The OFFICIAL Unofficial Achewood Message Board
Trivial Pursuits => Arts & Entertainment => Topic started by: TALKYdude on September 07, 2004, 10:15:53 am
-
Because it just makes me want to beat the crap (http://www.ucomics.com/rallcom/2004/09/06/) out of Ted Rall.
-
Guess Rall hasn't gotten enough hate mail lately, has to push the envelope again. I get his overall point (I'm on his side of the aisle anyway), but I can see how some will be offended.
-
what part of it makes you angry?
that he would write it, or that he has something to write about?
-
How dare Ted Rall point out that the Republicans are cynically exploiting a national tragedy for political gain!
-
Jough, I need a macro key for "What AugustWest said". Please fix soonest. I would have said "the Republicans have been parading 9/11 around like it was a jewel-encrusted cock ring", but that is why some people are attorneys and some are not.
TALKYdude, I'm guessing Get Your War On (http://www.mnftiu.cc/mnftiu.cc/war40.html) would probably give you a fuck*ng aneurysm.
-
What Zartan said.
-
What CortJstr said.
-
Okay, this is me typing:
[CTRL]+[SHIFT]+[Z] as a macro for What Zartan Said.
Yes, Bush Republicans are exploiting 9/11 for political gain, but SO IS KERRY. Make no mistake about it - the implication in Kerry's platform is "VOTE FOR KERRY AND THINGS LIKE 9/11 WILL NEVER HAPPEN AGAIN BECAUSE WE ARE PEACENIK HIPPIES AND WANT THE WORLD TO LOVE US."
I mean, both candidates are power-hungry exploiters of other people's tragedy. You can't base your voting decision on something like that, man.
It's like deciding on which fast food place is HEALTHIER and eating there, rather than judging them on their true qualities, like which one doesn't make your heart hurt after you're done eating there.
-
Thank you for the GYWO link. I especially liked the previous installment on the Swift Boat campaign.
"You know, there was a time when I would have been sad to hear that OVER A MILLION MORE AMERICANS ARE NOW LIVING IN POVERTY. But now my reaction is "Good, I hope it's those Swift-Boat-givin'-a-fuck idiots."
-
What CortJstr said.
-
What Flenker said :)
Actually, whoever asked me about Get Your War On, it doesn't bother me, I actually think it's really funny. Ted Rall just isn't funny though, I was pissed off from when I read the phrase "Terror Whores" on. I think he's talking about the 9/11 widows who spoke at the Republican convention, but I would be just as pissed off if he said it about some widows who spoke at the Democrat convention, or the Green, or whatever. It doesn't matter, it's WRONG and Rall is a piece of shit. In my personal piece-of-shittiness calculus.
arkabee, it's not that he wrote it, or that he had something to write about. It's the fact that he's attacking a target I consider very sympathetic, grief-stricken widows, and I personally would not criticize them for their actions no matter what party they were supporting. Who the fuck is Ted Rall to judge them? Would Ted Rall say the same thing about these women if they'd appeared at the Democratic convention? I think the answer is pretty obviously no, and I would love it if you produced a Rall cartoon along fairly similar lines that proved me to be wrong. The guy is a piece of crap, scum on humanity's pond. In my worldview.
-
To personalize it, which is probably fallacious as far as arguing dispassionately goes, but I'm not dispassionate about it: If it was my mom talking about my dad who got killed by terrorists, and this is what Ted Rall said about her afterwards. I mean seriously, I would want to kick. his. ass! I don't care what my mom says to a bunch of Republicans. He doesn't say that shit about her. The cartoon was pure ad-hominem (ad-feminem?) and just intended to do nothing but create controversy to boost Rall's stock. Where's the artistry or the statement in shitting on these women? I just don't see it. He's a shameless self-promoter and he figured out yet another way to step on another human being to court controversy and fame. My main regret is that I fed it in any way by posting about how angry it made me. He's now more famous. Shit.
-
To throw in my two cents:
I am not sure this is actually in good taste, but it seems clear that it's not meant as an ad hominem attack, just an attack on their actual actions. Do I approve of attacking the women? Of course I don't. Do I approve of attacking the women's choice of using their personal tragedy as a campaign shill? Yes, I very much do.
They have chosen to make their actions public and are acting in the service of a campaign; this means that their actions can and should be scrutinized publically like any campaign shill's can and should. The idea that personal tragedy makes any use of that tragedy absolutely beyond reproach seems to me to be disingenuous at best.
(Small note: I am not defending the last panel, which is both fairly ad-hominem and a bad punchline to boot. I'm just saying that the first three panels are at least valid in their criticism.)
-
what about the whore's who are selling their integrity to BRING you the stories about terror, etc, who make their living by making things get viewers in order to sell commercial advertisement time?
maybe he was talking about those whores.
the ones who don't give a shit about anyone or anything.
edit: having reread the comic, apparently he wasn't talking about those whores, was he.
-
Wow, I found the 9/11 wives at the convention to be really tacky and shamelessly using their status as sympathy-magnets to shill for the Republicans.
I found their segment at the convention to be in horribly bad taste.
Don't shoot the messenger - Rall is obviously exaggerating (and yes, that last panel is just petty and stupid) but he's not that far off the mark - vote for the Repubicans or my husband died in vain? Fuck you. If it wasn't for the prior actions of the Republican party your husband would still be alive, lady. Try to swallow that down before you try to ply my sympathy for your suffering into a vote for those partially responsible.
-
vote for the Repubicans or my husband died in vain? Fuck you.
did you see that soundbite from the Veep Cheney the other day wherein he heavily alludes that if you don't vote for bush in this election you are pretty much going to be responsible for more terror attacks?
tasty!
-
I just can't believe I voted for these fucks.
I'm sorry. I'm so so sorry.
And now Bush is ahead in the polls by 12 points, proving once again to the world that Americans are really fuck*ng stupid.
I mean, show of hands: does anyone think the country is better off now than we were four years ago? Does anyone not know at least five people who have been unemployed for longer than several months? Does anyone NOT think Bush is a moron?
C'mon, don't be afraid. If you really support Bush, feel free to deny any of the above questions.
I mean, fuck, I'm a Republican but there's only so much punishment I'm willing to take for my party before the left-wing alternative starts to look better.
-
I mean, show of hands: does anyone think the country is better off now than we were four years ago? Does anyone not know at least five people who have been unemployed for longer than several months? Does anyone NOT think Bush is a moron?
i saw on Good Morning America this morning, George Snuffalupagus said that Bush's approval rating is over 50%. there was some graphic on the screen, but it was early, i think it said something like "people feel safer" or something. wtf???
to answer your questions:
no i think it's worse,
no i do not know anyone, personally, unemployed. i know there are many, since the Fabrics plant closed, etc, etc.
no i do think bush is a moron, or yes i think bush is a moron?
-
Left wing, right wing, they're just the two branches of the Boot on Your Neck Party. Stop looking to the State for solutions to your problems. As Robert LeFevre said, government is a disease masquerading as it's own cure. Reject coercion.
-
Left wing, right wing, they're just the two branches of the Boot on Your Neck Party. Stop looking to the State for solutions to your problems. As Robert LeFevre said, government is a disease masquerading as it's own cure. Reject coercion.
Says the person who works at a military base.
-
Says the person who works at a military base.
Indeed. I used to be in the Air Force, too. There's nothing like working for the government to foster complete and total contempt for it. It's also oddly comforting to know how complete and pervasive the incompetence of the government is.
-
Left wing, right wing, they're just the two branches of the Boot on Your Neck Party. Stop looking to the State for solutions to your problems. As Robert LeFevre said, government is a disease masquerading as it's own cure. Reject coercion.
while i agree with what you are saying, i'm confused as to the context in which you are saying it.
If the state is made up of, or is in its entirety, the Boot on Your Neck Party, then the state would be a problem to anyone thinking that having "The Boot on Your Neck" is a problem.
And i am not to look to the state for a solution to my problems.
So, to follow your analogies, if i am lying in the street, with someone standing above me with his/her boot upon my neck, i am not supposed to appeal to the one with the boot upon my neck to cease, but to either "look within myself" for a solution, or am i to appeal to a random passerby to do so?
I firmly believe in personal responsibility, i _am_ responsible for myself. But i am NOT RESPONSIBLE for the inequities done by others, nor do i feel as though it is proper to say to me "deal with it yourself" when someone is punching me in the face for no reason. In a case such as that, i feel it WAS the responsibility of the puncher to be responsible and not punch someone in the face for no reason, but obviously they are not.
Anarchy is great when everyone is playing nice, but the minute a bully shows up and starts organizing other bullies, everyone else is fucked because they are all sitting around chanting "good fences make good neighbors, i won't mess with you if you don't mess with me" and refusing to organize with anyone else to stop the bullies from messing with them.
-
So, to follow your analogies, if i am lying in the street, with someone standing above me with his/her boot upon my neck, i am not supposed to appeal to the one with the boot upon my neck to cease, but to either "look within myself" for a solution, or am i to appeal to a random passerby to do so?
What good would appealing to the person with the boot on your neck do? If they did not want their boot on your neck, they would not have put it there in the first place. You must take action to induce them to remove their boot from your neck, by, say, shooting them in the nuts. Yes, asking a passerby with a bootless neck would also be a possible course of action. Any given problem has an infinite number of possible solutions, of varying efficacy. Don't confuse the issue by introducing false dichotomies.
I firmly believe in personal responsibility, i _am_ responsible for myself. But i am NOT RESPONSIBLE for the inequities done by others, nor do i feel as though it is proper to say to me "deal with it yourself" when someone is punching me in the face for no reason. In a case such as that, i feel it WAS the responsibility of the puncher to be responsible and not punch someone in the face for no reason, but obviously they are not.
As you say, you are not responsible for the actions of others, only for your own actions. If someone is punching you in the face, you must take action to make the face-punching cease, either by removing your face from the range of their fist, or providing them with a good reason to stop punching you in the face, such as shooting them in the nuts.
Anarchy is great when everyone is playing nice, but the minute a bully shows up and starts organizing other bullies, everyone else is fucked because they are all sitting around chanting "good fences make good neighbors, i won't mess with you if you don't mess with me" and refusing to organize with anyone else to stop the bullies from messing with them.
That's just bullshit, arkabee. People have always worked together to defend themselves and their friends, and always will. My contention is merely that people do not have to be coerced into doing what is truly in their self-interest. No person can really be trusted with the amount of power that even the lowest level of government gives to individuals.
-
What good would appealing to the person with the boot on your neck do? If they did not want their boot on your neck, they would not have put it there in the first place. You must take action to induce them to remove their boot from your neck, by, say, shooting them in the nuts. Yes, asking a passerby with a bootless neck would also be a possible course of action. Any given problem has an infinite number of possible solutions, of varying efficacy. Don't confuse the issue by introducing false dichotomies.
i do not see the dichotomy as false. i have two options: do it myself, or do it with others.
if i am unable to achieve an efficacious solution with the one, i am left to find efficacity within the other.
we do not know why they have their boot on my neck. _my_ first course of action is to appeal to them. perhaps they have mistaken me for someone else? again, i don't know why their boot is on my neck.
_i_ must take action. ok. i do not have a gun. nor do i have any "combat"/"martial arts" training to kung fu them to get the boot off my neck. 1- i try and find out why they are doing it / try to convince them to stop. 2- vainly struggle to get out from under the boot. most likely i will fail at struggling, but it is possible and i must attempt it. 3- unable to get out from under the boot on my own, i must turn to an outside entity for assistance.
As you say, you are not responsible for the actions of others, only for your own actions. If someone is punching you in the face, you must take action to make the face-punching cease, either by removing your face from the range of their fist, or providing them with a good reason to stop punching you in the face, such as shooting them in the nuts.
i agree. and since i do not have a gun, nor do i have the martial prowess, i offer upon thee an alternative effacacious solution: i subscribe myself to a system of law wherein actions such as putting a boot on my neck as stated in this example would be counter to the law, and further agree to the enforcement of these laws through use of a force of individuals making up an entity to protect and to serve me and others who also subscribe to this system.
That's just bullshit, arkabee.
well, if you wish to view my thoughts on the system of anarchy as "bullshit", then so be it. i guess it doesn't need to be said that i would disagree with your assessment of my opinion on the subject...
People have always worked together to defend themselves and their friends, and always will.
mmmmm. indeed. and so it comes a time when we friends have to decide what to do about the people we don't quite so much like...
i tend to agree with the "i disagree with what you say but support your right to say it" mentality, or "i might not like you but as long as you play nice i guess we can stay on the same team", etc. that way, you end up with more people in your group [country, culture, etc] and are better suited at protecting yourself and your group.
My contention is merely that people do not have to be coerced into doing what is truly in their self-interest.
i would have to say that i agree completely.
and myself, i would add "and by being coerced are more likely to disagree just out of sheer orneryness."
No person can really be trusted with the amount of power that even the lowest level of government gives to individuals.
i would have to disagree, even as cynical as i may be i do hold out some romantic hope that not _every_ _single_ _person_ is a complete asshead.
-
Va, you obviously don't believe what you're saying or you wouldn't work for the government.
Whether or not you choose to bite the hand that feeds you is immaterial. But if you think that big goverment is part of the problem, as I do, then don't be a hypocrite, baby. You're better than that. Either quit your job or shut the fuck up.
I don't blame the goverment for my problems, but the current goverment has created greater obstacles than previous administrations have. Yes, I control my own destiny, but I don't control everyone else's, and when jobs are shipped overseas and people are out of work they have less money to pay me. So I suffer for decisions made by the Bush administration. The shitty economy makes the lives of everyone EVERYONE living in the United States worse.
I suppose your "solution" would be to suggest moving to a country that has a higher standard of living than the U.S. does, like any Scandinavian country, or Egypt or something.
Me, I choose to NOT throw my hands up and say "Deal with yourself, fuck everyone else" and I believe that if you don't like something you should CHANGE it, not ignore it. If you keep backing away from problems eventually you'll be cornered and too weak to deal with them.
fuck*ng slacker gen-xers like Va are part of the precipitate, not part of the solution.
-
What Jough said, with slightly less vitriol.
I work for the government. I serve the people, creating and delivering health programs and supporting the control of infectious diseases in ways readily visible and directly serving the public.
The Government necessarily provides services individuals cannot and private enterprise will not because there is no profit motive inherent in, say, assuring clean water, or wholesome food, or the control of syphilis or tuberculosis. Everyone benefits daily from a panoply of necessarily government provided services.
I don't feel like I'm a boot on anyone's neck and those of you who are completely BLIND to anything but the negative need to grow up and look around, and talk to those of us in careers of service with the abslolute knowledge that we will never get rich doing what we do.
-
Okay, I'm just going to bow out of this conversation. I just quit writing for a libertarian/anarchist blog (http://catallarchy.net) because I was bored to death with talking about this shit.
-
<throwing up her hands> Okay, I'm just going to bow out of this conversation.
You should've done that a while ago.
-
Remember when we used talk about funny comics and music and stuff? Remember those days? Those were good days.
Geez A-Dawg, you sure don't talk like a Republican.
And Va, whether or not I agree with your position, it doesn't seem very pragmatic. Radical change of our governmental system is not imminent (or even remotely likely). Much as it sucks, we are given two choices. Minimally different choices, perhaps. I think there are some significant differences between the two alternatives this time, but I understand the similarities.
Is it right that we have to grit our teeth and choose between the lesser of two evils? No, absolutely not. Could our system be improved? Certainly. Does this mean I should abdicate my responsibility of examining and choosing between the two evils? No.
-
I don't normally agree with you on politics, AD, but thank you for your last post. I was trying to think of a succint defense of governmental services, and you gave it.
(Yes, bloated government is bad. I don't want government any bigger than it has to be. However, to create an ordered and humane society, government needs to be there and provide services. Perhaps I don't enjoy quite as many freedoms as I would in a libertarian/anarchic society -- but my life benefits in a thousand ways from governmental programs, and to throw that all away just to avoid paying taxes or because "you should provide for yourself" seems shortsighted at the very least.)
-
part of the precipitate, not part of the solution.
Hey, a Steven Wright reference. Neat.
-
part of the precipitate, not part of the solution.
Hey, a Steven Wright reference. Neat.
I was about to give Jough mad props for that, too. MAD PROPS.
-
Geez A-Dawg, you sure don't talk like a Republican.
Well, it's a funny thing: I think government has to and should provide these services...I don't think most of them should be FEDERAL. I think the Federal government should be as small as possible and that States should take a bigger role both in regulating as they see necessary and also in providing necessary services; and that these services should come more from the coffers of the State than the Federal government.
Aspects of interstate commerce and travel should be somewhat regulated and standards should be set for interstate businesses by the Federal Government but I think the Federal Government and particulary Federal Courts spend far too much time micromanaging.
Contrary to most everyone in my profession, I think the Federal Government does way too much. I think State Governments in many ways have become wholly dependent on Federal Government, especially in the Labor, Health and Education arenas. The funding amounts are astronomical and the expectations are pretty low.
I'm for private ownership of guns
I would support a plebiscite to decide the 'marriage' issue on a state-by-state basis (I'm not sure a constitutional amendment is the answer here)
I think a powerful offense is an important aspect of the defensive strategy
I'm for a flat tax
I'm for personal accountability and against litigation as a panacea
I haven't heard candidate Kerry yet lay out the 'Plan' he keeps referring to and until he actually makes a speech saying exactly what he intends to do, (including how this health plan which his wife says I'm an idiot for disagreeing with her on will be funded) I'm still 99% for President Bush. This is more because I have not been given a viable option than partisanship.
-
Okay, AD, I've got a question on the "marriage determined on state-by-state basis" thing. It's not meant as an argument-starter, just an honest question of policy, because you're one of the smartest people I know who advocates this idea.
How would this interact with the bit in the Constitution that forces states to recognize each other's legal agreements and arrangements and such? For example -- let's say a couple or family moves from a state in which their marriage is legal to one in which it is not. Are they still considered legally married (for the purposes of taxes and such)? Is their marriage permanently annulled, or is it somehow "dormant" and will resume if they return to a state in which it is legal?
-
My understanding of that issue is that the "Full Faith and Credit Clause" (US Constitution, Article 4) would be in effect unless a State has a specific proscription against the activity, agreement, etc.
What this means, I think is that if a gay couple got married while on vacation in Massachusetts, their home state would also have to consider them married - unless their state has a so-called defense of marriage act, which explicitly defines marriage as only being between a man and a woman.
Thirty-seven states have such laws, meaning they would not be bound to honor a same-sex marriage.
AugustWest could undoubtedly put this better. Or more correctly.
Am I doing OK, Counselor?
-
V-Adore (to butt in, and this thread sure got better when I was gone), I imagine it would work the same way it did when Nevada was the only place you could get a no-fault divorce. Back in the day every state made you prove cruelty or adultery or etc to get divorced. So people who just plain wanted to get a divorce would get it in Nevada and their home state would be forced to accept that. Likewise, I imagine gaily-wedded couples would find their weddings recognized in the other states. The Defense of Marriage Act (signed by Clinton) says that no state can be forced to accept it, so about half the states or so might take advantage of that and pass a law saying that the legal benefits of marriage are not conferred upon people who gaily-wedded in a different state. The rest would not have to actively pass a law that says the opposite thing, because existing customs of marriage being the same thing in every state would compensate. As for states that introduce their own versions of gay marriage like civil unions, that might be more complicated. I think that those will only be legit in the state where the ceremony took place, just like your license to sell alcohol in Illinois is only valid in Illinois, to make a bad analogy.
EDIT: As Aloha-Dawg points out, there's already 37 states that took advantage of the chance under DOMA to refuse to recognize gay marriages from other states.
-
What A-D said, he said mine but much better.
-
I would support a plebiscite to decide the 'marriage' issue on a state-by-state basis (I'm not sure a constitutional amendment is the answer here)
I think a Constitutional Amendment definitely is the answer. And it should state that all sentient beings have exactly the same rights as all other sentient beings and that any gender specifications in existing laws are void.
-
The Federal government should not regulate behavior to that degree; if a State chooses to amend their constitution with the assent of the appropriate percentage of the voting electorate, it will be so.
-
I don't see how it's regulating behavior to universalize rights regardless of genders. Yes, it might result in changes of behavior -- but so do most constitutional amendments that guarantee universal rights to individuals who did not previously possess them.
-
It's fascinating, AlohaDawg, how we can agree on so many things yet still approach politics from a fundamentally different place. I suppose much of it has to do with how you are raised -- I'm a lifelong Democrat in a family of Democrats. My guess is that you have always been a Republican. It's very encouraging to me, given those assumptions, that we end up approaching the very same positions with only slight differences.
If I won the Powerball, I think I would devote a big chunk of money toward starting a new party. I'd call it the Moderate party. We would value pragmatism over dogmatism. You'd have to pass a test on civics and current events to become a member of the party. Candidates for office would be chosen by lot and could only serve a maximum of two terms in any office. We would not accept donations over $500 and would actively seek donations under $50.
I have been around state government and state government politics all my life. I enjoy it, I'll probably spend the rest of my career around it. I write statutes and regulations and get them passed. I'm on a first name basis with a couple dozen legislators, Cabinet Secretaries and Governor's aides. I'm not bragging. Really. Hanging around government is a lot like hanging around a racetrack or a neighborhood tavern. The cast of characters is just as colorful and if you hang around long enough, well, you become colorful too.
I'm rambling.
I guess my point is the problem with government is mostly the politicians. There are others, no question. But as long as we elect our leaders we've got two major built in problems:
1. Doing the popular thing is more important than doing the correct thing.
2. The people who get you elected (i.e. give you money) get heard.
I don't think there's anyway to change that and retain an elective system. It also disturbs me that people who are utterly ignorant about what's going on in the word get to cast the same vote as you and I do. Citizens have a duty not to be ignorant about candidates and issues. Thus a free and active media is vital. Our mass media isn't -- it suffers from issues virtually identical to 1. and 2. above.
Enough.
Re: Full Faith and Credit. You got it right. States are obligated to recognize the laws and judgments of sister states. I don't think you realize the full implication of that, however. It has a very homogenizing effect on how states treat issues. TalkyDude hit on it when he brought up no-fault divorce. Essentially, every state now has no-fault divorce. If a state is going to have to recognize a legal status someone has obtained by taking a 4 hour flight to Vegas anyway, they might as well make the legal status official in their own state.
RE: Federal vs. State jurisdiction. I think this is a very interesting question. More discretion probably should reside with the states. This is definitely not the trend, however. I would suggest the Feds should set ceilings and floors for State regulated areas, then get out of the way. The problem is 50 different regulatory systems can be inefficient and expensive for the regulated parties. Some things are better suited to a single, uniform system of regulation.
I'll STFU now.
-
I suppose your "solution" would be to suggest moving to a country that has a higher standard of living than the U.S. does, like any Scandinavian country
I couldn't let this pass uncommented as Swedes are poorer than the poorest state in the Union, Mississippi, and have higher crime than the US average to boot. My Swedish source (http://www.timbro.com/euvsusa/) is a very interesting study, you should read that pdf, jough.