The Self-Help President
I've marveled at how utterly non-threatening the guy is who's running as the Democratic candidate to be the leader of the free world. I think that's a substantial part of his appeal to younger voters: He doesn't quite seem like a grownup. He's not a businessman (not the way you'd see your dad or grandpa as a businessman). He's this boyish, sensitive man with a wife who seems to be much more man than he.
Gregg, by the way, noticed that when the two of them were on stage the other night, and they were going to greet the audience, Michelle Obama strode ahead of him like a power-walker instead of taking his arm and going along to support him. Verrrry interesting!
And there's a very interesting piece on the "post-masculine" Obama on City Journal and in The Wall Street Journal by Michael Knox Beran, headlined "Barack Obama, Shaman." An excerpt:
Mr. Obama's charisma is tuned to the mood of the moment. The charisma of American political leaders has typically rested on images of unflinching strength and masculine authority: Teddy Roosevelt in the North Dakota Badlands; Kennedy, the naval hero whose sexual prowess was acknowledged even in his Secret Service code name ("Lancer"); Reagan, the man on horseback whom the Secret Service called "Rawhide." Mr. Obama's charisma, by contrast, is closer to what critic Camille Paglia has identified with today's television talk-show culture, in which admissions of weakness are offered as proof of empathetic qualities. Talk-show culture is occupied with the question of why we feel so bad, when it is our right under the liberal dispensation to feel eternally good. The man who would succeed in such a culture must appear to sympathize with these obscure hurts; he must take pains, Ms. Paglia writes in "Sexual Personae," to appear an "androgyne, the nurturant male or male mother."Mr. Obama, in gaming this culture, has figured out a new way to bottle old wine. He knows that experience has taught Americans to suspect the masculine healer-redeemer who bears collectivist gifts; no one wants to revive the caudillos of the 1930s. Studiously avoiding the tough-hombre style of earlier charismatic figures, he phrases his vision in the tranquilizing accents of Oprah-land. His charisma is grounded in empathy rather than authority, confessional candor rather than muscular strength, metrosexual mildness rather than masculine testosterone. His power of sympathetic insight is said to be uncanny: "Everybody who's dealt with him," columnist David Brooks says, "has a story about a time when they felt Obama profoundly listened to them and understood them." His two books are written in the empathetic-confessional mode that his most prominent benefactress, Oprah, favors; he is her political healer in roughly the same way that Dr. Phil was once her pop-psychology one. The collectivist dream, Mr. Obama instinctively understands, is less scary, more sympathetic, when served up by mama (or by mama in drag).
With the triumph of Mr. Obama's post-masculine charisma, the patriarchal collectivism of the New Deal has finally given way to a new vision of liberal community, the empathetic mommy-state that Balzac prophesied in "La Comédie humaine." The leader of the future, Balzac foresaw, would be a man who, like his diabolically charismatic Jacques Collin, possesses a capacity for maternal love. When his protégé Lucien dies, Collin exclaims: "This blow has been more than death to me, but you can't understand what I'm saying. . . . If you're fathers, you're only that and no more. . . . I'm a mother, too!" Collin ends his career as a functionary of the state--and a policeman. The Grand Inquisitor of the future, Balzac intimates, will undertake his inquisitions in the name of matriarchal pity.
Yet if Mr. Obama has made redemptive communitarianism attractive in an age of sagging sperm counts, he has done nothing to correct the underlying flaw of the collectivist ideal: its incompatibility with the older morality of limits. The politics of consensus that Mr. Obama favors is incompatible with the Founders' adversarial system, which permits those whom he disparages as "ideological minorities" to take stands on principle that, at times, frustrate the national consensus. Mr. Obama makes it clear that there is no place, in the politics he advocates, for those "absolutists" who would defy the community. The "ideological core of today's GOP," he writes, is "absolutism, not conservatism," an absolutism driven by those who prize "absolute truth" over "communal values." This commitment to absolute truth, he argues, stands in the way of a politics that can solve our problems and change our lives.
Mr. Obama goes so far as to argue that the Constitution itself is "a rejection of absolute truth." His moral relativism is intimately bound up with his conviction that we can transcend those limitations in human nature that the Founders acknowledged when they drafted the Constitution. This rejection of older moral standards, Machiavelli observed, is a tactical necessity for the charismatic redeemer. It is not simply that adherence to the West's traditional morality would prevent such a leader from being properly ruthless in the pursuit of his ideal; it is that the old morality, with its emphasis on the limits of man's fallen condition, makes his communitarian paradise seem quixotic--an instance of utopian overreaching.
> "post-masculine"
Heh.
Y'know, it's ironic that the nation which gave the very word "effete" selected as its president a man of somewhat feminine bearing who nonetheless demonstrated a capacity for manly enthusiams... If you see what I mean.
Michelle Obama is a lawyer. I'm just saying. Last time we had a lawyer first lady, it didn't work out so well.
(I kinda mean that.)
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at August 26, 2008 1:55 AM
Goddamit, I'm taller than Sarkozy! By two inches!
Where's my former-model bride?
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at August 26, 2008 1:58 AM
One last comment: It's a great when a blog post (or WSJ column) calls bullshit on the fascination some people have with unity and consensus.
I love partisanship and contention a little more each day, in every way. When someone says they want "unity", what they mean is "quietly do things my way".
As Ring Lardner put in a novel once: "Shut up", he explained.
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at August 26, 2008 2:19 AM
Is it just me, or do other people hear "phony!!" in their heads every time those people even open their mouths? The insincereity which Obama and his wife, hell even a lot of his supporters, exude every time I see or hear them is almost overwhelming (to me, anyway). YMMV
Flynne at August 26, 2008 5:11 AM
michelle's favorite song: you ain't woman enough to be my man.
brian at August 26, 2008 5:16 AM
The man just freaks me out. There's a very slimy aura that comes off him. And his wife. I've voted dem my whole life, and they have chased me straight into the arms of McCain. Unless I write in Hillary, which I may do on principle. She was the better choice of the 2 for sure, whatever else you may have against her.
I miss manly men.
momof3 at August 26, 2008 5:27 AM
Oh, God, no, I am not voting for this man. Christ, he's looking worse and worse. That bit about the Constitution scary or what?
And, Crid, that's why I love having you here, man. On this, you and I agree. We need differences and contention if we value freedom; hell, there is no freedom without the freedom to differ.
T's Grammy at August 26, 2008 5:37 AM
I'm sure that Putin and Ahjmanejad will stop to pause and reflect when faced with President Obama's grasp of nuance and new age maternalism. Then they'll invade the Ukraine and nuke Israel, respectively.
Who do American's want sitting across the table from Putin when Russia is putting the clamps on the Ukraine - President Obama or President McCain? Doesn't anyone else see how utterly ridiculous and dangerous Obama's pending nomination is? Where are the grown-ups in the Democratic Party?
That Obama is so close to the leading the free world would be a joke if it wasn't so terrifying.
Tom at August 26, 2008 6:00 AM
Amy, I just tried to link to an article about the wife's speech and it got kicked into your spam filter. No biggie.
Flynne at August 26, 2008 6:19 AM
That Obama is so close to the leading the free world would be a joke if it wasn't so terrifying.
That he thinks Joe Biden is a good choice as Number 2 is also scary.
We now have three out of the four candidates that we must realistically evaluate on their suitability to be the nation's chief executive. And three out of these four have never once in their lives held a serious executive position.
Conan the Grammarian at August 26, 2008 8:06 AM
The "ideological core of today's GOP," he writes, is "absolutism, not conservatism," an absolutism driven by those who prize "absolute truth" over "communal values." This commitment to absolute truth, he argues, stands in the way of a politics that can solve our problems and change our lives.
What the hell is a "communal value?"
That town where the stoned the person who got the black marble had "communal values." Let's all live there.
Is Obama running for president or cult leader?
Conan the Grammarian at August 26, 2008 8:17 AM
His charisma is grounded in empathy rather than authority, confessional candor rather than muscular strength, metrosexual mildness rather than masculine testosterone.
Mebbe so, and that just about quarantees that he'll still get his ass kicked on the real world playground.
That town where the stoned the person who got the black marble had "communal values." Let's all live there.
Yep, I said it before and I'll say it again, the ones who first told us to "Question Authority" are now the Authority, and they're brooking no questions. Do as we say, because we say, isn't getting my vote.
Flynne at August 26, 2008 8:28 AM
Who do American's want sitting across the table from Putin when Russia is putting the clamps on the Ukraine - President Obama or President McCain?
Who do we want sitting across the table from Nancy Pelosi?
Conan the Grammarian at August 26, 2008 9:00 AM
This was posted by Jake, from San Antonio, TX, on another forum:
2008 Democratic National Convention
Schedule of Events
7:00 pm OPENING FLAG BURNING
7:15 pm PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE U.N.
7:20 pm Ted Kennedy PROPOSES A TOAST
7:25 pm NONRELIGIOUS PRAYER AND WORSHIP - Jesse Jackson & Al Sharpton
7:45 pm CEREMONIAL TREE HUGGING - Darryl Hannah
7:55 pm Ted Kennedy PROPOSES A TOAST
8:00 pm HOW I INVENTED THE INTERNET - Al Gore
8:15 pm GAY WEDDING PLANNING - Rosie O'Donnell
8:35 pm Ted Kennedy PROPOSES A TOAST
8:40 pm OUR TROOPS ARE WAR CRIMINALS - John Kerry
9.00 pm MEMORIAL SERVICE FOR SADDAM AND HIS SONS - Cindy Sheehan and Susan Sarandon
10:00 pm ANSWERING MACHINE ETIQUETTE - Alec Baldwin
11:00 pm Ted Kennedy PROPOSES A TOAST
11:05 pm COLLECTION FOR THE OSAMA BIN LADEN KIDNEY TRANSPLANT FUND - Barbara Streisand
11:15 pm FREE THE FREEDOM FIGHTERS FROM GUANTANAMO BAY - Sean Penn
11:30 pm OVAL OFFICE AFFAIRS - William Jefferson Clinton
11:45 pm Ted Kennedy PROPOSES A TOAST
11:50 pm HOW GEORGE BUSH BROUGHT DOWN THE WORLD TRADE TOWERS - Howard Dean
12:15 am TRUTH IN BROADCASTING AWARD - Presented to Dan Rather by Michael Moore
12:25 am Ted Kennedy PROPOSES A TOAST
12:30 am SATELLITE ADDRESS - Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
12:45 am NOMINATION OF Barack Hussein Obama - Nancy Pelosi
1:00 am Ted Kennedy PROPOSES A TOAST To Obama
1:30 am Ted Kennedy PROPOSES A TOAST To Hillary Clinton
1:35 am Bill Clinton asks Ted Kennedy to drive Hillary home
o_O
Flynne at August 26, 2008 9:12 AM
"This commitment to absolute truth, he argues, stands in the way of a politics that can solve our problems and change our lives."
Sure makes political opponents look like moral reprobates or something. What moral person could honestly stand in the way of solving our problems and changing our lives?
*Sigh* Can we dig up Calvin Coolidge or something?
old rpm daddy at August 26, 2008 9:15 AM
Someone wrote: "That Obama is so close to the leading the free world would be a joke if it wasn't so terrifying."
Oh, please. How hard can it be? I mean, little Georgie's been doing it almost 8 years now.
MonicaM at August 26, 2008 9:17 AM
>>With the triumph of Mr. Obama's post-masculine charisma, the patriarchal collectivism of the New Deal has finally given way to a new vision of liberal community...
Oh for crying out loud!
"Post-masculine" is such a bullshit term, with its sly implication that something vital & virile has been lost!
Especially when the jut-jawed public personas of the former presidents (discounting the guy who secretly needed a wheelchair!), so lovingly saluted by the author, weren't simply "masculine".
They were cartoonishly masculine (or Hollywood masculine in RR's case). They were made in the image of uber manly men - forever roping whatever Teddy roped in the Badlands, or apparently endlessly rescuing naval buddies - whatever suited the fawning press. (Or indeed, clearing brush on his Texan property - if you want an example from Bush-the-younger...).
So Obama doesn't look as though he chops wood at the weekend?
God, how very, very sinister!
Jody Tresidder at August 26, 2008 9:33 AM
> That Obama is so close to the
> leading the free world
Free form rant here, not really meaning to be too critical of anything being said in this thread....
I love sarcasm and backhandedness! They're fun, they're funny, and they're important tools. But we have to use them consciously.
People shouldn't use phrases like "leader of the free world" so loosely. By definition, our truly "free" world has no leader. The President has very, very little to do with the wealth and excellence of our lives.
It's like when people call the Kennedy and Bush families political "dynasties" without recognizing that they're being ironic.
Maureen Dowd, who quakes in her sleep by fear of "wholly owned subsidiaries", show us how badly this can end. She loves that expression, whether she's talking about Bush and business, or Bush and the church, or Manhattan and foreign investors.
And the reason she likes it is that sounds nasty enough that she never has to explain her opinion with specific reasoning. It's teenaged and lazy.
We shouldn't put up with that. If people work that hard to speak in an upsetting tone, we should make them explain themselves.
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at August 26, 2008 9:53 AM
Aha! Let me demonstrate with Jody here-
> its sly implication that something
> vital & virile has been lost!
If you say masculinity isn't vital to your life, we're ready to believe you. But isn't the larger and clearer point that people are counting on government --pathetically-- for maternal & emotional support?
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at August 26, 2008 9:56 AM
[MonicaM RE: leading the free world]- "Oh, please. How hard can it be? I mean, little Georgie's been doing it almost 8 years now."
I thought he was a unilateral war-monger.
How can he be leading the free world AND unilaterally ignoring that same free world in order to wage illicit wars upon innocent dictators and to single-handedly destroy the environment?
Conan the Grammarian at August 26, 2008 10:25 AM
>>Aha! Let me demonstrate with Jody here-
> its sly implication that something
> vital & virile has been lost!
>>If you say masculinity isn't vital to your life, we're ready to believe you.
Don't make up stuff, Crid!
It was the sneaky "implication" of lost virility - when it hasn't necessarily been mislaid at all -that I was bewailing.
Masculinity - and I'm all in favor - does not have to signal itself only by posing astride a horse/saving its buddies from watery death in wartime - or uprooting shrubs in the back yard in a plausibly ballsy fashion!
>>But isn't the larger and clearer point that people are counting on government --pathetically-- for maternal & emotional support?
Blimey, I hope not, Crid! I mean, this is the USA - not, ermm, some coddled Euroweenie outpost!
Jody Tresidder at August 26, 2008 10:44 AM
Never trust a man who gives way just for the sake of agreement.
So far Obama, who I previously favored a bit over McCain, enough so that I might have cast my first vote for a democrat in...well ever...well he seems dead set on convincing me to stay in the Republican camp.
I'll never vote for a man who does his damned best to convince me he's "sensitive".
Hmpf, can't imagine how anyone could vote for a "sensitive" president. Have we become children, that we require a nanny president to make us feel better on our boo boos?
His nomination of a plagiarist as VP shows at BEST a poor judge of character...at worst...a refusal to place any importance on character....and frankly I just can't picture Obama giving a Medvedev second thoughts on pushing borders back a bit.
The bottom line is that no political solution can solve all our problems, we'll always have problems, because there will always be people to MAKE problems, at home and or abroad. And nothing is predictable as the pressence of unforseen sideeffects.
Who do we wan't sitting across the negotiating table from the King Jong Ils, Maos, and Kruschevs of the world? DO we want it to be the guy who say's "Walk softly, and carry a big stick." Or the guy who puts his stick down so he doesn't appear to be a meany when he's laying down the doilies for tea?
By the by Crid I understand where you're coming from, but with all due respect, while it is true other countries do not take marching orders from Washington, it is equally true that since the closure of WWII it has been the United States which has set the agenda on world affairs, and it is to Washington that free nations and nations that would be free look to for example (sometimes cautionary I'll admit *l*) and for leadership in world affairs and in joint martial ventures from the sands of Saudi to the frozen winters of Bosnia.
It is that degree of influence and affluentness and strength in economic, political, and military terms, and the way in which it is used, which is what calls for a term like "leader of the free world." Remember, the free can also follow whom they choose, and most of the time that has been the U.S. for better...or for worse.
Robert at August 26, 2008 10:59 AM
MonicaM - Yes, "little Georgie" as you call him as been doing it for 8 years. The last 7 of which have seen no new terrorist attacks on American soil.
Methinks President Bush is a victim of his own success. Had Bush not done such an admiral and successful job in protecting us from further attack the MonicaP's of the world wouldn't be so foolish.
Tom at August 26, 2008 11:00 AM
I think you're on to something here.
After Commander John inevitably wins in November, maybe he can hire Obama and a few other girlie-man types to be White House secretaries. Then he and all the other alpha males can knock their lunch trays out of their hands and dunk their heads in the toilets while screaming "Fagzzzzz fagzzzzzz" and hitting each other in the fat part of the arm.
Let's roll out a brand new slogan for Johnny the Mac --
McCAIN -- HE'S NOT REALLY STUPID, HE'S JUST GOT TESTOSTERONE POISONING
It's a huge relief to me, knowing how hard conservatives are working to smart-proof the Oval Office.
Doc Nebula at August 26, 2008 12:30 PM
Flynne - Laughing so hard, I have tears in my eyes. Excellent work. I wonder if we could get Ted to give Hillary a lift? Hmmmmmmm..... :)
wolfboy69 at August 26, 2008 12:50 PM
Doc Nebula
Ah, here we go with the "dumb Republican" song and dance again. Must be an election year.
You tried to convince us how smart Al Gore was in 2000. Turns out Al jr. flunked out of divinity school and then left law school before being even close to graduating to take daddy's seat in the senate. Then he lost what should have been a cake walk election to that dullard President Bush.
Then you tried to convince us how smart John Kerry was in 2004. Turns out President Bush got better grades than Kerry at Yale and also scored higher on his military enterance exam than Kerry did. Then Kerry lost the election to that stupid Republican, President Bush.
Boy, how DO these dumb Republicans keep outsmarting the best and brightest the Democrats have to offer, Doc? Do tell.....
Tom at August 26, 2008 1:01 PM
"That he thinks Joe Biden is a good choice as Number 2 is also scary." ~Conan the Grammarian
Actually, choosing someone like Biden is good insurance against Obama ever being assassinated if he does get elected. I mean, who in their right mind would want Biden as Commander-in-Chief?
Sandy at August 26, 2008 1:24 PM
I don't want a stupid president any more than the next guy. Nor do I want an adolescent president...but I'll tell you what I really don't want, what I would loath more than even either of those two loathesome characteristics:
I do NOT want a president who thinks its his job to parent us, or to wrap us all in bubble wrap to protect us from the world.
I want a man in office who will give second thoughts to those who would wish my country harm. In whatever various closed council chambers around the world where despicable dictators speak with their equally despicable underlings, I want them to say, "We cannot undertake this action, because their president will surely come for us."
Yes we must reach consensus with our allies
Yes we must promote the cause of peace
Yes we must take care to promote human rights, and remember who we are, Americans, and hold ourselves to a higher standard of conduct as a nation than some of our more brutal counterparts.
However to promote those things, we must be willing to take stands.
That means we will sometimes make our allies unhappy with us...but if it makes things difficult for our enemies, sobeit.
Sometimes consensus will mean just scaring the living shit out of a petty dictator. Wave the big stick, rattle the sabre, do what it takes to ensure our nation's security and prosperity.
Promoting peace too is a wonderful aim...but the negotiating table is no match for overwhelming force when one side choses to apply it. That means we must remember that we too can play hardball, and should, when called for.
Human rights too, is a wonderful thing, it is one of the shining lights of the 20th and 21st century that we can discuss something like that as applied to all people everywhere...but if a plane may be headed towards a building in my country, I will shed no tears if a foriegn suspect is denied sleep during questioning.
We live in an uncomfortable, and still very brutal world. Our American society is priviliged to be sheltered from most of those brutalities, by virtue of our prosperity, our regard for law and order, and yes, our civilization's culture in general.
There are however, no shortage of wolves at the door who define themselves in opposition to us, and would love to bring those brutal parts of the world to our every doorstep.
In the face of THAT, I ask you...WHO is better suited to face that "other" world, of violence & intimidation, of oppression and opposition, and keep it from the doorsteps of those we hold dear?
Is it the candidate who bares his soul like he's in a survivor of namethetragedy support group, offering empathy and defining himself by nonjudgement...?
Or is it a candidate who will show some backbone, who will say "fuck no" metaphorically speaking, when a nation acts in such a way that is detrimental to our national wellbeing, brutal and oppressive towards neighbors and citizens of their own country, and actively working to undermine our United States?
Now let me ask you this...which candidate did you picture when I made those two distinctions?
Are you still sure of your vote?
Robert H. Butler at August 26, 2008 1:36 PM
Was that whole comment the most brilliant satire, Robert H. Butler?
Jody Tresidder at August 26, 2008 1:44 PM
"Boy, how DO these dumb Republicans keep outsmarting the best and brightest the Democrats have to offer, Doc? Do tell....."
That is democracy for you. Whoever gets the dumb majority of electoral votes rules.
The democracy has yet to produce the finest achievement to show off to the next generation. All we have to show off are credit card debts, McMansion and American Idols.
Remember that the most of finest human achievement in any fields have been done under the leadership of brilliant dictators with a long term vision for future generation in mind. And they all hated democracy.
Chang at August 26, 2008 1:48 PM
I am not sure the biggest problem with Obama is the fact that he does not look tough. The problem, as I see it, is that he is willing to negotiate, and therefore attempt to reason, with dictators and terrorists. These kinds of people do not understand diplomacy ... an obvious point he does not seem to grasp. As for his belief that telling the truth is not helpful, he's simply full of it ...
Charles at August 26, 2008 1:51 PM
Chang says:
"The democracy has yet to produce the finest achievement to show off to the next generation. All we have to show off are credit card debts, McMansion and American Idols."
Really, Chang? How about a Democratic and free Europe, Japan and South Korea? All compliments of the good 'ol US of A.
How about the cure for polio? How about space exploration? How about the billions we give in world wide foreign aid every year?
Wherever there is a battle between civilization and barbarism - when the bell rings, the US gets off the stool with its gloves up.
"Remember that the most of finest human achievement in any fields have been done under the leadership of brilliant dictators with a long term vision for future generation in mind. And they all hated democracy."
Really, Chang? Please edify me on the "acheivments" of Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Castro, Chavez, etc. [By the way, millions of innocent dead people don't count as an "acheivment". Unless, you are a "progressive/liberal" and they had the temerity to disagree with you on theological issues.]
Tom at August 26, 2008 2:05 PM
Good grief Chang! Perhaps you would like to share a few of those stunning achievements with us ...
Remember though, mass brainwashing and government reeducation don't count.
Charles at August 26, 2008 2:08 PM
I'm assuming that Chang is taking the "big picture" mindset in his approach to human accomplishment. That is to say, the last 10,000 years and some.
Remember Democracy is still a relatively young institution. Although it has accomplished a great deal in its thus far very short span.
However, the accomplishments of social orders in distant past aren't really comparable. Very few even had the concept of democracy, let alone experience with it, therefore hatred is just not possible.
If he IS thinking in more modern terms, last few hundred years or so, I too am very curious about what he's referencing.
Robert H. Butler at August 26, 2008 3:33 PM
Now that the Olympics are over, I'm guessing Chang has a lot of time on his hands.
Tom at August 26, 2008 4:55 PM
I just have to jump in here and point something out in the latest exchange between Chang and the "pro-Democracy" contingent of commenters:
The US was NEVER intended to be a DEMOCRACY.
This country was designed to be a REPRESENTATIVE REPUBLIC.
Show me ANYHWERE in the Founding Documents where Democracy is mentioned.
Go read the federalist papers (which are available online for free) and read up on how the Founding Fathers abhorred Democracy as nothing more than mob rule.
Than understand that anytime a US Politician or pundit talks about "democracy" as some sort of reason for America's historical success...it's all based on A LIE. The fact that our Representative Republic has been subverted into a Democracy by the 17th and 19th Amendments also coincides with the exponential expansion of scope, power and involvement in our private lives by the federal government.
Dave from Hawaii at August 26, 2008 5:29 PM
"Really, Chang? How about a Democratic and free Europe, Japan and South Korea? All compliments of the good 'ol US of A."
That has nothing to do with good old USA but a lot to do with capitalist USA. I am not saying there is something wrong with it but you don't have to act that humble and benevolent.
"Good grief Chang! Perhaps you would like to share a few of those stunning achievements with us ..."
There are just too many. The achievements under Caesar, Napoleon, Ghengis Khan, Alexander the Great... They raised the bar for the future generation to aspire up to. None of them were fond of democracy which relies on the theory that people like you and me would care more about the long term future of the next generation than our own pocket money. Democracy can be summarized as "what is in it for me?"
"Really, Chang? Please edify me on the "acheivments" of Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Castro, Chavez,"
They gave the capitalist reasons to be compassionate toward peasants. They taught the capitalists that once the hungry peasants were armed with ideology, they would fight to death no matter what the odds were. That was very important lesson for the capitalists to learn.
Chang at August 26, 2008 7:06 PM
Dave - Thank you. Finally someone who understands what it is all supposed to be about. There are times I get tired of people who talk of the great democracy we live in. Unfortunately, those that were supposed to represent us fully understood the "absolute power corrupts absolutely" line, and have used it to further take control a bit at a time. Keep in mind, these 2 amendments were introduced by the "Progressives" (sound familiar?), but they also introduced the 16th amendment which introduced us to the income tax, which was another means of control and IMO, wealth redistribution. Sounds very familiar to what we have today.
wolfboy69 at August 26, 2008 7:21 PM
You're absolutely right, Dave of Hawaii. We've lost sight of the fact that this is a democratic republic, not a democracy.
I have seen this all too frequently in the battle over property rights. Our neighbors now believe that if enough of them agree about how we should be allowed to use our land, then it doesn't matter what our actual property rights are. Sadly, this kind of "democracy" is only scary to people when it finally reaches their front doorstep.
BTW, I just wanted to compliment Amy on a very well-written, informative piece. It's such a fresh, thought-provoking take on things, which is really helpful to those of us still trying to choose between these two rather disappointing choices. Thanks, Amy.
lovelysoul at August 26, 2008 7:22 PM
> That was very important lesson
> for the capitalists to learn.
Are you a capitalist?
Also, did you graduate high school yet?
Crid at August 26, 2008 7:28 PM
"Are you a capitalist?"
Yes, I am a capitalist. But I think that the capitalism is not the perfect system we want the next generation to rely on. There are just too many holes in it.
"Also, did you graduate high school yet?"
No... Are you interested in paying for my on line GED courses?
Chang at August 26, 2008 7:41 PM
Well, it sounds like we already offered you a free edjumication, so I don't see why we should pay for another one.
And while we're all gratified to think that you're eager to accept responsibility for preparing those who follow you for a life in adulthood, perhaps is would be better to get your own ducks in a row first.
Nothing has ever, ever distributed the society's blessings as fairly --or even broadly-- as capitalism.
(PS - You're in a America now, son... There's no such thing as a peasant. Hell, we don't even have Marxian "workers".)
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at August 26, 2008 9:52 PM
I think Obama is naive, idealistic fool, and dangerous to the country. Although McCain is repulsive, he's infinitely preferable to the alternative.
Obama seems to think that if he just goes and talks to Russia, we can have a world without nukes. Why, of course! We just agree with the Russians to disarm and they'll follow suit. And throughout their history, Russia has been nothing but honorable to us and their word can be trusted. And let's not forget that no one else in the world has a nuke or intentions of getting one.
I'm a little more realistic. The U.S. disarming would be disastrous, and right about now, threat of nuclear retaliation from the U.S. is about the only thing that keeps Israel from being wiped off the face of the earth.
Crid, regarding your comment as a lawyer first lady. "First Lady" is not an office or an official title. Your worrying about the occupation of the President's spouse is borderline...well, no, it's not borderline. It's just plain superstitious.
And by the way, the last time we did have a lawyer with that unofficial designation, the U.S. saw eight years of unprecedented peace and prosperity. If that's your idea of "not working out so well," I'd have to wonder what you think "working out well" would have been.
Patrick at August 27, 2008 4:09 AM
Flynne, one word, referring to your post by Jake: Disgusting.
Patrick at August 27, 2008 4:13 AM
Chang,
"They gave the capitalist reasons to be compassionate toward peasants. They taught the capitalists that once the hungry peasants were armed with ideology, they would fight to death no matter what the odds were. That was very important lesson for the capitalists to learn."
The only thing these mass murderers taught us is that communism and socialism are tickets to broad-based poverty. Perhaps you should take a few economics courses before spewing such nonsense.
Charles at August 27, 2008 4:35 AM
Flynne, one word, referring to your post by Jake: Disgusting.
'Smatter, Patrick, no sense of humour?
Flynne at August 27, 2008 5:26 AM
I'm sorry, Flynne. I should have more of a sense of humor about drunk drivers who are so self-absorbed that they can abandon people to drown while they swim entire channels in an effort to deny all culpability and get off scot-free.
I'm sure Mary Jo Kopechne would laugh herself silly.
Patrick at August 27, 2008 5:59 AM
That's all I can think of when I see Ted Kennedy.
Amy Alkon at August 27, 2008 6:13 AM
Capitalism isn't a perfect system.
That much is true.
But any system involving people is going to be imperfect by reason of OUR imperfections.
Capitalism works because it does not exist in denial of our baser natures. It works because it recognizes human vice, and instead of trying to change the unchangable, it works with it. We have rules and laws and regulations and methods of enforcing those in order to keep that nature from becoming socially destructive, and we favor enlightened self interest when making choices. I don't mind donating money to charity, but I do mind someone else donating my money to charity, follow me?
Now, speaking of Caesar, Napoleon, and Ghengis Khan...first of all Caesar didn't hate democracy. He used it pretty well and managed to get himself set above it, but even while he ruled the Senate of Rome remained a relevant body, and would remain so for centuries. His accomplishments were notable yes...but if you wish to set the greatest good for the greatest number as the standard, he pales in comparison to Washington. Napoleon was not devoid of skill in civic matters, but years of long and ultimately fruitless wars bankrupted his nation and caused untold misery at home and abroad that make all but empty his comparatively modest contributions to the cause of human liberty or in monuments to law or civilization. Ghengis Khan by the way, didn't hate democracy either, the fact of the matter is it is very doubtful he had even heard of the concept.
And given the manner in which he ruled his subjects, he actually had a fairly representative mindset compared to many of his contemporaries. If anything it is probably he would have been impressed by the system of liberal government we have today.
And Alexander the Great is a very poor comparison indeed. He ruled for only a very short period of time, and his chief accomplishment was in the spreading of Greek culture, he was a soldier's general, and by the standards of his period, a great man, even today we must acknowledge his virtues as well as his shortcomings...but what was his legacy? Greek culture thrived and learning spread...but everything he built began falling apart almost before his body was cold.
Compare this to Democracy.
We have a population in the U.S. of 300 million give or take, within these borders, we have free education for all citizens, we have food available in such quantity that our worst health problem isn't a plague...but obesity from people eating to much. Within this democracy we have very near universal literacy, and such is the quality of life that as one commentator from India wrote, "I came to America because I wanted to live in a country where the poor people are fat."
Such is our leisure time, and such is our desire for entertainment, and our surplus private wealth, that people can make a living doing nothing more than providing entertainment to the masses...and get rich doing it. The court jesters and street performers of old were lucky to stay alive.
In terms of both quality and quantity of life, our present day society has out done in every way everything that came before it, and has achieved the greatest good for the greatest number. This is not to say things are perfect, but we have done much much better than anything Caesar or Alexander did for their people, and more significantly, OUR transitions of leadership do NOT end with a knife in the gut and a civil war, as did two of your illustrious examples. Or exile, as in Napoleon's. Our transitions of power proceed under the law written by and for the people, they are peaceful and will likely continue to be for the forseeable future.
But since you wish to set ancient or centuries past accomplishments...we've put men on the moon and in space, we've cured or controlled disease with such effectiveness that we no longer tremble in fear at the thought of the plague, we've built buildings that reach the sky, we've learned how to manage our resources so well that land that once could only support a few hundred thousand now can support millions, we've built a global communications network the likes of which no one has ever seen before, which we happen to be using now to have this debate.
What in the ancient world can even come close to comparing to that? All of that is possible because two systems allow for people to pursue their ambitions to the limit, and keep the fruits of their labor. That the results of our work are ours are powerful incentives, things no other system can compare to. "New Man" ideas, whether from Stalin or Chavez or Che Guevara...are bound as bound to fail as their advocates are to lie about the failure.
If you could Chang, what system would you replace capitalism with? What system could possibly distribute wealth better than this one? Or provide greater liberty than our present day Republic?
Robert at August 27, 2008 6:26 AM
Robert Butler -- beautifully said, dude. Very well written. And, Christ, at the start of this, I never thought I'd see the day, but I'm starting to lean towards McCain. Dunno if I'll bother though. Don't like either one. Just know at this point I ain't voting for Obama.
Patrick, lighten up. Flynne's post was funny. And I think Ted Kennedy's great. One of the few Dems left that has a pair.
T's Grammy at August 27, 2008 6:31 AM
Why do commenters still approvingly roll out variants of Teddy R's antique phrase about speaking softly and carrying big sticks?
It wasn't clever realpolitik a century or so ago and it's an even emptier brag today.
Jody Tresidder at August 27, 2008 6:39 AM
I'm right with you on the property rights issue. Though I worry less about a neighbor than a city council.
Frankly if it were up to me I would scrap eminent domain entirely. It is a system that has been to often abused, and to much expanded.
The public good has now come to mean, not a school...but a high rise condo complex for an increased tax base, not a free clinic, but a shopping mall.
Heh...maybe when I retire I'll run for office and push for state constitutional ammendments to eliminate threats to private property from public entities.
I suppose I'd have to run as a libertarian though. Fond as I am of my Grand Old Party, businesses to often benefit from eminent domain for me to think I'd get Republican backing, though I think I'd get alot of republican voters.
Robert at August 27, 2008 6:41 AM
No, no, I'm sorry, Patrick. How callous of me. Just because he did something disgustingly inexcusable 40 years ago is no reason to make fun of it now. We should all continue to mercilessly vilify the man until the day he's as dead as Ms. Kapechne, which will probably be sooner than later. /sarcasm
I just happen to belong to the school of thinking that "blind dogma from the church of the perpetually offended doesn't carry any weight." YMMV
Flynne at August 27, 2008 7:57 AM
"blind dogma from the church of the perpetually offended doesn't carry any weight."
Ooh, I like that. :D
Sandy at August 27, 2008 8:27 AM
Oh, no, Flynne! It's entirely my fault. I should have never have used a forty year old incident that demonstrates a regard for one's own political career over someone's life (especially a friend's life) to suggest that someone has a totally fucked-up sense of ethics and morality to the point of sociopathy and a callous disregard for anyone save himself.
Why, no. We should just hold Ted Kennedy deep in our hearts and forget all about how he placed his own political career over the actual life of someone, especially someone who supported him, helped him and presumably cared about him. And we should see him only the loving, saintly, selfless, virtuous man that he is. It just sucks to be Mary Jo Kopechne, that's all.
By the way, something we may not be aware of is that Mary Jo Kopechne was found in a position that indicates that she was able to make the most of the very last of the air she had in that car before she died. Check THIS out! And scroll down till you see "Inquest Exhibit 14." You suppose Mary Jo, as she was trapped in that car, was telling herself not to worry, that Teddy was sure to go get some help?
Man, he sure had her fooled! What a dumb bitch! /sarc
Patrick at August 27, 2008 8:39 AM
And I think Ted Kennedy's great. One of the few Dems left that has a pair.
Nobody who leaves a woman to drown while he saves his own ass "has a pair."
Conan the Grammarian at August 27, 2008 8:40 AM
T's Grammy: And I think Ted Kennedy's great. One of the few Dems left that has a pair.
Conan: Nobody who leaves a woman to drown while he saves his own ass "has a pair."
WORD!
And I hope everyone got a good look at the sketch of how Mary Jo spent the last moments of her life.
Patrick at August 27, 2008 8:55 AM
*sigh* Patrick, a LOT of things about the entire Kennedy clan are fucked up. As are a lot of things about the Clinton clan. And a lot of other clans. Your self-righteous indignation over something that happened 40 years ago isn't going to change it. And it isn't going to serve to chastize me for posting a joke. Let it go.
Oh and for the record, I in fact do get self-righteously indignant about shit I can't do anything about, too, but rarely do I take to task people that make a joke about those things. Must be a character flaw. I've got plenty of those.
Flynne at August 27, 2008 9:11 AM
Capitalism isn't trying to "be a perfect system"; this goal falls a very distant second to its primary goal of LIBERTY. Whether or not it is the "best" economic or social system is of little relevance.
Once you realize the goal is not to artificially engineer a supposedly "ideal" society, but rather to simply create a free land with free people, as a goal in itself, a lot of other things become much clearer.
David J at August 27, 2008 9:17 AM
Capitalism isn't trying to "be a perfect system"; this goal falls a very distant second to its primary goal of LIBERTY.
Once you realize the goal is not to artificially engineer a supposedly "ideal" society, but rather to simply create a free land with free people, as a goal in itself, a lot of other things become much clearer. Whether or not it is the "best" economic or social system is actually of little relevance.
David J at August 27, 2008 9:19 AM
Taking you to task? I said your "joke" was disgusting. And that's taking you to task? You responded by accusing me of having no sense of humor. Who's taking whom to task here?
The circumstances surrounding Mary Jo Kopechne's needless death aren't the least bit funny. And yes, I have a problem with a person that callous and that self-absorbed being an elected official in anything outside of a state prison.
Sue me. Or protest what a horrible person I am for "taking you to task." HA!
Patrick at August 27, 2008 10:52 AM
Methinks you may need to get over yourself. Did you even read any of the rest of it, or did you just focus on the one think that bothered you the most? Never mind, I don't want to know.
Flynne at August 27, 2008 11:50 AM
> "First Lady" is not an office
> or an official title
The office is "Junior Senator from New York". (This is a despicable precedent. I'm embarrassed for feminists who think this is progress.)
The official title is "spectacular bungler of health care reform."
> If that's your idea of
> "not working out so well,
The response to the attack on the Cole gave us 9/11. I say that's a bad ending indeed.
PS- I don't like you.
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at August 27, 2008 1:47 PM
And by the way, the last time we did have a lawyer with that unofficial designation, the U.S. saw eight years of unprecedented peace and prosperity. If that's your idea of "not working out so well," I'd have to wonder what you think "working out well" would have been.
Eight year of unprecendented peace? In those eight years of peace...
we bombed Iraq (multiple times)
we bombed Kosovo
we bombed Serbia (including the Chinese embassy in Belgrade)
we sent missiles to blow up a training camp in Afghanistan
we sent missiles to blow up an aspirin factory in Africa
we sent a troop surge to Somalia to engage in operations against indigenous warlords (and to die in the biggest military fiasco since the Lebanon barracks bombing)
we sent troops to Haiti
we sent troops to Macedonia
several US embassies were bombed
the USS Cole was bombed.
the World Trade Center was bombed
That's unprecedented peace?
Conan the Grammarian at August 27, 2008 2:14 PM
Continue to struggle with finding some way to blame 9/11 on Clinton instead of the most vacationed dumbass ever to sit in the White House in this nation's history. The Cole doesn't really fly. I don't think we need to blame Clinton for a lack of response on the attack on the U.S.S. Cole since it happened less than three months prior to his leaving office. And since it took the current Dumbass in chief almost his entire two terms to put an end to the mastermind behind it, blaming Clinton for failing to do in 2 and a half months for something that took Bush seven and a half years to do seems a little ridiculous, to say the least.
And regarding your P.S., I'm glad to hear it. After all these years it FINALLY makes us even. Congratulations on catching up at last.
Patrick at August 27, 2008 4:52 PM
Sorry, Patrick, I'm not going to let you get away with going pseudo-troofer.
Bush bears no responsibility whatsoever for the events of 9/11. It happened barely 8 months into his first term in office. Unless you're attributing clairvoyance to the man, and an uncanny ability to single-handedly alter the course of American foreign policy in that short time, there's no way to place any blame on the man.
Clinton, on the other hand, has a direct responsibility for 9/11. He was offered Osama on a silver platter twice, and twice he refused for lack of legal grounds to take custody of the man.
I have drawn a line that starts with Jimmy Carter, goes through Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, and ends with Clinton. This line leads straight to 9/11.
Each of those men had the opportunity to prevent 9/11. Most had several. They failed at each and every juncture. When it finally got to the current President Bush, the die was cast.
brian at August 27, 2008 5:01 PM
(Patrick- I secretly like you! You're so reliable!)
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at August 27, 2008 11:38 PM
Brian, what you have drawn doesn't concern me. I'm not impressed. Your authoritative stance on issues is not legally binding, carved in stone, nor the be-all-to-end-all. In other words, harsh as it may sound, the line you have drawn doesn't decide where blame is placed, or even where it should be placed. Opinions...assholes, etc. And let's be clear on one thing, Brian: You do not "let me get away" with anything. Get over yourself.
The fact of the matter is that Bush has had systematic warnings that something like 9/11 was in the works almost consistently from day one in office. While true he could have done little, if anything, to defuse the anti-U.S. sentiment that prompted the attacks, he most certainly could have done something to prevent the deed itself. You are inexplicably conflating the attacks on the WTC and the Pentagon with anti-U.S. sentiment. While the latter prompted the former, the former was preventable, while the latter would have been much longer and harder to defuse.
Clinton was (and remains) the most pro-active anti-terrorist president in the history of this nation. Yes, that would include the current dumbass-in-chief, who is interested only in making money for Halliburton and other various cronies, even if it drains the coffers dry.
Patrick at August 28, 2008 12:49 AM
Clinton was (and remains) the most pro-active anti-terrorist president in the history of this nation. Yes, that would include the current dumbass-in-chief, who is interested only in making money for Halliburton and other various cronies, even if it drains the coffers dry.
You have got to be kidding. Can you prove that? I seriously doubt it.
Flynne: What are you doing, Patrick?
Patrick: Making a list of things that offend me.
Flynne: Um... why?
Patrick: To keep people from disagreeing with me. I'll just hand out copies of my list so everyone will know what they're not allowed to say around me.
Flynne: But what if they turn out to be right?
Patrick: THAT'S WHAT OFFENDS ME!! o_O
Flynne at August 28, 2008 5:55 AM
Patrick, that you believe this tells me that you are too stupid to debate.
I'm giving up all pretense of being nice. You are an imbecile. There were NO WARNINGS beyond "Osama bin Laden still seeks attacks on US mainland".
Tell me, oh wise one (snort), what should Bush have done in the face of the warnings you are so sure he had?
brian at August 28, 2008 6:50 AM
Yawn, Patrick. Dragging out that old conspiracy theory? Maybe he's the one who murdered Marilyn Monroe too? After all, she too was apparently involved with a Kennedy.
Truth is, we don't know what happened and never will. Elvis isn't alive and Marilyn most likely did commit suicide.
But I find it amusing that you're saying I'm mistaken in admiring him for having balls and the reason I shouldn't think so is because he committed cold-blooded murder? Yeah, um, okay.
Are you admitting it was an accident and he just didn't have the balls to do enough though all accounts have him attempting (albeit failing) to rescue her?
I, a tea-totaler, obviously don't admire everything the man does and I get fed up with the Kennedy family being treated like royalty (with the attendant rumors of murder) faster than anyone I know but I do admire that he has the balls to say what he means and, in the last 8 years in particular, he's been one of the few in the Senate to disagree with the President to his face. We need more like that. Our Presidents would all (liberal, conservative, whatever) get by with far less if they were called on it more often.
Do I think he's perfect? No. Do I know how much blame he carries for this chick's death? No. (And, much as you think you do, you don't.) He may have been drinking and driving. Probably. If he was drunk, she still got in the car with his drunk ass driving it. I'm not judging. When I was young, I've been dumb enough too and am just lucky to be here to tell the tale. (Which experience has scared me out of it; nothing like being perfectly sober while the driver ain't and screaming slow down, watch your driving, Christ, you almost hit that tree while they were positive they missed it by a mile to make you realize that's really not a good idea.) Is he always right? No. Of course not. No one is.
But I still like him. Which is really funny because he's the only Kennedy I do like.
Now if you can utterly prove that he murdered her in cold blood, yep, that will change my opinion but I'll also remind you that there is no statue of limitations on murder and turn over said evidence to the proper authorities.
T's Grammy at August 28, 2008 7:02 AM
T's G -
I don't know that Kennedy killed her intentionally. Driving off a bridge isn't a really good way to do that if you want to ensure your own survival.
However, Kennedy is guilty of being less than a man. A real man would have saved the woman or died trying.
And for that, I find it impossible to have any respect at all for him.
brian at August 28, 2008 7:09 AM
Brian, why are you asking me questions if you think I am "too stupid to debate"? Wouldn't that be stupid of you?
Flynne, your post of your imaginary dialog with me is a verbatim quote of the "Bizarro" comic strip dated today. You have stolen a work in its entirety and not given your source proper credit. You are a plagiarist and thief.
Amy, you might want to remove that, if you feel that is copyright infringement. Her pseudo-dialog with me quotes today's Bizarro comic strip in its entirety, and there is no source cited.
Patrick at August 28, 2008 11:25 AM
No Patrick, that's not a verbatim quote from "Bizarro" unless Bizarro stole it from "Non Sequitur". And I did change a word. And if I had thought you were smart enough to look it up, and take me to task on it, I would've asked Wiley if he minded. And he would have told me, "go ahead, see if I care." What a big baby you are.
Flynne at August 28, 2008 11:41 AM
BTW, the Church of the Easily and Perpetually Offended called. You're behind in your tithing. o_O
Flynne at August 28, 2008 11:43 AM
Hope springs eternal. You didn't disappoint.
You have no answer because you know that your version of reality is based upon lies. You know that your worldview is flawed, but you don't care. Your mind is so clouded with hatred that you are unable to think clearly.
Therefore, when challenged on something that contradicts your worldview, you fall back on "Shut Up".
brian at August 28, 2008 12:30 PM
No, it's not based on lies. I've read it many times. I'm sure you have, too. You simply choose to ignore them or not believe them or whatever. I couldn't care less.
But you've already decided that I'm an imbecile and that I'm "too stupid to debate." Yet, you wish to debate me? Wouldn't that, by your own standard, make you stupid?
And no, I didn't tell you to shut up. I asked a question. One you chose to avoid and distort into something I never said. Your problem, toots. I'm not making it mine.
Flynne, you're correct. You plagiarized "Non-Sequitir." But whether or not Wiley minds is not the issue. The point is, you took an entire strip of his, verbatim, and chose not to attribute it to him, thereby passing it off as your own work. That is plagiarism. And, no, changing a single word does not absolve you.
Whether Wiley minds or not doesn't change the fact that you plagiarized his work.
And since I don't know Wiley, and neither do you, I wouldn't presume to speak for what he does and doesn't care about. And no, I didn't say it offended me. I said you plagiarized someone else's work, and you did.
You and Brian, by the way, are horribly defensive individuals. Look how you both fling wild accusations. Since you cannot address what was said but insist on transparent distortions, I can only assume that your cries about the "Church of the Perpetually Offended" is projection.
Patrick at August 28, 2008 6:37 PM
Patrick, how can you have read something THAT DOES NOT EXIST.
And yes, debating you DOES debase my intelligence. I'm trying to get you to disappear in a puff of logic.
And don't call me "toots". You aren't NEARLY pretty enough to get away with it.
I'm only defensive when someone walks into a room and starts spouting lies. Which you did.
You are a Clinton sycophant. You don't know the truth, because the truth would upset your delicate little mind. Clinton was given many opportunities to prevent 9/11, and even the Cole bombing from 1993-2000. He chose to treat the first bombing of WTC as a criminal matter and not an act of war. He chose to do everything wrong, including passing on two opportunities to rid the world of OBL.
And yet you believe, in an absolute absence of evidence, that George Bush knew about, or should have known about, the attacks planned on 9/11 and prevented them.
Which means one of two things: you're an idiot, or you're a moron. I mean, really. Believing that there was advance knowledge outside of the conspirators themselves of the 9/11 attacks really doesn't reflect well on your intellectual prowess.
And my trying to drill it into your head doesn't necessarily reflect well on mine.
Shamelessly stolen comment of the night, from PW pub: It is a testament to the greatness of our nation that we are so successful even though almost 50% of our population is irredeemably retarded.
brian at August 28, 2008 9:29 PM
Relax Brian. In the big scheme of things, people like Patrick are just like the tenacious terrier gnawing on the postman's pant leg, and about as effective. Look at how he's ragging me for "plagarism". Just because I didn't immediately attribute that little comic bit to Wiley, and assumes I don't know the man, he's just self-righteous enough to believe his own drivel. Let him. There are bigger fish to fry. There's a word for people like him, and it's ignoranus. That's someone who's both stupid and an asshole.
Flynne at August 29, 2008 4:54 AM
And for the record, I never claimed that as my own work. Lots of times, lots of people get lots of emails with lots of things in them that aren't attributed to anyone, and they pass them along, posting them hither and yon. Did you honestly think I didn't know that that cartoon was out there for anyone to see at any time? Non Sequitur happens to be one of my most favorite comic strips, and I quote it quite mercilessly, quite often. Today's for instance. I imagine, Patrick, that you think of yourself as politically correct. In today's strip, little Danae says "politically correct means never having to admit you're wrong." See what I mean? If the shoe fits, dear...
Flynne at August 29, 2008 5:33 AM
Ooooops, sorry, that wasn't verbatim. Please, let me correct myself "Politcal correctness means never having to admit you're wrong." o_O
Flynne at August 29, 2008 5:36 AM
Brian, that's kind of exactly my way of thinking. Some master murder plot, endangering oneself too. Not that it's unknown. Look at the guy in Boston who shot his pregnant wife dead then shot himself (where he didn't think it would be fatal and since he lived he seems to have known what he was doing) and claimed some black dude did it. Still, it rather makes me doubt that Kennedy killed the chick.
Where we disagree is the definition of manhood. He did -- or claims to have -- made several attempts to rescue her. That's man enough in my book. I think to continue to try until he grew so exhausted he drowned even though he got out of the car himself isn't manly but foolish.
But, amusingly, Patrick ignored my post. Gee, I wonder why...
T's Grammy at August 29, 2008 5:40 AM
T-G, I should respond to something that goes even further than Brian or Flynne to insist that I said things I never said?
What conspiracy theory am I advocating? And please point to my comments in which I said I was advocating any such thing.
No one said that Ted Kennedy willfully murdered Mary Jo Kopechne. However, he acted in a most craven manner (to say the least) in placing his own politics above the life of a supporter and presumably a friend.
Brian, blah, blah, blah. I refuse to indulge your idiocy. Whether you are motivated by a blind adherence to a party, an irrational hatred of Clinton, or you think Bush is the new messiah, I don't know. Or care.
But you react hysterically to the very idea that Bush was negligent and could have prevented 9/11 had he paid attention to the warnings, then you expect me to believe that this is the very first time that you've heard this charge? Good grief, man, how dumb are you?
By the way, real class...that "retarded" quote of yours. Retarded people do not owe their affliction to any fault of their own, but that didn't stop you from using their condition to as a slur to attack someone. What do you do in your spare time for fun? Push wheelchair bound people off of piers? "Hee-yuk! Hee-yuk!"
Flynne, yawn. Textbook example of plagiarism. Deal.
Patrick at August 29, 2008 10:32 AM
Patrick, yawn. Crybaby whinging. Grow up.
Flynne at August 29, 2008 10:52 AM
Flynne, it isn't "crying" to point out to you that when you quote someone, you make it clear that it's not your original work and you assign proper credit to your sources. Not only is it decent, not only is it honest, it's the law. You can't handle that? Then it's you who needs to grow up, since even gradeschool children know enough to do that.
Patrick at August 29, 2008 1:46 PM
T-G, by the way, Ted Kennedy was in no danger of drowning had he continued his efforts in trying to rescue Mary Jo Kopechne. Let's not forget that after he abandoned his efforts, he swam a 500-foot channel. To say nothing of the fact that he passed at least four houses on foot, any one of which he could have called for help from. And the fact that he went to bed and STILL didn't report the accident.
Patrick at August 29, 2008 1:54 PM
Awww...did my new friends run away? Shucks. I lose more sparring partners that way.
I know Crid. Crid is a friend of mine and you three are no Crid!
Patrick at August 30, 2008 12:10 PM
No dear, I didn't run away. I got bored.
That's nice about you and Crid. I like him, too. And I'm not at all trying to be him, I'm not nearly competent enough. Have a nice holiday.
Flynne at August 31, 2008 10:16 AM
Leave a comment