I'MMA LET YOU FINISH
Tristan?
O_o
Oh oh oh.
-
I don't get his point. Is he serious or is this parody?
He was a Stanford Daily columnist as a freshman my junior or senior year, and consistently pissed me right the hell off.
Not for political reasons, he was just too fucking cutesy by half. Ended up dating a total knockout, of course (although there is evidence she may have had a thing for me)...
I don't get his point. Is he serious or is this parody?
He's snarky and clever and edgy!
He's really never entirely serious. Sometimes he actually is kinda funny, although he was consistently not so 15-16 years ago...
...um, shouldn't the military be gotten out of harm's way?
The "point of the spear" is going to get mighty damned dull if we keep hammering the military into the unyielding mess that is Iraq.
Fuckers like that make it easy to Malkin and her ilk to get on television and go unchallenged with her "Liberals are traitor" schtick.
The Army is trying to do its fucking job, that the fuckers in the White House sent them to do a despicable job is one of the hazards of being in the military.
L.A. Times writer defends incendiary Iraq column
24 Jan 2006 23:49:59 GMT
Source: Reuters
By Dan Whitcomb
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/...k/
N24212064.htm
LOS ANGELES, Jan 24 (Reuters) - A Los Angeles Times columnist who infuriated conservatives by writing that he does not support American troops fighting in Iraq -- and calling those who do "wusses" -- stood by the article on Tuesday.
Joel Stein said he has been "bombarded" by hate mail over the incendiary article -- which was headlined "Warriors and Wusses" and held that U.S. soldiers in Iraq were "ignoring their morality" -- but does not regret writing it and stands by the premise.
snip
"If I ever run into the a**hole, I'm going to knock his frickin' block off," one man wrote on the Little Green Footballs (www.littlegreenfootballs.com) Web site, one of nearly 500 people who had commented on the article by mid-afternoon.
Conservative columnist Michelle Malkin quickly nominated Stein as "one of the most loathsome people in America." The Irish Pennants (www.irishpennants.com) site slammed him as "slime" but gave credit for honesty, adding:
"At least he is straightforward slime."
etc.
----
What will we tell the chirren?
-
Which side is he working for? Is this a parody?
stein's serious and should be dropped into baghdad along with goldberg and malkin
Well I suspect there will be a new job opening at the LATimes.
Does Joel Stein want Ben Stein's money? Fuck him.
Maybe - just maybe - what he's saying is that we should be holding no parades for war.
Hard to argue with.
Honor the soldier, but not the war.
Nothing like this is ever clean or easy to debate.
I thought for sure it was a parody but I'm not so sure anymore.
fucke them all. fuck him. fuck boosh. fuck the islamists. fuck the neocons. fuck the conservatives. fuck the congress. gang of cowards, all of them. fuck 'em.
A parade would be farcical at this point. I'm no pacifist -- I'll fight fascism in my own country if I have to -- but Stein is right to say that what the returning troops need is HEALTH CARE and whatever else they need to readjust to civilian life. Not any goddamn parades.
I'd never read Stein until today, and his quippy, jokey style is smug and annoying. But his main point, which is that soldiers, at some point, bear responsibility for their actions, should not be dismissed out of hand.
I will make my stand atop too many arms, legs, and crying families (if they are not complicit in this- why did the troops authorize this war)
Maybe - just maybe - what he's saying is that we should be holding no parades for war.
Well, I think I get his point, but he seems to be attacking the victims here (soldiers) instead of the perp-traitors (BushCo) of the crime.
Heh. I hate he shares my name.
not a parody. too clever by half from someone who is too stupid by ten thousand.
I think there's evidence that I should punch him in the mouth. With a giant spork.
Shouldn't Cog be accusing Atrios of not supporting the troops about now?
I don't think many of our military guys signed up to be tools of imperialism. Stein is really screwed up.
Stein is a minor variation on "concern troll". He pretends to be an edgy leftie, but somehow conveniently says stupid things which underscore right-wing lies about us being "anti-troops" and so on.
Watch as he meteorically rises to be the token "leftist" on Hairballs or Hannity's Fat Face or Ann's Reich or any of the other 2006 conservative blab-fests
.
I think there's evidence that I should punch him in the mouth. With a giant spork.
Thers, Insolent Partisan (F)
Bring out the holy hand gr... er spork
Could anyone imagine the riots that would break out when the guys with the float in the parade show up with the Iraqi standing on the box with the electrodes on his balls ?
There will never be any parades for returning Iraqi vets because there will never be any victory there, despite the best efforts of our military. It's a no-win situation. We will pull out quietly, in about four years.
Watch as he meteorically rises to be the token "leftist" on Hairballs or Hannity's Fat Face or Ann's Reich or any of the other 2006 conservative blab-fests
Maybe he could get a regular column on Pajamas Media too...
But his main point, which is that soldiers, at some point, bear responsibility for their actions, should not be dismissed out of hand.
I agree, but politicians need to take responsibility for sending in troops. I think it is pretty much a given that when there is a war there will be war crimes. Soldiers need to be held responsible for breaking the law, but politicians should not send in soldiers unless it is of last resort.
Cog has been quiescent in his idiocy lately. Actually, it's been a very troll-light period.
The SOTU will bring 'em out.
Joel Stein sounds like he got paid by the president to write this. It's a funny mixture of what our trolls say: that the soldiers chose to be there and of what we might say: that the war is wrong, and then conflating the two arguments.
Of course, what the soldiers chose was to agree to defend this country. They didn't choose to attack Iraq.
Atrios, I wanted to tell you that around 5:15 - 25 tonight (not sure of the exact time, because I'm in Week 2 of the rental care, so the clock is suspect):
Anyway, Hannity compared the current war status to Normandy. Set off an alarm. since I read it earlier here, and it goes against what my U.S. History dictates...
Once and for all, nobody spat on the returning Vietnam Vets, either.
Cog has been quiescent in his idiocy lately. Actually, it's been a very troll-light period.
The SOTU will bring 'em out.
Or if it looks like the Dems will filibuster after all. Or if Rove gets indicted.
I'm actually kinda surprised that the story about the Katrina warning didn't bring them out in droves.
The SOTU will bring 'em out.
Thers, Insolent Partisan (F)
Alito'll get 'em going first.
There will never be any parades for returning Iraqi vets because there will never be any victory there, despite the best efforts of our military.
Is that any reason to deny them a parade?
Alito'll get 'em going first.
Either gloating or whining, depending on whether there's a filibuster.
Hannity compared the current war status to Normandy
So we're just starting the war?
Then where does THis fit in?
Andrew Krepinevich, a retired Army officer who wrote the report under a Pentagon contract, concluded that the Army cannot sustain the pace of troop deployments to Iraq long enough to break the back of the insurgency
Apparently the right refuses to read any reports the DoD requests.
"If I ever run into the a**hole,
which of course I won't because he's a well-known, well-paid columnist for a major daily and I'm a middle aged loser with a paper route who lives in a leaky Winnebago under my aging parents' carport in Bumfuck, Michigan
I'm going to knock his frickin' block off," one man wrote on the Little Green Footballs
My own personal opinion is that when the troops come home, every single Democrat should be there, en force, to welcome them with Democratic shirts on. Make a total farce out of the right's inevitable attempt to concoct "spit on the troops" urban legends about us. And then skewer the archetects who sent them there to kill and die without body armor so that America could be less safe.
which of course I won't because he's a well-known, well-paid columnist for a major daily and I'm a middle aged loser with a paper route who lives in a leaky Winnebago under my aging parents' carport in Bumfuck, Michigan
I was thinking Red Lobster line chef, actually...
Hannity compared the current war status to Normandy
Fuck that. If Normandy were like Iraq, we'd have been pinned on the beach for three solid years, going back and forth like shooting-gallery ducks.
Hannity compared the current war status to Normandy
Fuck that. If Normandy were like Iraq, we'd have been pinned on the beach for three solid years, going back and forth like shooting-gallery ducks.
>
What law? Whose law? That's always the excuse of the worst war criminals -- that they were following orders. Where is the line drawn, and who draws it, and what of those who don't?
I was thinking Red Lobster line chef, actually...
same diff
Joel Stein is one of many who deserves to be booted permanently from the pages of the LAT. He's not funny, but he certainly thinks he is.
Sorry - but I see his point. When I was a teenager in the sixties, there was a song called Universal Soldier - I think it was sung by both Donovan and Buffy Saint-Marie - which made a similar point. It ended with the lines, "He's the Universal Soldier, and he really is to blame. His orders come from far away no more. They come from here and there and you and me, and brothers, can't you see, this is not the way we put an end to war." His point, and mine, is that if you join the U.S. military, there's a damned good chance you'll be committing war crimes.
Phew! I *saw* Rita, but I managed to get the TV off before I actually *heard* Rita.
*shudder*
I'm actually kinda surprised that the story about the Katrina warning didn't bring them out in droves. -Eli
Apparently not everyone knows how to drove.
"Is that any reason to deny them a parade?"
Not really, but their return will be quiet and gradual, as with usual rotations. If there's a parade, it won't be the troops' choice. Those things are staged and planned, not spontaneous. Plus, there's no moral authority for a parade...they didn't save us from destruction, but just got played for fools by an incompetent government. Besides, the military will be engaged in homeland insurgency operations against citizens fighting for their Contitutional freedoms...if things keep going as planned for these fascists.
Stein is a minor variation on "concern troll".
I think I found the perfect description of fuckface...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Int...net_sock_puppet
Another type of sock puppet is sometimes referred to as a “straw man sock puppet.” They are created by users with one point of view, but act as though they have an opposing point of view, in order to make that point of view look bad. They will often make poor arguments which their “opponents” can then easily refute. This can allow them to essentially make straw man arguments. Such sock puppets thus become a personification of the straw man argument which their creators argue against. They often act unintelligent or uninformed, and may behave in an overtly bigoted manner. The effect is often to obfuscate the debate and prevent a serious discussion of the arguments from each side. Suspicion of such sock puppets is often harder to verify though, as there are often people who naturally behave in such a manner with the same effects.
His point, and mine, is that if you join the U.S. military, there's a damned good chance you'll be committing war crimes.
I'm pretty sure that's not in the brochure, although I suspect there is a twisted fraction of enlistees who are *counting* on it.
have skunk ~
I like your comments.
Well, I think I get his point, but he seems to be attacking the victims here (soldiers) instead of the perp-traitors (BushCo) of the crime.
Isolde
Isolde - fully agreed. We never seem to punish the fucking perpetrators.
I don't think many of our military guys signed up to be tools of imperialism.
Caddo
None of them did, Caddo, IMHO.
There will never be any parades for returning Iraqi vets because there will never be any victory there, despite the best efforts of our military. It's a no-win situation. We will pull out quietly, in about four years.
have skunk
I agree here, as well.|I just wish we could have a real parade to honor what these people have gone through in our name, whether we wanted them to or not.
Not the torturing, the hatred of ragheads - but just the understanding that they did the best they could, and that fucking few of us in the same spot would have done much better, no matter how we try to believe that we would. Those who have done The Right Thing have paid heavily.
These men and women have precious little support, either from their fucking gov't or the public.
I don';t give a fat rat's ass why they joined up. They went to fucking War, dears.
That they were sent there by amoral fuckheads is beside the fucking point.
They deserve our respect, at the very least.
IMHO.
Apparently not everyone knows how to drove.
Maybe they were droving on the wrong side?
i don't think they need a parade atrios, they need a job and health care and good schools and welcoming communities (none of which will be there for most of them)
Ummm, guys, Stein wrote snarky columns for TIME for several years before moving on. I don't think this is a particularly funny piece -- and it's hard to figure what led him to write this at this particular point -- but he's primarily been a humor writer.
Gilliard says it better than Atrios.
Phew! I *saw* Rita, but I managed to get the TV off before I actually *heard* Rita.
She was able to get one word out before I could get the remote lined up to change the channel.
"going back and forth like shooting-gallery ducks." that's what we are already....hugely expensive, Halliburton-contracted, moving targets.
Maybe they were droving on the wrong side?
Of the boreen?
Well, I think I get his point, but he seems to be attacking the victims here (soldiers) instead of the perp-traitors (BushCo) of the crime.
Isolde
Isolde - fully agreed. We never seem to punish the fucking perpetrators.
I don't think many of our military guys signed up to be tools of imperialism.
Caddo
None of them did, Caddo, IMHO.
There will never be any parades for returning Iraqi vets because there will never be any victory there, despite the best efforts of our military. It's a no-win situation. We will pull out quietly, in about four years.
have skunk
I agree here, as well. I just wish we could have a real parade to honor what these people have gone through in our name, whether we wanted them to or not.
Not the torturing, the hatred of ragheads - but just the understanding that they did the best they could, and that fucking few of us in the same spot would have done much better, no matter how we try to believe that we would. Those who have done The Right Thing have paid heavily.
These men and women have precious little support, either from their fucking gov't or the public.
I don';t give a fat rat's ass why they joined up. They went to fucking War, dears.
That they were sent there by amoral fuckheads is beside the fucking point.
They deserve our respect, at the very least.
IMHO.
Hi, I'm a well known liberal lefty, and I have been appointed by the Head Liberal to speak for all of the other liberals. So, what I want to say is that the military sucks, and I'd be glad to say that live on Bill O'Reilly while picking my nose, making rude comments about Laura Bush, and defending Charles Manson.
(Mr. Rove: please send my check to the same P.O. Box number I gave you when we had lunch together last week.)
Of the boreen?
Thers,
The bodhran, my eyes willnevah b the same.
From his Bio link..
Joel Stein is desperate for attention
After teaching a class in humor writing at Princeton..
Is that supposed to be funny?
What a weasel.
Mr. Rove
Aha! Koth is Mike Allen!
-
darrellplant--he should give up humor writing. Funny, he isn't.
thanks, viki. Peace and courage.
I should have totally made a play for that hot chick, just so Joel Stein couldn't have her...
Let them eat shrapnel
has joel stein been to Walter Reed to voice his displeasure?
.
I don't even have much stomach for sending the troops at Abu Ghraib to jail, honestly, though they should probably go. This is war. This is what Bush wanted. This is what our interrogators were supposed to become.
I honestly believe most of the people there believe they are doing good, and are just doing what they believe their jobs to be (I know enough soldiers who have been there to believe that). I also think a lot of good people have done some pretty horrible things, as is inevitable in war. Which is why the decision to go to war should never be made a lightly as the draft dodgers in charge have made it.
Seeing average American teenagers become the people in the Abu Ghraib photos makes me sad. Seeing the chickenhawks who got hardons dreaming about making this shit happen makes me angry. They're the ones I want to see hang.
Joel Stein sounds like he got paid by the president to write this. It's a funny mixture of what our trolls say: that the soldiers chose to be there and of what we might say: that the war is wrong, and then conflating the two arguments.
he comes off as a real peevish schmuck but unfortunately there's an underlying truth to what he is saying, which is that the rank n file needs to wake the fuck up, understand what is happening in america right now, realize they're being exploited. or a good heart red white and blue parade i guess.
"But his main point, which is that soldiers, at some point, bear responsibility for their actions, should not be dismissed out of hand."
I agree, but with a very strong caveat. To what Isolde said above, I'd add that blaming soldiers for being violent is mostly bullshit. A prime example is that Lyndie England woman. Republicans could all go back to sleep once they had pinned the 'ickiness' on her. But the truth is much more complicated.
When you decide to go to war, you are, quite literally letting-slip the war dogs. Soldiers are trained trained to kill and fight and kill again.
War is the Superbowl of violence, and the US Army is the dream team. This sweet idea that we can fight a "clean" war is utter bullcrap. Of course soldiers must do their best to keep it on the battlefield. But it never works out that way, and it never will. You are probably familiar with Zimbardi's Prisoner/Guard experiments. We need to remember theat they were randomly selected volunteers. Just likle you and me and Lyndie England. The circumstances they were placed in brought about the changes in them. Human nature is like that.
The republicans wanted war. They drooled for it. And when it came, in all its attendant horror, they salved their consciences by imprisoning Lyndie England. I'm not saying she is innocent, but I'm saying that they are way more guilty than her. They sent her to a needless war, knowing that such attrocities would occur, but they sent her anyway.
.
Hate to hit and run, but I'm running on fumes right now.
G'night all.
...this is Dubya's "legacy": Phyrric victories and civil war at home.
Is that supposed to be funny?
What a weasel.
Central Scrutinizer
It's the Forrest Gump version. "I teach a clas of humor (?) so I know what I do.."
The real purpose of those ribbons is to ease some of the guilt we feel for voting to send them to war and then making absolutely no sacrifices other than enduring two Wolf Blitzer shows a day. Though there should be a ribbon for that.
well i agree with that. otherwise a complete canard.
it's not about whether you support the troops, they've not got a choice. and it doesn't much matter what they think either. the question to my mind is are they being effectively utilized? obvioulsy not.
we are gonna pay for invading iraq. financially, psychically, and spiritually. the price will be steep and most likely involve another attack on the US. afghanistan was another matter, and no one even talks about that. i do not support this president.
Of the boreen?
Thers,
The bodhran, my eyes willnevah b the same.
Vicki, uh, not the cow-road. Love, this is yours from the meadows, Kitty Stobling:
No, no, no, I know I was not important as I moved
Through the colourful country, I was but a single
Item in the picture, the name, not the beloved.
O tedious man with whom no gods commingle.
Beauty, who has described beauty? Once upon a time
I had a myth that was a lie but it served:
Trees walking across the crest of hills and my rhyme
Cavorting on mile-high stilts and the unnerved
Crowds looking up with terror in their rational faces.
O dance with Kitty Stobling I outrageously
Cried out-of-sense to them, while their timorous paces
Stumbled behind Jove's page boy paging me.
I had a very pleasant journey, thank you sincerely
For giving me my madness back, or nearly.
-Patrick Kavanagh
They deserve our respect, at the very least.
and many of them really do earn it. The kid I send socks and care packages to is, along with only 3 (I think) other 2nd LTs, and about 40 troops, patrolling an area that's roughly the size of Rahleigh, NC.
Am I the only one who is getting tired of yelling "WITHOUT A WARRANT" everytime the so-called Liberal Media mentions "domestic spying on terrorist suspects"?
You'd a thunk that they would get the point that the controversy is not necessarily the spying (assuming for the moment, naively, teat the spying is limited to those who are in communication with genuine al Qaeda suspects) but its the BREAKING THE FUCKING LAW that gets some people upset.
Sheesh.
Heh I said "teat" heh heh heh
"There will never be any parades for returning Iraqi vets because there will never be any victory there, despite the best efforts of our military. It's a no-win situation. We will pull out quietly, in about four years.
have skunk"
Well, there's that, and the never-discussed fact that everyone -knows- we're not fighting "for our freedom." We're harassing an unpopular country, and possibly just stirring up a hornet's nest, but everyone knows we're not fighting an enemy that can conquer anyone, let alone the U.S.
No, no, Old Man, we liberals won't tolerate any government spying at all, under any circumstances. Didn't you get the memo from our lord & master, Michael Moore?
I heard a quote over the weekend from Thomas Merton that I really agree with.
"I'm on the side of the people being burned."
And that's my position. I don't support the troops. I don't support the president. I don't support the Iraqi resistence.
I support the people being burned.
Let's have a parade to mourn the 100,000 Iraqis we've killed.
I'm a bit confused here. We all have been spending the last three years saying how ridiculous, perhpas immoral this war is, and now we're absolving the members of an all-volunteer army? Somehow I think we're all being a little too PC by half in this.
Well, there's that, and the never-discussed fact that everyone -knows- we're not fighting "for our freedom."
Quite the opposite, in fact. We're fighting for freedom over there so we can fight against it over here.
Is it easy for an emergency room to diagnose whether a stroke is a blockage or hemmorrage with a CT scan?
I can see by the tenor of this thread that I'm better off in bed.
♥
We all have been spending the last three years saying how ridiculous, perhpas immoral this war is, and now we're absolving the members of an all-volunteer army?
Umm few, if any, of the military signed up so they could fight Bush's fucked up war. Just sayin'.
Or rather, I should say, we're *claiming* to be fighting for freedom over there, so we can fight against freedom over here.
And by "we", of course I mean *them*...
Somehow I think we're all being a little too PC by half in this. dms
The only wee I see here is your sense of compassion.
Only a real wuss would use the term "wussiest", which is not in coin with the clever kids who actually call people wussies (wuss being far more prevalent than wussy in the singular). I used to be one of those kids, and if any of my buddies has said wussiest, he would have been called a wuss.
Is it easy for an emergency room to diagnose whether a stroke is a blockage or hemmorrage with a CT scan?"
Depends on the size of the bleed/ blockage. If small, an MRI has better resolution etc.
.
...this is Dubya's "legacy": Phyrric victories and civil war at home.
Darryl Pearce |
yes, the foul sonofabitch.
Ah, so sad. Another ham-handed attempt at satire by Stein goes off like an I.E.D.
It's 4th generation warfare, folks. Stateless enemies. It confounds the conventional forces and is virtually unwinable by conventional methods.
http://antiwar.com/lind/index.ph...?
articleid=1702
It's 4th generation warfare, folks. Stateless enemies. It confounds the conventional forces and is virtually unwinable by conventional methods.
The only way to defeat it is... to stay the course.
(and no, lurking t00ls, signing up after 9/11 or wanting to fight in Afghanistan has NOTHING to do with the neocon's fantasies about Iraq, WMDs and transforming the Middle East)
Was this guy smoking crack last night, or perhaps on a 2-day drinking binge after Kobe went for 81?
That's the lamest (and in the old days when we used "wuss", we would have said "retarded") column I've ever suffered through.
...and now we're absolving the members of an all-volunteer army? Somehow I think we're all being a little too PC by half in this.
dms |
posted secretly and from under the covers of Lebenon, Ohio
I'm a bit confused here. We all have been spending the last three years saying how ridiculous, perhpas immoral this war is, and now we're absolving the members of an all-volunteer army? Somehow I think we're all being a little too PC by half in this.
I guess I know to many military guys. They didn't declare war, here. They were already enlisted. For all they knew, they were going to Kosovo. They joined for a number of reasons, from college money, to adventure, to a complete lack of other opportunities. They go because it's their job, they go because their told, they believe in what they're doing because they have to. Watch "Gunner Palace" or, the guys interviewed in F9/11, or Frontline or anybody else who has done stories on the soldiers over there, and tell me they are there to commit war crimes. Most of them actually believed they were ridding the world of WMD, and bringing Democracy to Iraq, and they are disillusioned, and feel they have been betrayed and lied to, the same way the Vietnam Vets did.
Read Tim O'Brien.
good for you....
that is an issue i raised months, if not years ago.
is there a rank threshold for war criminality?
personally, i think that there isn't.
privates who acquiesed in this invasion of a non-belligerent country are as liable for identification as war criminals as general staff officers.
and as regards atrios, if it is atrios, who never wore a uniform i think[cub scout, possibly - or was it brownie?] attempting to indict volunteer war criminals, my head hurts..
it was different in the korea, vietnam era.
then there were virtually no volunteers.
it would have been inaccurate to assail the men in uniform....most of them didn't rush to become gunsells for the state.
this time is quite different....we have troops who decided, as a career choice, to become murderers.
and i don't care what reason drove them to that career goal.
once upon a time, i had an opportunity to manufacture munitions. as i pursued that opportunity, my dad asked me, "son, is money really so important to you that you would involve yourself with the implements of murder?"
the question stymied me. he had it accurately.
so, when you decide to become a legionnaire, you have made a decision to become a murderer.
in the service of the state.
and nothing anyone can say will sanitize that truth.
I think the problem with Stein's article is more his attempt to stuff it into a joke than with the actual points he's making.
The phrase "support the troops" means different things to different people.
For the right it means "support the war".
For some people on the left like Cindy Sheehan it means "support the soldiers when they return".
But the charge that "liberals don't support the troops" is one way of keeping the debate on the war in Iraq shut down. You have far too many people saying "well I don't support the war but we've got to support the troops to finish the job."
And I agree with him about the parade. It would be an obscenity.
We need a funeral procession for the civilians we've murdered, not a parade.
There can be not "central front" in fourth-generation, asymmetrical warfare.
Dubya makes a mistake again!
It's not the troops' fault. They got/are getting fucked, same as ever.
I'll betcha we see the biggest parade of all time right around, oh say, mid-September?
We all have been spending the last three years saying how ridiculous, perhpas immoral this war is, and now we're absolving the members of an all-volunteer army?
The National Guard sure as hell didn't volunteer for duty in Iraq.
(But just think of all the cool training they're getting; they'll be perfect recruits for Bush's new Federal Police Force when they get home.)
It's 4th generation warfare, folks. Stateless enemies. It confounds the conventional forces and is virtually unwinable by conventional methods.
Pass that doobie over here bro.
Got skunk?
"Bring on the parades. If our military rank and file have been betrayed by their civilian leadership they deserve our respect doubly."
And if a segment of the population will seek to discredit them using any mischaracterization, distortion, or false allusion available, then they deserve it even furthur.
But I have to say, this is quite a departure from Atrios's previous comparison of the US Military to those of Hitler and Stalin. Was Atrios against the military before he supported it?
And he has still yet to answer Operation Yellow Moonbat 2.0, did Atrios support the Afghanistan war.
Dodging questions and shifting morale stands are an Eschaton staple.
Let us, ultimately, support everyone harmed by this foul maladministration's policies. By the rampant and unchecked greed in the world that has been with us since first our wretched species crawled out of the slime to walk on two unsteady legs. Let us support one another, because the Other Side doesn't give one fucking shit about us. They spend their time trying to divide and conquer. Mostly, we play along.
Yet, mostly...each of us does tyhe best he/she can.
We waste our time criticizing one another when we should be dragging these filthy fucks to the guillotine.
you know we recognize the 2200 hundred and how ever many wounded gotta be about 1500. but every one of what are mostly kids is going to come home deeply afflicted.
it's an unjust war, it's a mess. wrong war at the wrong time. i don't know what you do about bad men like saddam, but you do think about the consequences of your actions.
unless you're george bush, or joel stein
"There can be not "central front" in fourth-generation, asymmetrical warfare."
Exactly. Moron loses.
He's got a point.
unless you're george bush, or joel stein
Putting a columnist you disapprove of in the same category as a war criminal like George Bush is absurd.
Damn. The weather challen's venerable Hillary Andrews is wearing her blouse open down to her belly button. I have a weakness for that kind of behavior.
It's 4th generation warfare, folks. Stateless enemies. It confounds the conventional forces and is virtually unwinable by conventional methods.
We now find ourselves facing the Christian West's oldest and most steadfast opponent, Islam. After about three centuries on the strategic defensive, following the failure of the second Turkish siege of Vienna in 1683, Islam has resumed the strategic offensive, expanding outward in every direction. In Third Generation war, invasion by immigration can be at least as dangerous as invasion by a state army.
BULLSHIT!
oh, excuse me
I'd like to hear a Franken-Stein debate on AAR.
BTW, 'PC' started out as a suggestion that perhaps people in the majority might consider trying to appreciate how life might feel from the power minority side and stop being such shits all the time. It was quickly co-opted by the right wing crowd that insists everyone has equal access to the opportunities they were given.
Every time a liberal uses PC as a derogative, baby Jebus cries.
Yay! It's Cog!
So, Cog. Are you really that stupid, or are you merely a case of photosynthesysis gone horribly awry?
Gilliard:
It is our collective fault when they are misused. You cannot assign away your responsibility all that easily.
It's only the absolute batshit 2nd-amendment defenders who say that the right to bear arms doesn't entail any responsibilities to their use.
Extrapolate.
Stein's piece is just a troll in print. I'm sure it'll get him onto the usual suspect cabloid shows.
I'd like to hear a Franken-Stein debate on AAR.
spare me joel stein, please...
how about franken or better yet someone intelligent and a hard core anti-imperialist? if they had stuff like that on AAR i might listen
OT -Dirty pictures.
Isikoff Confirms Abramoff Shopped Bush Photos
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/01...ed-bush-photos/
ISIKOFF: As a general rule, if you’re the president … you don’t like pictures out there of you with convicted felons. It sounds like … there’s at least one picture of him with at least one convicted felon and another indicted, so it’s probably not a picture the White House is eager to have out there. The other interesting aspect of this is, while the White House hasn’t put these out, Jack Abramoff has clearly shown them to people. I don’t know anything about Time sources, but I do know that he showed them to Washingtonian magazine, which suggests he may be playing a little bit of a game here. He has, of course, pled guilty already to the Justice Department. But it does raise a question in my mind at least as to whether Abramoff is maybe sort of sending some sort of signal out here: “Hey, I’ve got this stuff.” Maybe he wants something from somebody at the White House, or he wants someone at the White House not to do something, and just sort of subtly playing with people here.
etc.
----
Maybe it's not so subtle bait?
-
Dodging questions and shifting morale stands
What's a 'morale stand'? Is it somewhere for bedwetters like 'Cog' to bloviate from a safe distance from any shooting?
Is someone namestealing Sarah Deere?
I don't think I've ever heard her say things like "filthy fucks" before.
Stein's piece is just a troll in print. I'm sure it'll get him onto the usual suspect cabloid shows.
Maybe but I don't think it's an entirely bad thing if it opens up a debate on just what the term "support the troops" really means.
It means "support the war."
I think people who "support the troops" as individuals really need to make it clear that they're not taking the "well I was against the war but now I think we have to support the troops and finish the job" position.
Eh, I just can't get too worked up about this. Fact is, he makes some decent points... it's not all that ideologically or logically consistent to say you're a pacifist and then get completely caught up with everyone else in the American fetish culture of worshiping the military. My brother is Navy, and one of my best friends is an officer in the 82nd. They're people doing a job... it's a dangerous job, but it's the one they've chosen, and generally they like it (the tours aren't great, but again, that's the job). I don't think they feel the need to be adulated for their "sacrifice"... certainly they're putting themselves in harm's way and that's commendable, but they don't like having to do it for questionable purposes any more than the rest of us would. Stein's snarky and annoying, but who's he "offended"? Malkin? The rest of the screamers? I hate to tell you, but our side wasn't going to convince the people who read their stuff anyway. We have much bigger problems to worry about than one op-ed idiot that Michelle can point to as "proof" that liberals "hate America." The real media battle's on TV, people... that's where the great American "middle" is being convinced that we're out of touch by pathetic hacks and pompous overpaid "celebrounalists". Let's stop worrying about a too-smart-by-half newspaper guy who's pretty much on our side and go back to kicking Matthews and Russert in the ass.
albertchampion - I don't think we tried the privates for war crimes at Nuremberg.
Is someone namestealing Sarah Deere?
I don't think I've ever heard her say things like "filthy fucks" before.
Didn't sound too out of character to me...
Geez Cog, according to my watch you're half an hour late making a dimwitted comment. How long will you make me wait for exactly one single example of Atrios posting "any mischaracterization, distortion, or false allusion" that somehow harmed our troops? You're *such* a liar!
Also, thanks for 2006, moron! 
I think people who "support the troops" as individuals really need to make it clear that they're not taking the "well I was against the war but now I think we have to support the troops and finish the job" position.
You're right. After all, that leads towards the 'we must continue having soldiers die so that the soldiers who've already died didn't die in vain' bullshit, aka a grotesque take on the sunk costs fallacy.
Heck, I'd send body armour and care packages to Doughy Pantload if he chose to fight for what he supposedly believes in.
Freedom isn't free.
...and neither is WAR.
Didn't sound too out of character to me...
Eli
Eli, you would be correct.
I may be a geraitric, but I do know how to swear.
Anyway, I'm sworn out. This has been one filthy fucking day, sez me.
Time to shut it down.
Hope you all have sweet dreams, sans bedbugs.
And a New and Improved Wednesday.
Best,
SD
Dodging questions and shifting morale stands are an Eschaton staple.
Cog
1. WMD's
2. Ties to Al Qaida
3. Freedom is on the March
4. Fight them there so...
5. We're sheeping dipshits
I'd like to hear a Franken-Stein debate on AAR.
SUNDAY Sunday Sunday at the Civic Arena rena rena, it's Monster Debate Mania!!!! Dunh dunh - dunh dunh dunh dunh dunh dunh - dunh dunh dunh dunh dunh...
I'm a bit confused here. We all have been spending the last three years saying how ridiculous, perhpas immoral this war is, and now we're absolving the members of an all-volunteer army? Somehow I think we're all being a little too PC by half in this.
dms
That's right. Everyone who joined the Army signed up to go fight this war. That is the kind of rationalization that encourages people like Stein to write his shit.
The fact is, when I enlisted, I didn't enlist to fight in a war based on lies and deceit to gain support for.
I signed up to serve, get some college money, and grow up a bit.
The people who enlisted after 9/11 mainly did so to go fight the Taliban in Afghanistan. Many of those who signed up soley to fight in the Iraq war did so under the illusion that Saddam was behind 9/11, thanks to Bush.
Blaming the soldiers for the Iraq War, is akin to blaming Brokeback Mountain for recruiting gays.
One of the dumbest things I've ever read. Part of. (Yeah, I bailed out; stupidity is boring) The Pentagon and the 'Ho House are not the soldiers. How smart do you have to be to realize that? Two brain cells does it, I think.
Honor the soldier, but not the war.
Nothing like this is ever clean or easy to debate.
Sarah Deere
We can honor them by restoring their benefits, and seeing to it the VA does right by the ones that come back wounded, even--maybe especially--if the wounds don't show.
Oh, and a bit more armor might not hurt a thing.
First of all, I'm not a pacifist. I was for toppling the Taliban. Second, being against this war and Bush's handling of it IS supporting our troops. There's nothing inconsistent about that.
You're right. After all, that leads towards the 'we must continue having soldiers die so that the soldiers who've already died didn't die in vain' bullshit, aka a grotesque take on the sunk costs fallacy.
I guess there are two equally unsatisfactory lines that opponents of the war have.
There's the typical liberal one where said liberal is terrified of offending people like Malkin/Cog and declares that he/she "supports the troops" more than the supporter of the war.
Then there's the unsatisfactory leftist position, the one where you hear people say "goddammit I'm going to come out and be iconoclastic and say what I feel. Damn right I don't support the troops".
I tend to fall into the second category.
But it's really more nuanced than that.
Cog: ENLIST!
But I'm not for the war. And being against the war and saying you support the troops is one of the wussiest positions the pacifists have ever taken — and they're wussy by definition.
WTF?
I'm a pussy because I respect and appreciate the fact that our volunteer army puts its collective life on the line so I don't have to, and at the same time think this was a really stupid thing for these chickenhawk neocon fucks to send them to go do? Are having a brain and being a pussy the same thing?
...Blindly lending support to our soldiers, I fear, will keep them overseas longer by giving soft acquiescence to the hawks who sent them there
WHY? How? Blindly? what's blind about the position stated above? Why is it not supporting them to pressure our government to stop getting them killed for no good reason? I'd say that cheerleading the pointless mission they're currently on is the opposite of supporting them. It's like saying "I'm glad you're out there getting shot at for me! Keep getting shot at!"
I mean, eh-DUH!!!
Where was the fucking editor telling this guy, "I'm not gonna put that in the paper, you're an idiot! Bad reporter! No donut!"
say things like "filthy fucks"
Depends on the topic, but yeah, massive death and destruction and all that can bring the occasional thorn along with the flower.
-
I support the position that reality is incredibly complicated
First of all, I'm not a pacifist. I was for toppling the Taliban.
I know. The price of heroin was starting to get pretty high before we sent our troops into the country to get rid of those puritanical fuckheads.
Amen, lavalamp... that's really the only position there is.
To not support the troops is to be against having a standing army. If you don't think we should have a military, then Stein might have a point. If you believe the US should have a military, you can't blame the soldiers for being soldiers. They're doing their jobs. Every screwed up, stupid thing about this war is at the top. Everything.
To not support the troops is to be against having a standing army. If you don't think we should have a military, then Stein might have a point.
Theoretically I support our having a standing military.
In reality, I see very little possibility that it's going to be used to protect the American people and not kill Iraqis or Iranians.
And I don't quite see how a Democrat is going to make much difference. Hillary Clinton's rhetoric on Iran is more belligerent than Bush's right now.
"I support the position that reality is incredibly complicated"
That's reality-based thinking. Not part of the new neocaon paradigm.
Putting a columnist you disapprove of in the same category as a war criminal like George Bush is absurd.
SWR
fair enuf, i just don't think his position is well thought out. i would not consider my self a pacifist or a particulary war like person. for instance i'd never join the military because i'd not consider killing anyone except in self defense. yet, 9/11 probably did require a response.
look, i don't like all the monkeys goin about kill'n one another, but that's what monkeys do. we are talking about kids for the most part. grow up with traditions join the military to protect the country, and some dumbass sends them off to fight the wrong war in the wrong place. then some hack assed journalist/columnist says lets blame the kids. i reject that.
iraq is dick and georges game. we will all pay dearly for it, just like those kids.
absent in all of this of course is the central issue, whether or not we end up having parades... err, i mean, permanent bases in iraq.
atrios is all vicious on the pundits for being lying shitbag shills who distort and confuse but i wish he'd explain the causes for the war and what's really going on underneath the puppet theatre.
i mean, 'our' oil isn't really negotiable, is it? and if iran creates a non-dollar denominated market, who knows, maybe that 9 trillion in money that we printed and gave out, that we never really, you know, had... i think that might cause a little economic discomfort if countries start dumping dollars
And I don't quite see how a Democrat is going to make much difference. Hillary Clinton's rhetoric on Iran is more belligerent than Bush's right now.
SWR
And Hillary Clinton represents what percentage of the Democratic party right now?
What percentage of the commenters here?
Hillary Clinton is to Democrats, as mAnn Coulter is to teh sexy.
that's really the only position there is.
At 12:38 am, after a day like this past motherf*cker was,it's certainly the most viable position there is, Matt P.
So, Cog. Are you really that stupid, or are you merely a case of photosynthesysis gone horribly awry?
Thers
Rhymes with dog...
Fidoplankton!
And Hillary Clinton represents what percentage of the Democratic party right now?
A significant one.
yet, 9/11 probably did require a response.
a real commitment to the palestinians and a multi-lateral campaign to get bin laden extradited from afghanistan would've been the proper response.
i hear it wouldn't have sold as many bombs and missiles however
i wish he'd explain the causes for the war and what's really going on
Atrios knows damn well it's all about the biofuels. His silence condemns him.
no, we didn't.
neither did we prosecute large numbers of the nazi cognoscenti.
we should never forget george patton, who employed so many nazi to administer the territories that he conquered.
those trials that were held were show trials. very stalinistic. i am not even persuaded that suicide was committed. i think that the allies preferred the elimination of the targets, before they talked to much. murder, i assert.
murdering, mass murdering, in the service of the state seems to be a blessed endeavor.
and why we continue to countenance it confuses me.
and i charge that the purported left in the united states of amerika is as complicit in mass murdering as the right.
gangsters. all of them.
Wow. Joel Stein is certainly the nation's preeminent dimwit.
Why has no-one told Joel Stein that irony is dad fuckers?
A significant one.
SWR
Less than what many think. Particularly with her coming out against flag burning, and her hawkish stance on Iraq.
Yes, biofuels.
.
Stein sounds like he would consider a parade performed in his honor right peachy.
it's not all that ideologically or logically consistent to say you're a pacifist and then get completely caught up with everyone else in the American fetish culture of worshiping the military.
Well, it comes down to what "supporting the troops" means, doesn't it. I don't worship the military one bit. I think they are a necessary evil, however, at least in some capacity. And the actual rank-and-file soldiers are mostly just doing their jobs, having faith tht their leaders won't send them on stupid or worse nefarious missions. Sure, there are some scumbags in there who do nasty and evil shit to prisoners and noncombatants, but I do not believe that they are representative. You just have to wahtch a few of the countless interviews of Vietnam veterans to see the sacrifices that those people make. In a way, the ones who do bad stuff have made one of the biggest sacrifices of all, because they have sacrificed their humanity. How many times have we seen the vietnam vet who is haunted by the stuff he did in battle? Encouraging young people to suspend their moral judgement is an evil thing to do.
I have very big disagreements with the political leadership, however.
Welp, the skeeze is beginning to arrive here. adieu.
To not support the troops is to be against having a standing army. If you don't think we should have a military, then Stein might have a point. If you believe the US should have a military, you can't blame the soldiers for being soldiers. They're doing their jobs. Every screwed up, stupid thing about this war is at the top. Everything.
latin america has had some ugly episodes due to their standing armies, and i think chavez's attempt to re-orient the military toward civil works projects and social work even is an interesting example of how to offset the things washington was worried about.
i'd like it if we had an army like the swiss. compulsory, learn skills, learn how to use a gun, never invade anyone.
Less than what many think. Particularly with her coming out against flag burning, and her hawkish stance on Iraq.
If she or any other pro-war Democrat gets the nomination, I'm not voting for her.
Most people here will, even if she gives a blood curdling, bellicose speech at the Democratic convention about how we have to put down Iran.
Even Molly Ivins left herself an out in her otherwise excellent column. Did she mean "I won't support Hillary in the primaries" or "I won't vote for Hillary if she gets the nomination".
You have GOT to be kidding.
Stein's column is one of the most honest 'think pieces' I have seen in years.
I am old enough to remember Viet Nam. There's a reason we called them baby-killers: they KILLED BABIES!
PS -- no-one EVER spit on a returning Vietnam Vet. Can we PLEASE excise that scurrilous urban legend once and for all!!
Oops. Please disregard the final incoherent sentence of last post....Started another thought then abandoned it but did not erase.
Mrs. Lane is watching "Love Monkey."
Now, I am the most unhip person there is, and even I think that show is lame. Is that guy supposed to be cool?
On that note, I must away to my slumber.
Until tomorrow 'bats.
Mrs. Lane is watching "Love Monkey."
Now, I am the most unhip person there is, and even I think that show is lame. Is that guy supposed to be cool?
He irritated me in the Ed commercials, and he irritates me far, far more in the Love Monkey commercials. "Look at me, I'm a haplessly lovable doofus!" Get bent, wanker.
Hillary Andrews of the weather channel. I love her.
Atrios knows damn well it's all about the biofuels. His silence condemns him.
Atrios spends a lot of time sitting down and I know he's not letting all of that methane exhaust just dissipate into thin air. Why won't he talk about his own alternative energy task force? Why is he hiding that? Is he hording the biofuels?
you guys think it's funny... well... i bet they think it's hilarious right now in the projects in philly, with what gas and nat gas costs... biofuels, ho ho hooo
I do sympathize with people who joined up to protect our country, especially after 9/11, and were tricked into fighting in Iraq. I get mad when I'm tricked into clicking on a pop-up ad, so I can only imagine how they feel.~Stein
I want joo to imagine las garras del Gato Negro shredding jour feelthy fucking wankerrr tie eento leetle beets on television nacional, eh?
Amigos, thees ees the kind of idiota who has one good thought every two weeks and writes eet up een a column surrrounded by two weeks worth of dreck.
Ay! republiculos, joo weesh to bash Joel Stein?
Go ahead, just do no be so stupid as to try to make ¡El Gato Negro! defend hees wankery.
so.
Remember the fuckwad who got us into this mess. Remember the idiot sheep who voted him in. Entrusting our military to a degenerate coward like that can be very dangerous for all. Same with the economy.
I support my troop, and all honorable servicemen and servicewomen who defend our Constitution. I wish they could escort the Chimp-in-Chief to the nearest brig or stockade, but that awaits civilian action.
-
g'night, moonies.
If she or any other pro-war Democrat gets the nomination, I'm not voting for her.
Wolcott sez;
"And I suspect that by 2008 a lot of Republicans are going to be secretly hankering for a Hillary presidency to put Bush's manifold wrongs right."
Man, I hope he's wrong. If Repubs can go Hillary, the Soft Chewy Center™ is lost.
Me, I might write-in Molly Ivins...
Hillary Andrews of the weather channel. I love her.
puts out. like a champion
Look at me, I'm a haplessly lovable doofus! Get bent, wanker.
Hey, now. That pitch line seems to be on fire lately.
what the hell? you enlist, put on the uniform, and your job is to obey orders. armies don't run on free thinking and "do what you feel is right" morality. it's a command structure.
And it's the job of the civilian leadership (our elected officials) to be sure the armed forces are used in the best interest of the country. that's the piece that has abjectly failed.
so far as i can see, the problem is that there is irresponsible and inept leadership with complete disrespect for law, leading to atrocities like our actions at abu ghraib, and of course the pre-emptive (based on lies) invasion of iraq itself.
whatever this dimwit columnist's point was (assuming there was one), i guess it was a little too subtle for this day and age of propaganda and the era of the blind followers of the "you're either with us or against us" president.
i do hear, however, that traffic in LA is a bit of a nightmare, so perhaps he has a point about the parade. maybe some kind of simulcast, a la the Live8 fundraiser would be better. call Bob Geldof!
i mean, 'our' oil isn't really negotiable, is it? and if iran creates a non-dollar denominated market, who knows, maybe that 9 trillion in money that we printed and gave out, that we never really, you know, had... i think that might cause a little economic discomfort if countries start dumping dollars
honey oil jesus
well, admist all the weeping, wailing and gnashing of teeth about support or non support, honey calls it.
and we'll all be driv'n off to our jobs tomorrow.
peace dudes/ettes,
The Problem with Presidential Signing Statements: Their Use and Misuse by the Bush Administration
FindLaw columnist and former counsel to the President John Dean discusses President Bush's use of signing statements to accompany legislation. Dean contends that Bush is using the statements as the equivalent of line-item vetos -- even though the Supreme Court held the line-item veto to be a violation of the Constitution's Presentment Claus, and even though the veto is supposed to be the President's exclusive avenue, under the Constitution, to prevent bills from becoming law. Dean predicts that Bush's signing statement practices will bring him into conflict with Congress, and also with his own Department of Justice.
Friday, Jan. 13, 2006
And Hillary Clinton represents what percentage of the Democratic party right now?
A significant one.
SWR
Mostly because she isn't Bush, and because she pisses off the Bushies. Would anyone here vote for her for any other reason than casting a vote against the Repub candidate?
George W. Bush as the New Richard M. Nixon: Both Wiretapped Illegally, and Impeachably;
Both Claimed That a President May Violate Congress' Laws to Protect National Security
FindLaw columnist and former counsel to the president John Dean comments on the recent revelation of President Bush's authorization of warrantless wiretaps, in contravention of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and in disregard of the FISA Court. Dean notes that President Nixon's bill of impeachment listed illegal wiretaps, and parallels the points of view Nixon and Bush have expressed with respect to presidential power.
Friday, Dec. 30, 2005
Blogwhore alert!
Hi there, sailor, looking for a good time? I'll analyse your campaign all night long, just give me some traffic baby!
http://kevinswoodshed.blogspot.c...t-ii-
rural.html
Dean predicts that Bush's signing statement practices will bring him into conflict with Congress, and also with his own Department of Justice.
I think the First Amendment gives Dubya the right to scribble whatever adorable gibberish pops into his tiny head; I don't think that's criminal. It just needs to be understood by one and all that his signing statement has absolutely no legal significance whatsoever, none.
Ok - night all. I'm going to relax by watching Martina Hingis getting her sweet ass handed to her in the Aussie Open. Wait - she's coming back.
Growing more nauseus as this silly "Love Monkey" does has his suit-not suit identity crisis.
I give this show 6 weeks.
El Gato Negro--I would pay joo good money to shrrrrrred the wanker right off the pages of the Los Angeles Times.
So.
Wolcott sez;
"And I suspect that by 2008 a lot of Republicans are going to be secretly hankering for a Hillary presidency to put Bush's manifold wrongs right."
There are several points here.
It's the job of soldiers to obey "legal orders" and their right to resist illegal ones.
But there's the added complexity of how post 9/11 we've been living with some sort of "cult" of the military, worship of people in uniforms with guns.
And this cult of the military that came out of the fear we felt after 9/11 lets pro-war politicians guilt trip us into killing innocent civilians in Iraq.
Support the Troops means Support the War.
It's the word "support" you've got to watch.
I'm all for funding VA hospitals and giving the soldiers benefits and therapy when they return. It's in my own selfish interest if anything. It will lesson my chances of being shot down in the post office some day.
but the phrase "Support" the troops is a pro-war mantra.
It just needs to be understood by one and all that his signing statement has absolutely no legal significance whatsoever, none.
Eli
How does it work when "legal significance" has no legal significance with him?
Growing more nauseus as this silly "Love Monkey" does has his suit-not suit identity crisis.
Dude. I can barely make it through a 30-second *promo*.
...so they ran him through the house altready, no talking?
For some reason they want to railroad Alito through...
I'm not "really" watching... but I'm gonna have to schedule an intervention with the Mrs....
Seriously, this Joel Stein, what's up with that /Seinfeld
http://www.latimes.com/news/opin...omment-
opinions
Recent Columns:
January 24, 2006
Warriors and wusses
I DON'T SUPPORT our troops. This is a particularly difficult opinion to have, especially if you are the kind of person who likes to put bumper stickers on his car. Supporting the troops is a position that even Calvin is unwilling to urinate on.
January 17, 2006
Truth and a million little consequences
IN 11 YEARS of writing about myself, I've never bothered to make anything up. I could have been a pirate or an astronaut, or at least done something interesting enough so that people would stop asking, "Why does that dude keep writing about himself?"
January 10, 2006
So, how's your dead brother doing?
IT'S NOT LIKE journalists don't talk dirty. We, for no good reason, gave a guy as boring as W. Mark Felt the nickname Deep Throat.
January 3, 2006
How to apologize to a feminist
MAUREEN DOWD doesn't like me. This is not unusual. But unlike a lot of people, the New York Times columnist has a good reason.
December 27, 2005
The year of the clueless
I HAVE NO CLUE how people are going to react to me. This is one of the main reasons I'm a bad dancer, driver and sex partner. Despite what Marvin Gaye might claim, you get a surprisingly negative reaction when you shake a woman at 4 a.m., yell "wake up" four times and suggest making love. No part of that is at all healing for anybody.
December 20, 2005
The death of advertising, show by show
RICH PEOPLE are always trying to weasel out of their responsibility.
December 13, 2005
Breaking the last laugh barrier
LAUGHING AT people with mental disabilities, I vaguely remember being told as a child, was wrong. I didn't ask a lot of questions about this rule.
December 6, 2005
Oy to the world
THERE IS A grave concern, on news shows and Op-Ed pages, that we are about to lose Christmas. Though no one outside the media is at all interested, I figure jumping in will make my editors think I'm smart.
November 29, 2005
Way out on a limb
WHEN YOU WORK for the media, people are always asking you to write about their little problems. My grandmother's condo is being overcharged for pool repairs; my father's local A&P plays bait and switch with its sale items; "Scooter" Libby is being annoyed by yet another pesky diplomat.
November 22, 2005
Senators are blowing smoke on gas
I DON'T MIND all the whining about gas prices. That's what you're supposed to do at the end of an empire.
What were the economic consequences of the dissolution of the monasteries by the Tudor Dynasty.
Did the english economy gain or lose in efficiency from this move?
Apply the Coase Theorem to this World Historical Event.
there is no good reason that the latimes aired this poorly written bit.
i view it as a "blood in the face" piece. intended to stir up the warmongering loonies.
but, why should we be surprised. this is the latimes that fired bob scheer and replaced him with jonah goldberg, lucianne goldberg's bastid spawn.
so, the latimes, timesmirror corp, has a mission, a hearstian mission, a sulzbergerian mission, a grahamian mission - to promote war. it is good for their botttomlines and personal fortunes, i think.
and as you should know, i like to view iraq as amerika after the british landings in the 18th century. the brits were more entitled to landing troops in north amerika than we were entitled to land troops in iraq.
all the same, we sniped and fought the soldiers of the country that owned us. killed a lot of them. by any means.
the iraqis are more entitled to kill the invaders of their country. and we should shed no tears for those who become their victims. there is nothing to stop them from putting down their arms and refusing to be gunsells for dick'em and engorged.
in fact, that would be the best thing that could ever happen.
do you recall the concept? what if someone declared a war and no one showed up?
December 27, 2005
The year of the clueless
I HAVE NO CLUE how people are going to react to me. This is one of the main reasons I'm a bad dancer, driver and sex partner.
I could, um, kinda relate to this one...
...serving here in iraq I think there is a rat-chewing-its-tail quality to this whole discussion. I actually found the stein thing refreshing if glib. There is something about the way liberals in our country are forced to trip all over themselves to swear on their tibetan prayer flags that they "love the troops". No offense, but I love my wife and my family...i bet you love yours...I can't honestly say I love you...you can't say you love me either. I honestly volunteered for this...sort of the way you sign a car lease. That was a few years ago...alot of few years...I was young and it was a path that young people think is exciting...get out of a one-traffic-light town in Idaho...see the world...alot better than working in a moble home factory or driving a truck.
Anyway, I kinda liked his candor...I don't see it as indefensable. He doesn't support the war...alot of folks don't. It feels weird to me to not support the bomb falling on civilians, but to throw a garden party for the pilot who suited up and briefed the mission and squeezed the trigger that dropped the bomb that killed the family (etc, etc ad infinitum).
You are all dancing around a fragile pile of sticks that people like to sketch and describe and (if you are belicose and simplistic) glorify, or (if you are fretty and handwringy) deconstruct... Who knows. Soldiers have died for as long as there has been history. Substantively, nothing has changed. In fact, the volunteer, professional army harks more back to Rome than to any NATO construct.
However it goes, the folks over here aren't spending too much time wondering whether they will "get a parade" or if "people really support us". The unspoken mantra tends toward the "please God, let me not fuck up today and get anyone hurt".
there's a book i read called "The Engineer of Human Souls" by some chech writer and he said something to the effect that, ultimately we are only responsible for what we do in the world.
In that light, i get his point.
Left Lane--do some Sudoku and talk to Mrs. Left Lane in the morning.
Seriously, this Joel Stein, what's up with that /Seinfeld
wouldn't surprise me if he attended USC... intelligent, but pointless
um, Nick, there was a DRAFT in Vietnam. you *had* to go fight in unless your name was Quayle, Bush or Cheney and you got little magic slips of paper from big important friends of daddy.
I'm sure my father would have prefered to go to the same summer camp as those boys did, but he obeyed orders.
If Stein is being honest, then he should say what he thinks, instead of all the snark which might show cleverness, but doesn't raise an actual point. It's just a meta-argument - a space waster that keeps his paychecks coming in.
OT
Earle Probes Possible Cunningham-DeLay Tie
Wednesday January 25, 2006 4:48 AM
By SETH HETTENA
http://www.guardian.co.uk/
uslate...5568904,00.html
SAN DIEGO (AP) - The Texas prosecutor targeting Rep. Tom DeLay has issued a second round of subpoenas to businessmen here seeking records surrounding donations to the former Republican leader and disgraced former Rep. Randy ``Duke'' Cunningham.
The subpoenas issued by Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle's office zero in on transactions in 2002 involving PerfectWave Technologies LLC, a company controlled by Brent Wilkes, a businessman with ties to DeLay and Cunningham.
Wilkes' attorney has identified him as an unidentified co-conspirator of Cunningham, a California Republican who resigned from Congress after pleading guilty in November to accepting $2.4 million in bribes from defense contractors.
DeLay, charged with conspiring to launder campaign money that was given in 2002 for legislative races in his home state of Texas, flew three times on a jet owned by another Wilkes company, according to campaign records.
etc.
----
Looks like we'll pick up a seat in Texas.
-
Then there's the unsatisfactory leftist position, the one where you hear people say "goddammit I'm going to come out and be iconoclastic and say what I feel. Damn right I don't support the troops".
I tend to fall into the second category.
Yes, it's all about the ego with pricks like this.
Count me unimpressed...
It's just a meta-argument - a space waster that keeps his paychecks coming in.
DING DING DING DING DING!
We have a wiener!!!
mosesmalone
moses malone was a beast!!!
20 some odd fucking years, that's a lot for a big man. shaq won't be able to do it
Hey everyone. Could somebody explain what Jack Abramoff was doing? Could somebody explain the K street project?
Sallyh, did 3 sudokus today.
I'm starting to feel sated with them
Better sudoku than Bombay Sapphire... I think 
Meanwhile, a nice rundown of a recent Pelosi townhall meeting via the SF Bay Guardian:
Rep. Nancy Pelosi, the top Democrat in the House of Representatives, held a Jan. 14 town hall meeting back home in San Francisco. It's the sort of thing congressional representatives do routinely, and in safe districts it's often more of a pep rally and love fest than anything else.
But on this day Pelosi was quickly confronted by a new political reality.
Antiwar protesters have already been dogging Pelosi for some time now over her failure to push Democrats to support withdrawal from Iraq. About 30 activists wielding antiwar signs filed into the Marina Middle School auditorium shortly after Pelosi's presentation began, first lining the walls, then moving up to stand right in front of the stage.
But the real eruption came when a questioner listed several war-related Bush misdeeds and asked, "Are these not high crimes and misdemeanors?"
Both of the city's dominant political factions – the radical lefties and the loyal Democrats – went nuts, the room filling with sustained applause and chants of "Impeach! Impeach!"
Pelosi resisted this call for radical change. "For those of you concerned about these issues," she told the crowd after the roar had died down, "I urge you to channel your energies into the 2006 elections"...
Although political leaders and major media outlets have been slow to pick up on the trend, national polls now show a majority of Americans support an impeachment inquiry.
And the sentiment is growing – and getting increasingly vocal. At one point in the meeting, Pelosi was asked whether she will support a resolution by Rep. John Conyers to create a committee with subpoena power to investigate whether members of the Bush administration may have committed impeachable offenses. "I do not intend to support Mr. Conyers's resolution," Pelosi replied.
The eight-term incumbent in one of the most Democratic districts in America was loudly booed.
"Listen to your constituents," someone yelled at Pelosi, who waxed philosophical about how she takes her oath of office seriously and how political change is best left to election time.
"We have a responsibility to try to bring this country together," Pelosi said, to which an angry member of the audience jeered, "You have a responsibility to uphold the Constitution!"
They were pressuring existing lobbying firms to hire only republicans? How? By refusing to do business with the firm until they tilted their hiring bias towards Republicans?
Dave, Nancy should screen her Town Meeting, like the Shrub /snark
but, why should we be surprised. this is the latimes that fired bob scheer and replaced him with jonah goldberg, lucianne goldberg's bastid spawn.
jonah goldberg, isn't that a type of terrestrial whale?
i don't think the times published it to get a reaction, but i think you're right that his lack of taste and tact will rev the engines over in kommandoland
Could somebody explain what Jack Abramoff was doing?
http://www.c-span.org/special/Ab...al/
Abramoff.asp
-
Well, eyelids are drooping and laptop battery low warning light is on.
Nytol!
Yes, it's all about the ego with pricks like this.
Count me unimpressed...
dave™ | Email | Homepage | 01.25.06 - 2:11 am | #
Nah. You're just a belligerent old fart without a shred of honesty who deals with your lack of self-awareness by attacking anybody who doesn't pay you the attention you want.
And you'll vote for Hillary and a war in iran. I guarantee it.
Seriously, this Joel Stein, what's up with that /Seinfeld
wouldn't surprise me if he attended USC... intelligent, but pointless
honey oil jesus
Or LSU; "went in dumb, come out dumb, too..."
poor poor nancy pelosi, of all the overcaffinated constituants in all the moonbat districts in all the blue states, she has to represent this one.
those people are NOT going to simmer down. they smell blood.
IMPEACH!
Hey everyone. Could somebody explain what Jack Abramoff was doing? Could somebody explain the K street project?
iran! iran! nukes! spying!
whale caught in the thames!
white girl late for her wedding!
iran! bin laden!
Thanks for your service, mosesmalone. Stay warm.
-
dave, thnx for that.
that is where we are.
demtillians, reptillians.
neither variety of lizard standing up for the constitution. nor for us.
all roundheeled whores, i think.
Nah. You're just a belligerent old fart without a shred of honesty who deals with your lack of self-awareness by attacking anybody who doesn't pay you the attention you want.
And you'll vote for Hillary and a war in iran. I guarantee it.
you're lucky atrios has bigger balls than deborah howell or jim brady would come erase all of us right now for that one.
besides gotta be civil to the DLCers. the american left is now the big tent, nascar dad, confederate flag, authorize illegal war party...
so...
was someone talking about the bi-partisan abramoff scandal?
Support the Troops means Support the War.
It's the word "support" you've got to watch.
but the phrase "Support" the troops is a pro-war mantra
Says you. We've disagreed here strenuously before, SWR. You seem to think that phrases are defined entirely and eternally by the most nefarious propaganda use to which they have been put. qv. "intellectuals".
I say that a phrase like that is sufficiently generic that when I say it, it doesn't have to mean what Donald Rumsfeld says it says, or what you say it says, for that matter.
And language is a continuously evolving thing, SWR. The meanings of words and phrases are not fixed. At this early date, I would say that "support the troops" is still under contention. By calling it a pro-war mantra, you are just conceding a framing victory to the wingers. You are letting them Newspeak you.
i'm just kidding about that last part... (bi-partisan)...
but i think it ought to be called the general k street corruption problem... abramoff's their guy... i'm sure the dems deal with some wonderful scam and bullshit artists too to get their campaign fundsies
By calling it a pro-war mantra, you are just conceding a framing victory to the wingers. You are letting them Newspeak you.
Possibly.
But why not change it to this:
"Support the Iraqi People and the Troops"
"Support the Troops and the Iraqi People".
Of course both of these can be pro-war mantras too (purple fingers and all that).
"I am on the side of the people who are being burned, bombed, cut to pieces, tortured, held as hostages, gassed, ruined and destroyed They are the victims of both sides. To take sides with massive power is to take sides against the innocent. The side I take is the side of the people who are sick of war and who want peace, who want to rebuild their lives and their countries and the world."
Thomas Merton
how about
Honor the American and Iraqi dead and wounded who needlessly suffered for the capitalist gangsters' reprehensible, irresponsible, totally preventable war of aggression.
that's my parade theme... it's going to be a silent parade though... if you must have flags and noisemakers paint them black
answer me this:
bill clinton = love
hillary clinton = EVIL HATE DESTROY KILL, etc. etc.
um, what's the difference again? all rose tinted glasses for ole bill, and nothing but haters against hillary.
i just don't see the difference between the two in position, just style. and of course, gender, but i'm sure that has nothing to do with it since we're all liberals here.
i think it ought to be called the general k street corruption problem
I think it is actually *congressional* corruption that stinks. The press makes it sound like it's a problem of lobbyists or Indian tribes, but it's the damn congresscritters - in this case lots of Republicans.
-
When Mrs. Clinton comes around here, it's never for Q&A. It's for hospital ribbon-cutting, boy scout salutes, etc. The reasons/venues all very carefully chosen so that it wouldn't do to ask scathing questions.
I saw a story today about a soldier who tortured and killed an innocent iraqi and got six months community service in a church for the offense.
I guess Joel Stein isn't down with folks who get paid to do stuff like this in the name of America.
Like K street, that's how they control the media. They use information originating in government to reward the bias they would like to see in the news.
I thought these guys believed in the free market. I tought they were fond of the wonders of information efficiency through sunshine.
I think it is actually *congressional* corruption that stinks.
yeah i agree... reminds me that ike's original phrase was the "military industrial congressional complex"... but that didn't have the ring to it i guess
k street has duped the congress into letting it take over their legislative duty. but hey, you get to fly around on the corporate jet and spend lots on your campaigns.
When does the dirty weather start?
-
Like K street, that's how they control the media. They use information originating in government to reward the bias they would like to see in the news.
yeah, like cherry-picked intelligence. regional speciality along the potomac.
bill clinton = love
hillary clinton = EVIL HATE DESTROY KILL, etc. etc.
um, what's the difference again? all rose tinted glasses for ole bill, and nothing but haters against hillary.
People are disappointed and angry that Hillary refuses to say what needs to be said. They're disappointed that she refuses to lead the charge. They're disappointed that she votes Republican Lite. They're disappointed that she has been one of the leading proponents of the off-shoring of American jobs. None of this has anything to do with her gender -- you don't have to have balls to have guts, and if Hillary is willing to stand up in her foxhole and yell the truth, she hasn't yet proved it.
I'm sure I'm in the vast minority but I just want to say that I not only see where Joel Stein was going - that no single raindrop believes it is responsible for the flood, nor that any single soldier believes he is responsible for the war.
It was a well written column that explained a position that too few Americans have. Bush started this war but he could not wage it without the consent - no matter how coerced - of the soldiers in the U.S. armed forces.
"Supporting the troops" always rung a little hollow anyway. When Republicans and Democrats say it, it means two completely different things, which in the end totally renders it meaningless.
I agree with Joel Stein. And quite frankly what he said needed to be said and -- well, I'll be reading alot more Joel Stein in the future, and a lot less Eschaton.
So, Cog. Are you really that stupid, or are you merely a case of photosynthesysis gone horribly awry?
Thers
Guilty as charged, sailor!
Lol.
I'm sure I'm in the vast minority
in terms of being a joel stein fan, yeah
in terms of disagreeing with atrios, no, read the thread.
-- well, I'll be reading alot more Joel Stein in the future, and a lot less Eschaton.
Brian Boyko
Oh, shit! Brian's leaving! Wait, Brian....I....please don't.....
yes, i saw that warrant officer.
in his army best and that damn shinseki black beret.
he will give up some salary. and will be monitored.
for murdering an iraqi.
think on it. here is what we have been allowed to know that he did.....
he took a prisoner, a sunni general officer i think, and captivated him in a sleeping bag. then he sat on his chest.
the victim died. probably of asphixiation. but the court exonerated this petty gangster in an army uniform. it said that the victim died of a heart attack - and that the army gunsell didn't cause that - it was a natural event.
ponder on that folks.
when they come for u, and you have a stroke or a cardiac event after they seize you, its not their fault. it's yours.
if you oppose these gangsters, i recommend that you get your affairs in order. prepare a durable power of attorney. and get your last will and testament up to date.
because this bushit state, and its successor[whether it be a reptillian or a demtillian] is going to kill you.
I keep going back to that tribunal against Bush that was held in NYC over the weekend.
Janis Karpinski testified and I have to admit I cheered when she criticized Bush.
I agree that she was largely the patsty.
But certainly she was more complicit than some private who just joined the Marines before 9/11.
So yes, it's a complex issue.
What Stein doesn't seem to understand is that a lot of lower level troops were used as scapegoats for policies set at the top (see also, Lyndie Englund) and that part of what Stein is doing is defending Bush.
because this bushit state, and its successor[whether it be a reptillian or a demtillian] is going to kill you.
euthanasia is the least they could offer us, really.
but they get more use out of us alive, i think. high death rate is bad for business.
on a different note,
try jackie ryan for her great singing.
I read the column this morning and thought it would get the predictable reaction, attacks from both right and left. I agree with Brian B. above about the hollowness of the "support the troops" mantra, and I think Stein has a point (though his attitude may not be the best to get the point across). Years ago, Donovan had much the same sentiment in his song "Universal Soldier":
He's five foot-two, and he's six feet-four,
He fights with missiles and with spears.
He's all of thirty-one, and he's only seventeen,
Been a soldier for a thousand years.
He'a a Catholic, a Hindu, an Atheist, a Jain,
A Buddhist and a Baptist and a Jew.
And he knows he shouldn't kill,
And he knows he always will,
Kill you for me my friend and me for you.
And he's fighting for Canada,
He's fighting for France,
He's fighting for the USA,
And he's fighting for the Russians,
And he's fighting for Japan,
And he thinks we'll put an end to war this way.
And he's fighting for Democracy,
He's fighting for the Reds,
He says it's for the peace of all.
He's the one who must decide,
Who's to live and who's to die,
And he never sees the writing on the wall.
But without him,
How would Hitler have condemned him at Dachau?
Without him Caesar would have stood alone,
He's the one who gives his body
As a weapon of the war,
And without him all this killing can't go on.
He's the Universal Soldier and he really is to blame,
His orders come from far away no more,
They come from here and there and you and me,
And brothers can't you see,
This is not the way we put the end to war.
Hello all, I do believe I have found the biggest conservative dork on the net.
http://www.joshuasplace.net
At first I thought this was a parody; sadly, it was not.
The Army is trying to do its fucking job, that the fuckers in the White House sent them to do a despicable job is one of the hazards of being in the military.
David (Austin Tx)
The men in uniform who dragged my grandfather away to die in a putrid fascist prison cell (years before they started dragging the Jews away) were just doing 'their fucking jobs'.
What the taxpayers were paying them to do. Follow orders. The orders of their leaders.
So I agree with Joel. And I also agree with the Nürmburg trials. 'Following orders' is no defense.
You know it's an immoral, illegal war. I know it's an immoral, illegal war. The world knows it's an immoral, illegal war. The soldiers patrolling the barbed-wire checkpoints in Falluja know it's an immoral, illegal war. And those that don't know are ignorant. But guess what? Ignorance is no defense against breaking the law either.
The only heroic soldiers are the ones who refuse orders to commit immoral and illegal acts. At last count there's about 5,000 of them. THEY'RE the ones you should be supporting.
George Bush isn't occupying Iraq. Adolf Hitler didn't kill any Jews. The men in uniform 'doing their duty' for the *insert Fatherland/Motherland/Homeland here* do all that shit for them and make these illegal acts possible.
The simple fact is that supporting troops committing an illegal act is to support the illegal act itself. That cannot be disputed. The Nazi women back in Hamburg knitting woollen socks for their men attacking Stalingrad were supporting the attack on Stalingrad by providing supplies. THEY SHOULD HAVE BEEN PROTESTING IN THE STREETS TO BRING HITLER DOWN AND BRING THEIR BOYS HOME. (Or as my own father did as aboy, actually take up arms against the fascist fuckers as a rebel/partisan). Like the protests against Vietnam. But for those Germans to *not* support their boys would have been deemed treasonous. Just as Americans to *not* support the US troops is deemed treasonous.
So Joel is absolutely correct. This support the troops/oppose the war dichotomy is just a twisted-logic word game to avoid being branded a traitor. And anyone who plays that 'support our troops' game is playing Hitler's Game.
I've always called it Hitler's Game because he employed it to perfection. Even all the non-Nazis were still playing Adolph's support the troops/nation/whatever game right up to the point of facing the utter destruction of their country, right up until the Russian tanks entered Berlin's rubble.
You all know it's true. But just like the Germans, you are too scared to be branded as traitors, so you play the game too. Oppose the war by supporting the troops executing that war. Which makes as much sense as opposing Hitler, but supporting the boys in the Whermachdt as they invade Poland. Sure. Just doing their jobs.
Would you still support the troops if they open fire on students at Kent State? They're just following orders you know. Not their fault. Blame Bush for them pulling the triggers.
I found this site today.
It looks like the guy started it today.
Wingnutty. And chewy too.
http://senhlr.blogspot.com/
amerikan troops killing....amerikans.
you bet. as h rap brown said, amerikan as apple pie.
want to relate a more comprehensive essay.
but it is late. time to crash. and as many have assaulted me, they want it short and sweet. and this issue requires long and bitter.
um, what's the difference again? all rose tinted glasses for ole bill, and nothing but haters against hillary.
Nice Assumption there, Bucky. How do ya figure that all us libruls thought that Mr. Bill was the best thing since sliced bread? He is magnitudes more human than the republican borg, and republicans attacked him for it. But he still passed NAFTA, attacked welfare and was definitely not the constitution's best friend. Still, these days he seems like the light of a tunnel that is slowly receding.
As for Hillary, most liberals fully realize that the Democratic party does not have the luxury of nominating "centrists" anymore. Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford would be considered flaming leftists by today's standards. America can't take any further shift to the right, we already have a president claiming dictatorial powers, and the fascist boot is looming large. We're out on a ledge here. We need to push back now and hard.
ah,forked tongue, we need to talk.
you can see my email address.
you got it mostly accurately.
The thing is, the right-wing will use this column as a way to characterize liberals as anti-anything-to-do-with-Iraq.
I, too, believe the military "rank and file ... deserve our respect doubly." I do not harbor any ill feelings, only admiration and respect, for anyone who fought in war, just or unjust.
I support them, in so much, that I do not want them to get maimed, injured or killed. I support them that I want them to succeed, if not for the Iraqis who have already suffered so much and also for this nation, but for the psyche of the American soldiers who will, hopefully, one day return. How to determine "success" is a variable even the White House refuses to once and for all establish.
I support our troops, no matter what. When the truth comes out about why we went to war, my personal view will not waver, no matter what the truth is.
To put their life in harm's way voluntarily (by signing up for the military), they earned their respect.
My letter to Bucks County young rethug Petrille:
Young man, As a sixty year old Veteran of the United States Army and a resident of Bucks County for thirty of those years I would remind you of your duty. Merely
parroting talking points of others that have causes and methods beyond your own is not an honorable pursuit. The number of dead members of the U. S. Troops
involved in the ongoing combat situation in Iraq is of importance to the citizens expected to support this campaign. The obvious answer is for you and any other
young people of age and ability to enlist and serve for the good of the country. Failure to serve is not an option. The devious and sad excuses put forth by such
men as Tom Delay, Richard Cheney and even the drug addict Rush Limbaugh are not a good example for Young Republicans to emulate. I have been a Republican
for over forty years and the actions of past Young Republicans such as Jack Abramoff, Grover Norquist and others to dishonor our party sadden any thinking person.
So as the saying goes, "Sign up or Shut Up". The Republican party is the party of Abe Lincoln and has survived many scandals and corrupt fools. We will be around
for a long time and will not be dragged into the gutter by asinine twerps such as you. I suggest you and your like minded fellow travelers start your own Party and leave
the honorable of us behind to continue as the Party of Lincoln. Good luck in whatever you do as your youth will no doubt only excuse so much and you will soon be
forced to grow up and be a man.
mike
and the majority that voted for bush in 2004 also deserves a parade?????
"i didn't agree with the outcome, but i supported the voters." huh? is that what you're saying????????
you
criticize Santorum in one instance for such shallow "patriotism" in one post and then castigate Joel Stein a few posts down the road for expressing the polar opposite. HUH????
whether we like it or not my friends, a majority of americans essentially voted in 2004 to make fags second-class citizens, uteri government property, and unjustified wars justifiable.
shall we have a parade because we actively participated in a democratic system?????????
re-frame your issues and attack attack attack attack attack attack attack attack attackattack attackattack attackattackattackattackattackattackattackattackat
tackattackattackattackattackattackattack if you want democrats in 2006 and 2008.
otherwise, keep fucking things up, pull this ass-kissing horseshit and see where that gets you.
(and I have no problem admitting that after reading this site daily for three years as a huge fan that this is my first major disagreement with duncan. be more cynical goddamnit. that's how republicans win and will continue to do so unless they are attacked with the same heartless and mindless tripe. if you don't believe me, then party.... and go for the fucking throat!!!!)
I knew a simple soldier boy
Who grinned at life in empty joy,
Slept soundly through the lonesome dark,
And whistled early with the lark.
In winter trenches, cowed and glum,
With crimps and lice and lack of rum,
He put a bullet through his brain.
No one spoke of him again.
. . . .
You smug-faced crowds with kindling eye
Who cheer when soldier lads march by,
Sneak home and pray you’ll never know
The hell where youth and laughter go.
Seigfried Sassoon 1918
Is Ted Rall a wanker too? I don't think so. Seehttp://www.uexpress.com/tedrall/?
uc_full_date=20051206
I'm serious here folks. Republicans know for a fact that cynicism is an effective tool to prey upon the average voter. It's great that we're all here on the internets, but Jim Thune beat Tom Daschle because of direct mail slime campaigns from the NRSC. And so forth. I want the Senate and House back in the hands of Democrats this year, but we've got to do better (or depending on your perception, worse) than we've done to this point. Joel Stein is simply tapping into the cynicism that Republicans prey upon to win fucking elections. If you don't believe me now, let me know how feel on November 8.
Stein, Albert Champion et al. seem to know very little about the social aspects of human nature as described in classic social psychology. It is very easy to make decent people do things that appear horrible to detached outsiders when a little bit of social pressure is used. I'd wager that the social pressure in armed forces is enormous. Moral of the story? It is very hard to stand up to one's moral principles in a pressured situation. AC, Stein et al. would be amazed how they would react when put in a situation which file and rank face on a daily basis in modern day Baghdad. Moral two: Don't go to war unless absolutely necessary. I guess we all know who to blame for this.
Uh, do this many people not recognize satire? If it's annoying or silly or too clever or cutesy that's one thing. But it's clearly satire and anyone who's picked up Time Magazine or watched any MTV or VH1 in the past 2-3 years would know this guy and know that's he's a snarky satirist along the lines of Larry David (although nowhere near that funny). Someone pointed this out early in this thread but still people debated this endlessly?
This is kind of historic, so it's cool to be here, because...
Eschaton just jumped the shark.
"Eschaton just jumped the shark."
Yes, with one post he erased 4 years of distortions, mischaracterizations and false allusions targeting the military.
Amazing how that works.
And I love the fools whose only reply to pointing out Atrios's past degenerate conduct is to call for me to enlist.
1, I also support fire fighters, policemen, and local teachers as well. Do I have to participate in all 3 careers before I can honestly discuss the specifics of each profession?
Keep promoting that logical fallacy. It makes you sound like an idiot.
2, I will report from Iraq when Atrios pays me.
"Guilty as charged, sailor! Lol.
Cog"
Welcome back fake Cog. Judging from the lack of profanities, and lack of beastiality references, I am guessing you are not one of the Atrios Fake Cog regulars.
Once again, everyone say it together with me:
"Atrios supports the troops!"
Except of course, when they are in Iraq, Afghanistan, or in Guantanemo, then he doesn't. Unless comparisons to the militaries of Hitler and Stalin is concidered a form a support, then he does.
Cog | Email | Homepage | 01.25.06 - 7:27 am | #
Cog of course (judging by the Memri link in his homepage) supports racist websites.
Jack Abramoff , Hollyweird Librul?
Who wastes their time writing such drivel as Stein does.
That goes for you too Cog and the rest of the tinny talking trollie trollops.
The Russian Revolution really got goin when the russian troops decided to get the hell out of Germany and the first world war and walked back into Russia That brought the tsardom down. It wasn't pretty.
The way things are going for us in Iraq, a lot of soldiers feel betrayed but its such a long walk home.
thanks to John Murtha and Cindy Sheehan for making the case for the soldiers and against the louts in charge in wassington.
He's got the poor writing skills of Jonah Goldberg but without the taking points. Pure ass hattery.
I can't agree that this piece makes "wanker of the day". Caring about the individual while loathing the war isn't an idiotic position, whether you agree with it or not. Quite frankly, when I think of something I can do to "support the troops", it's always send over packages of eye drops. That's what I do. Maybe it's stupid, maybe it's useful, I don't know. I do know that it's not glorifying war the way parades do.
First time you've disappointed me, Atrios. Stein is absolutely correct!
Paddy Chayefsky would agree, and he put it even more bluntly in "The Americanization of Emily" (1964):
I'm not sentimental about war. I see nothing noble in widows...It's not war that's unnatural to us, it's virtue. As long as valor remains a virtue, we shall have soldiers.
And as long as we have monuments and parades, we shall have soldiers -- and war.
Well, I don't know the guy, but I agree with some of what he's saying. It's time to stop spending so much energy praising the troops because I think too much of it is related to the smear about Vietnam. Like the generals, the lefties are busy fighting the last war. I think it would be wiser to pour more energy into helping them get their benefits, the equipment they need, and a little less time praising them as heroes. Read the MSM press--everybody's a hero (except for those who are villains) in this culture of death we're living in. I mean, the Abu Ghraib events were not the norm but on the other hand, does anyone believe other outrageous things aren't going on? Casting them all as heroes puts enormous pressure on them, too, to regard and conduct themselves this way. Don't know that that's a good idea.
Good luck in whatever you do as your youth will no doubt only excuse so much and you will soon be
forced to grow up and be a man.
mike
Priceless. Thanks, Mike.
God forbid that we should hold "the troops" responsible for their own decisions. After all, they were only obeying orders!
Quickly! Give this man a parade:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world...ast/
4642596.stm
What an ass.
O.K. seriously. 271 comments, most of them seriously debating the truthful, moral merits of what is clearly a piece of satire written by a professional satirist? We can debate for hours whether this guy is actually funny or just a sarcastic ass with no writing talent, but geez. What's next, linking to Swift and then spending time debating the actual merits of baby eating? If this is what happens with a crappy piece of social satire what would happen if it was actually a good one with literary merits?
If this is what happens with a crappy piece of social satire what would happen if it was actually a good one with literary merits?
Hm, I don't recall exactly where I heard this, but BRING IT ON!
Dulce Et Decorum Est
Hugh Hewitt made this guy look like the dumbass lib he is on his radio show last night. It's too easy. No, it's too easy. It's too easy.
Why so nutty, people? Geesh...Get an F'n grip.
I support the Federal Reserve Bank.
I support the use of dynamite.
I support the People of the United States of America.
I support the People of Iraq.
I do not support "Girls Gone Wild" but I do, of course, support the specific Girls who Went Wild, as they were enticed to do so by profiteering and sexist scoundrels.
... what the hell does any of this mean?
Fortunately or not, snark happens to be Stein's style, and has been for years. I beg you, resist the understandable urge to flame and consider an underlying message:
What does it mean to "support our troops?" However quaint this may seem, my trusty American Heritage Dictionary (quite useful, that) leads me to understand "support" means, among others, "to keep from weakening or failing" and "to provide for or maintain, by supplying with money or necessities."
How does throwing a parade accomplish that?
To be sure, those that serve, regardless of their mission, deserve support from those who do not. I consider that my obligation as an American. The real issue is how to fulfil that obligation.
Which course of action is more deserving of the label "support?" A parade, coupled with the current trend of whittling away the hard earned benefits and protection of health care, pension, and benefits alotted our veterans; or ensuring that those with the temerity to serve, regardless of the value of the mission designed by their civilian leadership, are provided for in the long term.
If you want to support our troops, give them what they need: the tools to do their jobs as safely as possible, the guarantee that their lives shall not have been lost in vain, and assurance that their service will be rewarded as it should: by making good on the promises made when they volunteered.
Personally thanking a veteran for doing what most of us did not couldn't hurt, either. There's something to be said for a handshake and a promise fulfiled.
Atrios- Change the title of this post and reread Stein's column. You missed the point.
"An army of people ignoring their morality, by the way, is also Jack Abramoff's pet name for the House of Representatives."
Like that one!
Hmmm....I actually think there's quite a bit of value in Stein's column.
First - he underscores the idiocy of much of what counts for "supporting the troops" in this country, and has for quite a while. Magnets (on SUVs no less), yellow ribbons, little American flags.
Second - he also makes clear that real support consists of body armor, decent pay, well staffed and funded V.A. hospitals, an exit strategy, etc. Despite Stein's claim that he doesn't "support the troops" he *is* in favor of these things. What he's saying is that we should support the troops - in ways that actually matter.
Third - he's arguing that all of us - soldiers, 101st Fighting Keyboarders, anti-war liberals (that's me, folks), Yellow Elephants, middle-of-the-road people -- all of us Americans need to be *conscious* of the choices we make and their possible consequences. So many ordinary people supported this war for a while, and some continue to support it, because the "idea" behind it made sense to them -- make America safer (and no, I never bought that bullshi**). They didn't think through the consequences, which at present include over 2200 US dead, thousands more troops injured, 30,000 plus Iraqi war dead, billions of dollars wasted. Oh, and an energized, expanding Al Qaeda.
Much about the "support the troops" mantra has bothered me for quite some time because it seems so....therapeutic. One does not go into the military (I hope) because one wants hand-holding, self-esteem-building feedback, reassurances that you're a good person, daily doses of the "Oprah" show, whatever. Yet "support the troops," and "I support the troops but not the war" often seems to reflect this concern that we should take care to build up the self-esteem of soldiers, and not say anything that might make them feel bad about themselves. As if they are such delicate flowers.
My two cents,
"The truth is that people who pull triggers are ultimately responsible, whether they're following orders or not. An army of people making individual moral choices may be inefficient, but an army of people ignoring their morality is horrifying."
I'm with Stein on this one. You can't exonerate soldiers on the grounds that they were following orders.
why has this debate been reduced to "the pacifists vs. those who supported iraq" again? this isn't about pacifism, although certainly pacifists don't support the war. this is about ignorance. this is about the ignorant vs. the well informed. nobody with serious knowledge of Iraqi culture, middle eastern politics, and the devastation of over a decade of sanctions, not to mention the obvious incompetence of the Bush administration and the civillian think-tank robots they put in charge of planning and PR, supported this war. except for silly people like Fareed Zakaria, and his 'expertise' can be called into question pretty thoroughly. people opposed to the great oedipal adventure in Iraq are not pacifists. they're just not easilly fooled.
And based on the soldiers that I know... I don't support them. They went into the military knowing full well what they were getting into, and they were excited about it.
I'm with Joel Stien as well. In principle, I agree with his idea of having no parade for a war of aggression launched by a dictator.
On the other hand, we should definitely celebrate the end of the war with the troops. It depends on how the ceremonial aspects of the parade are handled.
I never really can get into the hero-worship aspect of relating to the troops. I'm no coward, I just won't kill a person because some other person tells me to.
Atrios: why do our military rank and file deserve our respect in the first place? I think they deserve our pity. It's hard to pity somebody and respect them at the same time.
I remember a conversation I had back in school about Nazi Germany. A kid was saying that we should blame the Nazis but that the German Army didn't ask to fight for fascism--they were fighting for their country.
The fact is that you always have a choice. So to say that all soldiers are morally equal is false. The fact is that at My Lae there were soldiers who refused to kill civilians, soldiers who tried to stop others from doing so--not just soldiers on a rampage. There are always moral choices, even in a largely immoral war.
So I'm not really outraged by Stein's article. He just terribly, ridiculously missed the point.
From a liberal tactics view, I'm angry--thanks again, California.
But from a human perspective, I'm not outraged for the troops. I just feel disgust at Stein's article, because it's in really poor taste to harp on the soldiers when we know they're the only ones who'll pay.
He's right in a lot of what he says, like that we use the soldiers and blame and the government to avoid our own culpability. That's his argument, ultimately--a lot of great support that somehow leads to the stupidest conclusion I've read in a while.
And I know this is a straw man, because none of you have said that soldiers' actions are morally infallible, but there are some people who feel that way and they make the same error that Stein does--they think that the soldier is some kind of automaton. Put him in a war and he'll fight, put him in a massacre and he'll murder. It's utterly false. They don't cease to be people, and depending on the circumstances, that is to their credit and to others' shame.
"But when you volunteer for the U.S. military, you pretty much know you're not going to be fending off invasions from Mexico and Canada. So you're willingly signing up to be a fighting tool of American imperialism, for better or worse."
Sounds about right to me.
Wankin' wuss of the day:
Duncan Black
"But when you volunteer for the U.S. military, you pretty much know you're not going to be fending off invasions from Mexico and Canada. So you're willingly signing up to be a fighting tool of American imperialism, for better or worse."
Sounds about right to me.
Wankin' wuss of the day:
Duncan Black
These points made only point out more clearly that going to war is serious business and not to be taken or decided lightly. We support the troops but not the war. One person stated that the soldiers don't turn into automatons, but then how do you explain those few soldiers who commit atrocities; torture and murder. All wars involve atrocities, on both sides. It is a product of war. But this regime who started the war, rather than try to proactively diminish or eliminate the incidences of atrocity, has purposely blurred the lines of acceptable/unacceptable war behaviors which left our soldiers to a false belief that war atrocities are acceptable.
The sooner we get these real evildoers out of Washington, the better. I, for one, look forward to the day when GW is shipped off to the Hague for crimes against humanity. Put him in a cell with Saddam, see who the bitch will be : )!
And the fact that they're fighting for this bunch of incompetent chicken-feathered bunch of neocons.
Do we know whether or not Stein is writing his columns in Steven Colbert like parody?
What a douchebag. Yeah, let's lump in the need for body armor with a USO tour. Sure, Joel, supporting the troops can't possibly mean *not wanting them to die.* Stein reminds me of the kid who writes for the high school or college newspaper thinking he's incredibly clever, but can never actually muster a convincing or coherent argument. I've yet to read a single thoughtful column by him. Someone above said that Stein postures as a liberal - is that so? It seems to me he tries to present him as a free-thinking contrarian, but he comes off as just a snide idiot.
At Skadi:
"One person stated that the soldiers don't turn into automatons, but then how do you explain those few soldiers who commit atrocities; torture and murder."
I explain it the same way I explain the heroic acts one sees occasionally in war--human beings are semi-autonomous moral actors, every one of us.
That moral capacity which you so gladly apply to our leaders--all the better to blame them for their trespasses--you then deny our soldiers. Why?
Beware the allure of moral predetermination. To spare the man who commits atrocities by saying he had no choice you also take the gleam off those who commit acts of bravery and kindness.
There are circumstances beyond our control, and that's why I genuinely feel bad for England and others who have been scapegoated for the crimes that are much larger than they are, but that doesn't mean that we control nothing.
I dunno - certainly there's no inconsistency in saying both "I oppose the Iraq war" and "but as long as Shrub insists on putting them in harm's way, he should at least do everything feasible to ensure they don't get killed or hurt - and to ensure that, if they get hurt anyway, they get the best treatment available for their injuries." In that sense I bet even Joel Stein "supports the troops."
But if "supporting the troops" means "supporting all actions they've taken in Iraq and the GWOT, such as torturing and killing detainees, ostensibly to obtain 'intelligence' in order to 'protect our troops,'" then I bet most of us don't offer that level of "support."
I suspect the latter is what Joel Stein was trying to say, even if his editorial is an "inartfully worded" way of saying it. I don't think At should've gone all WOTD on him.
Just because the US has been involved in nearly 200 foreign conflicts since the declaration of independence without their own mainland ever being seriusly threatened once, the cannon fodder shouldn't imagine that they are 'tools of imperialism?'
What a pathetic head in the sand attitude from a country that profits by home invasion and aggravated robbery on a massive scale.
Until you sheeple do realise that your silence is complicity, the poor of your obscenely grotesque, obese and unhealthy society will continue to be exploited by greedheads like BushCo. They are the latest in a long line of sociopaths from the two faction, one party state to be sucked up to by the ignorant.
Telling the troops they blew it and need to stop killing innocents to make the rich richer isn't betraying them. It's helping them see that there are honorable alternatives to being a hired assasin, a kidnapper or a thief.
Go notXtian-fuck all you pro-war assholes. If you support the war, you support the troops. If you oppose the war, you oppose the fucking "heroes" killing civilians. The troops had a choice, none of them are draftees. The victims in this whole thing are the Iraqis-aren't any of you people paying attention ? WE invaded THEM.
it is probably too late, but sami, i know.
i watched it when i was in the corps.
you ever put on a uniform sami?
other than a brownie's skirt?
Why should anyone have anything but contempt for those who perpetrate the crimes of the regime?
luxury watches
replica chanel
replica movado
rolex watch
Replica watches
louis vuitton handbags
Characters Remaining:
Commenting by HaloScan
