanistan, a hell of a lot of countries offered aid to us in going after those who struck us. Some of that aid was as simple as giving us free passage and staging areas. That does tend to make life, and military campaigns, just a wee bit easier.

That support and good will was there when we were seeking to deal justice to our attackers. It was there as we removed a dangerous presence from power in Afghanistan. It was even there when we spoke of going after the worldwide structure of that enemy.

Then we diverted our focus and got dragged into Iraq and Bush's foolishness. We went and thumbed our collective noses at the world. We trumped up garbage to use as reason for war and told everybody that they were either with us or against us. Then our leaders and there mouth pieces in the media informed the world that we didn't need them or that useless dinosaur, the U.N. At least we said that until we found ourselves up to our eyebrows in hell and went to the U.N. to ask for help in Iraq. And through all that our country's standing fell in the international community.

Yeah, lets do it your way. Screw all those other countries. They're week, useless and unneeded baggage. At least until we piss any of them off enough that they decide that we really are on our own. When they tell us that we can't stage in their country, use their resources, violate their airspace or territorial jurisdiction or count on them for ANY help. Then you'll find out the costs of your line of thinking and exactly what it means to really be operating alone and in need.

"As someone who has been a reader of your work for over twenty-five years, this doesn't come as a surprise to me."

"Would it be petty of me to point out that PAD's first published work was in 1987?"

Hey, be fair. He could have worked in a comic book shop and be including PAD's letters to retailers about Marvels upcoming plans or new initiatives in his years of reading. He didn't actually specify that he meant twenty-five years of comic and novel reading.

Then again, it could just be new math. Whatcha gonna do?

Hey, be fair. He could have worked in a comic book shop and be including PAD's letters to retailers about Marvels upcoming plans or new initiatives in his years of reading. He didn't actually specify that he meant twenty-five years of comic and novel reading.

That's true; I'm sure PAD's direct sales material at Marvel was an excellent guide to his views about the role of a strong military.

r, the Poster Who Used to Post As Robert Preston -
You will have a little more credibility on your approach to that document, when you support ALL of it, rather then the ones that make you feel warm and fluffy.

This coming from the man that says the 27th Amendment should be tossed out, who appears to support a president who has tossed out every Amendment of the Bill of Rights save #2, and so on.

Quite frankly, I'm not sure you've ever read the Constitution, much less understood it.

PAD -
With all that, I suspect that my blog doesn't even register on their "disheartened" meter.

Which is why the whole argument of anything we say lowering the morale of our troops rings hollow and nothing more than political bs.

Dear PAD,

Mr. Atkinson: No, it’s not petty. Thank you for the correction. The line should have been “As someone who has been a reader of your work for over twenty-PLUS years,”
To PAD: If I was unable to keep a timeline intact regarding your writing, blame Marvel, and DC. I still haven't been the same after The Crisis. The first thing that I read that had your name, as writer on it was the Spectacular Spider-Man. The Death of Jean DeWolfe. I saw the same movie with Lindsey Wagner and the Sin-Eater. I don't know if Netflix has it, but I'm going to check on it.
You have put your views forth on everything from military intervention, to capital punishment in print before, and yet I don’t think reading your opinion is wasted time. I just strongly disagree with you and a most of your contributors to this site. I thought that your site was open to differing points of view, but obviously it isn’t. I'd hate to waste your time. I do thank you for the use of your site.
Mr. Chandler doesn’t need to be responded to. He wouldn’t have the guts to step into a ring anyway.

Thank you, all,

Robert Preston

Craig said, "This coming from the man that says the 27th Amendment should be tossed out, who appears to support a president who has tossed out every Amendment of the Bill of Rights save #2, and so on."

Let's be fair and spot him #3 as well, Craig. I can't remember anyone saying we should quarter miltary troops in people's homes during my lifetime.

Well, to be totally fair, he hasn't tried to prevent women from voting either, so let's give him the 19th as well.

The jury is still out on the 22nd. :)

The line should have been “As someone who has been a reader of your work for over twenty-PLUS years,”

Too late, you're cover is blown.

I think it's obvious Robert Preston is from the future. He's here to prevent disaster from befalling River City, with a capital D, which rhymes with P, and that stands for Pool.

Posted by: Robert Preston at March 20, 2007 03:33 PM

I thought that your site was open to differing points of view, but obviously it isn’t. I'd hate to waste your time. I do thank you for the use of your site.

This site is open to various points of view. The majority tends to skew liberal, but there are moderates and conservatives as well. As Jerry Chandler pointed out to you, I'm a liberal who believes the Iraq War should never have been started, but now that we have I believe it would be disastrous of us to leave until the Iraqi government is truly able to provide security and stability to its people.

Your remarks suggest that like a big baby, you're announcing that you're picking up your toys and going home. Good riddance to you, if that's the case.

If you're not leaving, please note that this will be my last response to you. I've had a history of wasting too much time with trolls in this blog and am beginning to realize through bitter experience that life is too short.

And before you go soothing your bruised widdle ego by deciding that us liberals can't handle your big scary conservative brilliance, I am a liberal who sees much value in conservatism. I am a fan of George Will and David Brooks. Your ideology isn't the problem. It's your obnoxious personality I don't like.

Posted by: Robert Preston at March 20, 2007 03:33 PM

Mr. Chandler doesn’t need to be responded to. He wouldn’t have the guts to step into a ring anyway.

Wow, you really have no idea what a childish little prick you are, do you? Jerry's a police officer who has more guts than you'll ever have.

Go to hell, Bobby.

The 19th Amendment isn't technically part of the "Bill of Rights". Only #s 1 thru 10 are. The comment was supposed to be a (good-natured) jab at Craig as much as it was at Mr. Preston. Almost entirely a jab at Craig actually, as I have been unable to finish reading Mr. Preston's posts for some time. I start reading what looks like a recitation of Bush talking-points and glaze over. That may say bad things about me, but there it is.

Besides, I figured I knew Craig well enough to count on him having a sense of humor about it...

I think it's obvious Robert Preston is from the future. He's here to prevent disaster from befalling River City, with a capital D, which rhymes with P, and that stands for Pool.

Are you sure he isn't an alien sent her to find the last starfighter?

The 19th Amendment isn't technically part of the "Bill of Rights". Only #s 1 thru 10 are. The comment was supposed to be a (good-natured) jab at Craig as much as it was at Mr. Preston.

True, but I see no reason why the other amendments are any safer under Bush.

Almost entirely a jab at Craig actually, as I have been unable to finish reading Mr. Preston's posts for some time. I start reading what looks like a recitation of Bush talking-points and glaze over. That may say bad things about me, but there it is.

I've tried, but he engages in too many gross generalizations for my to take seriously. I noticed he's already completed the pattern: Once he realized that we weren't just going to nod and say, "why, you're right, I never realized I was an America-hating terrorist supporter, but now that I know, I will change my ways and be a good conservative" after the third or fourth time he made the same post, he's now pretending this forum isn't open to other views. No one has stopped him from posting his views here, but apparently, "open to differing points of view" means "agreeing with my every word" in bushapologistspeak.

Oh well. Seen a hundred times before in a dozen different blogs.

Okay, now that I've gotten THAT out of my system...

I think some of my fellow liberals are getting a wee bit too excited by what McCain said. He's been a vocal critic of the handling of this war, but he voted to authorize the initial invasion, supports the troop surge and believes we need to stay until the war is "won."

Were the DNC to do as you suggest, Peter, they'd be distorting McCain's meaning. Yes, yes, I know, the RNC does that sort of thing too. That's the problem. Each side rationalizes it's "team's" excesses because "the other side does it, too." Two wrongs don't make a right and ultimately the rancorous atmosphere in Washington is bad for our nation.

Rather than responding to attacks with attacks, I think someone needs to take a stand for something better. I'm not naive, and I recognize that politics has always been rough-and-tumble. But in reading history it seems to me there was a time when our leaders understood that you can inspire something other than anger.

For example, the DNC could offer a statement like this:

"When Barack Obama referred to the deaths of our brave soldiers in Iraq as lives 'wasted,' Republicans attacked him for doing so. Now that McCain has used the same term, perhaps we can put aside the partisan rancor and discuss this issue on its merits.

"McCain recognizes that this war has been prosecuted badly, and that troops have died needlessly as a result. But McCain is supporting a troop surge that represents an escalation of a failed policy."

Short and sweet, and delineates the differences between the two parties.

Yeah, I know. It'd never happen.

Craig J. Ries said:

"This coming from the man that says the 27th Amendment should be tossed out."

Actually, it was the 17th amendment he opposes.

Some copies of the Constitution insist there is no 27th amendment, that there are only 26. However, my copy states that the 27th amendment essentially gives me absolute power, and that said amendment can never be rescinded. Why'd anyone want to toss that one out?

Whaddya mean it doesn't count if you just add your own amendments to your copy of the Constitution? You mean you can't treat the Constitution as a list of suggestions?

Those points aside, I also question who the "people like you" are that Mr. Preston cites in his comments to PAD. Who are people like PAD? Writers? Fathers? Husbands? Sons? Brothers? People who go bowling? People who live near the Eastern seaboard? People who've met Stan Lee? People with an Elfquest tattoo? People who do Kermit the Frog impersonations? People who are American citizens? et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

Also I'm not sure what PAD's (and that of "people like him", apparently) alleged "salad bar approach to the Constitution" is. I suspect, reading between the lines, that it has something to do with the ever-controversial 2nd amendment. Yet, I don't ever recall PAD saying he didn't support the 2nd amendment. I believe he has a different interpretation of the wording than groups like the NRA, but that's not the same thing as not supporting it.

Rick

P.S. On another note, I'd like to make a general request. Could everyone, when quoting another, please indicate whom you're quoting? It can become hard to follow who's responding to whom, especially in long-running threads. Thanks.

"Mr. Chandler doesn’t need to be responded to. He wouldn’t have the guts to step into a ring anyway."

"Wow, you really have no idea what a childish little prick you are, do you? Jerry's a police officer who has more guts than you'll ever have."

Nahhh.... I think he knows that. I think he also knows that his posts don't hold water. He throws out half thoughts, broad brushed statements and bumper sticker comments as though they are the writings of great and towering minds yet fails to actually respond to any reasoned posts that question his POV.

What part of my posts in this thread aren't worth responding to in his mind? Did he dislike my POV on the DNC's brain death? Was it my pointing out the fact that other countries gave us needed help in several wars? Was it my pointing out that we could find ourselves up THAT creek without a paddle if we ever went the hard right path and really ticked off as many other countries as some on the right seem to want to? Hey, how about my simple questions put forth in the other thread in response to his request for polite Q&A for debate? Could it have been my pointing out that you yourself don't fit his brush strokes or that several others here put a lie to his statements post after post after post? Maybe it was my joking around and calling him "Sunshine" up there.

Who knows? Who cares? I doubt even he does as I doubt he's actually reading half the posts here. Beyond his comments that entirely miss what people are saying or go off into odd areas that just leave you scratching your head, he still isn't using Hotmail as a spell checker or breaking the body of his posts up by putting a space between his paragraphs. It's the last two that grate the most.

You want a really strange thought? This is what X-Ray would have been like if he had taken his meds every day. So far, he's completely random and almost completely senseless, but not as hyper and hostile as good old X was.

Well, other then...

"He wouldn’t have the guts to step into a ring anyway."

I showed that line to some of the guys I work and train with. Laugh of the day, that.

And Pad is wrong here. I love The Music Man. It was one of the first ten DVDs I bought when upgrading my VHS collection, but he was better in Victor/Victoria and he flat, hands down ruled in S.O.B.

"Yet, I don't ever recall PAD saying he didn't support the 2nd amendment. I believe he has a different interpretation of the wording than groups like the NRA, but that's not the same thing as not supporting it."

I think it's kind of antiquated, but my feeling is that if we are to stick to it, then fine: But everyone who owns a gun must serve in a local militia.

PAD

Just for the record, according to this statistical site there are approximately 898 Robert Prestons in the US.

On the other hand, there are only approximately 80 people with the name Peter David, and Zero with the name Drew Barrymore. (She doesn't exist, statistically speaking.)

What I'm trying to say is that we shouldn't assume someone's 'name' is assumed just because it matches the name of someone famous, unless it is a remarkably unique name, like Moon Unit Zappa or something.

I think it's kind of antiquated, but my feeling is that if we are to stick to it, then fine: But everyone who owns a gun must serve in a local militia.

How very originalist.

The 2nd amendment actually has some history behind it that gets forgoten a lot of times. Originally, it was partly about the freedom to hunt, despite the fact that this isn't stated in the amendment itself.

Back in England, before people came to America, all the land was owned by lords. They wanted to hunt on their land and they didn't want anyone else to. When guns came around, they enacted strict gun control laws so that the rich land owners would be the only ones with the good hunting weapons. That cut down on the poaching.

Then the colonists came to America, which had tons more land than what anyone was used to. With no gun laws in the colonies, they could hunt for food with the weapons. They quickly became used to that, and they knew that was a right the common people didn't have in England. So guns largely represented a freedom to take care of yourself and your family that the English lords had horded for themselves.

None of this is terribly relelvant today, when nobody *has* to hunt to get food. But I think it's important in the same way that the "to support a militia" clause is important. It's part of why the 2nd amendment was important at the time, in a way that doesn't clearly translate to today's world.

People with an Elfquest tattoo?

Rick, I would submit that perhaps you know uncomfortably too much about our esteemed host. :)

Jerry Wall said:
"This is because both the RNC and the DNC are full of crap. Have been for years. They are completely the same in their tactics, and what they do when they get into power.

I'm amazed by the number of people that foolishly think a change of party control will change a single thing of substance in Washington."
----------
As good a reason as any to never vote again.

Jerry Wall said:
"Suddenly, when in power, they revert to business as usual, and ramrod bills and changes through..."
----------
Oh-so not true. The Dems can't get any bills passed that the Repugs don't want passed. The Repugs simply fillibuster or threaten to fillibuster.

Many bills require 60 votes in the Senate. Currently, the votes are pretty much split 50-50, with Faux Dem Lieberman voting Repug, even though he said he would vote Democratic.

Jerry Wall said:
"This is because both the RNC and the DNC are full of crap. Have been for years. They are completely the same in their tactics, and what they do when they get into power.

I'm amazed by the number of people that foolishly think a change of party control will change a single thing of substance in Washington."
----------
As good a reason as any to never vote again.

I think Robert Preston's best performance was as the gay roommate to Julie Andrews in Victor/Victoria.

Now THAT was a fun movie!

"As good a reason as any to never vote again."

No, as good a reason as any to vote for people, not parties.

"People with an Elfquest tattoo?

Rick, I would submit that perhaps you know uncomfortably too much about our esteemed host. :)"

See, whereas I submit that Rick reads "Newsarama.com," where my acquiring the tattoo was covered in detail.

PAD

Plus, it's not like the tattoo's on Peter's butt or anything like that. It's on his left bicep. We're not talking intimate details or anything. :)

Okay, that last post should have ended with, "We're not talking about intimate details or anything like that."

Apparently the antibiotics haven't kicked in and this sinus infection I have is still kicking my ass. I guess I'd better go back to bed.

'Night, all.

Bill, most people's sinus infections are in their HEADS....

"No American should be overly concerned with our international reputation."

If this was being discussed on some pre-WWII radio show, that MIGHT be a viable option for discussion. However, the world is much smaller today, and anyone who thinks that this country can thumb their noses at the rest of the world doesn't realize that now more than ever the world is an international community.

"Mr. Chandler doesn’t need to be responded to. He wouldn’t have the guts to step into a ring anyway."
I really wasn't go to waste good writing time responding to this, but yet again you've really gotten on my nerves. Do me a favor. Tell the next police officer you see, since I'm going on the assumption you don't live anywhere near Jerry Chandler, and tell him that he wouldn't have the guts to step in the ring. See what happens.

Rick Keating
Actually, it was the 17th amendment he opposes.

Yeah, but since we don't actually have the right to vote for anybody anyways, the 27th is much more relevant to this discussion. ;)

At least Mr. Preston had the good sense to leave and never darken our towels again.

darken our towels?

Dear Mr. David,

"To say that young lives have been wasted isn't to diminish their sacrifice or to demean them."
I have to say that you're wrong, sir. Your statements and the statements of men like McCain and Obama do demean our troops, and dishearten them as well.

Okay, had to put this to the test. As it happens, there's an Army E-4 (Specialist) sitting near me, using my XBox. His unit is due to deploy to Iraq in about three weeks. He says he doesn't feel PAD's comments demean or diminish anything, and the only thing he feels disheartened by is Bush's recent declaration that "This war began on my watch, but it's going to end on yours."

So, Bobby, is he just another "coward" who'd be "too scared to get into the ring"?

Oh, about the "fan for twenty-five years" thing - maybe he's using the same prescient vision that recently led the al-Qaeda official in US custody to confess to planning, in 2001, an attack on the Plaza Bank Building in Seattle - even though Plaza Bank wasn't founded until 2006, well after this "gentleman's" capture and incarceration, and in 2001, the building in question was still known as the Columbia Tower...

"...maybe he's using the same prescient vision that recently led the al-Qaeda official in US custody to confess to planning, in 2001, an attack on the Plaza Bank Building in Seattle - even though Plaza Bank wasn't founded until 2006, well after this "gentleman's" capture and incarceration, and in 2001, the building in question was still known as the Columbia Tower..."

You ever see the BBC comedy, Thin Blue Line? If not, seek it out on DVD at a good rental place. Hell, just buy it. There was an ep that nailed perfectly my thoughts on the news breaks about his need to confess to damned near everything short of shooting Lincon.

R.J. Carter wrote: "Rick, I would submit that perhaps you know uncomfortably too much about our esteemed host. :)"

to which PAD replied, "See, whereas I submit that Rick reads "Newsarama.com," where my acquiring the tattoo was covered in detail."

Actually, I believe PAD discussed the matter in his CBG column and/or on this blog, the latter of which probably would have had a link to Newsarama. And those sources are where I learned about the tattoo, not because I'd trained his goldfish as a top notch spy.

That was for another reason.

No one ever suspects the goldfish. Which is as it should be.

Micha: the "darken our towels" line is from a Marx Bros. movie, but I don't recall which one.

Rick

"...and tell him that he wouldn't have the guts to step in the ring. See what happens."

Why narrow his options. Open the gender up a bit. I have a friend who left us to go to State Police. She's an ex-marine and stays in pretty good shape. I've seen her put a massive hurting on some really big guys before. And one of her friends at State, also a female, can toss her around the mat like a rag doll.

Either one of them could likely destroy our Bobby in under a minute. And you just know that being stomped flat by a girrrllll would mess with his ego something fierce.

"Micha: the "darken our towels" line is from a Marx Bros. movie, but I don't recall which one.'

Duck Soup

Thanks Rick.

------------
Mr.Preston expected to much from this blog. It was not enough for him that he could post what ever he wanted, no matter how stupid, insultive and pointless. He also expected PAD to take the time to argue with him, although most of his words were in the form of snide comments rather than coherent arguments. Also, althogh he found it easy to insult anybody and everybody, he was unable to withstand one sharp comment from PAD and a few from Jerry. Apparently he didn't have the guts to enter the ring of honest debate about the issues. Under these circumstances he should leave it to Iowa Jim, Jerome Maida and Spiderrob to represent the conservative point of view. I don't agree with them always, but at least they present actual arguments.

What, did I become a tree hugging hippy when I wasn't looking? Well, that's what happens when you hang out with the likes of Bill Myers.

FROM DUCK SOUP

Rufus T. Firefly: I'd be unworthy of the high trust that's been placed in me if I didn't do everything in my power to keep our beloved Freedonia in peace with the world. I'd be only too happy to meet with Ambassador Trentino, and offer him on behalf of my country the right hand of good fellowship. And I feel sure he will accept this gesture in the spirit of which it is offered. But suppose he doesn't. A fine thing that'll be. I hold out my hand and he refuses to accept. That'll add a lot to my prestige, won't it? Me, the head of a country, snubbed by a forgein ambassador. Who does he think he is, that he can come here, and make a sap of me in front of all my people? Think of it - I hold out my hand and that hyena refuses to accept. Why, the cheap ball-pushing swine, he'll never get away with it I tell you, he'll never get away with it.
[Trentino enters]
Rufus T. Firefly: So, you refuse to shake hands with me, eh?
[slaps Trentino with his glove]

Trentino: You Swine!...You Worm!...You Upstart!
[Firefly slaps him with his glove]
Trentino: Mrs. Teasdale. I'm afraid this regrettable occurrence may plunge our countries into war.
Mrs. Teasdale: Oh, this is terrible!
Trentino: I've said enough. I'm a man of few words.
Firefly: I'm a man of one word: Scram!

(Later)

Mrs. Teasdale: Your Excellency, the Ambassador's here on a friendly visit. He's had a change of heart.
Firefly: A lot of good that'll do him. He's still got the same face.
Trentino: I'm sorry we lost our tempers. I'm willing to forget if you are.
Firefly: Forget? You ask me to forget? A Firefly never forgets. Why, my ancestors would rise from their graves, and I'd only have to bury them again. Nothing doing. I'm going back and clean the crackers out of my bed. I'm expecting company.
Mrs. Teasdale: Please wait.
Firefly: Let go of me, you bully!
Mrs. Teasdale: Oh!
Trentino: I am willing to do anything to prevent this war.
Firefly: It's too late. I've already paid a month's rent on the battlefield.

(LATER)

Firefly: It was silly of me to lose my temper on account of that little thing you called me.
Trentino: Do you mean Worm?
Firefly: No, that wasn't it.
Trentino: I know, Swine!
Firefly: ...No, it was a seven letter word.
Trentino: Oh yes, Upstart?
Firefly: That's it! Upstart.
[Firefly slaps Trentino across the face with his gloves.]
Trentino: This means WAR!
Firefly: Go, and never darken my towels again!

Possibly the greatest comedy ever made. It bombed big time on release.

Bobo's gone? Hell, I miss all the really good exorcisms! Oh well, if you can't play nice with others, play with yourself.

Either way, given that the fecal matter continues to impact the fan in Iraq, and that troops are still dying in the name of ever changing definitions of "victory", I don't think the term "wasted" is totally inaccurate.

Anyone ,other than an active service member who has or will shortly deploy to Iraq, who takes offense to the use of the term wasted is blowing political smoke rings out their fundaments.

The idea that freely exchanged opinions, either for or against Bush War II, would somehow be enough to cause the failure of an already failed adventure is...confusing. I mean, aren't these men and women fighting to protect the right to free exchange of opinions? Isn't that part of the democracy that Bush and Co. want so desperately to bestow/beset on the region?

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at March 20, 2007 10:28 PM

"Possibly the greatest comedy ever made. It bombed big time on release."

Too realistic.

Posted by: Manny at March 20, 2007 10:39 PM

"The idea that freely exchanged opinions, either for or against Bush War II, would somehow be enough to cause the failure."

They have to blame somebody. Anf guess who is not on the top of the list.

Posted by Micha at March 20, 2007 11:02 PM
Posted by: Manny at March 20, 2007 10:39 PM

"The idea that freely exchanged opinions, either for or against Bush War II, would somehow be enough to cause the failure."

They have to blame somebody. Anf guess who is not on the top of the list.

Uhhh....Smurfette? Is this multiple choice?

Posted by Bill Mulligan at March 20, 2007 10:28 PM
"What, did I become a tree hugging hippy when I wasn't looking?"

No, we like you just the way you are..cuddly and curmudgeonly ;)

Robert Preston: I have to say that you're wrong, sir. Your statements and the statements of men like McCain and Obama do demean our troops, and dishearten them as well.
Luigi Novi: No, you simply don’t like the fact that he expresses them. Hiding behind the troops by pretending that you have somehow been appointed to speak for them, as if you’re on “their side” and anyone who disagreed with you is not is little more than McCarthyism. The fact remains that criticizing the government for its treatment of the troops is not an insult to the troops themselves. It’s simply your little way to convince yourself that trying to stifle dissent is somehow justified. That you failed to respond to the statements that Peter related from the troops that he himself spoke to underscores the poverty of your reasoning.

Peter David: They've done as crap a job at safeguarding our troops as they did safeguarding the Constitution.

Robert Preston: I am always amazed that people like you use the “salad bar” approach to the Constitution. You will have a little more credibility on your approach to that document, when you support ALL of it, rather then the ones that make you feel warm and fluffy.
Luigi Novi: Okay. Which parts of it did Peter mention, and which parts did he fail to mention, that you feel would undercut the validity of his statements?

The truth is that Peter didn’t mention any “parts” of the Constitution. He criticized the administration for not maintaining its integrity, a statement that is an apparent reference indeed to all of it, and not “parts” of it. This response of yours makes no sense. What does criticizing the administration for not safeguarding the Constitution have to do with mentioning parts of it, and not others? You tried this fallacy on the prior thread, and it didn’t work there either.

Robert Preston: You would have been in line to stone or lynch “Scooter" Libby if he had used the 5th amendment to try and weasel out of a perjury conviction.
Luigi Novi: Despite your apparent good faith insistence on the prior thread that you were interested in civil discussion, this statement by you shows that you are not. Telling people what they would or would not do, think or say, is not part of intelligent, coherent discussion. It’s arrogant and condescending. This is an arbitrary assumption on your part based on nothing except preconceptions, and your repeatedly resorting to this in discussion reveals you as a bigot.

Robert Preston: No American should be overly concerned with our international reputation. Just like Mr. Myers stated on this very blog, “Put more simply: I don't give a rat's ass about earning your respect because with your behavior, you've lost mine.” With the rest of the world’s attitude on individual liberty, not to mention human rights, no American should take them seriously.
Luigi Novi: Bill’s statement was a direct reference to your behavior on the prior thread, which was indeed undeserving of respect. I don’t see any analogous behavior with the “rest of the world”, and indeed, one has to be a complete churl totally ignorant of the realities of international diplomacy and relations to think that other countries’ views of us are to be so easily dismissed. Which parts of the world are you referring to that do not believe in human rights? The main power that is thought of when people mention the lowering of our status in the eyes of the rest of the world is Europe, and I don’t see how they have questionable attitudes about individual liberty.

Robert Preston: Why didn’t the beloved international community do anything about Darfur?
It did. The U.N. passed Security Counsel Resolution 1706 in order to resolve the conflict, which you can read about at: http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2006/sc8821.doc.htm

Robert Preston: And the attack on the United States on September 11, 2001 was not a tragedy. The correct term is atrocity.
Luigi Novi: Both terms are valid. One is not “correct”, nor the other “incorrect”. You imply an Either/Or situation where none exists.

Robert Preston: You are not the kind of person who supports a strong and viable military anyway, that much is obvious.
Luigi Novi: You do not know what anyone here supports or believes, as these are rhetorical comments not based on anything coherent such as evidence or reason. Such flights of fancy are “obvious” to you in the same way that a naked guy walking down the street is “obviously” wearing new clothes, and in the same way that a windmill is “obviously” a giant.

Robert Preston: I thought that your site was open to differing points of view, but obviously it isn’t.
Luigi Novi: The problem is not whether the site is open to differing points of view, since lots of people here, myself included, have disagreed with Peter, who has responded politely. The problem is that you simply do not possess the tools to argue in a manner that is honest, civil, and intelligent. Like all the other trolls that have posted on this site, you have not only made statements that were not informed by logic, facts, evidence or reason, and that bore no correlation to the statements of others that you were ostensibly responding to, but have insulted the other people here, and then concluded that the site was somehow not open to other points of view when you were criticized for this behavior. That is your problem, not the site’s.

Robert Preston: Mr. Chandler doesn’t need to be responded to. He wouldn’t have the guts to step into a ring anyway.
Luigi Novi: With this irrelevant comment, I think you’ve pretty much proven that you are a childish troll, and are no longer worth giving the benefit of the doubt.

You’re shrouded.

Robert Preston: You would have been in line to stone or lynch “Scooter" Libby if he had used the 5th amendment to try and weasel out of a perjury conviction.
Luigi Novi: Despite your apparent good faith insistence on the prior thread that you were interested in civil discussion, this statement by you shows that you are not. Telling people what they would or would not do, think or say, is not part of intelligent, coherent discussion. It’s arrogant and condescending. This is an arbitrary assumption on your part based on nothing except preconceptions, and your repeatedly resorting to this in discussion reveals you as a bigot.

It's much more efficient to argue with one's preconceived notion of a person than with the words and ideas of the actual person. It saves time on reading and thinking and getting to know people.

What, did I become a tree hugging hippy when I wasn't looking?

No, we like you just the way you are..cuddly and curmudgeonly

...which is also how we like our coffee.

Posted by: Micha at March 20, 2007 09:59 PM

Also, althogh he found it easy to insult anybody and everybody, he was unable to withstand one sharp comment from PAD and a few from Jerry.

Hey! I softened him up for everyone with my devastating barbs and zings in the "Supporting the Troops" thread! A little credit, here! ;)

Just a little?

C'mon, just a crumb. My cold got even worse today and I had to miss another day of work. Give me somethin' to make my day!

Fine. Be that way. :P

"Posted by: Bill Myers at March 21, 2007 08:46 AM
Posted by: Micha at March 20, 2007 09:59 PM

Also, althogh he found it easy to insult anybody and everybody, he was unable to withstand one sharp comment from PAD and a few from Jerry.

Hey! I softened him up for everyone with my devastating barbs and zings in the "Supporting the Troops" thread! A little credit, here! ;)

Just a little?

C'mon, just a crumb. My cold got even worse today and I had to miss another day of work. Give me somethin' to make my day!

Fine. Be that way. :P"

I didn't want you accused of using biological weapons.

And I also wanted togive PAD the credit.

Hmm. This is scary. I actually agree with you. Not that the troops were wrongly put in harms way. But I do agree that if you see it that way, it is not demeaning to the sacrifice of the troops to put it that way.

What shocked me was that the DNC was upset by this. At first I though you were making a joke, and the end of your post would say it was really the RNC. But now I think you are serious. Which is incredible. I thought the RNC was a bunch of wimps at times, but I can't believe the DNC would demand an apology. As you said, they should have been applauding McCain for actually agreeing with them.

I am no fan of McCain. I would vote for him over most Democrats, but only if I had no other alternative. His comments, I felt, were more about how the war was conducted. To apologize shows a lack of willingness to say what he means and mean what he says. But he is a politician, so what was I thinking.

Iowa Jim

Micha, it's cool. I was only kidding. PAD is indeed the one who caused Bobby to crumble. My posts to him were at best of the "banging one's head against a brick wall" variety.

Bill, don't be like me--if this "cold" lasts longer than a week go to the doctor and get some antibiotics. These do nothing against the cold but will clean up the secondary bacterial infection that is probably responsible for any green stuff you might be leaking.

It took 3 weeks of tag team nagging from my wife and mother before I went. Whatta dope.

"Posted by: Bill Myers at March 21, 2007 09:23 AM
Micha, it's cool. I was only kidding. PAD is indeed the one who caused Bobby to crumble. My posts to him were at best of the "banging one's head against a brick wall" variety."

I was kidding too. But seriously, I was going to respond to Mr. Preston myself after his first post, but your reply was so good I didn't feel I could add anything further.

Just don't tel that to PAD :)

Posted by: Iowa Jim at March 21, 2007 08:58 AM

"I am no fan of McCain. I would vote for him over most Democrats, but only if I had no other alternative. "

Why?

"I would vote for him over most Democrats, but only if I had no other alternative."

All respect to you, Jim, but I have to ask--what if the Republican was the most vile, heinous, nasty individual who would even make me look like a good candidate, would you still vote Republican? I know you said "most," so, maybe I'm off base here. But put another way, and this isn't just for Iowa Jim, when going into a vote, are you more interested in which party you're voting for or which person?

That's one of the things I like about this board. Conversations like this. A shame, really, that all the conversations I hear at work involve strip clubs and who's pissing who off.

I would vote for him over most Democrats, but only if I had no other alternative. His comments, I felt, were more about how the war was conducted. To apologize shows a lack of willingness to say what he means and mean what he says.

Before Bush ordered the surge, who else had been calling for an increase in troops?

To call for a troop surge as he did, then to cite the lives of soldiers wasted, is inconsistent if not batshit crazy.

You know, what distresses me more is not that the fact that the DNC is alarmed at the word "waste"... Heaven knows politicians waste time and money on a daily basis... I am alarmed that the people who want to lead this country don't have the brass cohones to stand up and take the criticism on the chin. Too Bad if the DNC has a problem with McCain, Too Bad if Barack uses the "W" word.... SHIT, CARTMAN used the "N" word 40 times and no-one bats an eye... C'mon, you guys. If you want to lead this country, LEAD IT! Don't go balls up every time somebody has a problem with how you say something. IT's a "waste" of our time...

I am always fascinated by the worldview of all the nations joining their hands together in some Disney-like fashion and singing ‘It’s A Small World After All.‘

We live in a nation based on plurality that is something unique among the nations of the world. I’m not holding our country out as a sterling example that other nations should follow, just making that point.

It seems, in a world in which the nation state is primarily an outgrowth of tribalism, naive of people to think it operates on some other more eloquent value system.

If might doesn’t equal right, why aren’t the Honduras or Bangladesh at the forefront of the geopolitical stage?

In the meantime, if history has confirmed one thing to me over the last century or so it is that people will focus more on their differences than on their similarities - whether it is based around shared ethnic origins, allegiance to a flag, religion or even political affiliation.

There is something of smugness in this, an air of superiority based around the identification of belonging to one group being better than the people belonging to another group. Think that’s not the case? Quick, how fast can you identify yourself as either Republican or Democrat and then what are your thoughts about the opposing party?

Time in Iraq has not been as wasted as it would appear nor anywhere near as successful as was dreamed. As many Americans as have dies in Iraq, the death toll among Iraqis is vastly larger. Perhaps the one thing that is the most disheartening about the whole affair, more than the issue of whether or not it was right to send troops there to being with, is the feeling of a failed foreign policy or a rudderless ship of state drifting in a sea of failed initiatives and half hearted stratagems.

The decisions of the current administration will be felt long after GW is gone from office - not just in the Middle East either but here at home in the veterans who return from the conflict, wounded men and women who will carry the scars from this event with them for the rest of their lives, deepening debt created by a prolonged U.S. presence in Iraq without a clear cut and legitimate plan for the future. This debt that will not only affect us today (in programs which will fail to be funded) but, in the future as well (if the comments of Chairman Bernanke can be taken to heart).

Wasted? No, I wouldn’t call it that. Squandered seems a better word.

Sean,

Since you tossed your question out to the peanut gallery, I vote for individuals, not political parties.

There's a line in Gilbert and Sullivan's HMS Pinafore that comes to mind when I think of people who vote on a straight party ticket- for any party: "I always voted at my party's call, and I never thought of thinking for myself at all."

Though I'm sure the party bosses would encourage such a mindset.

Rick

Posted by: mister_pj at March 21, 2007 01:00 PM

It seems, in a world in which the nation state is primarily an outgrowth of tribalism, naive of people to think it operates on some other more eloquent value system.

At one time, slavery was a widely accepted practice throughout the world. Today, the opposite is true: slavery has been outlawed in most nations and is recognized as a societal evil.

At one time, ridding the earth of "lesser" races and/or ethnicities was par for the course. Today we call it "genocide" and while we are not as good at stopping it as we should be, at least there is growing recognition that it is a morally unacceptable practice.

At one time, people were burned at the stake in this nation because they were deemed "witches." Today, the wiccan belief system is considered protected under the U.S. Constitution.

At one time, whites could hang blacks with impunity. A few years ago some white men chained a black man to a pickup truck and dragged him to his death in Jasper, TX. The nation was outraged and three white men were tried and swiftly convicted of the crime.

My point? Things can and do change. This is a kinder, gentler world than it once was. It is not naive to believe that we can, little by little, make things better. It is in fact courageous to believe that... and necessary. The changes I mentioned above did not happen by accident. Had brave men and women not chosen to believe, and act on their beliefs, those changes wouldn't have happened.

We have a moral obligation to believe in, and strive for, the possibility that the world can be better tomorrow than it is today.

Oh, and before someone points out how UNkind and NOT gentle the world still is... yeah, I get that. It's a difference of degree. Just because we still have problems doesn't mean we haven't made progress. The only way to solve today's problems, however, is to acknowledge and build on the progress we've already made.

if this "cold" lasts longer than a week go to the doctor and get some antibiotics

I'm not big on the whole "well, just get some antibiotics" stuff, seeing as how over prescribed antibiotics tend to be these days.

However, my wife and I fear that we may have been exposed to whopping cough last week, so we start to show cold symptoms in the next couple of weeks, I'll be making an appointment ASAP. :P

Posted by: Craig J. Ries at March 21, 2007 02:08 PM

I'm not big on the whole "well, just get some antibiotics" stuff, seeing as how over prescribed antibiotics tend to be these days.

I agree. But after having this cold more than a week, and finding myself barely able to make it home from work Monday night because I was dizzy and unable to concentrate, and waking up Tuesday morning with a temp of 102, I thought maybe I should do something. So I went to the doc and got some antibiotics.

PAD, I promise this is the last post in which I whine about this cold. From here on in I'll stay on topic and just upset people with my crackpot political views.

While I agree with pretty much everything that Bill said above, I have to disagree with one thing. "We" don't have a moral obligation, nor do "we" have the ability to change the world.

I have the moral obligation. I have the ability to change the world.

Each one of us can say this about ourselves. We can say it TO ourselves. It ain't easy to change, but once you start, it gets easier. If the world is to be changed, and the process has already begun, in must begin inside each one of us. The power of the individual will always be greater than the power of the group, but when the volume of the group is louder than the thought of the individual, the individual's identity can be absorbed in the group. Someone spoke before about the protester in Tianamen Square who stood before the tank. It was ludicrous. The tank could've squished the guy like a bug.

But the message got across.

I am no fan of McCain. I would vote for him over most Democrats, but only if I had no other alternative. His comments, I felt, were more about how the war was conducted. To apologize shows a lack of willingness to say what he means and mean what he says. But he is a politician, so what was I thinking.

Out of curiousity, what current Democrats would you vote for ahead of McCain, and of the crop you wouldn't vote for, what current Republicans would oblige you to vote for those Dems you would intially reject?

SHIT, CARTMAN used the "N" word 40 times and no-one bats an eye

But, do you really want Cartman as leader of the free world?

I'm not big on voting along party lines. In the past, I have voted for candidates representing the full spectrum: Democrat, Republican, Green, Libertarian, etc. Generally, I vote for whomever seems like the best qualified candidate for the job.

That said, it will be a long time before I vote for a Republican. After foisting this incompetent dolt on the country, the GOP needs to be punished and punished hard. It's the only way they'll learn. That doesn't mean I'll automatically vote for a democrat. If they do something equally stupid, like nominate Chillary, I'll have to pick a third party candidate. Or maybe I'll just do what I've done when my congressman has run unopposed: Write in my own name.

Tillman's college roommate Staat deploying to Iraq
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2806485

From the article:
"The way I look at it, we're spreading freedom, and you have to support the troops and you have to support the war," Staat, 29, told KITV in Honolulu on Tuesday as he prepared to leave from Hawaii. "You can't just tell some Marine who just lost his buddy that we supported you but not the war, because in that case you're basically saying that Marine, his buddy, just died for nothing. We're one team."

And you know what? Our soldiers are dying for nothing. So, I can't agree with Jeremy Staat.

Pat Tillman, based on what has happened in Afghanistan in the last several years, died for nothing.

Our troops are being wasted. I don't want my brother's life to be wasted. It's time to stop this stupidity and get the hell out of Iraq.

And it's also time to end this bs that we can't support the troops without supporting a bs war.

"But, do you really want Cartman as leader of the free world?"

That did seem bad... until I thought about it and realized - God, that's not THAT different from what we have now....

"But, do you really want Cartman as leader of the free world?"

Den, u really shouldn't set people up with straight lines like that.... suprised PAD hasn't jumped all over THAT one...

"But, do you really want Cartman as leader of the free world?"

Den, u really shouldn't set people up with straight lines like that.... suprised PAD hasn't jumped all over THAT one..."

Too easy. Like shooting fish in a barrel.

PAD

I figured if PAD didn't take the bait, someone would. Glad to see Luke didn't disappoint.

Posted by: mister_pj at March 21, 2007 01:00 PM

"I am always fascinated by the worldview of all the nations joining their hands together in some Disney-like fashion and singing ‘It’s A Small World After All.'"

No one here is saying that at all. I don't expect that to ever happen. On the other hand, why go out of your way to tick off other countries and other world leaders. Why be a Bush and snub the people you need or will need just because you want to show what a dim bulb twit you are.

The more I think about it, the more I'm convinced our foreign policy has been taken over by Frank Burns.

There doesn't seem to be any appreciation that sometimes, we might need cooperation from some of those "ferreners" out thar.

Out of curiousity, what current Democrats would you vote for ahead of McCain, and of the crop you wouldn't vote for, what current Republicans would oblige you to vote for those Dems you would intially reject?

I personally would have pledged my support to Al Gore if today, when he said to congress that "Our planet has a fever" he had immediately added "and the only prescription is: More Cow-Bell!"

Posted by Den at March 21, 2007 03:03 PM -

"But, do you really want Cartman as leader of the free world?"

Him or Sylvester, either one has to be better George "Elmer Fudd" Bush.

Posted by: mister_pj at March 21, 2007 01:00 PM

"I am always fascinated by the worldview of all the nations joining their hands together in some Disney-like fashion and singing ‘It’s A Small World After All.'"

I am always fascinated by the current administration's unwillingness to listen to any other nation regarding Iraq, and yet, in the same breath, demand that the rest of the world fall in line.

At risk of coming across a tad naive, I see nothing wrong with the " It's a Small World After All" fantasy (except for the song...dear Goddess make it stop!!!). Even if the fantasy can't be achieved, we gotta do better than we are now.

• At one time, slavery was a widely accepted practice throughout the world. Today, the opposite is true: slavery has been outlawed in most nations and is recognized as a societal evil.
• At one time, ridding the earth of "lesser" races and/or ethnicities was par for the course. Today we call it "genocide" and while we are not as good at stopping it as we should be, at least there is growing recognition that it is a morally unacceptable practice.
• At one time, people were burned at the stake in this nation because they were deemed "witches." Today, the wiccan belief system is considered protected under the U.S. Constitution.
• At one time, whites could hang blacks with impunity. A few years ago some white men chained a black man to a pickup truck and dragged him to his death in Jasper, TX. The nation was outraged and three white men were tried and swiftly convicted of the crime.

My point? Things can and do change. This is a kinder, gentler world than it once was. It is not naive to believe that we can, little by little, make things better. It is in fact courageous to believe that... and necessary. The changes I mentioned above did not happen by accident. Had brave men and women not chosen to believe, and act on their beliefs, those changes wouldn't have happened.

We have a moral obligation to believe in, and strive for, the possibility that the world can be better tomorrow than it is today.

The Greeks and Romans were devoted to their states and, in keeping slaves, were not resolved to be cowards or immoral. Witches were burned to save the community from mishief, and their persecutors were not resolve to be cowards or immoral. Racists are progressives in that they are social darwinists, and are also not resolved to be cowards or immoral.

The implication that anyone is resolved to do the wrong thing is a moral strawman. As the monkey believes it's doing the fish a favor by putting it in a tree, those with the resolve to be moral are no more likely to be just than anyone else. Fundamentalism is an obvious example. As Confucius said, the goody-goodies are the thieves of virtue.

And, as in Sin City, the most heinous evil are committed by the guilty who portray themselves as the clean.

Anyone who's viewed any of James Burke's documentaries knows it's open access to ideas -- in the form of the printing -- that contributed most to the progress and egalitarianism we enjoy today... and Gutenberg was simply looking for a way to pay off some gambling debts.

The resolve to be moral and the romanticization of courage isn't the solution, it's the foundation of our woe.

One question: Does it really have to be one extreme or another? Are our only options the obnoxious swagger that pisses off even our best allies or the "It's a Small World" option? Besides Bush and his cohort, does anyone really believe that we can't be both strong before our enemies and diplomatic towards our potential friends?

I think this quote below. Whoever can tell me who said and when wins a cookie.

"It really depends upon how our nation conducts itself in foreign policy. If we're an arrogant nation, they'll resent us. If we're a humble nation but strong, they'll welcome us. And our nation stands alone right now in the world in terms of power, and that's why we've got to be humble and yet project strength in a way that promotes freedom. We're a freedom-loving nation. And if we're an arrogant nation, they'll view us that way, but if we're a humble nation, they'll respect us."

Posted by: Den at March 21, 2007 10:08 PM

I think this quote below. Whoever can tell me who said and when wins a cookie.

"It really depends upon how our nation conducts itself in foreign policy. If we're an arrogant nation, they'll resent us. If we're a humble nation but strong, they'll welcome us. And our nation stands alone right now in the world in terms of power, and that's why we've got to be humble and yet project strength in a way that promotes freedom. We're a freedom-loving nation. And if we're an arrogant nation, they'll view us that way, but if we're a humble nation, they'll respect us."

Oh!Oh!Oh! I know! It was...uhm...wait...GEORGE W. BUSH!!!!!

Double stuff Oreos, please.

Posted by: mister_pj at March 21, 2007 01:00 PM

"I am always fascinated by the worldview of all the nations joining their hands together in some Disney-like fashion and singing ‘It’s A Small World After All.‘

We live in a nation based on plurality that is something unique among the nations of the world. I’m not holding our country out as a sterling example that other nations should follow, just making that point.

It seems, in a world in which the nation state is primarily an outgrowth of tribalism, naive of people to think it operates on some other more eloquent value system.

In the meantime, if history has confirmed one thing to me over the last century or so it is that people will focus more on their differences than on their similarities - whether it is based around shared ethnic origins, allegiance to a flag, religion or even political affiliation."

I noticed that most people responding to this post thought of it as a continuation of Mr. Preston's 'who care's what the world thinks" attitude. I don't think that was the point.

But I do want to respond to it.

1) The US is certainly not free of tribalism, both internally and externally. Although it is not a nation-state in the sense of European nation that are founded on supposedly ancient nationalities, there is stil an American nation with definable characteristics that are different than othe identities, and that Americans are expected to have or adopt.

2) And you know what, there's nothing wrong with tribalism. I'm not even saying only that it is part of human nature, although that is certainly true, I'm saying it's not necessarily bad. People have many group identities simultanously -- Country, ethnic group, religious group, city, political group, social group, socio-economic grroup, sexual orientation, hobbies, family, etc.. And there's nothing wrong about feeling a connection to these groups, feeling a sense of camaradarie, feeling pride in your identity. There's also nothing wrong for a certain group to work together or want to spend time together. The problems start when groups start feeling that the group's sense of self is turned against another group violently. But why does it happen?

3) It happens when people fear that one of the identities is threatened. A Shia Iraqi and a Sunni Iraqi can live next to each other in peace (although I'm not saying they have). The religious identities might be relatively unimportant for them of the multitude of their identities. But if the Shia or the Sunni or both feel that their religous group is threatened or disregarded, that identity becomes more and more important to them as the sense of threat increases. But why is there a threat.

4) First off, it should be noted that the threat is sometimes but not always real. It occurs because of ideologies that seek to exclude identities. I'm not talking about siuation like when a racist white who wants to exclude blacks. No, I'm talking about white supremacists wanting whites to exclude every other identity but their whiteness, to the exclusion of other identities, like their humanity. In Iraq there are several identities and to each one there is somebody seeking to make it exclusive and turn it against others: You have islam -- radical Islamism, Shia sect -- Shiite political groups, Arab -- Pan-Arabism, local Iraqi -- Iraqi nationalism, and then also city, tribe, etc.

5) Some people come and say, why not everybody adopt some other overarching identity -- Iraqi, in the case of Iraq. But if you cross the line from offering it as another identity to the point of presenting it as an exclusive identity, all you are doing is threatening people's other identities and creating another oppressive ideology. The US is better in that sense because -- some of the time -- it accepts that people can be Irish-American, African-American, Arab-American, and so on. In Europe people started getting nervous that immigrants, mostly Muslim, will undermine the Frenchness, Britishness, Dutchness of their nation-states. How they reacted, by starting to attack an external symbol of the Muslim identity, the female head scarf, which more Muslims started wearing because they feared their Islamic identity is threatened.

So what I'm saying is that people have to learn to live with their own and others multiple identities in a kind of mutual respect.

Liberals and conservatives can argue and disagree on this blog. But when someone -- let's call him Robert -- comes and start talking about YOU (liberals) in a disrespectful way, and presents his political identity as absolute, then liberals rise to defend their identity and a conflict ensues.

Posted by Rick Keating

There's a line in Gilbert and Sullivan's HMS Pinafore that comes to mind when I think of people who vote on a straight party ticket- for any party: "I always voted at my party's call, and I never thought of thinking for myself at all."

I'm not sure if i've told this story here before, but it fits so well after that, that i can't resist:

My Dad was on the Vestry at our church (a then) small Episcopal parish in the wilds of South Carolina, a place (and a time) where it wasn't that uncommon for some people to ask "Is that Christian?" if you said you went to an Episcopal church.

One of the other Vestry members (with whom my Dad got along very well) was a retired Marine Colonel (his wife was a retired Marine major) and a bit, shall we say, conservative.

One day they were talking about something, and politics came up, and theColonel asked Dad "Have you ever voted for anyone for President that wasn't a Democrat?", and Dad said, yeah, he just couldn't vote for McGovern.

The Colonel, rather surprised, said "So you voted for Nixon?" and Dad said "Nah, I voted for Gus Hall."

Posted by Craig J. Ries

Pat Tillman, based on what has happened in Afghanistan in the last several years, died for nothing.

Pat Tillman, based on how he died and the military's refusal to learn a lesson and the Army's attempts to cover it up and make it a Heroic Last Stand, instead of "friendly fire" from poorly trained, panicked troops, died for less than nothing.

Posted by Craig J. Ries

"Pat Tillman, based on what has happened in Afghanistan in the last several years, died for nothing."

Pat Tillman died for two things

1) On a personal level, his love of country and how he chose to show it.

2) On a political level, as a rallying cry. "Pat tillman gave up an NFL career to protect freedom and died in a blaze of glory. Hollywood version to follow."

3) On a cultural level, either as a Sainted Hero of the War and Martyr to the Cause, or as a Victim of National Hubris.

Discuss among yourselves.

Before you all jump, I know, it's three things, I gotta get to work. I'm hanging my head. So sorry.

Pat Tillman died because he waved to Americans, and they shot him.

The army knew it, yet didn't tell his family until after the 2004 election.

Discuss.

Pat Tillman's death is proof that there's no tragedy that this administration won't exploit, even lie about, if it can give them some political advantage.

Of course, we knew that after watching them shamelessly exploit 9/11 at the 2004 Republican National Convention.

Dear PAD,
In my humble opinion, the actor Robert Preston's best line was "There's nothing more inconvenient than an old queen with a head cold." Victor/Victoria remains one of my very favorite films. Also, Sunset by Blake Edwards. Make of that what you will.
As you are the overseer of this website, and thus responsible for all it's postings, I will try to keep the discourse civil. Have I at any time called anyone "Jimmy", or “Mikey” or “Billy” or “Moonbeam”? No. Believe me, Mr. Meyers, Mr. Chandler, Mr. Mulligan and the rest will have to do better than that. I’m married, nothing scares me anymore. She Who Must Be Obeyed, won’t let me be afraid of anything else. That’s why I love her.
As I have said, I'm new to this form of communication, and still fine it somewhat unconventional, but I have read your site for a couple of years now (decades, by Marvel time.) and only recently felt the need to address certain issues that you keep bringing up. If my recent postings to your site were unwelcome by you, let me know. I’ll make sure to “never darken our (your)towels again.”
As a parting conversational shot, because I’m not sure that anything prior should be answered, what do you think is the most important sentence ever written?
That could open a can of worms.

Yours truly,

Robert T. Preston

"Wash your hands before handling food."

Robert, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt here. I'm going to assume that you don't mean to be a prick.

It is infantile in the extreme to complain about my choice to refer to you as "Bobby" after you insulted the patriotism and character of everyone who participates in this blog. If you can't see how or why that would be insulting to people, you really should spend some time in introspection before posting again.

If you are really sincere about wanting to share ideas and not cause trouble, the first thing you should do is apologize to everyone for making unwarranted assumptions about them. The next thing you should do is stop making such assumptions. Recognize how much there is that you don't know... that you canNOT know... about the people who post here. Treat people like individuals, regardless of their ideology. Look past your prejudices and bigotries (and I'm sorry, but you have a LOT of them).

Show some humility. Stop "puffing out your chest" and trying to look tough. Real "toughness" comes not from insulting people as you have done, but from having the strength of chracter to recongize that just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they're a bad person.

If you choose instead to keep posting the way you have been, then I will permanently "shroud" you and encourage others to do the same. In case you're unfamiliar with the term, it basically means "ignore."

I've only had to consign two other people to my personal "ignore list" in all the time I've been posting here. It takes a lot to turn me off to someone so completely that I will not respond to them in any way, shape, nor form. Basically, you have to be really, really, reeeallllyyy obnoxious, while adding nothing of value to the conversation.

Which, I'm sorry to say, describes you to a "tee" thus far. If you have more to offer, offer it. You might be surprised at how rewarding it will be for you.

It should also be added, Mr. Preston, that PAD is very open about what you are allowed to post in this blog, with only a few reservations I'm aware of. So you are certainly entitled to continue writing the same way you have so far. But this does not obligate anybody, certainly not PAD himself, to read your posts or to engage you in serious or not serious conversation if they do not find such conversation worthwhile. So, you are free to write to your heart's content, but there's no guaentee that you'll be welcome. That depends on PAD and on any other individual reader's point of view.

I'd like to offer some additional thoughts vis-a-vis morality and societal change.

It is true that those who would oppress others and those who would combat that oppression both claim for themselves the mantle of morality and courage. So, morality and courage must be a fiction, correct?

Nope.

"Ideas" cannot change the world on their own. Ideas are abstractions until they are made real by our actions. Progress is made by progressive individuals who have the courage and moral fiber to stand up against a majority that seeks to jealously guard the status quo, often violently.

It is absurd and just plain silly to think that Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and his followers didn't need courage to stand up to the white majority in this country, to cite a relatively recent example of progressives who effected positive change. It is absurd to think that morality had nothing to do with it.

How, then, can we distinguish between those who would oppress in the name of morality... and those who would fight oppression in the name of that same concept?

The rational part of the human brain -- the cortex -- sits on top of a more primitive part of the brain often referred to as "the serprent brain." The serpent brain is instinctual -- and powerful. The rational mind will bow to our baser instincts unless we consciously choose to do otherwise. That's why throughout human history many ideologies, philosophies, and religions have merely been the codification and rationalization of our baser instincts.

The concept of morality has evolved over time, as human beings have come to distinguish between what we want on an instinctual level... and what is truly right. It takes courage to fight that battle within... and then take that battle to the outside world.

Bill, people have been debating morality for millenia. It's difficult. But you are correct, moral relativism is not the answer, it's a cop-out. This is not the way humans work.

Morality is a choice, an act of judgement, people make it all the time. Althogh a racist and a a civil rights activist might both claim to be moral, it is our ability to meaningfully participate and make our own choice in this debate -- that it is not meaningless and empty for us -- which makes us human. In other words, morality is not a fiction but a fact of human existence. And althogh we do not always agree about morality, it is mutually intelligible to us. We can understand each other's moral statements.

Martin Luther King was able to convey and convince America that segrgation was immoral, and to get that point accross because peoole understood what he was saying.

Micha, I would also argue that while issues of morality have indeed been debated for millennia with few, if any, easy answers having been arrived at, we are closer to coming to a consensus in many areas than we were before. Hence my examples of changing societal attitudes towards slavery and genocide, once widely accepted practices that are now largely considered immoral.

I think there are some issues of morality where we can't... and perhaps shouldn't... ever be able to come to a universal agreement. But some issues are big enough that I believe eventually... with enough courage and moral fiber... we can recognize what is right and act on it.

How, then, can we distinguish between those who would oppress in the name of morality... and those who would fight oppression in the name of that same concept?

If you're going to ask this question publicly: the only virtue of hypocrisy is to shelter a predatory agenda. It seems unmatched in that regard.

The rational mind will bow to our baser instincts unless we consciously choose to do otherwise.

If this were true, we could will ourselves to never sleep again, never eat or drink again, never empty our bladder or our bowels.

"The rational mind will bow to our baser instincts unless we consciously choose to do otherwise.
If this were true, we could will ourselves to never sleep again, never eat or drink again, never empty our bladder or our bowels."

The examples you list are not baser instincts, they are necessary functions of the human body. Instincts are behavior or emotional responses.

""The rational mind will bow to our baser instincts unless we consciously choose to do otherwise.
If this were true, we could will ourselves to never sleep again, never eat or drink again, never empty our bladder or our bowels."

The examples you list are not baser instincts, they are necessary functions of the human body. Instincts are behavior or emotional responses."

And anyway, humans don't satisy bodily needs like that whenever they feel them. They often delay their fullfilment because of considerations of the rational mind. People diet or fast for religious or medical or social reasons, doctors continue working for hours after their bodies need sleep, and people hold their bladder until they can get to a bathroom for obvious social reasons.

...never dance or play music again, never have sex for pleasure or masturbate again, never kiss again, never laugh again...

instinct, n.

1. a natural or inherent aptitude, impulse, or capacity <had an instinct for the right word>
2. a : a largely inheritable and unalterable tendency of an organism to make a complex and specific response to environmental stimuli without involving reason b : behavior that is mediated by reactions below the conscious level

The definition instinct does not exclude necessary functions.

Citing the practicality of hunger and fatigue does not make them any less instincts. If anything, you confirm what I say.

And anyway, humans don't satisy bodily needs like that whenever they feel them.

As far as any indulgence is "bowing," taking the quote I cited literally means having the option to abstain indefinitely.

"Posted by: Micha at March 22, 2007 07:55 PM
Posted by: Mike at March 22, 2007 08:14 PM "

DO you 2 think that you might be getting "drives" (Drive reduction theory) confused with instincts?

As far as my posts make sense as they stand -- not me.

Posted by: Megan at March 22, 2007 08:25 PM

"DO you 2 think that you might be getting "drives" (Drive reduction theory) confused with instincts?"

Megan, I wasn't really thinking about any specific definition, just responding to the post. When Bill Myers was talking about baser instincts I assume he wasn't talking about hunger, need of sleep etc. His intention, I think, was closer to what Chadwick was talking about. Mike was reading it differently, and mentioned hunger, thirst etc. which caused me to point out that the rational mind also imposes restrained in these cases sometimes. (It is no surprise that mystics try to control them). Although, I don't think that was Bill's initial point.

Regretably I don't know enough about psychology to know about drive reduction theory. Sounds interesting.

Posted by: Mike at March 22, 2007 08:14 PM

"taking the quote I cited literally means having the option to abstain indefinitely."

How about instead of taking the quote literally you try to explain what Bill was trying to say and engage him in that level. It might be more rewarding for both of you.

Small but important correction:

How about instead of taking the quote literally you try to understand what Bill was trying to say and engage him on that level. It might be more rewarding for both of you.

How about instead of taking the quote literally you try to understand what Bill was trying to say and engage him on that level.

The two are not mutually exclusive.

Why don't you ask Bill to rephrase, instead of asking me to read his mind?

When Bill Myers was talking about baser instincts I assume he wasn't talking about hunger, need of sleep etc. His intention, I think, was closer to what Chadwick was talking about.

Chadwick offered no alternate interpretation of "baser instinct" incompatible with mine.

Every schoolkid in America is taught that an instinct is behavior that does not need to be taught. Newborns require no lessons in eating, sleeping, or filling their diapers -- what instinct is more base than these?

Posted by: Mike at March 22, 2007 10:29 PM

"Why don't you ask Bill to rephrase, instead of asking me to read his mind?"

I didn't find his words unclear. But if they are unclear to you and you feel a need for clarification, he might be willing to rephrase. He's a pretty nice guy that way. But then again, you're a pretty smart guy, so I doubt you actually didn't understand the point he was trying to make.

So exactly which ideologies, philosophies and religions are the codification and rationalization of the need to sleep, eat or drink, or empty the bladder or bowels, then?

Posted by: Doug Atkinson at March 22, 2007 10:40 PM

"So exactly which ideologies, philosophies and religions are the codification and rationalization of the need to sleep, eat or drink, or empty the bladder or bowels, then?"

I can give you three examples I know of off the top of my head.

In Orthodox Judaism people say a small prayers before eating, drinking, and emptying the bladder or bowels, and I think at waking up. And of course there are foods that are forbidden.

Some Christians pray before going to sleep.

In Western Christian monasteries (at least in the middle ages) there was a very specific codification of sleeping hours and the diet, with the purpose of denying bodily needs. Monks in the middle ages talked a lot about how the food tasted bad and how tired they were because of the hours spent praying.

I didn't find his words unclear.

As I took him at his word, neither did I.

So exactly which ideologies, philosophies and religions are the codification and rationalization of the need to sleep, eat or drink, or empty the bladder or bowels, then?

As sleeping, eating, drinking, and bladder and bowel movements are our most basic instincts, they require no codification or rationalization.

"instinct, n.

a natural or inherent aptitude, impulse, or capacity
a : a largely inheritable and unalterable tendency of an organism to make a complex and specific response to environmental stimuli without involving reason b : behavior that is mediated by reactions below the conscious level

The definition instinct does not exclude necessary functions."

The words RESPONSE and REACTION in that definition certainly does. How someting RESPONDS to a function is instinctual, the function itself is not. The functions are the environmental stimuli, not the instinct itself.

That is what I meant.

As sleeping, eating, drinking, and bladder and bowel movements are our most basic instincts, they require no codification or rationalization.

So you concede that if somebody referred to codifying or rationalizing something, then there'd be no reason to think they were referring to sleeping, eating, drinking, or emptying the bladder or bowels, then.

"Posted by: Bill Myers at March 22, 2007 03:27 PM
Micha, I would also argue that while issues of morality have indeed been debated for millennia with few, if any, easy answers having been arrived at, we are closer to coming to a consensus in many areas than we were before. Hence my examples of changing societal attitudes towards slavery and genocide, once widely accepted practices that are now large