Not Surprised
It had to happen: notsorryeverybody.com, in response to sorryeverybody.com, the site created to apologize to the world for electing the cowboy fundamentalist yet again (or rather, for the first time). Here's the e-mail I sent to the twit who put up the "notsorry" site:
Great. Another guy standing up for killing people after taking over a sovereign nation and voting to deny people rights. Not everybody who didn't vote for Bush is a "liberal" -- a word which has come to mean turd. Fiscally, I'm just to the right of Genghis Khan -- a big Cato Institute, small government, free minds, free markets fan. I don't want government-subsidized NPR, and I think people with kids should pay for their own damn brats to go to school, not rely on property taxes of others. HOWEVER, I am a staunch libertarian, and I loathe the effect that fundamentalist, anti-science monkey-in-chief is having on civil liberties. Moreover, what kind of moron sees our country attacked by Osama and goes after Saddam? If it was a human rights kind of "nation-building," well, why aren't we in Sudan? Moreover, after being a proud and patriotic American all my life (I just thanked all the Veterans I saw at breakfast for fighting to protect our country) I'm ashamed to live in a country where primitive religious fanatics (anybody who believes in god or the easter bunny, sans any real proof of their existence) vote to deny other people rights based on their primitive religious beliefs. I'm sorry Bush was elected, and I'm sorrier still, that so many people are boneheaded and bigoted enough to vote for him. Read Andrew Gumbel's piece on why voting for Bush is like driving an SUV.-Amy Alkon
That Andrew Gumbel piece is posted below. P.S. I just heard on the news that TV stations are balking at showing Saving Private Ryan, out of concern for the FCC crackdowns on what can be shown on television. It's amazing how fast a formerly pretty modern nation can whoosh backward, huh?
"I just thanked all the Veterans I saw at breakfast for fighting to protect our country"
But if you were truly thankful, you would've offered them all a round of blowjobs. Where's your patriotism, Amy?
Lena at November 11, 2004 9:43 AM
I visited the site, saw the map. Go figure, Alaska is white.
Oh, nevermind, I get it now, "Red White and Blue."
Just as well, for most practical purposes we're not considered part of America anyway, until that is it comes to spending ya-all's money.
Btw, good suggestion there by Lena. Is it too late to enlist?!
RKN at November 11, 2004 10:24 AM
All talk and no action, what can I say?!
Amy Alkon at November 11, 2004 11:23 AM
The guy ( John V. Petersen ,Esq.) wrote back. I've posted his response, in its entirety, with my responses between it:
In a message dated 11/11/04 10:21:00 AM, notsorryeverybody@yahoo.com writes:
>
Um, that's called having a brain. Now you're sounding all granola. "Oh," he chirps, "Don't be judgmental!" Well, I have judgement, and I like to give it regular exercise. That's not contrary to libertarianism. And if you think it is, or there's something wrong with it, you are a bonehead.
>
George Bush ran on a platform of no "nation-building." If it's humanitarianism that sent us to Iraq; well, there are many, many nations we should be invading right now. What we did was suck our forces and resources out of Osama country and go after Saddam -- half-cocked and without sufficient troops or sufficient body armor and other protection for them. Yeah, how about them WMD?!
Regarding voting to deny rights: Did it escape you that all the religious loonies voted against allowing gays to marry? Perhaps you were too busy learning HTML.
>
I won't speak of "conservatives" because Bush isn't one, and neither are many of the religious fanatics who voted for him. George Bush didn't veto a single piece of legislation during his presidency. Of course, it's about stem cells, period, not who pays for them. Same as with abortion. The nutbag religiosos make no bones about it. You're disingenuous in intimating otherwise. Nice try, though. See, if you were more judgmental, you might go places in arguments with godless rational types like me. Wow...just noticed you're a lawyer. With "logic" like yours, I sure hope you aren't a practicing one. - Amy Alkon
PS Notice how the states that voted for Bush tend to mirror states that had slavery. Interesting, huh?
Amy Alkon at November 11, 2004 11:44 AM
"...standing up for killing people after taking over a sovereign nation ..."
Opuh... Opuh LEEZE!
2003/2004 is a suspicious time to be snarking about the sovereignty of nations, especially when those nations were run for generations by puppetlike crime families installed by the United States. It makes one wonder if your other complaints are derivative of similar self-interest. Actually, last week it made 59,459,765 wonder.
What is it about boomers that makes them feel like virgins no matter how old and bloody they get?
Cridland at November 11, 2004 11:52 AM
You convinced me Crid. Sure is nice not to be doing that anymore.
PS- Lena- no bloody virgin jokes please. My karma is still traumatized by the killing babies remark.
eric at November 11, 2004 12:51 PM
My apologies -- seems I made the text (from Peterson) disappear instead of posting it. Foiled by technology yet again! Here it is with quotes so it won't evaporate:
In a message dated 11/11/04 10:21:00 AM, notsorryeverybody@yahoo.com writes:
"On one hand, you say you are a libertarian, but on the other hand, you go on to judge others - and to classify them as being "boneheads" for voting for President Bush - and not agreeing with you."
Um, that's called having a brain. Now you're sounding all granola. "Oh," he chirps, "Don't be judgemental!" Well, I have judgement, and I like to give it regular exercise. That's not contrary to libertarianism. And if you think it is, or there's something wrong with it, you are a bonehead.
"You know...Germany and Japan were soverign nations - that we defeated for the greater good. Iraq is no different insofar as the war an terror is concerned. From a strategic standpoint - in the long-term war on terror - taking Iraq out and working to bring freedom and democracy to that part of the world is a heck of a lot better than leaving Hussein in charge. At the very least, it is FAR too early to render judgment that our mission is wrong or that it is a failure. As far as voting to deny rights - I don't see where you are going with that..."
George Bush ran on a platform of no "nation-building." If it's humanitarianism that sent us to Iraq; well, there are many, many nations we should be invading right now. What we did was suck our forces and resources out of Osama country and go after Saddam -- half-cocked and without sufficient troops or sufficient body armor and other protection for them. Yeah, how about them WMD?!
Regarding voting to deny rights: Did it escape you that all the religious loonies voted against allowing gays to marry? Perhaps you were too busy learning HTML.
"The big flaw with your point of view is that you believe this election was a referendum on melding church and state or that conservatives are "anti-science". With respect to stem-cell research - it is not that conservatives are against it. Rather, we are against gov't funding. If you believe in free markets - as you appear to do based on your email - then surely, you recognize that R and D re: stem cells - is something best left in the hands of private business - who operate with a profit motive. Gov't funding = bigger gov't - something you are on record as being against."
I won't speak of "conservatives" because Bush isn't one, and neither are many of the religious fanatics who voted for him. George Bush didn't veto a single piece of legislation during his presidency. Of course, it's about stem cells, period, not who pays for them. Same as with abortion. The nutbag religiosos make no bones about it. You're disingenuous in intimating otherwise. Nice try, though. See, if you were more judgmental, you might go places in arguments with godless rational types like me. Wow...just noticed you're a lawyer. With "logic" like yours, I sure hope you aren't a practicing one. - Amy Alkon
PS Notice how the states that voted for Bush tend to mirror states that had slavery. Interesting, huh?
Amy Alkon at November 11, 2004 2:31 PM
I am taking a month sabattical from politics, but the analogy of Iraq being the same as Nazi Germany or Japan after Pearl Harbour is too fu***ng ludicrous to let pass. What a moronic statement. Flagrant idiocy.
Tell us what this "stategy" is.
PS- The map on your website is bullshit also. Who cares if vast areas of almost unpopulated land voted for Bush? Mandate my butt. If Bush lost Ohio, he would have lost, period. Some mandate.
eric at November 11, 2004 5:00 PM
PS- Your arrogance is sickening. A large number of us Americans are sorry, to the world, for this unneccessary slaughter of tens of thousands Iraqis, both civilian and "insurgent", over falsified, discredited and faulty intelligence. Iraqis are dying en masse for our leaders errors, and there is no debating that. NO WMD's, no yellowcake, no 911 ties.
And you attempt to take away and mock this expression of benevolence and pity by creating a "un" website?
Notsorry- you are unoriginal and pathetic.
eric at November 11, 2004 5:27 PM
PPS- change "errors" to "motives".
eric at November 11, 2004 8:15 PM
Change "similar self-interest" to "liquid foundations of reasoning."
> Mandate my butt. If Bush lost Ohio, he
> would have lost, period.
Any number of other forces could have propelled Kerry to victory. It's senseless, and politically suicidal, to pick on the Buckeye State or the religious people or the Nascar Dads or labor or whatever. Ohio came through last (ie later) in the vote count, and you shouldn't let that cause you to give it a good seat in your imagination.
I'm a lifelong Democrat over here, OK, babe? Trust me on this.
>Some mandate.
You are correct on the larger point. Bush has no mandate, he only won an election. And it was a close one. Fucker should be glad he has a job. Kerry should be glad his wife can help him with the mortgage on the Boston place in years ahead (see Newsweek).
>Americans are sorry, to the world,
Speak only for yourself.
>for this unneccessary slaughter of
Never has such a preponderantly effective death machine been so minutely targeted.
>tens of thousands Iraqis,
Transparently bogus number...
>both civilian and "insurgent"
...Especially when so many of the ones we're killing are ringers from other nations. (That doesn't mean we should have sealed the borders in March 03. In any case, no one's asking the guy who puts credits on game shows how to conduct military ops.)
> over falsified, discredited and faulty intelligence
The falsifications were minimal. NOW it's descredited, but "humours" ruled medicine for millenia, with no less faith than Clinton, Chirac, Albright, Cohen, and a thousand other fuckwits gave to the presumption that Iraq had WMDs. And rather than calling it "faulty," take the Hitchens approach: Read the Kay report (I can send you a copy), and see "The Bomb in My Garden: The Secrets of Saddam's Nuclear Mastermind" by Mahdi Obeidi.
More to the point, how can you pretend the war was sold solely on WMDs, whereas anyone with a memory longer than two years must know better?
Pretend you could kill all the gangbangers in South Central and the Bronx and Chicago's South side and all the other little hellholes where they congregate. All the kids who wanted to live gently, and go to school, and make something of their lives would thrive. What would you do? OK, now imagine that you can't really tell who's who, BUT YOU'RE THE ONE WHO GAVE THEM THE GANGBANGERS in the first place. That's where we're at in Iraq.
I'm lousy at metaphors, but it's tough to keep developing new ones for people who want to pretend that Iraq was a fragrant garden paradise before Bush was elected... They're arguing insanely, and patience is lost.
> If it's humanitarianism that sent
> us to Iraq; well, there are many,
> many nations we should be invading
> right now.
Few where our errors were as clear; few where 25 million were directly affected; few where accidents of geography gave the nation such exemplary worth.
Will someone please answer: WHAT DID YOU WANT FOR IRAQ?
(If you say more supervision from the corrupt UN, you're an idiot, morally and otherwise.)
Cridland at November 11, 2004 8:58 PM
What's "yellowcake"?
Lena at November 11, 2004 9:36 PM
Lena wondered:
> What's "yellowcake"?
'You three oh eight.'
Milled uranium ore, basically.
See here: http://www.wma-minelife.com/uranium/insitu/graphics/yc1.jpg
A necessary pre-ingredient to uranium hexaflouride, which is used to make stuff that goes boom!
Sorta what tequila is to a dynamite margarita, but the hangover is worse, much worse.
RKN at November 11, 2004 10:34 PM
Nice blog Arky
Cridland at November 11, 2004 11:19 PM
>I'm lousy at metaphors, but it's tough to keep developing new ones for people who want to pretend that Iraq was a fragrant garden paradise before Bush was elected... They're arguing insanely, and patience is lost.
Lousy metaphors are nice to oversimplify and you're just as good at it as Michael Moore or Dubya. Strangely enough, their sense of humour hasn't percolated in your dedicated tautology.
Yet Democracy, for sure, will percolate from Iraq provided there ever is a "fragrant garden paradise" free country to emulate. Dream on.
>Will someone please answer: WHAT DID YOU WANT FOR IRAQ?
I wanted nothing. I wish them the best as I would do for the Saudi people (yeah, they live in THE fundamentalist country). Now you're speaking about taking to action? Try and understand might be useful for starters.
Then you can drop your "minutely targeted" intelligent bombs who will achieve the mind-blowing spell of a "preponderantly effective death machine" (been reading too much Harlequin stuff lately? you funny striking surgeon).
viktor at November 12, 2004 5:57 AM
You can tell the guy at notsorryeverybody.com to look over his shoulder cuz someone has just done a site about his site -> www.notsorrynoteverybody.com
Joseph at November 12, 2004 7:15 AM
Oops, sorry!
Joseph at November 12, 2004 7:15 AM
> Will someone please answer: WHAT DID YOU WANT
> FOR IRAQ?
Sure. I wanted the weapons inspectors to complete their task, as did the majority of the civilised world. IIRC, Hans Blix only asked for another month. At the end of that period, as we now know, they would have declared Iraq no threat (other than to Israel, perhaps, which is none of the business of the USA and UK -- Israel has shown that it can take care of itself).
At that point President Bush should have got on with the business of hunting down international terrorists and forgotten his arrogant dream of 'finishing what his father began.' Saddam would presumably still be in power, and that may be regrettable but invading a sovereign state because you don't like its leader's policies and you need its raw materials is the very definition of Imperialism. Queen Victoria tried that, and by modern standards the result was brutality and eventual humiliation. We're seeing the brutality right now -- stand by for the humiliation.
Stu "El InglÈs" Harris at November 12, 2004 8:09 AM
Crid- you and I have gone round and round on this, and I don't see either of our views changing. That you conceed only "a little" of the evidence was falsified and America is targeting its WMD's with pinpoint accuracy makes you an apologist.
The best estimates are between 20k and 30k civilian deaths. Some estimates go as high as 100k, but since we no longer count civilians, we won't really know until the war crimes trials start. Either Husseins or Bush's. Imagine how divided either country will be then, because it will be impossible to judge one without the other.
They will start somewhere, and I suspect Bush, Blair, Rummy, and even Powell will be convicted in absentia, though it will be a purely ceremonial affair. For a historical perspective, go back to Bertrand Russell and his work during Vietnam. A quick quote from 30 years back:
The United States is using fascist states to facilitate its plans for new levels of crime. Each day bombers leave Thailand to saturate Vietnam in steel pellets and liquid fire. Has one American city been attacked? Are Canada and Mexico bases for the destruction of America by a power on the other side of the world? If one American city suffered two hours of bombing such as has been inflicted for two years on Vietnam the world press would inform us rather fully. This imbalance is a clear indication of the great injustice we are investigating. The difference in power is matched by the indifference of the powerful and those who serve them or depend on their favour.
Some things never change.
Eric at November 12, 2004 9:08 AM
> provided there ever is a "fragrant
> garden paradise" free country to
> emulate. Dream on.
I translate that as: 'The little dark people can't handle freedom.' We have heard it before.
> percolated in your dedicated tautology.
? Huh
> I wanted nothing.
Then you should have spoken up much, much sooner. The day you got your driver's license, you crossed six lanes of traffic to save a penny a gallon, so the world grew confused about your intentions.
> I wish them the best...
As would a rapist leaving his victims naked on the street... Well before the first Gulf War I, we had profound responsibilities to those people.
> Sure. I wanted the weapons inspectors
> to complete their task,
It took us more than a year *after an invasion* to conclude that Saddam's weapons programs were in disarray (though not extinguished, and Kay reports that Saddam was trying to buy a nuke from Kim Jong-Il). In the months beforehand, Saddam had played endless, petty games of switcheroo and ratfuck with the inspectors. We were never, ever going to have confidence in their reports.
> Hans Blix only asked...
Hans Blix's desires have ZERO meaning for me. He was the president of the IAEA who wanted to give North Korea more time to dismantle their program in the 1990's. You can find this on the internet in just a few seconds.
Tim Blair, anticipating the publication of Blix' memoir last year, offered this plan: "Borders fun: hide all of Blixís books, then tell the staff you canít find any. Send them all on a storewide search. Repeatedly ask if they ìneed more timeî. If they get close to your hiding place, deny them access."
> you don't like its leader's policies
This would be laughable if it didn't involve so much bloodshed. A person who though Saddam was Iraq's "leader" has not been paying attention. Or did you believe the one about how he got 100% of the vote in 2002?
> and you need its raw materials
We're getting the oil no matter what. Do you want to pay a crime family or a capitalist democracy?
> makes you an apologist.
I'm not the one posting to sorryfuckers.com or whatever.
> The best estimates are between
> 20k and 30k civilian deaths
Bzzzt! Deeply speculative numbers, the truth could be a third of that. More to the point, the ratio of bad guys killed to good and (even OK) guys surviving has never been higher. For fifth time, with Amy's indulgence: The death meter in Iraq continues to spin backwards, relative to Saddam's regime.
> it will be impossible to judge
> one without the other
Let's not fear complexity. I love to be judgmental!
> Russell etc
The Boomer fascination with 'Nam has not proven to be evidence of moral growth we might have hoped for... Powell will probably argue in his second memoir that we didn't even master its practical lessons (ie the doctrine of overwhelming force). Boomers turn to 'Nam the same way they listen to bad rock and roll from the '60s. It's digested and comfortable, and their minds are closed to the challenges that gave meaning to those moments.
Cridland at November 12, 2004 11:25 AM
"PS Notice how the states that voted for Bush tend to mirror states that had slavery. Interesting, huh?"
If only they'd had blogs during the Civil War, all the darkies could have been put to work doing Web design instead of all that bothersome cotton-picking.
Jim Treacher at November 12, 2004 11:35 AM
Bwahahahahahahahaha!
What a bunch of losers!
We are elated. Sorry world. Your great appeaser pinko lost! Suck it up and move on. Hopefully to France!
PeeAir at November 12, 2004 11:52 AM
Welcome to Crids top 5 closing arguments: (as read by Hank Kissinger)
Number 5:
Osama was evaporated in Tora Bora, so let's not worry about him. (*wink* Yeah, whatever Michael Scheuer.)
Number 4:
Little brown people are denied the vote by liberal peaceniks.
Number 3:
We owe it to the freedom wanting Iraqis to carpet bomb them (ok, Precision bomb) for the sins of our past. It's for their own good, and they will love US for it.
Number 2:
This war had nothing to do with WMD's. Why do they even get brought up??? Nobody said anything about WMD's!
And the Number 1 item on Crid's argument points:
Interior Lives!!!!
eric at November 12, 2004 12:10 PM
Whether Osama lives or not, we don't need to worry about him so much any more. Precision and carpet bombing nestle far to tightly in your imagination. It's amazing what you can accomplish on this planet when you stop worrying whether or not people will "love" you.
Cridland at November 12, 2004 12:27 PM
OK- now that that is settled, can the ladies start talking about blowjobs again?
eric at November 12, 2004 1:32 PM
> It's amazing what you can accomplish on this planet when you stop worrying whether or not people will "love" you.
Quite in a rapist mood today, uh?
Thou shalt be neutered cocky.
viktor at November 12, 2004 1:53 PM
> We're getting the oil no matter what.
> Do you want to pay a crime family or
> a capitalist democracy?
We'll see whether we get the oil. But now, please re-read your own 2 short sentences. Imagine you're someone with no direct interest in the current brutality. An olive farmer in Cyprus, perhaps. A local government clerk in a small town in Bolivia. Does the idea that "America is an arrogant bully" make some sense now?
Stu "El InglÈs" Harris at November 13, 2004 7:39 AM
Pretend you're a blathering, rickety idiot on the Takla Makan, debilitated by trisomy, malnutrition in a wholly illiterate family of nomads. You probably think the world, and all the governments that have their shit together, are evil. YOU'RE WRONG.
I don't see the point of your farmers and clerks.
> We'll see whether we get the oil.
Well, Stu, where do you think it's going to go? More to the point, WHO GETS THE MONEY?
Cridland at November 13, 2004 8:04 AM
> Well, Stu, where do you think it's going to go?
In my scenario, it stays in the ground until the United States of America learns to behave itself. So then there is no money to fret about. Hopefully the fretters would be the SUV drivers. It's an axiom of resource economics that a finite source of raw materials normally increases in value if conserved.
Stu "El InglÈs" Harris at November 13, 2004 9:12 AM
> In my scenario, it stays in the ground...
I like W's scenario better. No more patience with crime families.
Cridland at November 13, 2004 9:41 AM
Who gets the money? I hope the Fallujah Bed Bath and Beyond. That town really needs some updating.
eric at November 13, 2004 9:44 AM
Yep- the Bush dynasty wants nothing to do with crime families and war profiteering.
Roll over Prescott- spin baby spin!!!!
eric at November 13, 2004 9:53 AM
SUllen teenage mewling, else you you prefered Saddam's rule.
Anonymous at November 13, 2004 2:21 PM
Hmmm.... I wonder whom the Iraqis will vote for?
eric at November 14, 2004 2:21 PM
"PS Notice how the states that voted for Bush tend to mirror states that had slavery. Interesting, huh?"
Notice how the documents that were meant to protect our civil rights were written by citizens of those states. And I have to point out that slaves were also owned in Northern states as well as Southern. This is a limited point of view of the Civil War.
I don't understand what happened in the United States much less in the South which used to vote Democratic to a fault. I don't understand what happened in my own home state of New Mexico but it has nothing to do with 'Southern' values.
Sheryl at November 14, 2004 2:48 PM
Bush sucks but he won, because the Dems chose Yet Another Loser. Get over it and come back in four with somene reasonable.
mike at November 15, 2004 4:23 AM
Why don't you move to Canada then, you fucking panty waste? http://www.canadianalternative.com will help you get started.
Zippy the TRADEMARK VIOLATOR at November 15, 2004 1:30 PM
Zippy was calling himself "The Pinhead." That portion of the name above has been erased -- since it's unlikely that Bill Griffith, author of the cartoon, Zippy The Pinhead, was also the author of the little comment-turd left above. While I'm a free-speech-arian, and welcome any morons (and any others) who wish to post here to speak freely, I don't allow trademark-thieving pinheads. You also aren't allowed to libel anybody. Insulting me is permitted, although it's probably to your benefit if you don't do it in such a way that it makes you look like a major ass-clown.
Amy Alkon at November 15, 2004 8:30 PM