Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditOn Sunday night, 60 Minutes aired an important story exposing Iraqi war profiteering that has stolen billions, crippled reconstruction and put the lives of troops at fatal risk.
As Steve Kroft reported, "The United States has spent over one-quarter trillion dollars in three years in Iraq, and more than 50 billion of it has gone to private contractors, hired to guard bases, drive trucks and shelter the troops and rebuild the country." This money, more than the annual budget of the Department of Homeland Security, "has been handed out to companies in Iraq with little or no oversight. Millions of dollars are unaccounted for. And there are widespread allegations of waste, fraud and war profiteering." The segment focused on a company called Custer Battles, which is the subject of a civil lawsuit that goes to trial today.
The $2 million given to Custer Battles was only the first installment--of $100 million--on a contract to provide security at Baghdad International Airport. What's significant is that the company was started by two guys with absolutely no security experience. What one of them had was (a claim of) ties to the Republican Party and connections at the White House. In a memo obtained by 60 Minutes, the Baghdad airport's director of security wrote to the Coalition Authority, "Custer Battles have shown themselves to be unresponsive, uncooperative, incompetent, deceitful, manipulative and war profiteers. Other than that, they're swell fellows."
The company continued to work in Iraq even after one of Custer Battles's main subcontractors went to federal authorities with allegations of criminal misconduct--bilking the government out of $50 million. (The subcontractor and another whistleblower are suing the company on behalf of US taxpayers to recover some of the money.)
What's happened since? Well, as Kroft reports, "To date, the only action that's been taken against [the company] has been a one-year suspension from receiving government contracts. It has since expired."
"I think what's happening over there is an orgy of greed here with contractors," says North Dakota Senator Byron Dorgan, whose committee has held hearings on the giants of war profiteering--Halliburton and its subsidiary, Kellogg, Brown and Root, which has collected half of all the money awarded to contractors in Iraq and, according to the Defense Department's own auditors, has overbilled taxpayers by more than $1 billion.
If there's any chance of oversight, it won't come from Republicans who refuse to hold hearings into the reconstruction racket. Expect to hear more in coming days from Stuart Bowen, the special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, whose staff--in two lengthy reports--has already laid out suspected fraud and incompetence. According to 60 Minutes, it is of "staggering proportions, like the $8.8 billion that the Coalition seems to have lost track of."
War profiteering ties the corruption and cronyism that people have seen in Congress and Katrina to the failure and agonies that they witness in Iraq. It highlights how unaccountable this Republican Congress is. And it shows clearly, despite Karl Rove's core contention--"we'll protect you"--that, in fact, this Administration has undermined the security of this country in the muck of its lethal cynicism, corruption and cronyism.
What 60 Minutes's important exposé also reveals is the need for an independent war profiteering commission, which would investigate the multibillion-dollar, unaccounted-for expenditures in the Iraq War and publish a report for public distribution that includes tough recommendations for legislative action and, if found, criminal action. It would be modeled on the Truman Commission, which then-Senator Harry Truman chaired during World War II to expose and eliminate waste, mismanagement and corruption, and would consist of a group of dedicated, visible current and former public servants--Democrats, Republicans, Independents--committed to examining the financial and military transactions related to the Iraqi war effort.
The Commission's public hearings--although lacking subpoena power to compel the production of relevant documents--could draw significant coverage. It should be a platform for citizen whistleblowers, military families and veterans of the Iraq wars. (By holding public hearings in towns and cities that have suffered disproportionate military casualties, the link between corruption and human lives would be drawn sharply and painfully.) In addition to live public hearings, the Commission could use the Internet as a way of collecting and disseminating its information and findings.
Given the revulsion that decent people--of all political hues--feel about war profiteering, this is a project that could have a real impact in these coming weeks and months. I will be working to explore interest in establishing this war-profiteering commission. I welcome your comments and ideas below.
Share this article
Katrina vanden Heuvel
Thoughts on politics, current affairs, riffs and reflections on what’s in the news and what’s not--but should be.
RSS
Just imagine what all that money could do if spend in the US.
Posted by areyouok at 02/14/2006 @ 08:19am
Katrina:
Thanks for giving the War Profiteering issue some ink time. I strongly believe it is worse than even what you write about it.
Posted by oraibi1952 at 02/14/2006 @ 08:29am
try to imagine what the Iraq money could have accomplished here at home, then shake yourself awake and realize that the america where that would have been possible is long gone
Posted by johannesrolf at 02/14/2006 @ 08:30am
JOHANNESROLF
True, That America is gone, that was also the America the world respected.
Posted by areyouok at 02/14/2006 @ 08:35am
Let's play DC Jeopardy:
The answer in the category "Politics Today" for $8 billion "cronyism, fraud, incompetence."
The question: What three words are describe the two-term legacy of George Walker Bush
Posted by leftofcenter at 02/14/2006 @ 09:44am
Let's play DC Jeopardy:
Lies - War - Corruption
These are heavy words.
Posted by areyouok at 02/14/2006 @ 09:51am
Wow! 6 posts so far without a right-wing loony stinking up the place.
Posted by proudlib at 02/14/2006 @ 10:48am
I assume that no is surprized that people have flocked to Iraq to make tons of money, or that a lot of deceitfulness and fraud are involved in that pursuit - because if you are you need to climb down out of that banana tree you are living in.
What is troubling about this issue is it shows another screw-up by the Bush Administration. Why isn't this all over the papers? The reason leaders get away with this crap is that so many of us do live in trees, surfing for porn, playing video games or online poker, or trying to devise new ways to screw the next guy in our wonderful capitalist system. We have the richest, biggest, baddest nation in the world, perhaps in history, but it is a hollow nation with a blighted soul.
Posted by Damiens at 02/14/2006 @ 10:50am
PROUDLIB
They are busy paying their unpaid "hunting stamps".
Posted by areyouok at 02/14/2006 @ 10:50am
Unfortunately, we shall be required to add to our governmental waste by empaneling a commission to study governmental waste in Iraq. The House should provide this oversight, but fails to do so, since it belongs to the same party, and consequently is subject to even greater threats from Rove to follow party line (read Rove's master plan for taking permanent power) than politicians who run against his candidate. The expenses we will incur should have been covered in the House and Senate, but won't be, hence adding to our waste.
The next reality is that the waste is likely to be extremely well hidden. So, our waste will be compounded. Then, if there are Republicans on the panel, and likely that will account for the majority of the panelists, those people, again, will come under pressure from Rove not to find any wrong doing.
This Administration needs oversight in every area that it exercises authority. This bunch seems to be a cabal of crooks of greater proportions even than the Nixon Administration.
I'd like to suggest, if there is a way to approach this and make it happen, the commission would carry greater weight with the public if it was comprised entirely of independents. I think anything that comes out of a commission like this will have Republicans minimizing damage to the party and the President. Democrats will likely be trying to maximize that same damage. The public will see it as just another example of partisan politics gone awry, the President will paint it as a smear campaign perpetrated by Democrats, and it could just as easily do more harm to Democrats than to Republicans. But all independents on the panel, with no apparent axe to grind, would be likely to get to the meat of the problem fastest and provide the clearest and most honest account of what actually transpired.
Why not empanel the commission with Iraqis, not cherry picked by the Administration because they'll make adequate puppets, but perhaps educated Iraqis who do not and have not held positions in government. After all, it was their country we were supposed to be rebuilding! Unfortunately, no politician in the US would ever accept a truly independent, and truly impartial commission to be impaneled.
Posted by Lennonist at 02/14/2006 @ 11:03am
I'm not surprised about the "60 minutes" expose'. I blogged last week about Halliburton supplying an army base with contaminated water. Guess how CPT responded? He said he was the most grateful person for Halliburton. All the gratefulness was for one Halliburton employee who helped his unit. While I commend the individual employees who choose not to tow the company line, there are too many employees working for the contractors who choose to defraud Americans. How can we trust that our tax dollars are used appropriately? It's not like I can choose to withhold my taxes from being contributed to the war in Iraq. Or can I....
Posted by k330k at 02/14/2006 @ 11:10am
AREYOUOK- Hunting stamps? We don't need no stinkin' hunting stamps!
Posted by proudlib at 02/14/2006 @ 11:14am
cheney is the president of halliburton when he's not in office. lennonist, i really doubt the waste is well hidden. these clowns can't seem to hide anything. i think the country would respond well to dems who want this profiteering investigated. the dems that aren't corrupt need to get bold. there are plenty of issues to be screaming about and plenty of solutions too. the wingers here say dems have no solutions but they do. the wingers here also constantly say we suffer from crazy conspiracy theories about halliburton...lump our legitimate concerns about halliburton in with alien and jfk conspiracies. i guess they just really enjoy getting ripped off--as long as they feel like patriots while they're being robbed.
Posted by loveloki at 02/14/2006 @ 11:19am
"try to imagine what the Iraq money could have accomplished here at home"
I agree, like give it back to those who actually paid it and let us save it or decide for ourselves where to spend it...
Posted by john maasch at 02/14/2006 @ 11:21am
Once again we have been shown that those in charge of our interests are more interested in greed.
That the accusations and investigations have been buried in the sacred halls of government by those who support partisanship over the rights and well being of the American people.
This brings to mind the another accusation that is being stifled by the GOP. What happened to the election fraud investigations is there an actual investigation?
This is another area of major abuse by our partisan controlled government, one that we have seen the results of yet can't seem to get any traction on this with the mid-term elections coming up may be an area worthy of our scrutiny.
Posted by dycel8r at 02/14/2006 @ 11:25am
The reason leaders get away with this crap is that so many of us do live in trees, surfing for porn, playing video games or online poker, or trying to devise new ways to screw the next guy in our wonderful capitalist system. We have the richest, biggest, baddest nation in the world, perhaps in history, but it is a hollow nation with a blighted soul.
Posted by DAMIENS 02/14/2006 @ 10:50am
I agree. However, I'd give a slightly differrent account of the root cause. I think it is a direct result of the conservative's war on education which has been waged since about 1966.
Reagan was swept into the Govenor's office in California, and one of the most prominent of his accomplishments in California was to cut funds for education - and explain it was necessary to curb campus unrest. Since then, Republicans have found numerous ways and reasons for cutting funds to education as well as through No Child Left Behind, just plain making the goals of education substandard and inane. The latest assault on education is to attempt to bring voodoo science into the classroom by introducing "intelligent design" (that's an oxymoron for you) and by brainwashing kids not to believe in one of the most evident scientific theories available - evolution. And they want to replace it, or at least offset it with superstition, myth, or fairytale depending on how you view "ID".
The less mentally agile, facile and disciplined the electorate is, the more it will play into the broad Bush/Rove agenda. Today, if you want to find out facts or seek out a broader political dialogue than that provided in the mass national media, you have to be highly mentally active, highly mentally agile, highly mentally disciplined, and one needs also a strong foundation in history, comparative religion, philosophy, science, ethics, the classics and logic.
Mick said you can't always get what you want, but you get what you need (paraphrased). Today, in education, one can't get what they need to help them be properly prepared to take their role in this "participatory democracy" as it is called (yet another oxymoron in practice since we individuals have little or no input and little or no participation anymore).
Posted by Lennonist at 02/14/2006 @ 11:28am
JM
No such luck it will be donated in your name to the interest on the national debt.
Posted by dycel8r at 02/14/2006 @ 11:28am
no aspersion intended to KVH, but i have not even read her blog entry yet, but lets see if i can answer this question without even thinking too much....um....uh....if the pres's men are corrupt, and all are either heavily invested in profiteering companies (gee i wonder where THEY get THEIR inside tips...) and/or are getting lots of campaign donations from such companies...uh...um...as they say in spanish "no da las llaves de la bodega al borracho" dont give the keys of the wine cellar to the drunk...
u cant put the criminals in charge of investigating themselves...
was that it? now to read her post...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/14/2006 @ 11:54am
how many pub pols are invested in haliburton et al? dems too for that matter? when did they invest?
Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/14/2006 @ 12:03pm
JOHN MAASCH:
You said:
"try to imagine what the Iraq money could have accomplished here at home"
I agree, like give it back to those who actually paid it and let us save it or decide for ourselves where to spend it...
My response:
I am getting tired of this trite and worn response to the need for the government to raise revenues. This antiquated libertarian Articles-of-Confederation-era argument about returning moeny to those who paid them in the first place ignores a number of issues.
Issue #1:
The government's compact with the governed in this country is simple. To "establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare" is stated in the very first paragraph of our founding document. Inherent in that one statement is the government's charge to do what is fair, not what is popular with the rich and powerful. Look around... we have a completely destroyed major metropolitan area from a natural disaster (NOLA), numerous metropolitan areas destroyed by non-natural causes (Detroit, Gary, Pittsburgh, etc.). We have a crumbling infrastructure. And yet all we seem to do is privatize those critical governmental tasks which have been proven too important and too difficult for capitalists who are more interested in making money than doing a good job and fulfilling the mandate.
Issue #2:
Massive wealth agglomeration in the hands of a few adversely affects the democratic proces in this country. The interests of the non-wealthy masses rarely if ever get addressed, and we are left with worrying about how the stock market is going to respond to massive corporate layoffs, rather than worrying about the countless families whose families are now destroyed. We worry about our Veep shooting a crony in a hunting accident rather than worrying about the ever-growing control of the public airwaves by an ever smaller group of international (read: NOT AMERICAN) capitalists).
Here are just two very simple issues which I have noticed you tend to forget or ignore, in practically all of your posts. Perhaps you should try reading the Declaration of Independence and Constitution again. You will probably get a much different understanding of the way this country should be operating.
Posted by jorcheim at 02/14/2006 @ 12:10pm
jorcheim, who are the international capitalists? i thought it was american capitalists who controlled our airwaves.
Posted by loveloki at 02/14/2006 @ 12:25pm
Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 02/14/2006 @ 12:03am | ignore this person
Actually, IBBLE....Michael Moore's "foundation" owned Halliburton stock too, if you remember!
Posted by Mask at 02/14/2006 @ 12:25pm
JORCHEIM....
"numerous metropolitan areas destroyed by non-natural causes (Detroit, Gary, Pittsburgh, etc.)."
What exactly destroyed Detroit, Gary, and Pittsburgh?
Posted by Mask at 02/14/2006 @ 12:28pm
And how quickly the topic is altered by the most welcome invasion of the rightwing. Let's not talk about the fact that not only does corruption occur in this administration (it has occurred in every administration), but that this administration encourages corruption as the purest form of political payback. Weather it is Halliburton in Iraq or Jack Abramoff wafting through the conservative air in DC, Louisiana, Texas or wherever there is money to be made and conservative issues to be exploited, it's all about back scratching among these characters. If Maasch wants to distract with his whining about taxes, let him do it in his own echo chamber. Meanwhile, those who suffer are those who are not on the inside of this unsavory crowd.
As the conservative worshippers of our president are fond of analogizing, "Either you are with the corruptors or you are against them." Simple.
Posted by tjbehrens1 at 02/14/2006 @ 12:50pm
A simple way to put the smackdown on elective (and ill-conceived) wars like Dubyak's AND the waste, fraud and abuse pursuant thereto, not to mention assuring that our children's children don't pay for our mistakes, would be a constitutional amendment requiring that after a given period (to allow initial stabilization of a crisis, say 60 to 90 days), a war tax kick in and the nation is on a 'pay as you go' plan. In other words, no more military misadventures on Visa.
THAT would be far more effective in deterring the misuse of power by the Cheneys of the world than a draft would ever be.
Posted by skeletonman at 02/14/2006 @ 12:53pm
As to Katrina's invitation toward suggestions, isn't this issue at least as important as the supposed corruption among a handful of overly buff baseball players and their needle-sticking activities? Where is tough buy McCain to bring hell to bear on the hijacking of the federal budget by a bunch of jokers who are neither capable of managing such extraordinary sums of money nor capable of providing services that benefit this country in even the most basic ways.
Prop up the known wasted dollars on one side and then federal programs that received less than that amount in an annual budget. Since a few folks here are still anxious about federal spending for the arts, take a look at the administration's gift to their political supporters in comparison to what it spends for American culture. It is no comparison.
Posted by tjbehrens1 at 02/14/2006 @ 12:56pm
Mask,
Quote - Actually, IBBLE....Michael Moore's "foundation" owned Halliburton stock too, if you remember!
So what is your point?
Posted by oraibi1952 at 02/14/2006 @ 12:59pm
Oraibi,
Point: distraction
Posted by tjbehrens1 at 02/14/2006 @ 1:01pm
Posted by MASK 02/14/2006 @ 12:25am | ignore this person
yeah - i need to look into that...could be an oversight, maybe moore's on the haliburton secret payroll...(insert ominous music)
but then the potus was soooooooooooooooo guilty of insider trading years ago with arbusto stock...should have been martha stewarted years ago.
but if your family has that much $/influence, apparantly you can get away with a lot, if your not a kennedy...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/14/2006 @ 1:16pm
How about a commission to look into Vanden Huevel's theft of ideas for her book without compensating the contributers? Shame on you!
Posted by woodyee at 02/14/2006 @ 1:21pm
Posted by WOODYEE 02/14/2006 @ 1:21pm | ignore this person
huh? she rip u off?
Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/14/2006 @ 1:23pm
JOR,
Funny how when a tax payer comments on how his money is being wasted by his government and he would like it returned to him for may be his own family uses, the liberals start demanding said tax payer read the constitution.....maybe you should read it.
Posted by john maasch at 02/14/2006 @ 1:24pm
JOR<
"the ever-growing control of the public airwaves by an ever smaller group of international (read: NOT AMERICAN) capitalists). "
Are you takling about how the UN wants to take control(and tax) the internet from the US in order to be fair?
Posted by john maasch at 02/14/2006 @ 1:26pm
Does anyone know how much Cheney's net worth has increased since the start of the war? Any investigation of war profiterring should start at the top.
Posted by hollowr at 02/14/2006 @ 1:27pm
LOVELOKI:
One international capitalist that instantly comes to mind is Rupert Murdoch.
MASK:
You asked:
What exactly destroyed Detroit, Gary, and Pittsburgh?
My response:
There honestly are too many causes to point to which cause the urban blight that is Detroit, Gary, Pittsburgh (or Los Angeles, or Cleveland, etc.). I am quite sure you're trying to make a point by asking your question, instead of asking the question in a meaningful, thoughtful way.
However, I will shelve my cynicism, and answer your question briefly in a good faith manner.
Three of the primary reasons for the demise of American urban landscape are the flight of manufacturing facilities to areas of lower taxes, fewer environmental laws (or wanting enforcment), and lower general labor costs.
While I'm sure many would point to these causes as reasons to "liberalize" trade and undermine the labor and environmental movments, I see quite the opposite. It is precisely because we have allowed companies and the ultra-wealthy to pit one group of people, or one region, or one race, against another which has led to them being able to get away with this. While I will be the last to malign people making money for hard work and true ingenuity, I will be the first to stand up and fight against doing so at the expense of society at large. If we are, in fact, a nation, and not a bunch of discrete places, towns, and cities, then we owe it to all our neighbors, citizens, etc. to fight against these problems, and to actively push for meaningful government oversight and involvment in rebuilding this country, instead of passing the mandate to the lowest bidder.
Posted by jorcheim at 02/14/2006 @ 1:30pm
JOHN MAASCH 02/14/2006 @ 1:24pm
John, you ought to put your mouth where your money is. BushCo and especially Cheney represents the biggest squandering of tax dollars I've seen in my lifetime. War without victory, and without end. Tax cuts with no spending reductions. Huge promises for New Orleans. Prescription drug benefit that isn't. Homeland security for Bumfuck, Idaho but not for the places at risk. Why people like you and Grover Norquist aren't screaming about this is beyond me.
Posted by MyParadigm at 02/14/2006 @ 1:37pm
"Does anyone know how much Cheney's net worth has increased since the start of the war? Any investigation of war profiterring should start at the top."
Who cares, did or do you care how Clinton entered the White House never owning a home and now is a multi millionare, and he has no job?
Who cares...
Posted by john maasch at 02/14/2006 @ 1:44pm
Not Bush Cheny, but the Federal Government, man, the largest employer in the nation..the government..it is the problem,...it is too big and it keeps getting bigger and you scream everything is being cut..the government is the problem as it is being run by unqualified people with no experience.
Just because one can buy a plane doesn't make you a pilot...I feel the same about the government and it capacity to perform..
Posted by john maasch at 02/14/2006 @ 1:47pm
I kinda have a feeling that KVH doesn't need our ideas for the writing of anything. On the other hand, providing a forum for us to discuss the ideas, assist one another in consciousness raising, let us network together and share our own ideas is a valuable service for which I am most grateful. Then, of couse, there is the additional benefit that each of us becomes armed with more information and a deeper understanding of issues so that we can exchange this information in a sane and rational way with our fellow Americans.
It's so ironic that, in a free society where free speech is the law of the land, the Bush/Rove/Cheney/Rumsfield/Rice cabal and their followers try to stifle the free interchange of ideas. You'd think they must be afraid of something, like maybe the truth being proven. But rather than encourage open debate so we, as a nation, have a chance at arriving at the best possible understanding of all issues and the best possible resolutions to problems. Haven't we learned that working together and as a team, giving everyone on the team an opportunity to contribute, being a completely transparent government (like Bush and his cronies demand of nations they don't like), can only aid us as a nation in becoming more that the sum of our parts. However, rather than encourage contribution to national politics from all it's citizenry, they stifle it. The liberty this Administration seeks to foster at home and in the world is a liberty to agree with Bush policies and core beliefs. If one disagrees, they aren't good, concerned Americans with a desire to give something to their country and maybe improve life at home and around the world. No, they are branded as un-American and are shouted down. Or, as in the case of scientists at NOAA and NASA, they are watched, told what they can say and what they can't, have monitors on calls with journalists, and then are told not to present findings when those findings disagree with Bush policies. I'd like to know how this promotes the general welfare or encourages "participatory democracy", which after all, is supposed to be the mission of our government.
The Constitution that Bush took an oath to uphold dictates that he insure domestic tranquility. By stifling debate and dividing and polarizing the electorate, rather than work toward insuring domestic tranquility, the Bush Administration actually is achieving the opposite result - insuring domestic strife and unrest. I think this would qualify as being contrary to the Constitution. When you add to this the remark he made recently to the effect that he doesn't care that polls indicate the American public wants the war in Iraq wrapped up now and that we bring the boys home ASAP. This proved he isn't interested in the will of the people.
He has put himself above all law.
And all the right can think of doing is come on this blog and attempt to assist Caesar in stifling the free and open interchange of ideas. How absolutely un-American of them!
Posted by Lennonist at 02/14/2006 @ 1:49pm
Not Bush Cheny, but the Federal Government, man, the largest employer in the nation..the government..it is the problem,...it is too big and it keeps getting bigger and you scream everything is being cut..the government is the problem as it is being run by unqualified people with no experience.
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 02/14/2006 @ 1:47pm
So then you agree that:
1) We need to look at areas (if not all areas) in which grotesque amounts of waste, if not graft, are occurring within the government.
2) We have incompetent leaders who should be replaced at the earliest possible opportunity.
Posted by tjbehrens1 at 02/14/2006 @ 1:52pm
TJ, we don't have incompetent leaders. The fact is we don't have leaders, period. We have the poorest group of a management team assembled to oversee our government since Grant. They can't manage, let alone lead. Where do they lead? To a cliff that we'll all jump off with them as they accelerate the destruction of the planet while simultaneously dividing all populations on the planet that seems likely to lead to a conventional third world war.
We have incompetent managers, and America desperately neads a true leader!
Posted by Lennonist at 02/14/2006 @ 2:02pm
TJ, we don't have incompetent leaders. The fact is we don't have leaders, period.
Posted by LENNONIST 02/14/2006 @ 2:02pm
Besides talking to conservatives, shooting at small animals, and hiding, do we know what our Veep has been up to for the last couple of years? Shouldn't he have a task or two to keep him occupied, or at least to prevent him from hurting other people?
Posted by tjbehrens1 at 02/14/2006 @ 2:07pm
Dick almost had a chance to utter what could have been a famous line: "I regret I only have one life to take for my country."
Posted by Lennonist at 02/14/2006 @ 2:09pm
Dick almost had a chance to utter what could have been a famous line: "I regret I only have one life to take for my country."
Posted by LENNONIST 02/14/2006 @ 2:09pm
Instead he uttered... next
Posted by Will C. at 02/14/2006 @ 2:13pm
TJ,
In all sectors and all partys...we never get strong leaders except perhaps Reagan, he was a leader...because we destroy them in the process and the press feeds on them constantly.
Who in their right mind would want to put their family through the process today? Also, to be a leader amongst the worlds leaders, most of which are some sort of despot, one can't be a nice guy, can't be a "can't we all get along type(Carter)"..no we can't, it would be nice, but we can't and don't. So, when we get someone who has the balls to say, Fuck you to the Saddams, or Hitlers or Castro or whomever, we at home, with the loyal"opposition" and the press tear him/her a new asshole for no reason other than to weaken him/her so the outside party can "win" the next election and gain power.
We need assholes in a power positon some times.. I am not making any reference to any leader past or or present,...just making a comment.
Posted by john maasch at 02/14/2006 @ 2:14pm
I think there is but one purpose for an asshole and it does not involve running my country.
Posted by tjbehrens1 at 02/14/2006 @ 2:18pm
Who cares, did or do you care how Clinton entered the White House never owning a home and now is a multi millionare, and he has no job?
Who cares...
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 02/14/2006 @ 1:44pm
John, and you keep claiming to be a student of history. Clinton made his money charging those million dollar fees to speak at functions after his presidency was over.
(remember... you guys blew one month long continuous head gasket)
Clinton didn't use his two terms to pad his investment portfolio by giving obscene, wasteful no bid contracts to his former employer thus inflating the value of his stock holdings in that company (all held in a blind trust of course... wink wink)
Get with the program son. You can't really be that schtoopid.
Posted by Will C. at 02/14/2006 @ 2:21pm
TJ,
Please, read farther than one word and get the idea behind it..btw have you or are you currently running a company or organization? This is the perspective to which I am refering.
Posted by john maasch at 02/14/2006 @ 2:21pm
I think there is but one purpose for an asshole and it does not involve running my country.
Posted by TJBEHRENS1 02/14/2006 @ 2:18pm
In hamsterland it involves reproduction
Posted by Will C. at 02/14/2006 @ 2:22pm
I do have another suggestion for what kind of commission should be set up per KVH's suggestion. How about a commission comprised of the living former Presidents and Vice Presidents. And let's let this commission look into all the allegations of unconstitutional activity by the current Administration. Bush can't claim these people wouldn't be allowed access to "national security" material. So, they could look at everything. As individuals who no long run for political office, it would be difficult to say they have a political axe to grind. It would be bipartisan. Rove couldn't threaten any of them. And, their findings would be well respected by the public at large.
Thus the commission would consist of: Jimmy Carter, George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton, Walter Mondale, Dan Quayle (does Dick ever plant to hunt down this Quayle?), and Al Gore.
Posted by Lennonist at 02/14/2006 @ 2:22pm
Ooops, I forgot to add Gerald Ford to the list...
Posted by Lennonist at 02/14/2006 @ 2:23pm
Clintons largest no bid contractor...Halliburton, please....Clinton is no innocent babe and shouldn't be treated as one...none of them are...it is schtoopid to believe so..
Posted by john maasch at 02/14/2006 @ 2:23pm
Lenno,
Why not have avergage guys with no axe to grind examine all our politicians, Clinton(both) Kennedy(thaT SHOULD BE GOOD), Kerry, Gore, Clinton(both) Bush(both), YEAH, I AM ALL FOR IT...BUT WHY DO YOU WANT GOVERNMENT HACKS ON THE COMMITEE?
Bakers, teachers, waiters, saleman....real people with real jobs..hey, how aboput tax payers, guys who actually get the bills and pay them...
Posted by john maasch at 02/14/2006 @ 2:27pm
Clintons largest no bid contractor...Halliburton, please....Clinton is no innocent babe and shouldn't be treated as one...none of them are...it is schtoopid to believe so..
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 02/14/2006 @ 2:23pm
Never said he was an innocent babe John. But I did imply he didn't rape and rob his country just to make his drunk conservative ass rich freeing up his time to walk around texas shooting people.
(sorry... Cheney's got the drunk conservative ass)
:)
Posted by Will C. at 02/14/2006 @ 2:28pm
And which "average" guys do you recommend who have no axe to grind? You? You have nothing but axes to grind. In the climate under which we currently live (if you call this living), with polarization running rampant, everyone has an axe to grind.
Furthermore, the bakers and candlestick makers of the world would not be given access to items of national security, so nothing about abuse of Presidential power would be able to be discovered.
Finally, butchers and waiters and salesmen are not properly trained to provide a comprehensive and analytical look at this Constitutional issue. You'd have us create a commission that would just rubber stamp what already exists, a secret government, failing in it's duty to be transparent, failing in it's duty to be responsibve to the will of the people, and failing in it's duty to act in accordance with the Constitution.
Posted by Lennonist at 02/14/2006 @ 2:33pm
Bakers, teachers, waiters, saleman....real people with real jobs..hey, how aboput tax payers, guys who actually get the bills and pay them...
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 02/14/2006 @ 2:27pm
Wow John, suddenly you want to descriminate against rich white guys.
I thought that was the conservative base.
(I think they're gonna wanna be on the committee if only to insure that all the blowjobs are exposed)
Posted by Will C. at 02/14/2006 @ 2:33pm
Will,
"But I did imply he didn't rape and rob his country just to make his drunk conservative ass rich freeing up his time to walk around texas shooting people."
We can have all the people he pardoned and all the women who claimed he raped them, if you want...I dothink they would be biased...so they wouldn't make it on the commitee..
But I do like your suggestion of being in charge of blow jobs, do we have veto power over who you give them too, or who gives them to you?
Posted by john maasch at 02/14/2006 @ 2:38pm
Of course, Will, you are correct. The right is more concerned with it's Puritan/Victorian ethics. They care more if someone gets a blow job than if they are robbing the country and tearing up the Constitution. They care more if a tit is exposed on television than that children are exposed to every evil the world has ever seen portrayed on television.
I still believe in the slogan, Make Love Not War. I'd far prefer to see violence taken off television as opposed to nudity. And, please, don't explain that nudity on television would be the root evil that would be the destruction of our society. There has been nudity on television (and continues to be) in other parts of the world and these countries look less like Sodom and Gomorrah than does the United States.
Posted by Lennonist at 02/14/2006 @ 2:39pm
Hunting accidents like Vince Foster accidents? :)
Posted by john maasch at 02/14/2006 @ 2:39pm
"They care more if a tit is exposed on television"...
I like on the TV, under the TV or in front of the TV..
Posted by john maasch at 02/14/2006 @ 2:40pm
but not in front of my kids...don't want to gross them ouit..
Posted by john maasch at 02/14/2006 @ 2:41pm
Then you enjoyed janet Jackson's appearance at the Super Bowl a couple years ago and agree that you don't know what all the furor was over?
Posted by Lennonist at 02/14/2006 @ 2:42pm
I pretty much agree with you on that one. I am not much of a censorship guy..I like the on and off button..and we use it.
Posted by john maasch at 02/14/2006 @ 2:43pm
Hunting accidents like Vince Foster accidents? :)
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 02/14/2006 @ 2:39pm
If only Cheney had shot himself
Posted by Will C. at 02/14/2006 @ 2:44pm
Oh, I see, it's ok to teach them that torture works (a lie) on shows like 24 and Alias. And it's ok to show them killing, lying, cheating, graft, corruption, stealing, etc. I understand why, it's these kinds of shows that gave us the likes of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfield, Rice and the rest!
Posted by Lennonist at 02/14/2006 @ 2:44pm
I totally agree with you on the violence on TV, 99% gratuitious(sp) and it numbs the people to real events of violence that need to be addressed.
Posted by john maasch at 02/14/2006 @ 2:44pm
"a constitutional amendment requiring that after a given period (to allow initial stabilization of a crisis, say 60 to 90 days), a war tax kick in"
LEAVE IT TO A NUTTY LIB PROPOSING A TAX TO FIGHT TERRORISTS
CONGRATULATIONS
Posted by libzsuk at 02/14/2006 @ 2:45pm
I don't watch the shows you mentioned as we don't watch all that much TV in our house. Not much there.. actually your last post is a stretch at best..I can't really see where you are going with that one and how it relates to who you think I am..
Posted by john maasch at 02/14/2006 @ 2:47pm
We can have all the people he pardoned and all the women who claimed he raped them, if you want...I dothink they would be biased...so they wouldn't make it on the commitee..
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 02/14/2006 @ 2:38pm
John, the power to pardon is enumerated. And the charge of rape requires evidence, not the word of a rabid hamster.
(But hey those "ladies" were credible to you guys, they must be excellent additions to the commitee)
Posted by Will C. at 02/14/2006 @ 2:48pm
Hunting accidents like Vince Foster accidents? :)
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 02/14/2006 @ 2:39pm
If only Cheney had shot himself
Predictable for you Will, old sport.
Posted by john maasch at 02/14/2006 @ 2:48pm
John, I apologize for the last post. I was typing it before your post about agreeing on the violence on TV appeared here. So, I am sorry. The previous posts had led me to think you were saying no tit on tv but violence is ok.
Posted by Lennonist at 02/14/2006 @ 2:49pm
But I do like your suggestion of being in charge of blow jobs, do we have veto power over who you give them too, or who gives them to you?
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 02/14/2006 @ 2:38pm
So you want me to be on the commitee. John, how sweet of you.
Is a token of my gratatude, you may suck my dick.
Posted by Will C. at 02/14/2006 @ 2:50pm
f only Cheney had shot himself
Predictable for you Will, old sport.
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 02/14/2006 @ 2:48pm
You brought in the Vince Foster fantasy John
Don't blame me
Posted by Will C. at 02/14/2006 @ 2:52pm
You two do enjoy bantering back and forth and trading insults more than staying on topic and having an intelligent discussion, don't you. If you're having fun, I don't care, but all the blow job innuendos could be considered as very mean spirited by gays.
Posted by Lennonist at 02/14/2006 @ 2:56pm
John,
I read every word of your post--just tried to bring it all back into the context of the topic.
Got to be tough. Got to be a man's man, eh? Got to be a dick, an asshole if you want to survive in the rough and tumble game of the corporate or political world? What crap.
I am not the head of my organization--just the head of its most visible department. Neither I nor any of my co-workers are assholes. And we actually do quite well.
My head spins when thinking about the convoluted things the Holy Republican Empire believes it represents: tough assholes necessary to fight tough assholes around the globe; Jesus Christ; multi-billion dollar corporations that feed off the government, actually assisting in the government's decimation by stealing its wealth; smaller government; the civil liberties brigade; warrantless wiretaps, Terri Schiavo's body, the sanctity of marriage, and strolls through medical and other private records.
It's a putrid little world the GOP has concocted. But at least we can be happy that we've got a host of assholes on duty to make certain that we're all swimming neck deep in it.
Posted by tjbehrens1 at 02/14/2006 @ 2:58pm
f you're having fun, I don't care, but all the blow job innuendos could be considered as very mean spirited by gays.
Posted by LENNONIST 02/14/2006 @ 2:56pm
why
Posted by Will C. at 02/14/2006 @ 2:58pm
Because, Will, the insinuation each of the blow job remarks implies imminently in the way they worded that, for a man to blow another man means he is somehow something less than other men, he is somehow degraded. That is bigotry. I don't think either of you intends to be mean spirited to any group, and it is my opinion, that you two are heving fun. I don't think it is intentional. I am just pointing it out. I am not gay. But I don't much like bigotry in any form. Again, I am not calling either of you bigots. Let's be straight on that. I am only pointing out what others may see written between the lines.
Posted by Lennonist at 02/14/2006 @ 3:04pm
Because, Will, the insinuation each of the blow job remarks implies imminently in the way they worded that, for a man to blow another man means he is somehow something less than other men, he is somehow degraded.
Posted by LENNONIST 02/14/2006 @ 3:04pm
Yeah you're right, but that only works if you believe that red blooded Americans whom god has blessed with homosexuality are somehow inferior to the rest of Americans.
I don't beleive that.
(but John does)
Posted by Will C. at 02/14/2006 @ 3:10pm
So, Will, by that reasoning, I can call someone a fag, and if I think being a fag is ok, that I used a demeaning term to describe them, I have done that person no harm? I haven't hurt feelings?
But, really on a more basic level, I believe in love as an overriding principle that I live my life by. I do not see saying anything that demeans another as acting out of love, even if I mean no disrespect. I like to try to stay in a place of love.
I also try to stay out of the stuff that comes out of asses. I feel if I get into it, I smell as much like the substance as does the one who I got into the pile with, so to speak. Hence, I refuse to stoop the the level of others who do not come from this place of love.
That's what works for me. I have no right, nor do I wish, to impose my values on you or anyone else. OK? Please, feel free to be yourself, as far as I am concerned. But remember, there are consequences to everything we do in life.
Posted by Lennonist at 02/14/2006 @ 3:16pm
I'm not at all pleased with where this thread has gone.
There are issues that are inherrently partisan like whether or not you should try to hide a hunting accident, or whether or not we should spy on our citizens without a warrant to increase the safety of other citizens.
But seeking out waste / graft / corruption is not partisan. If you have no interest in this subject then you are part of the problem not part of the solution.
The issue of the missing 8.8 Billion, the hundreds of millions to give six schools a coat of paint and so on is the most glaring example of a failure in our system and all American's should be more than happy to have full and complete investigations to stop further waste.
Posted by freedomplease at 02/14/2006 @ 3:46pm
If Bush's brother can make millions of dollars disappear during S&L debacle without a peep being mentioned then, 8.8 billion will stay missing now. I will probably be dead before Americans find out what happened to our tax dollars. I can bet it's in a few people's banking accounts earning interest. I say we follow Rev. Pat Roberts example, we need to find out who allowed this happen, who took the money, and "take them out".:)
Posted by k330k at 02/14/2006 @ 3:52pm
So, Will, by that reasoning, I can call someone a fag, and if I think being a fag is ok, that I used a demeaning term to describe them, I have done that person no harm? I haven't hurt feelings?
Posted by LENNONIST 02/14/2006 @ 3:16pm
No, by that reasoning I don't call a practising homosexual a fag, because I could care less if they are straight or gay. They're just one of my bros.
A conservative on the otherhand, doesn't share my strong American values and to them Fag is a hurtful term, which is why I use it and it's imagery here on this blog.
I hope that my red blooded American neighbors of any race, sex, sexuality or creed can see that I'm using the word (or the imagery) as a killing word. A just and noble use of words against those who once killed the Americans that these words describe...
simply for existing
Posted by Will C. at 02/14/2006 @ 3:54pm
Maasch you are dishonest. Clinton was never accused of rape. he was accused of sexual harrassment, just like O'Reilly, and he settled the case, also like O'Reilly.
Our heroes ALL have feet of clay. yet some ARE heroes, and Bush will never reach the stature of Clinton, or Carter, for that matter.
Cheney is in the league of Agnew, corrupt personally and professionally. I don't give a shit whom he accidentally shot or that he did so.
I do care that he's a lying sack of shit who destroyed our country in a worse manner than Bin Laden did,
they lied us into a ruinous war. the 3,000 killed in the WTC attack is dwarfed by the death and destruction in Iraq that these schmucks unleashed, because they could, and because it aided them in their powergrab
Posted by johannesrolf at 02/14/2006 @ 5:33pm
fags can call each other fags, queers can call each other queers, niggas can call each other niggas, the rest of us should refrain from doing so.
Posted by johannesrolf at 02/14/2006 @ 5:34pm
"Clinton was never accused of rape"
Ever heard of juanita broderick???Yes he has raped and he raped our country by not capturing the tallest man in Afganistan(BinLaden) 3 times when he was handed to Clinton on a silver platter....And Hillary Rotten has the nerve to bring that subject up...Proof again of the total LIB crackup
Posted by libzsuk at 02/14/2006 @ 5:46pm
the favorite Tory supreme court justice was also accused of sexual harassment
Posted by johannesrolf at 02/14/2006 @ 5:58pm
LEAVE IT TO A NUTTY LIB PROPOSING A TAX TO FIGHT TERRORISTS
CONGRATULATIONS
Posted by LIBZSUK 02/14/2006 @ 2:45pm | ignore this person
Libzsuk or Wingerswallow or whatever you call yourself
You continue to wallow in freakish misery, don't you? Perhaps you should try READING what I said a few more times so that the gist of it will sink in.
I proposed the idea as a way of reining in misadventurism, such as that which we are witnessing in Iraq. Whatever terrorists might have been there were few and far between prior to Dubyak's war. You may be uncomfortable with facts, but too bad for you.
War compels sacrifice, in case you hadn't heard, and the few (our soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen) shouldn't be made to carry the burden for the many (no load, wise-ass college republican punks who have a cushy job at Daddy's firm waiting for them as an example).
What is wrong with expecting the American people to shoulder their fair share of the burden? If a cause is in the national interest (as opposed to the interest of neocon elitists and their lackeys), the real American people will stand up and be counted.
The sad truth is that parting the people of this nation with their treasure would hurt far more than spending the blood of their youth. I wouldn't expect you to understand that, but my expectations for you are mighty friggin' low, anyway (for example, I doubt seriously if you've even read this far into the post).
Posted by skeletonman at 02/14/2006 @ 6:00pm
"You continue to wallow in freakish misery"
The only "freakish misery" that I experience is when I look at or smell or have to listen to one of you Liberal 1960's retreads try to discuss national security. Go ahead though....electorally you nutty LIB views have served you silly nitwits well
Posted by libzsuk at 02/14/2006 @ 6:09pm
Will,
"Sorry John
I just called you Katrina.
Please accept my humble apology
(And I ain't talking to you Maasch) "...from another post..
You never have talked to me as of yet
Posted by john maasch at 02/14/2006 @ 6:42pm
I find the whole direction of the various entries revolting. I don't think I'm coming back here.
Posted by Lennonist at 02/14/2006 @ 6:42pm
Skeleton -
(Apologies to all for being off-topic)
Where'd you hear that phrase "no-load"? I got it from Richard Marcinko, the Navy Seal.
Where'd you hear it?
Posted by New Dawn at 02/14/2006 @ 6:42pm
Lenno,
"Yeah you're right, but that only works if you believe that red blooded Americans whom god has blessed with homosexuality are somehow inferior to the rest of Americans.
I don't beleive that.
(but John does) "
Will doesn't have a clue what I believe or don't believe. He just assumes..and as usuall, he is wrong..what is true, is that it doesn't matter what Will thinks I believe ....
Posted by john maasch at 02/14/2006 @ 6:43pm
Lennonist -
I enjoy your reasonable, rational, well-thought out posts a great deal. Don't bail now.
The hateful and patently ludicrous LibzSuk and the bile-spitting Bush Man (and to lesser degrees the shit-stirring Mask and the generally useless OKSportsguy) offer their opinions fairly infrequently. Usually they offer some smart-assed remark deriding the topic or author of any given article, and then the quality of discussion on the boards suffers accordingly as we all fall for their shit and start slinging our own.
As for Libz and Bush Man, they are here for no other purpose to muddy discussion and fling the aforementioned shit like monkeys in a zoo.
These two aren't even really worth the effort it takes to push the ignore button, but doing so certainly clears the air on these boards from their vitriolic, hyperbolic spew, and the next thing you know, actual conversation breaks out....!
Posted by New Dawn at 02/14/2006 @ 6:50pm
You never have talked to me as of yet
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 02/14/2006 @ 6:42pm
DUH
We're on a blog schtoopid
Posted by Will C. at 02/14/2006 @ 6:54pm
Will doesn't have a clue what I believe or don't believe. He just assumes..and as usuall, he is wrong..what is true, is that it doesn't matter what Will thinks I believe ....
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 02/14/2006 @ 6:43pm
Sure I do John. I saw your head explode in a post you left on our recent equal treatment for Homosexual Americans in the State of Washington thread.
Ooo baby, it was a sight to behold
Posted by Will C. at 02/14/2006 @ 6:57pm
I hadn't considered using the ignore button as, well, it is a form of censorship, albeit, self imposed, but nonetheless censorship.
This is way off topic, but I feel like I need to go here for a brief moment, and I do intend to be brief.
I am franky sad, embarrassed and disappointed in a few people who post here, and I'm not really referring to the group you mentioned, New Dawn. I am sad that I discover people of a like mind and point of view generally, but who do not get the whole premise of love and acceptance, and rather, sling their own arrows of outrageous fortune right there with the others. I am embarrassed to find that I'd even have to explain to someone on the same isle as I am generally, that they need to speak in public with a more careful voice and treat people, ALL PEOPLE, yes even the right, with respect, courtesy and love. I am disappointed that those others who appear generally in the same camp as am I are not astute enough to figure out what those people who use the nicknames you provided are doing, why, and understand that taking the high road is far superior to getting deep into the muck with the others and becoming exactly that which they are arguing they have distaste for. I am revolted that both sides seem to think that one does not need ideas, facts, substance, depth or insight to express their opinions, and rather is interested in winning an argument that is unwinnable, and that they way they think it can be done is by either shouting louder or by being the better name caller.
Jesus taught, love thy enemy. So did Gandhi. There is a reason for that. First and foremost, if one wishes to pretend they are morally superior (as both sides in the arguments that I have been reading do), then they sure better be morally superior, and frankly, neither side has been in the week I've been reading. Secondly, the only way one resolves issues is to get the most contentious sides together, and teach them to speak rationally, openly, honestly, and learn to appreciate the concerns and feelings of the other side.
Finally... how can people call themselves members of a "peace" movement when their hearts and minds are filled with and constantly spewing hate, anger, and bigotry.
OK, I am sorry, I ranted. I wish others would learn to just plain not respond to anyone who does not speak civilly, and with the intent of fostering an actual dialogue as opposed to getting excited about seeing their rude epithets appear on their computer screen. The fact is, if they were ignored in the sense of not responded to they would go away! Because they wouldn't get the attention their childlike egos demand.
Posted by Lennonist at 02/14/2006 @ 7:08pm
And with that, I'll not post again for a week. I'll come view the blogs and see if things move in a direction where I feel comfortable participating. Thank you all for an interesting week, at the least. It opened my eyes, not just to the right, but the left as well.
Posted by Lennonist at 02/14/2006 @ 7:13pm
Lennonist,
I think you're missing an opportunity here. I think most of us wish that the others with whom we generally agree would also be be people with whom we always agree. Ignoring the children that post here without attempting anything serious, the rest who post here are, to a certain extent, open to new ideas.
If you find discomfort with issues not being taken seriously, then point that out as you have today. Engage those with whom you take offense as far as you can--if they are unable to maintain a civil, thoughtful level of discourse, then blow them into your ignore pen. Other than that I am not sure what you expect to accomplish from your posting adventures. There will always be discord, even serious disagreements about serious issues among those of us on this site who gladly call ourselves liberals or left-wingers. But you can still find valuable ideas and information among those who represent several different sides to complex issues.
Posted by tjbehrens1 at 02/14/2006 @ 7:31pm
As a private citizen, Battles allegedly ripped us taxpayers off for $100 million. Just think how much more he could have absconded with had he actually been elected to Congress.
Posted by seattlescribe at 02/14/2006 @ 7:44pm
Where'd you hear that phrase "no-load"? I got it from Richard Marcinko, the Navy Seal.
Posted by NEW DAWN 02/14/2006 @ 6:42pm | ignore this person
I picked it up in the Navy back in the mid 80's - 'no load' specifically was an electrical generator that was turning, but not generating any power, or running under 'no load.'
It was such a great descriptor that it was generalized to describe anyone who couldn't carry his/her own share of the burden.
Libz' reply to me was really devastating, so much so that I might have to find a hovel in which to crawl and then lick my wounds.
Did you know that Libz and Bush Man are trying to become ambidextrous?
Yeah, they figure it'll double their chances of getting a date on any given weekend night (as an added bonus, there's a 50-50 chance that it'll feel like someone else is doing it).
Posted by skeletonman at 02/14/2006 @ 7:58pm
Thanks, Skel.
Figured you might be a Navy man. I, for one, thank you for your service and your previous (or continuing) education in spite of it... ;)
Some of the military posters on the various blog boards seem to have plenty of the former, and a serious lack of the latter...
Posted by New Dawn at 02/14/2006 @ 8:05pm
New Dawn
It was tough being progressive in the Reagan-era military, especially after we found out what that bastard Ollie North was up to while the old geezer was asleep at the switch. That being said, I value my service greatly, as it has and does help me maintain an even keel, as it were, today.
The pukes that get me are the talk tough needle dicks who have neither the courage nor the integrity to do what is right, then have the temerity to call the rest of us names I haven't heard since the boys room outside Mrs. Ward's room in 3rd grade. You know who they are.
I admit to the guilty pleasure of spanking their little behinds, even though I know it's wrong.
You know what I'd like to see from The Nation?
I'd like to see the editors open 'The Notion' to the folks that post here. There are some sharp minds here, folks that do their own thinking, and could advance the national dialogue (not that I count myself among them).
Posted by skeletonman at 02/14/2006 @ 8:19pm
lennonist, what a baby you're being. ya, it's not all going to be peace and love here. everyone argues, lefties even argue with lefties, things get heated sometimes. i think you have great info but if you can't figure out how to use the ignore and stay, then that's your choice. i'm sure lots of people would like to dictate how things go around here, but no one does. even the nation doesn't edit like they threaten to, and i am glad they don't.
Posted by loveloki at 02/14/2006 @ 8:22pm
No, by that reasoning I don't call a practising homosexual a fag, because I could care less if they are straight or gay. They're just one of my bros. A conservative on the otherhand, doesn't share my strong American values and to them Fag is a hurtful term, which is why I use it and it's imagery here on this blog. I hope that my red blooded American neighbors of any race, sex, sexuality or creed can see that I'm using the word (or the imagery) as a killing word. A just and noble use of words against those who once killed the Americans that these words describe... simply for existing Posted by WILL C. 02/14/2006 @ 3:54pm | ignore this person
Sorry, Will, I don't buy it. Why aren't you using the killing word "Nigger," if you're so sure that it's just a way of making certain people uncomfortable? Wouldn't calling those people "Niggers" serve the same purpose? I don't get what you're saying. Calling your enemies "Pussies" implies that they're girlie, and hence, beneath contempt. Calling your enemies "fags" or "gay" implies that they are homosexual, and hence, beneath contempt.
Why are you working so hard to excuse yourself for relying on language like this? Why don't you just use actual words, instead of slurs? I've read your stuff; you're capable of using actual words.
I may agree with what you're saying, but I don't like how you're choosing to say it. I wish you'd stop with the slurs.
Posted by LisaJo at 02/14/2006 @ 8:47pm
TJ,
"Got to be tough. Got to be a man's man, eh? Got to be a dick, an asshole if you want to survive in the rough and tumble game of the corporate or political world? What crap. "
No, but it helps in politics..
Posted by john maasch at 02/15/2006 @ 12:12am
I may agree with what you're saying, but I don't like how you're choosing to say it. I wish you'd stop with the slurs.
Posted by LISAJO 02/14/2006 @ 8:47pm
I would like to respond to this post, but elaborating any more than I already have on this unsecure thread would give our domestic enemy information that they just don't need to know.
Sorry
Posted by Will C. at 02/15/2006 @ 12:59am
I don't quite think you get where I am coming from Lisa Jo. It's not arguing. It's not disagreements. It's not getting heated.
It is name calling. It is and antagonism.
I can't help but wonder, how will we ever build a world that people can live in side by side together with understanding, compassion and peace as long as the kind of rancor I see from time to time keeps passing both sides.
I am a heck of a quirky sort. I don't really find much left in this world to keep me going, and the stuff I've been reading saps me of hope. I really can't take any more of that.
I, obviously, have no insight into the workings of the Nation. However, Lisa, your suggestion that the Notion be opened up to others, is well, probably not feasible. The Nation would have to be willing to take responsibility for editorial content. Then, remember, The Nation states that it is a liberal magazine, and failure to open up some Notion space to conservatives could be problematic if it is opened to to liberals. Finally, seems to me people need credentials to be taken seriously. I do not know who you were thinking could write for that "reader blog" or whatever, but if they have credentials and could be taken seriously, then they could just submit articles to the Nation anyway.
I'm gonna share my last wishes of love and peace to everyone.
May the future be brighter than it appears.
Bye...
Posted by Lennonist at 02/15/2006 @ 01:02am
"I would like to respond to this post, but elaborating any more than I already have on this unsecure thread would give our domestic enemy information that they just don't need to know.
Sorry "
Don't worry Will, I am sure your domestic enemys figured you out a long time ago and there isn't anything you would "give away to the enemy"...in hamsterland,,,you seem to like small rodents, any thing we would be interested in learning there? :)
Posted by john maasch at 02/15/2006 @ 09:09am
antagonism is good. what would you have us do/ sugarcoat our disagreements? we're not disagreeing over whether the fork goes on the right or the left, we are diagreeing over polocies that result in the death of tens of thousands of human beings.
while I enjoyed you rposts, the holier than thou attitude you have been dispalying more recently,has been nauseating. goodbye and good riddance
Posted by johannesrolf at 02/15/2006 @ 09:11am
Guten morgan, johannes
Posted by john maasch at 02/15/2006 @ 11:00am
jesus lennonist, get some prozac or whatever they call it these days.
Posted by loveloki at 02/15/2006 @ 12:04pm
Wasn't there a sign on to create our own Notion page? believe it required another registration to Techni?, I know I saw an enlistment log on that said you could even add your pic.
Posted by dycel8r at 02/15/2006 @ 12:07pm
I may agree with what you're saying, but I don't like how you're choosing to say it. I wish you'd stop with the slurs.
Posted by LISAJO 02/14/2006 @ 8:47pm
Interesting discourse.
On the one hand, I have long wondered why the liberal/gay rights crowd, was so easily led to use homo-innuendo (Did I just make up a word?), as an insult.
On the other hand, I find Will c. amusing. And just the name 'bloppy' elicits a smile. (Maybe I smoke too much.)
I consider myself liberal, but I have always been leary of PC speech. If we agree fag, nigger etc. are of limits...then pussy. I mean, what's wrong with having a pussy? (opps, you posted on the 14th; I mean, vagina. (Happy V-day, BTW))
Then what?
I enjoyed lennonists posts, but think he is a bit over-sensitive.
If we have always reffered to things, we think we are better than, as insults, the buck has to stop somewhere. Chicken? Pig? (Is anyone from PETA watching?)
Imagine....
Will C.: You are a bad person
John Maash: Yea, well you're a really bad person.
Will C.: Yea, well you're really, really bad....
These are passionate topics. I, too am glad to see the Nation doesn't edit our posts, yet gives us the tools to edit them ourselves, should we desire. (Remember edit, not censor. The post is still there, on the cutting room floor.)
Where I live (Under the WWF buckle, of the bible belt), there are precious few outlets to voice strongly held opinions.
I may value posts by Zero, Johannesrolf etc. but I am amused by some others.
Agreement-fests are boring. Go join the GOP, if you want to participate in an agreement-fest. It may be pointless, but trying to understand the righties on this blog is almost irresistable...and inevitably degrades into name calling. But, that can be fun too.
Anyway....
Eric
Posted by malcontent3 at 02/15/2006 @ 12:15pm
While this thread is already off topic. And whining about things said by those on the left. Please consider this.
Stereotypically, the left= liberal, coastal, urban. The right= consevative, central, rural.
From this limited perspective, rich liberals live in penthouses and poor liberals live in tenament slums.
And rich conservatives live in McMansions on ranches (read plantations) and poor conservatives live in trailer parks.
MMB and mask are always in here "explaining why the left can't reach the masses". As one on the left, here's a thought;
Consider what we constantly say about 51% not being a mandate. So 49% of people in trailer parks, the poor the left claims to support, are nodding their heads right along with you...until you lump them as redneck, for living in a mobile home.
Your either in site-built housing, or you're aginst us?
Just a thought.
Eric
Posted by malcontent3 at 02/15/2006 @ 12:29pm
So no I am the recipient of attacks, and not from anyone on the right but only those on the left. Why? Because I have a conscious? Because I have ethics? Because I refuse to become that which I disagree with? Because I feel it is important to be the best me I can be?
You folks wanna cry about all the elections you lose. Here's a clue for you all on the left. If you could get voters like me out to vote you could win every election. But you don't. I have voted twice in my life - in '72 for McGovern and in '92 for Clinton (although I wasn't voting "for" Clinton, I was voting for a moderate to be nominated to the Supreme Court as it appeared there would be an opening in the impending future prior to that election.
Why don't I vote? Because: 1) I get no real choices (I liken it to, "voting for one is cutting my right wrist, voting for another cuts my left wrist," I refuse to cut either), 2) the vitrolic message of the left is no better than that of the right, 3) all politicians are "Nowhere Men" (sitting in their nowhere lands, making all their nowhere plans for nobody).
You wanna see that 49% rise above the 50% level? Stop nominating the likes of Kerry and Edwards and Gore - right wingers all who clothe themselves in the mere appearance of leftwing dogma. You wanna get that % up? Give us a real choice, someone with a spine and a positive message and who doesn't just say Bush isn't wrong in general only in specific method of how he handles what he wants to do, and that was the ridiculous message that Kerry gave us in the last election.
The only left wing politicians I see in actuality are: Barbara Boxer, Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi and Dianne Feinstein. The rest only appear left wing because the Republican Party has moved the entire country so far to the right that what used to qualify as middle of the road leaning right is now considered left wing.
The left will not win anymore Presidential elections unless and until it figures out it can't get it's base out to vote, and the reason is that they don't give their base someone that base can vote for.
You've driven me outta here permanently. Your hate (both sides) is equally repugnant, and this is the same reason I refuse to vote. My personal ethics will not allow me to participate in a hatefest.
If you are no better than the other side, you ARE thre other side.
Now, this time, I am indeed gone. I came hoping to find some reason to come back because I want to be here, but all you have given me is a swift kick in the butt.
Posted by Lennonist at 02/15/2006 @ 12:57pm
Thanks for the mention, Eric
Posted by johannesrolf at 02/15/2006 @ 1:00pm
Lennonist,
Trust us. We all want what we believe is the best for this country. But your unforgiving attitude will get you and your ideas nowhere. If we are as pathetic as you believe (and are astonished that many find your belief a little insulting) then teach us, convert us. There are any number of right wingers who attempt the impossible by literally preaching to us on this site. We are but a nudge away from agreeing with you totally. But if you're unwilling to talk it out, you and whatever tiny clique share 100% of your ideas are little better than any number of desperate groups who hole themselves up convinced that, alone, they can create a new Eden. Good luck to you. It might be nice. We might have been interested in joining or supporting you. But we'll never know.
Quitter.
Posted by tjbehrens1 at 02/15/2006 @ 1:55pm
JR,
Your welcome.
------------------------------------------------
Quitter.
Posted by TJBEHRENS1 02/15/2006 @ 1:55pm
Ahh...context.
(Random utterings of one who quit smoking tobbacco 2 mos. ago.)
Eric
Posted by malcontent3 at 02/15/2006 @ 2:03pm
Lennonist,
"I hope someday you'll join us, and the world will live as one."
Eric
Posted by malcontent3 at 02/15/2006 @ 2:07pm
Yes, Eric, but note the pronouns. We are the "you" while Lennonist is the "I" and he and his Plastic Ono Band are the "us".
Posted by tjbehrens1 at 02/15/2006 @ 2:12pm
Posted by LENNONIST 02/15/2006 @ 12:57am
And change the name. John never ran from a fight.
(and I ain't talking about you Maasch)
Mal
Three years buddy. Best advice I ever got was on a poster in a bus that read...
the average craving lasts 7 minutes.
After that everytime I had a craving I'd sit there and say to myself, "I can hold out for seven minutes"... then take my thoughts eleswhere.
By the time seven minutes rolled around, I'd totally forgotten about it.
Posted by Will C. at 02/15/2006 @ 2:57pm
OK, I like a challenge. I'll spew love, constantly, because, yep, you're all correct, if I give up, I do lose all hope for any future.
So, here's some thoughts of others to maybe let you see how most of the brightest minds of all time all agree with my point of view.
"I shouted out, who killed the Kennedy's/ When after all, it was you and me" - Mick's saying what I am... failure to be different makes us all complicitous in every evil deed.
Here's another - "What in the world you thinkin' of?/ Laughin' in the face of love!/ Well it's up to you/ YEAH YOU!" You, every person on the planet has the same responsibility, to live a life of love, and as long as some don't, nothing is going to improve. No one has a permission slip to not have to take part.
"There's nothing you can do that can't be done/ ... All you need is love" You don't need more than love, but without love there is NO HOPE.
How about Gandhi? "An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind." Everytime you smack back, all you do is tear out another eye.
Jesus: "Turn the other cheek." Fighting back is not love, and love is the only way.
"Love thy neighbor as thyself." Not just some of them, all of them!
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." I guess everyone here wants to be spewed upon with rants and epithets.
"How on earth you gonna see/ Laughin' at fools like me" Yeah, I am a fool to believe that human nature will ever change, but no one is ever gonna find a hope for Utopia without embracing love as a constant, not a spometimes, a constant.
"Instant karma's gonna get you/ Gonna knock you right off your feet/ Better recognize your brother's/ Everyone you meet." Not just some, everyone.
"I'm getting tired of hearing things/ From uptight, short sighted, narrow-minded hypocrites/ ALL I want is some truth/ Just gimme some truth" I can't limit that to the right, and I know John didn't either - remember the line for another song "Don't give me that brother, brother, brother; brother"
"I've had enough of reading things by neurotic, psychotic, pigheaded politicians" I don't stick to politicians, if you are pigheaded (as I am sure a bunch will now accuse me of being) then you aren't openminded, therefore not coming from a place of love and hence part of the problem not the solution.
"No short-haired, yellow belly son of Tricky Dickie's gonna mother hubbard soft soap me with just a pocketful of soap/ Money for dope/ Money for rope" and heck yeah, I've always inhaled.
"I'm sick to death of seeing things by tight-lipped, condescending mama's little chauvinists" Chauvinism isn't solely related to males being superior to females, it is all thoughts of superiority. (I know, again you'll say that I am, hence, also chauvinist with regard to my own attitudes - yep, in the sense that I believe love is the only way to any lasting world order of peace, happiness, universal mutual acceptance; yes I admit it, and John would have too to that degree)
"I've had enough of watching scenes of schitzophrenic, ego-centric, paranoic prima donnas" and that is what all this name calling, lack of tolerance, lack of real dialogue, amounts to. Seemingly none of you listen to each other, stop to consider that there is some shred of validity and reasonableness contained within pieces of what everyone says - there is no monopoly on being correct and even I have to admit that I could be wrong about my approvach just as John would have admitted that as well, but at least the approach I am advocating is one of building bridges, not driving wedges.
My final point is, by allowing yourselves to get caught up in the finger pointing games, mutual accusatory games, name calling games, etc., you are missing out on great opportunities to actually explore amongst each other a variety of ideas for potential better solutions. You are letting them bring you down to their level, and you are letting them frame the debates in such a manner as to then be able to point back at you and criticize you. Stay out of that fray! Stop accepting others accusations and demonizations. Stop taking ownership of them. Because, they are turning you into them.
"Remember, beware fear, anger, hate, for those are of the Dark side. Once you travel the path of the Dark side, forever will it consume you."
Posted by Lennonist at 02/15/2006 @ 3:08pm
And change the name. John never ran from a fight.
Posted by WILL C. 02/15/2006 @ 2:57pm
You are absolutely right, and I am mad as hell at myself for letting myself think about giving up. Thank you.
Posted by Lennonist at 02/15/2006 @ 3:15pm
Lennonist,
"I hope someday you'll join us, and the world will live as one."
Eric
Posted by MALCONTENT3 02/15/2006 @ 2:07pm
Please don't quote John out of context to twist his meaning to your own. I understand what you meant. I accept it which is why I am back.
However, let's get the quote right...
"You may say I'm a dreamer But I'm not the only one I hope someday you'll join us And the world will be as one"
He's saying you need to join me, not I need to join you.
Posted by Lennonist at 02/15/2006 @ 3:17pm
He's saying you need to join me, not I need to join you.
Posted by LENNONIST 02/15/2006 @ 3:17pm
Is this a subtle intimation, that only you are trying to make the world better?
Seriously, I appreciate where you're coming from. But, many here didn't come to learn, they came to obsfucate...to change the subject.
One cannot reason with them. Sometimes they serve a purpose, allowing others to vent their frustrations.
I know, not very lennonesque. But, do you think this passes for discourse in our real lives? No. Most of us have to overlook the insanity in our day to day business dealings, for practical reasons.
Our venting does not detract from your musings. Or vice versa.
Glad you are back.
Eric
Posted by malcontent3 at 02/15/2006 @ 3:27pm
if yer gonna draw philosophy from the lyrics of pop songs, at least make it Dylan's, who is a far better lyricist than Lennon.I think it was far too easy to write: "imagine no possessions" from a multimillion dollar apartment in the Dakota. grow up!
Posted by johannesrolf at 02/15/2006 @ 3:31pm
You are absolutely right, and I am mad as hell at myself for letting myself think about giving up. Thank you.
Posted by LENNONIST 02/15/2006 @ 3:15pm
Excellent
we need your voice of conscience.
(and John is my man too)
:)
Posted by Will C. at 02/15/2006 @ 3:34pm
And for any of you out there who do not think I am only willing to talk...
In May of 1972, I was a sophomore at USC. The US started bombing Cambodia, again. I was one of 12 people to break into, enter, and commandeer the ROTC building on campus. We held the building for a little over 48 hours. A university dean suspended us all, though the suspensions never took effect. Some of us were forcibly evicted from the building by campus police. When I was carried down the stairs, I saw they had not enough campus police to hold us, and I led the group back up the stairs, at which time, the campus police gave up and left us to the building. The LAPD was called, but the university didn't want publicity, so no arrests were ever made. There was a McGovern speaker at the university the next day (demonstration still going on). When the McGovern speaker concluded, I spoke to the crowd and got about 3000 of them to come join the protest at the ROTC building. I was also a principle speaker at the rally. I also had the remarkable opportunity to spray paint a peace sign on Tommy Trojan.
I was good friends with the organizer of the USC student strike of 1970 as well as one of the creators of the Moratorium in 1969. I have been committed to peace and love my whole life. As best as I can anyway, (I do, after all, admit I am human and have way more human frailties than I like and I am also unable to remain in a place of love as constantly as I would hope. But I do my best.) I lived with a woman who took part in the Great Peace March of 1986. I was in rock bands as a young man, and I only wrote songs of love and peace. Even recently, I found myself being told by a mall security police officer that I could not wait for a bus at the bus stop at the mall. Apparently he didn't like me. I have long hair; this occurred in Scottsdale, Arizona; and I was wearing my Lennon, Give Peace a Chance shirt. I refused to move and allowed myself to be arrested because I perceived myself as being in the right. Unfortunately, my human-ness came out and I used some off color language that day (did what I have gotten upset with all you here for doing - got out of my place of love). I was arrested for criminal tresspass and disorderly condduct. I had to pay a fine for the disorderly. Consequences, which were clearly there to remind me, stay in your place of love, Don.
I'll put myself in the line of fire. I'll die for a cause if I deem it valid enough. I'll fight for what I believe in. But, if possible, I will only fight with love, and I have never, never, never struck any living think.
Posted by Lennonist at 02/15/2006 @ 3:37pm
if yer gonna draw philosophy from the lyrics of pop songs, at least make it Dylan's, who is a far better lyricist than Lennon.I think it was far too easy to write: "imagine no possessions" from a multimillion dollar apartment in the Dakota. grow up!
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 02/15/2006 @ 3:31pm
It's ok, Johannesrolf, I still love you.
Posted by Lennonist at 02/15/2006 @ 3:40pm
Oh, and johannesrolf, if your critique of that line is that he was so rich and had so many possessions already that it was easy for him to say that since he had nothing to lose, you misunderstood what John was saying in that quote. By the way, it's a longer quote to be accurate too.
"Imagine no possessions/ I wonder if you can/ No need for greed or hunger/ A brotherhood of man/ Imagine all the people/ Sharing all the world."
He's talking about brotherhood. He's talking about love. He ain't talking about things. In fact, if the brotherhood of love existed, his argument, we wouldn't need personal possessions, because we would all be sharing everything. Get it? It's the last two lines that matter!
I love you.
Posted by Lennonist at 02/15/2006 @ 3:48pm
In fact, he had more to lose than nearly anyone, because, he would be giving up his possessions so that ALL COULD SHARE!
Posted by Lennonist at 02/15/2006 @ 3:49pm
On last final point from me on this whole issue. Has anyone here noticed that the right doesn't name call with me? Why? I don't play their game. KNow what else, for the most part they ignore me and don't respond to my posts. Know why? They haven't got much to say back because I have backed up my points with facts and authors, I have stayed out of the name calling and antagonism, and so they don't get to inflate their egos by playing their game with me. Try it, maybe they'll leave en masse? Ignore 'em!
I love everyone.
Posted by Lennonist at 02/15/2006 @ 3:54pm
Posted by LENNONIST 02/15/2006 @ 3:54pm | ignore this person
"Has anyone here noticed that the right doesn't name call with me? Why? I don't play their game. KNow what else, for the most part they ignore me and don't respond to my posts. Know why?"
Maybe because they didn't care for either the content or the length of your initial posts with us and put you on ignore?
Just a guess. I like most of your posts.
Posted by New Dawn at 02/15/2006 @ 4:04pm
Lennon, you make me laugh.(not really)
I'm not willing to canonize a heroin addicted, multibillionaire rock star. his lyrics are trite too
here's a tip from Montesquiou: if you want others to praise you, don't praise yourself
Posted by johannesrolf at 02/15/2006 @ 4:07pm
I don't want anyone to praise me. My ego is not at stake. Lennon didn't ask to be canonized either. He wasn't after ego gratification either. He admitted to his human frailties. He was honest about them. He didn't hide them. It was the message, not the messenger that was important, and still remains so to this day.
I love you.
Posted by Lennonist at 02/15/2006 @ 4:10pm
NEW DAWN, if they put me on igmore, good. If they put evewryone on ignore for any of the same resons, they'd have no one to talk to would they?
I love you.
I learn a hell of a lot from you!
Oh, and my advocation is to quit fighting the right, use the forum more as a continuous teach in (we all have a lot to learn from each other and we are all capabale of human growth - myself more than anyone). Let's grow together and build a movement instead of staying caught up in the right wing game of responding to their attacks.
Posted by Lennonist at 02/15/2006 @ 4:15pm
In response to the request for Dylan:
"I saw ten thousand talkers whose tongues were all broken" I don't see a limitation on only a specific group of voices, just like John.
"I'm a-goin' back out 'fore the rain starts a-fallin', I'll walk to the depths of the deepest black forest, Where the people are many and their hands are all empty, Where the pellets of poison are flooding their waters, Where the home in the valley meets the damp dirty prison, Where the executioner's face is always well hidden, Where hunger is ugly, where souls are forgotten, Where black is the color, where none is the number, And I'll tell it and think it and speak it and breathe it, And reflect it from the mountain so all souls can see it, Then I'll stand on the ocean until I start sinkin', But I'll know my song well before I start singin', And it's a hard, it's a hard, it's a hard, it's a hard, It's a hard rain's a-gonna fall" He's talking about today just as much as he was 40 years ago, it's a universal statement of man's inhumanity to man which he decries. Same thing I am decrying here.
"You have many contacts Among the lumberjacks To get you facts When someone attacks your imagination But nobody has any respect Anyway they already expect you To just give a check To tax-deductible charity organizations" He's saying it takes action, and respect to make a better world, just as I have been.
"Because something is happening here But you don't know what it is Do you, Mister Jones?" The whole song is explaining that Mr. Jones has no conception of what love is, how to express it, how to see it, how to give it, how to receive it, or the necessity for it.
Posted by Lennonist at 02/15/2006 @ 4:34pm
"How many roads must a man walk down Before you call him a man? Yes, 'n' how many seas must a white dove sail Before she sleeps in the sand? Yes, 'n' how many times must the cannon balls fly Before they're forever banned? The answer, my friend, is blowin' in the wind, The answer is blowin' in the wind.
How many times must a man look up Before he can see the sky? Yes, 'n' how many ears must one man have Before he can hear people cry? Yes, 'n' how many deaths will it take till he knows That too many people have died? The answer, my friend, is blowin' in the wind, The answer is blowin' in the wind.
How many years can a mountain exist Before it's washed to the sea? Yes, 'n' how many years can some people exist Before they're allowed to be free? Yes, 'n' how many times can a man turn his head, Pretending he just doesn't see? The answer, my friend, is blowin' in the wind, The answer is blowin' in the wind." And what else is this answer but love, understanding, acceptance, and sharing.
Posted by Lennonist at 02/15/2006 @ 4:36pm
"Tolling for the aching ones whose wounds cannot be nursed For the countless confused, accused, misused, strung-out ones an' worse An' for every hung-up person in the whole wide universe An' we gazed upon the chimes of freedom flashing." Again, the WHOLE UNIVERSE.
"Dear landlord, Please heed these words that I speak. I know you've suffered much, But in this you are not so unique. All of us, at times, we might work too hard To have it too fast and too much, And anyone can fill his life up With things he can see but he just cannot touch." Again, a universal approach.
Hopefully this is enough to show Dylan was just as much selling this idea as was Lennon.
Posted by Lennonist at 02/15/2006 @ 4:45pm
Posted by Lennonist:
"[Dawn], I learn a hell of a lot from you!"
I'll take that as the compliment I trust it was intended to be, and I'll just say this: "Ditto, kiddo."
Posted by New Dawn at 02/15/2006 @ 4:45pm
Absolutely that was a compliment DAWN. Thank you for the kindness you show me. Thank you also for being a brilliant woman who, like everyone here (both sides) really, in their hearts, wants what they believe to be best for our country and the world. People have disagreements. But people resolve them by coming to mutual understandings, not by slinging back and forth. I know you know this. I know everyone does. I felt as if I had to make a stand, not to exert control over the forum as someone earlier suggested, but to stay true to my ethics and to try to show people that what I base my beliefs on is worth thinking about.
Posted by Lennonist at 02/15/2006 @ 4:50pm
I love you.
Posted by LENNONIST 02/15/2006 @ 3:48pm
Are you sure you're not Bloppy?
Still good to see ya, though. I think ND is a dude (though, I am not sure.) I think the 'dawn' throws you off, as I thought he was too, when he first posted....'course, I was wrong once before....
Eric
Posted by malcontent3 at 02/15/2006 @ 4:58pm
oooops, I AM SORRY
Posted by Lennonist at 02/15/2006 @ 5:19pm
Lennon -
Pretty secure in my masculinity, so no prob. :)
Posted by New Dawn at 02/15/2006 @ 5:31pm
Thanks for your forgiveness!
Posted by Lennonist at 02/15/2006 @ 5:32pm
And "Dawn" is not just a woman's name, boys. It is defined thus by the Merriam-Webster Dictionary:
Main Entry: dawn 1 : to begin to grow light as the sun rises 2 : to begin to appear or develop 3 : to begin to be perceived or understood as in 'the truth finally dawned on us'
You sexist pigs. LOL
Posted by New Dawn at 02/15/2006 @ 5:34pm
You sexist pigs. LOL
Posted by NEW DAWN 02/15/2006 @ 5:34pm
HEY! Lennonist is no sexist pig.....not sharing my glory with him. Though, I may narc on you to PETA.....
;)
Eric
Posted by malcontent3 at 02/15/2006 @ 6:35pm
PETA?
People Eating Tasty Animals?
Posted by New Dawn at 02/15/2006 @ 6:36pm
Yea...those guys.
Hey, I'm starting to get hungry...
Eric
Posted by malcontent3 at 02/15/2006 @ 7:06pm
Just my opinion, but I think that most who attack PETA are about as ignorant as those who attack the ACLU. If the idea that non-human animal lives are trivial or that their torture is fine as long as they taste good on a grill turns you on, then I guess we won't be meeting for lunch any time soon.
Posted by tjbehrens1 at 02/15/2006 @ 7:11pm
Guess I'm a bit of a malcontent, too.
Posted by tjbehrens1 at 02/15/2006 @ 7:11pm
TJ -
You realize I wasn't attacking PETA, making any statement condoning "torture" of animals, or suggesting that said lives are "trivial", right?
I have more pets in my house than there are people, pal.
Posted by New Dawn at 02/15/2006 @ 7:13pm
Sorry for my sensitivity, New Dawn. Guess I need to get dinner.
Posted by tjbehrens1 at 02/15/2006 @ 7:23pm
Just my opinion, but I think that most who attack PETA are about as ignorant as those who attack the ACLU. If the idea that non-human animal lives are trivial or that their torture is fine as long as they taste good on a grill turns you on, then I guess we won't be meeting for lunch any time soon.
Posted by TJBEHRENS1 02/15/2006 @ 7:11pm
For the record, I was making a point about political correctness, not animal rights.
For what it's worth. I have a dog and three cats. (All strays who adopted me, not vice versa) I worked at my local (To where I used to live, not here.) SPCA for 1.5 yrs., as a volunteer.
I used to laud PETA too. Who could be for cruelty to animals or for animal cosmetic testing, or for unhuman treatment, even, of animals breed for food? Not me. I stopped eating 'white veal' etc., because of early PETA efforts.
But, sadly, PETA has gone off the deep end. No animal testing, even for medicine. And be a vegatarian.
They have gone from relevant sponsers of non-cruel treatmant. To irrelavant hypocrites. (Their 'no kill shelter' only 'loses' animals. Pay no mind to the huge meat freezer we bought.)
We had a 'no kill' shelter near the SPCA I worked at. And they would even picket us, because we euthanized animals. Of course, when they were full, they just wouldn't take any. That was a big help. They didn't want to be part of the solution, just add to the problem.
I had people come in, with litters of puppies or kittens, from their pets. Pets they could have had altered for free, with proof of financial status. ("I ain't cuttin' his balls off. I am a macho redneck and live vicariously through my dog") They would come in the spring, when we had hunderds of kittens and ask if I could promise to find them all a home. When I told them probably not, if they didn't want them euthanized, they should give them a home, they would scream at me. How cruel I am. When offered to get the mother/father altered for free, at that point, they would say no and leave in a huff. (W/O the kittens, of course.)
I love animals. Not a big fan of your average 'animal activist' though.
Eric
Posted by malcontent3 at 02/15/2006 @ 7:45pm
TJ,
Of course, I also lived in a trailer park, back then, so you wouldn't have wanted to consider my opinion nor have lunch with me anyways.
Eric
Posted by malcontent3 at 02/15/2006 @ 8:07pm
I personally agree with MALCONTENT3. I love to eat meat. I grew up on a cattle farm.
However, that being said, the practices of the modern agribusiness with regards to raising livestock, and to slaughtering said livestock are about as inhumane as possible. While I usually find animal rights activists a little flaky, on this issue they are right on. The modern livestock business is a horrible business indeed. Makes me want to hunt for my meat instead of supporting the enormous corps that supposedly feed us.
Posted by jorcheim at 02/15/2006 @ 9:04pm
And, just so you know, I love animals... not just to eat.
Posted by jorcheim at 02/15/2006 @ 9:05pm
Jor
"Makes me want to hunt for my meat "
Just don't do it with Dickie boy!
Posted by leftofcenter at 02/15/2006 @ 9:18pm
The question we must all ask ourselves is if it is ethical to shoot poor defenseless animals... in the face
Posted by Will C. at 02/15/2006 @ 9:27pm
Strange.
I make a brief, overheated comment and actually elicit a few responses. Seems I've gone weeks without drawing a response on posts that I've put real thought into. Perhaps my thoughts aren't worth what I thought. In any case, I guess I must rethink my strategy on this site if my goal is to make an impact. Use brain--bad. Use emotion--good.
Posted by tjbehrens1 at 02/15/2006 @ 11:40pm
The Democrats are enduring the worst perceptions among voters from both wings of their party: liberals reluctance to identify with pro-business policies makes the party appear in favor of handouts while the DLC reinforces the suspicion among voters that the Democrats are just as corporatist as the Republicans. It's an odd contradiction and a rare feat of political ineptitude: the two wings of the party have managed to make Democrats appear socialist and corporatist at the same time.
Read, PRO-BUSINESS LIBERALISM in the Intrepid Liberal Journal.
Posted by trebor007 at 02/16/2006 @ 12:24am
Strange.
I make a brief, overheated comment and actually elicit a few responses. Seems I've gone weeks without drawing a response on posts that I've put real thought into. Perhaps my thoughts aren't worth what I thought. In any case, I guess I must rethink my strategy on this site if my goal is to make an impact. Use brain--bad. Use emotion--good.
Posted by TJBEHRENS1 02/15/2006 @ 11:40pm |
TJ,
For the record I've seen many exellent posts written by you. I would suspect that most often people don't feel as though there is anything more that needs to be added, and are satisfied to let it stand as is. Or perhaps others have become oversensitized to commending our fellow left-leaners because they see BUSH MAN and LIBZUK (not to compare any of our content to those primordial slugs) high fiving each over every obscenity, thus soiling the whole process.
Posted by Oustbush at 02/16/2006 @ 12:41am
I guess I must rethink my strategy on this site if my goal is to make an impact. Use brain--bad. Use emotion--good.
Posted by TJBEHRENS1 02/15/2006 @ 11:40pm
Naw. My response , at least was counter-overheated.
I think it was the comparison of PETA to the ACLU, that set me off. But, yer probably right, Whatever works. Works for our politicians and the MSM. Emotional appeals all the way.
Whatever you do. don't stop thinking on account of people who forget to do the same, from time to time.
Eric
Posted by malcontent3 at 02/16/2006 @ 12:48am
It's an odd contradiction and a rare feat of political ineptitude: the two wings of the party have managed to make Democrats appear socialist and corporatist at the same time.
Read, PRO-BUSINESS LIBERALISM in the Intrepid Liberal Journal.
Posted by TREBOR007 02/16/2006 @ 12:24am | ignore this person
A good point, but just as salient is the fact that the republicans have enough funding and a formidable media structure so as to describe and distort our postions in any shade they choose. Whatever crude message is sent out that morning, is echoed throughout their fascist kingdom, which includes millions, particularly the radio zombies. Consider how they portray Hillary and Bill, or even Howard Dean, who also had a moderate record while serving as governor, but are painted broadly as far lefty liberals. Right now we lack the means to get our message out in the main current.
Posted by Oustbush at 02/16/2006 @ 12:57am
"A good point, but just as salient is the fact that the republicans have enough funding and a formidable media structure so as to describe and distort our postions in any shade they choose. Whatever crude message is sent out that morning, is echoed throughout their fascist kingdom, which includes millions, particularly the radio zombies. Consider how they portray Hillary and Bill, or even Howard Dean, who also had a moderate record while serving as governor, but are painted broadly as far lefty liberals. Right now we lack the means to get our message out in the main current."
I understand what you're saying but I do make suggestions that might be marketable to business community voters while also preserving our progressive values. So ... I humbly request that you read the rest at the Intrepid Liberal Journal [intrepidliberaljournal.blogspot.com]
Posted by trebor007 at 02/16/2006 @ 01:12am
Interesting point with the added updated technology and control. Has anyone read this one:
http://www.guerrillanews.com/articles/2088/Spinning_Us_to_Death
Whitney: What is the military-industrial-media complex?
Norman Solomon: This refers to the corporatization of mass media, which has meant that the profit-driven apparatus of disseminating news and information is largely drinking from the same corporatized trough as the governmental war-makers in Washington.
Posted by Bushfools at 02/16/2006 @ 08:58am
the third leg of the military industrial complex stool is congress, as Eisenhower stated in his draft of the speech.perhaps we should call it a four legged stool and add the media, as they are complicit, most of them anyhow.
Posted by johannesrolf at 02/16/2006 @ 10:40am
tj, just so you know, i really enjoy reading all of your posts. you are one of the many who contribute valuable information here.
Posted by loveloki at 02/16/2006 @ 11:11am
johannesrolf, i agree with the fourth leg of the stool idea. publicly financed campaigns and an equal footing would do much to undermine this military-industry monster.
Posted by loveloki at 02/16/2006 @ 11:15am
Loki, an alternative media also has a great role to play, as it did during the Vietnam debacle. the good news is that these media are so much more numerous today, and that includes US
Posted by johannesrolf at 02/16/2006 @ 11:41am
On last final point from me on this whole issue. Has anyone here noticed that the right doesn't name call with me? Why? I don't play their game. KNow what else, for the most part they ignore me and don't respond to my posts. Know why? They haven't got much to say back because I have backed up my points with facts and authors, I have stayed out of the name calling and antagonism, and so they don't get to inflate their egos by playing their game with me. Try it, maybe they'll leave en masse? Ignore 'em!
I love everyone.
Posted by LENNONIST 02/15/2006 @ 3:54pm
Lennonist,
You don't seriously believe yourself when you post something like this, do you?
Some of us on the right (not many unfortunately) don't require vulgarities to make our points, nor do we use them in our lives. So that has nothing to do with you.
Secondly, I have yet to find any substantive reason for dialogue with you. Most on this site would classify me as extreme right wing, yet I love Lennon and Dylan as much as anyone on the left. I just don't agree with many of John's "solutions" he had. And any American with any level of normal intelligence has to find Bob Dylan one of our greatest musical poets and social commentators (whether you agree or disagree with his message).
I think as many on the left here have attempted to point out to you, what constitutes debate and dialogue is positing a position that you can back up. We may disagree on the back up data but that is what makes for politics. So bring on your arguments for your positions and let's debate; we just can't debate someone's song lyrics-it's Nowhere Man!
And don't forget John's angry side:
I Found Out
I told you before stay away from my door Don't give me that brother, brother, brother The freaks on the phone won't leave me alone So don't give me that brother, brother, brother I found out
Now that I showed you what I been through Don't take nobody's word what you can do There ain't no Jesus gonna come from the sky Now that I found out I know I can cry I found out
Some of you sitting there with your cock in your hand Don't get you nowhere don't make you a man I heard something bout my ma and my pa They didn't want me so they made me a star I found out
Old hare Krishna got nothing on you Just keep you crazy with nothing to do Keep you occupied with pie in the sky There ain't no Guru who can see thru your eyes I found out
I been through junkies I been through it all I've seen religion from Jesus to Paul Don't let them fool you with dope and cocaine Can't do you no harm to feel your own pain I found out
Posted by love liberty at 02/16/2006 @ 12:34pm